{"id":6173,"date":"2021-01-03T22:25:16","date_gmt":"2021-01-03T22:25:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faxardent.net\/historynet\/?p=6173"},"modified":"2021-01-03T22:25:16","modified_gmt":"2021-01-03T22:25:16","slug":"trumps-gotterdammerung","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.historynet.net\/index.php\/2021\/01\/03\/trumps-gotterdammerung\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump’s Gotterdammerung"},"content":{"rendered":"

Gotterdammerung<\/a>((The last days of the Third Reich, taking its name from the end of Wagner’s \u2018Der Ring des Nibellungen.’ The word means “Twilight of the Gods,” and signals the end with chaos and destruction.))<\/p>\n

Our understanding of historical narrative is not static. Perceptions of why things happen change over time, and our interpretation of past events depends on our own, or our group’s, point of view. Contrary to our simplistic concept of history (“just the facts ma’am”), historical narrative consists of both opinion and fact. The production of history by historians arises from the tension between “what happened” and “what is said to have happened.” While point of view (opinion) is inescapable in the telling of historical events, facts are essential. As inferred by the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Granted in 2021 that seems a quaint sentiment, but we cannot survive as a society without a common factual basis. Democratic intercourse is argument over the meaning of agreed upon facts, not whether those “facts,” or any facts, are real.<\/p>\n

Ted Cruz, Trump toady and liar extraordinaire, political opportunist and coward, is mounting a quixotic last gasp effort of the fact free zone known as the Trump Administration (Bowling Green Massacre<\/a>, Canadians burning the White House<\/a>, Revolutionary armies securing the airports<\/a>), conniving to steal the election the President has convinced himself was stolen from him. Cruz seizes upon a little remembered event in US history to add historical precedent, thus a semblance of legitimacy, to the effort. Ironically, this turns out to be the silver lining behind the cloud of disinformation spewing from the Trump campaign: because hardly anyone remembers the so-called “Compromise of 1877 (or 1876),” millions are taking to Google, to Wikipedia and the History Channel, to find out what he is talking about. Those who are still open to the concept of fact based history will learn that Cruz’ assertions about that event are far removed from what actually happened (see below). But the point is that they will learn something they didn’t know about US history. And in a nation as starved for historical context as the United States, that is a good thing.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Compromise of 1877<\/a><\/h4>\n

The Compromise of 1877 was an agreement that resolved the disputed 1876 presidential election between Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden and Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes. As part of the compromise, Democrats agreed that Hayes would become president in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South, effectively ending the Reconstruction era.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n