Most assuredly, Trump’s lexicon leaves a lot to be desired. The same disgraceful misuse of the English language that is common in modern society, complete with the everyman’s vulgarisms, that catapulted him to the Presidency has been his main impediment when attempting to communicate an idea.
No doubt, from the mainstream media’s standpoint – which is the direct descendent of Hitler’s Ministry of Propaganda – Trump’s linguistic shortcoming is an avenue by which they can attack him, being that they are master manipulators of language. In this particular case, they’ve attempted to take what is a valid questioning over the reasons for the Civil War (although, stated slightly incoherently) and turned Trump’s declarations into a reason to doubt his overall intelligence.
However, so long as one has a decent command of the English language and knows some American History, it isn’t difficult to understand what Trump attempted to communicate.
Firstly, let’s dispel the false notion the mainstream media has been advancing about Trump as they glean from his statements – namely, that Andrew Jackson was alive during the Civil War. According to these outlets, Trump’s statement proves indubitably that the man is an idiot.
Trump’s declarations are as follows:
“I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little later you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, ‘There’s no reason for this’”.
Andrew Jackson had been dead for 16 years before the commencement of the War and this fact has been retold in countless “stories” for the past few days. (Still, I wonder how many secondary and college-schooled pupils know this, being that the educational system doesn’t even teach elementary American History anymore. I digress.)
Nevertheless, when Trump states “had Andrew Jackson been a little later”, it makes it evident that he knows that Jackson wasn’t around for the event. Furthermore, when Trump adds that Jackson was “really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War”, it becomes evident that he was referencing the already escalating social tension which led to the War itself.
Herein lies another example of the mainstream media’s intentional mishandling and manipulation of verbiage so as to influence public sentiment. If one examines Trump’s statements closely, this is, in reality, a non-story. Yet, being that modern “news” is more sensationalistic and propagandistic than informative and enlightening, this is the sort of malpractice one can expect from Marxist rags such as Reuters, The New York Times, etc. Still, this wasn’t the only implicit condemnation the media reserved for Trump.
Collectively, the American Pravdas have gone on to mock Trump’s questioning over why the Civil War was fought to begin with. (The headlines are aplenty and a simple search engine inquiry will prove this.) However, I ask, why was Trump wrong to question the need for the War? I thought that the cornerstone of journalistic integrity is honest inquiry and a search for absolute truth, no matter where the facts lead. Therein lies the problem. Trump’s question threatens the official narrative about the War, consequently, it must be vilified until no one dares inquire anymore and the truth stay buried.
I shall summarize why the media has chosen to demonize Trump’s question: It has everything to do with the cult of Abraham Lincoln.
There’s a particular reason why “Honest Abe” receives the adulation and recognition conferred unto him by countless high-profile politicians and the public school textbook writers – he was the premiere progressive of the 19th century and history proves it.
Although the authorized history of the man portrays Lincoln as an altruistic, God-fearing, slavery detesting emancipator of blacks, in truth, he was a sleazy politician who employed pragmatism and an abuse of his office in order to maintain the power of the federal government and expand it above and beyond Constitutional controls.
This is a man that jailed 3,000 Northerners for speaking out against his policies, had a dissenting Republican congressman from Ohio deported for doing the same, ordered the destruction of the offices and equipment of newspaper companies that were sympathetic to the South, unconstitutionally terminated habeas corpus, attempted to pass an income tax during the War to fund it and bankrupt the South at the same time, turned a blind eye to General William Tecumseh Sherman’s brigade of pillagers, private property destroyers and rapists (of women and children) and oversaw the War that claimed the lives of more than 750,000 civilians and soldiers – more than all other wars (were Americans were involved) combined!
Lincoln is also the man whom famously signed the supposedly all-encompassing Emancipation Proclamation, which conspicuously exempted the “border states” of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware and the counties that would eventually form West Virginia from freeing their slaves – more than 500,000 in all – simply because they did not secede from the Union.
As Lincoln wrote New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley in 1862,
“If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
If his aim wasn’t to make the South submit to Northern dictates and interests, then why would Lincoln claim during his first inaugural address that he had “…no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists”, but then sign the Proclamation? This is the same Lincoln who declared during his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas that the white man ought to be “superior” to blacks and that their mere presence in the country constitutes a “threat” to family life.
Lastly, Lincoln eventually bragged about provoking the South into conflict by sending Union forces to take over Fort Sumter, South Carolina, knowing that the South would react and then use the incident to declare the South as the instigators of the War. All this evidence proves Lincoln was more warmonger and big government despot than a true small government republican.
All this justifies Trump’s question, “Why could that one [Civil War] not have been worked out?”
In truth, it could have been avoided altogether if the North wouldn’t have been belligerent towards the South, economically and socially, for decades leading up to the War. Further proof of this will be provided in a future post.