Donald Trump's silly comments on Gettysburg should not surprise anyone. I would guess that a sizable percentage of Trump's followers come to see a performance, not a scholarly talk on the Civil War. Several years ago my state representative wrote an article praising Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest as "one of the South's first civil rights leaders". He based this on a few comments made by Forrest after the end of the war. My state representative was not a historian, he was just giving his supporters what they wanted to hear.
I don't think anyone, regardless of political affiliation, goes to a campaign rally to hear a scholarly talk. That said, Trump's comments were truly bizarre and uninformed. Par for the course when it comes to his understanding of history. Unfortunately, your state rep chose to embrace a slave trader, Confederate general and Klan leader to gain support. It's a wonderful example of the politics of historical memory. Thanks for taking the time to comment, Bill.
This is supposed to be a history blog not a political diatribe against Trump. There is enough discourse on any social media site to fill the need of someone who wants to bash him
Thanks so much for taking the time to share your thoughts. You may find this hard to believe, but I didn't intend this to be a "political diatribe against Trump." One of my interests is how the Civil War era is referenced in today's politics and culture. Trump's comments were impossible to ignore, but my response doesn't reference his politics, but the incoherence and utter stupidity of his remarks about Gettysburg. I hope that helps to clarify things. Thanks again.
A couple of thoughts; I think the battle was Lee's to lose. Going back to mid-1862 Lee had consistently defeated US forces in the Eastern theater (with the possible exception of Antietam). As the invasion of the north got underway there was no reason to believe that would not also be successful. That said I agree with Kevin's assessment it wasn't necessarily that Lee lost the battle as much as it was US forces won the battle in part because of the quality of George Mead's leadership.
And, I am not surprised Trump's understanding of the battle, such as it may be, is more-or-less consistent with the popular understanding. But, I don't see him visiting the battlefield and taking a tour or sitting through the movie so I wonder who told him? Obviously someone who thinks Robert E. Lee is Irish
Let's hope that "never fight uphill me boys" does not become an interpretation of something that was said that current and future historians will spend a century trying to correct (because trump said it and becomes gospel for the MAGA crowd).
Sleepy Don can't stay awake in his own criminal trial, you expect him to be alert through all four-and-a-half hours of _Gettysburg_? At least he sorta remembered Lee and Buster Kilrain. ;-)
Kevin, you are too damn good at what you do, and Trump is too ignorant in everything he says for you to waste any time talking about his incoherent rhetoric. It's a waste of space and energy. We should all be careful of lying down with pigs!
Re "Kevin, you are too damn good at what you do, and Trump is too ignorant in everything he says":
Amen to that part, and moreover, I don't blame you for holding the rest of the view you expressed, Mr. Waters.
But I don't hold the rest of your view myself. KML has a special place in the great scheme of things, it seems to me: not just historian, but leader of public awareness of importantly evolving understanding of the Civil War. When I first saw that a former president had beclowned himsel with disgraceful Gettysburg-targeted bloviation, one of my first thoughts was the hope of seeing KML address it. (The Jon Stewart part worked great too.) Thanks.
Thanks for pointing out the ignorance which I fear may be more widespread than I want to believe. Something that jumped out, however, was your wording, Kevin, on the black residents of Pennsylvania who were in the path of the confederate invasion who were “sent back south into slavery”. Back into slavery may have been the case for most but perhaps not all. I can trace my black ancestors back to one of the earliest US censuses where they were listed as black and mulatto farmers in Ohio. Free, since they were counted in the census, and not anonymous ticks on a slave schedule. Just a caution about language that includes big assumptions.
Hi Elena. You are absolutely right. I meant to simply indicate that captured African Americans "were sent back south" (meaning direction) with the Confederate army, but I can see how the language is confusing. My friend Hilary Green would be horrified by my sloppy language for the very reasons you mention. Thanks.
I had gotten accustomed to hitting 'mute' each time the news puts Trump clips on TV; I would have missed this latest monstrosity that KML has kindly caught and replayed.
Being an educator carries terrific burdens, apparently. I don't have the stomach to listen to that voice that combines bombastic, whiny, and gravelly.
Call me a victim (this is going to riff on Neal Katyal, who occasionally enjoys snarking on being Hindu) of my Schadenfreudian (clever Freudian pun, ja?) observing Karma's operation upon someone who merits the law's slow turn-turn-turning during the lifetimes of those he has offended.
The only thing distracting me from my obsession with Gettysburg (first visit: 68 years ago on a field trip, wearing a Cub Scout uni -- blue, natch) has been watching this guy start getting repaid for his lies about Hillary, about Ukraine, about 150 million women, about everyone.
No, I'm not monomaniacal. Perhaps bi-maniacal. The only two blogs I follow are you and Joyce Vance. Gotta go, CNN's broadcasting the Supreme Court live hearing on the almost-2nd Civil War. The one that started and was crushed on Jan 6. Thomas and Sotomayor are chopping the appellant's argument into sashimi; now Barrett and Jackson have jumped in. Great leaps forward from Roger Taney.
Thanks. I was hoping to see some such posting. Yes indeed, "our public discourse about the war is little more than a surrogate for disagreements over larger cultural and political issues." That's why I was worried the other day when I brought up Congresswoman Cheney's allusively named effort, The Great Task--the phrase from the Gettysburg Address that she uses for the great national task of ridding ourselves of Mr. Trump and, for that matter, political-violence-inciting Trumpism. I get it now; it's OK in this forum to bring that stuff up.
This sounds like he listened to a battlefield guide one time talk about Lee's plan to assault higher ground and then just ran with it. I don't think this is a particularly unique problem with this man, but something that visitors do all the time: hear something and then turn around and interpret it through their own imaginations. (Although you gotta admit, this guy's versions are WILD). I remember when Sarah Palin similarly mangled information about Paul Revere's ride right after getting a tour of Old North Church.
On another note: Some folks I used to hang around with commonly lamented that "no one wants to learn about the Civil War anymore because it's not politically correct," and yet never in my lifetime have I expected to wake up and find R.E.Lee on the front page of the paper. Hell, even Longstreet got a name drop on Jon Stewart last night. My old acquaintances ... their analysis of the landscape... ummmmmm
Donald Trump's silly comments on Gettysburg should not surprise anyone. I would guess that a sizable percentage of Trump's followers come to see a performance, not a scholarly talk on the Civil War. Several years ago my state representative wrote an article praising Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest as "one of the South's first civil rights leaders". He based this on a few comments made by Forrest after the end of the war. My state representative was not a historian, he was just giving his supporters what they wanted to hear.
I don't think anyone, regardless of political affiliation, goes to a campaign rally to hear a scholarly talk. That said, Trump's comments were truly bizarre and uninformed. Par for the course when it comes to his understanding of history. Unfortunately, your state rep chose to embrace a slave trader, Confederate general and Klan leader to gain support. It's a wonderful example of the politics of historical memory. Thanks for taking the time to comment, Bill.
Thanks. He certainly didn’t do himself any favors with that silly talk.
This is supposed to be a history blog not a political diatribe against Trump. There is enough discourse on any social media site to fill the need of someone who wants to bash him
Hi Tim,
Thanks so much for taking the time to share your thoughts. You may find this hard to believe, but I didn't intend this to be a "political diatribe against Trump." One of my interests is how the Civil War era is referenced in today's politics and culture. Trump's comments were impossible to ignore, but my response doesn't reference his politics, but the incoherence and utter stupidity of his remarks about Gettysburg. I hope that helps to clarify things. Thanks again.
A couple of thoughts; I think the battle was Lee's to lose. Going back to mid-1862 Lee had consistently defeated US forces in the Eastern theater (with the possible exception of Antietam). As the invasion of the north got underway there was no reason to believe that would not also be successful. That said I agree with Kevin's assessment it wasn't necessarily that Lee lost the battle as much as it was US forces won the battle in part because of the quality of George Mead's leadership.
And, I am not surprised Trump's understanding of the battle, such as it may be, is more-or-less consistent with the popular understanding. But, I don't see him visiting the battlefield and taking a tour or sitting through the movie so I wonder who told him? Obviously someone who thinks Robert E. Lee is Irish
Let's hope that "never fight uphill me boys" does not become an interpretation of something that was said that current and future historians will spend a century trying to correct (because trump said it and becomes gospel for the MAGA crowd).
Sleepy Don can't stay awake in his own criminal trial, you expect him to be alert through all four-and-a-half hours of _Gettysburg_? At least he sorta remembered Lee and Buster Kilrain. ;-)
Kevin, you are too damn good at what you do, and Trump is too ignorant in everything he says for you to waste any time talking about his incoherent rhetoric. It's a waste of space and energy. We should all be careful of lying down with pigs!
Re "Kevin, you are too damn good at what you do, and Trump is too ignorant in everything he says":
Amen to that part, and moreover, I don't blame you for holding the rest of the view you expressed, Mr. Waters.
But I don't hold the rest of your view myself. KML has a special place in the great scheme of things, it seems to me: not just historian, but leader of public awareness of importantly evolving understanding of the Civil War. When I first saw that a former president had beclowned himsel with disgraceful Gettysburg-targeted bloviation, one of my first thoughts was the hope of seeing KML address it. (The Jon Stewart part worked great too.) Thanks.
Hi Joe. This is a blog about Civil War memory. I write about the good, the bad, the ugly, and the incoherent. Thanks.
LOL! Fair reply.
Thanks for pointing out the ignorance which I fear may be more widespread than I want to believe. Something that jumped out, however, was your wording, Kevin, on the black residents of Pennsylvania who were in the path of the confederate invasion who were “sent back south into slavery”. Back into slavery may have been the case for most but perhaps not all. I can trace my black ancestors back to one of the earliest US censuses where they were listed as black and mulatto farmers in Ohio. Free, since they were counted in the census, and not anonymous ticks on a slave schedule. Just a caution about language that includes big assumptions.
Hi Elena. You are absolutely right. I meant to simply indicate that captured African Americans "were sent back south" (meaning direction) with the Confederate army, but I can see how the language is confusing. My friend Hilary Green would be horrified by my sloppy language for the very reasons you mention. Thanks.
I had gotten accustomed to hitting 'mute' each time the news puts Trump clips on TV; I would have missed this latest monstrosity that KML has kindly caught and replayed.
Being an educator carries terrific burdens, apparently. I don't have the stomach to listen to that voice that combines bombastic, whiny, and gravelly.
Call me a victim (this is going to riff on Neal Katyal, who occasionally enjoys snarking on being Hindu) of my Schadenfreudian (clever Freudian pun, ja?) observing Karma's operation upon someone who merits the law's slow turn-turn-turning during the lifetimes of those he has offended.
The only thing distracting me from my obsession with Gettysburg (first visit: 68 years ago on a field trip, wearing a Cub Scout uni -- blue, natch) has been watching this guy start getting repaid for his lies about Hillary, about Ukraine, about 150 million women, about everyone.
No, I'm not monomaniacal. Perhaps bi-maniacal. The only two blogs I follow are you and Joyce Vance. Gotta go, CNN's broadcasting the Supreme Court live hearing on the almost-2nd Civil War. The one that started and was crushed on Jan 6. Thomas and Sotomayor are chopping the appellant's argument into sashimi; now Barrett and Jackson have jumped in. Great leaps forward from Roger Taney.
Gee, look at these convergences. Thanks, Kevin!
Thanks. I was hoping to see some such posting. Yes indeed, "our public discourse about the war is little more than a surrogate for disagreements over larger cultural and political issues." That's why I was worried the other day when I brought up Congresswoman Cheney's allusively named effort, The Great Task--the phrase from the Gettysburg Address that she uses for the great national task of ridding ourselves of Mr. Trump and, for that matter, political-violence-inciting Trumpism. I get it now; it's OK in this forum to bring that stuff up.
This sounds like he listened to a battlefield guide one time talk about Lee's plan to assault higher ground and then just ran with it. I don't think this is a particularly unique problem with this man, but something that visitors do all the time: hear something and then turn around and interpret it through their own imaginations. (Although you gotta admit, this guy's versions are WILD). I remember when Sarah Palin similarly mangled information about Paul Revere's ride right after getting a tour of Old North Church.
On another note: Some folks I used to hang around with commonly lamented that "no one wants to learn about the Civil War anymore because it's not politically correct," and yet never in my lifetime have I expected to wake up and find R.E.Lee on the front page of the paper. Hell, even Longstreet got a name drop on Jon Stewart last night. My old acquaintances ... their analysis of the landscape... ummmmmm