Posted on 10/31/2017 8:17:25 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
White House Chief of Staff John Kelly waded into the long-simmering dispute over the removal of memorials to Confederate leaders saying in a televised interview on Monday night that "the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War."
In the interview on Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle," host Laura Ingraham asked Kelly about the decision by Christ Church, an Episcopal congregation in the Washington suburb of Alexandria, Virginia, to remove plaques honoring President George Washington and Robert E. Lee, the commander of Confederate forces during the Civil War.
"Well, history's history," said Kelly, whom President Donald Trump moved from secretary of homeland security to be his chief of staff in July. "You know, 500 years later, it's inconceivable to me that you would take what we think now and apply it back then. I think it's just very, very dangerous. I think it shows you just how much of a lack of appreciation of history and what history is."
Confrontations over removal of Confederate monuments have exposed deep rifts in American society between advocates who argue that the Civil War is a foundation stone of American history whose combatants acted out of conscience and those who contend that the memorials honor Southern defenders of slavery who betrayed their country by launching an armed rebellion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Mrsmith tells us it was Dunmore's proclamation which alienated Southern slaveholders, turning them from Tories to Patriots.
That makes sense to me, but it's curious I've not seen that remarked on elsewhere.
x: "Lately some people are trying to sell the idea that fear of slave rebellion was a major force driving the revolution.
So far, though, I don't quite buy it."
Nor would I, since in fact there were no major slave rebellions in the US at that time.
I'd say that Dunmore's proclamation was simply one more nail in the coffin of British rule here, of which the major spikes are listed in the Declaration of Independence, including:
Yes, Dunmore's proclamation is referred to in Jefferson's famous deleted paragraph, but the fact it was deleted suggests that was far from foremost in our Founders' minds.
Ok
A valid question deserving a valid answer. And to answer that you have to ask the people who launched the war. There is zero doubt that the South seceded motivated by what they saw was a Republican party threat to the expansion of slavery and their power to influence that in Congress. The Confederacy then launched the war for their own purposes. The North was motivated by a desire to preserve the Union in the face of the Southern rebellion and never pursued the war as a means to end slavery. So when you ask if the Civil War was worth it then you need to direct that question to the folks in Richmond and not Washington.
Funny how we now have communists on the west coast trying to secede from a union because the states they’re proud to have forced remain in the union 150 years ago elected Trump president.
Oh please. During the late Obama years and when it looked like Hilary might win this forum was full of talk about how Texas could and should secede. To criticize California for that talk now is very hypocritical.
When the wife walks out without discussion after running up the credit cards and taking every bit of joint property that she can get her hands on, and then takes a shot or two at the husband on her way out the door, don't be surprised if the husband takes exception to it.
I also said I hope they're successful in their efforts to calexit out of here. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of people who cheer that the South failed to escape are the same people who want out now because Trump won (and was propelled into office by the same people they were proud to have forced remain in the union until 5 minutes ago).
I have no problem with California leaving. I would have had no problem with the Southern states leaving. As long as it's done in keeping with the intent of the Constitution and that's with the consent of both sides of the issue - those staying as well as those leaving.
I’ve always held that from from being a ‘’military genius’’ Lee was an absolute idiot as well as a traitor. He threw his lot in with a bunch of racist, seditious slave-owning poltroons who were determined to preserve an economic system based on the use of slave labor, which, aside from a meager amount of capital it took to keep slaves alive reaped the owners millions in savings on not having to pay wages. Further more as a commissioned officer in the US Army Lee took up arms against the duly elected government he was sworn to ‘’preserve, protect and defend’’. he’s lucky he and Davis weren’t hung.
He engaged in a war he must have known his side had no hope of winning and certainly after the debacle of Gettysburg he should have seen the handwritting on the wall and stopped the slaughter. but he didn’t. He and Davis prosecuted it for another two years, causing more misery, death and destruction not only for the South but for the entire country and still to this day. I have absolutely NO respect for this bastard of a man. My ancestors fought to end his war.
Your analogies leave a lot to be desired but I'll play along.
You say it was the husband who ran up the bills. Nonsense. The South exercised a disproportionate level of influence in Congress - not only because the three/fifths rule gave them more Congressmen than they might otherwise be entitled to but also through congressional power. Alexander Stephens detailed this in his speech before the Georgia secession convention: "In like manner we have been equally watchful to guard our interests in the Legislative branch of government. In choosing the presiding Presidents (pro tern.) of the Senate, we have had twenty-four to their eleven. Speakers of the House, we have had twenty-three, and they twelve. While the majority of the Representatives, from their greater population, have always been from the North, yet we have so generally secured the Speaker, because he, to a great extent, shapes and controls the legislation of the country." So at worst the decisions to spend were made mutually. At best the South had more influence on the decision.
He tells the wife that the stuff she owned going into the wedding is now his...
I have no idea what you mean by this, but the forts and mints and court houses and customs houses and armories and ships and all the other property that the South seized without compensation were owned by the federal government. Therefore once could say it was owned by all the states and not just the states where they were located. Using your analogy they were community property in every sense of the word.
...fires some shots at her on her way out the door...
Look at the timeline. The South, I mean the wife fired not once, not twice, but on three or more occasions trying to initiate a fight.
...kills her and tells the cops she shot first.
More like she committed suicide and blames it on the husband.
Yes, I notice and also that often they continue to post lengthy arguments after saying they won't.
It's just a cop-out, a way of not responding to arguments they don't like.
I'm not anti-Lee, my opinion on him is similar to that of President Eisenhower, sometimes quoted on these threads.
I think Lee's sometimes overrated and would point to another Virginia General as much underrated -- Thomas, the Rock of Chicamagua.
And everything you say about Lee can be said about any Confederate leader, but all that was forgiven in exchange for Unconditional Surrender, in 1865.
I think it was a good bargain.
Much of my family is Southern, so I know the pro-Confederates who post here are far from a majority in the South.
Yeah, the south started it like a husband sending armed goons to his estranged wife’s house where she’s holed up as acting in his self defense.
The south’s land and everything they helped pay for belonged to the north? Lol ok. Funny how you consider the south some congressional juggernaut and yet when it case to slavery, they were somehow getting aced out to the point they checked out of the Union. Strange.
That's not what DoodleDawg said - or implied. But federal property was federal property and not the states to convert. You need to work on your analogies - they bear no relationship to reality.
So federal property not only includes the state land beneath your feet but every single thing you ever paid for. Ok buddy. Hope your wife never dumps you. You’ll be in for a rude awakening for how much of her stuff is actually yours.
Been there, done that, apparently understand the concept better than you ever will.
Oh I’m sure, internet big talker. She’s probably sleeping with your best friend in your former house. LoL
My great-great grandfather(my mothers side) served in The Army Of The Potomac, 1864-65. I was born and raised in the northeastern New Jersey town of Kearny. Named for it’s most famous local son Union General Phil Kearny. Guess that makes me a Yankee.
Your analogy is becoming more incoherent as you go along.
The south’s land and everything they helped pay for belonged to the north?
The forts and arsenals in the Charleston area belonged to the federal government. That made them just as much the property of the Northern states and the Southern ones.
Funny how you consider the south some congressional juggernaut and yet when it case to slavery, they were somehow getting aced out to the point they checked out of the Union. Strange.
One cannot explain some of the Southern delusions, I would agree.
Interesting post. You have some serious problems.
On the contrary, not suffering fools isn’t a problem at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.