Gen Kelley fitting right in with Trump and many of his supporters

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/10/31/john-kelly-says-civil-war-caused-lack-ability-compromise-twitter-has-words/816266001/

Quote:John Kelly says Civil War was caused by 'lack of the ability to compromise'; Twitter has words



"Civil War" is trending on Twitter, and not because of a new Marvel movie or Ken Burns documentary. It's because White House chief of staff John Kelly said the Civil War was sparked by "the lack of the ability to compromise."


In an interview that aired Monday night on Fox News, host Laura Ingraham asked Kelly about a Virginia church removing historical markers for Confederate General Robert E. Lee and George Washington. Kelly said Lee was "an honorable man" and that removing Confederate monuments shows "a lack of appreciation of history."


The comments drew the fire of many on Twitter, including a long thread from author Ta-Nahisi Coates.

Quote:[/url] Follow
Ta-Nehisi Coates 

@tanehisicoates
Regarding John Kelly's creationist theorizing on Lee and the Civil War, its worth pointing out a few things.
5:12 AM - Oct 31, 2017

To Kelly's assertion that it is "dangerous" to apply current social standards to history, Coates said: The "[n]otion that we are putting today's standards on the past is, in itself, racist — implies only white, slave-holding, opinions matter."

In the Fox interview, Kelly also stood by the comments he made about Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.). In the wake of Trump's response to soldiers killed in Niger, Kelly had excoriated Wilson for taking credit in 2015 for getting funds for an FBI building — but video of the event Kelly referenced showed his claims weren't true.

Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/FoxNews] Follow
Fox News 

@FoxNews
John Kelly on Dispute With Rep. Wilson: 'I Stand by My Comments' | Read more: http://bit.ly/2z0AoKm  #IngrahamAngle
11:19 PM - Oct 30, 2017

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41815358

Quote:Gen Kelly also described Confederate general Robert E Lee as "an honourable man" who "gave up his country to fight for his state".

"There are certain things in history that were good, and other things that were not so good," he said.


"I think we make a mistake as a society, and certainly as individuals, when we take what is accepted as right and wrong, and go back 100, 200, 300 years or more and say, 'What Christopher Columbus did was wrong,'


"The lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War. And men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience has to make their stand."

They just can't bring themselves to say slavery was wrong.  Can't do it.

And standing by a lie about Wilson?  Classic Trumpism.

[BmorePat87]

The Civil War was caused by slavery. We can go through citing declarations of secession and quote the arguments on the floors of the state legislatures. It's a fact. Every secondary issue ties back to slavery.

I'm not sure if "compromise" is the word he really wants to use here. "Resolution" may be a better word... but depending on his context, he could kind of be right. You can argue that any resolution requires some degree of compromise. Or he could be saying that it was because of the inability of Confederates like Lee to "compromise" on their beliefs or devotion to their states over the nation.

hard to tell


I'm more interested in his refusal to accept that a video seemingly debunked his claims on a congresswoman.

[Benton]

Kelly lost any credibility after getting caught in a lie and just running with it.

But, I don't really disagree with his thoughts on the Civil War. Lawmakers refused to come to a resolution on slavery and other issues, it resulted in several states attempting to make their own union.

[GMDino]

I won't make an excuse for his choice of "compromise".  Anyone with any sense of history should understand that a "compromise" when it comes to slavery is going to stir up the pot.

[BmorePat87]

(10-31-2017, 10:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: I won't make an excuse for his choice of "compromise".  Anyone with any sense of history should understand that a "compromise" when it comes to slavery is going to stir up the pot.

That's a fair point. It brings up images of the Missouri Compromise or the Slave Trade Compromise.

I just think this is people overreacting and, as Benton also pointed out, not the thing I am most interested in. 

[GMDino]

(10-31-2017, 10:53 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's a fair point. It brings up images of the Missouri Compromise or the Slave Trade Compromise.

I just think this is people overreacting and, as Benton also pointed out, not the thing I am most interested in. 

Doubling down and sticking to his Wilson comments is worse, I agree, because there is no room for misinterpretation on what he is saying.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-31-2017, 10:42 AM)Benton Wrote: Kelly lost any credibility after getting caught in a lie and just running with it.

But, I don't really disagree with his thoughts on the Civil War. Lawmakers refused to come to a resolution on slavery and other issues, it resulted in several states attempting to make their own union.

I expected better from him and lost a lot of respect for him. Many, including myself, have speculated Kelly provides a tempering type of counsel in private. Kelly's comments dissuaded me from any further such speculation.

[Millhouse]

On this he is right to a point for sure. The country was founded on the ability to compromise from agreeing on the Declaration to the forming of the Constitution. In the following years there was compromising done on the issue of slavery to keep going forward as a country. But in those final few years before the Civil War, the South did not want to compromise anymore on slavery, and thought it was their right to break away just as the colonies broke away from England.

In hindsight though, because of the South's unwillingness to give up slavery as they treated Africans worse than livestock in many cases, the inability to compromise was the best thing for the slaves and their ancestors ever since. Because it was due to that inability that led to the war that ended slavery and the South's aristocracy.

On this issue here though, Lee ultimately was a traitor to the U.S. Yes he was honorable for the state of Virginia, and for the country he served his entire adulthood for up until 1861. But taking up arms against the U.S. was his downfall.

[Benton]

(10-31-2017, 01:22 PM)Millhouse Wrote: On this he is right to a point for sure. The country was founded on the ability to compromise from agreeing on the Declaration to the forming of the Constitution. In the following years there was compromising done on the issue of slavery to keep going forward as a country. But in those final few years before the Civil War, the South did not want to compromise anymore on slavery, and thought it was their right to break away just as the colonies broke away from England.

In hindsight though, because of the South's unwillingness to give up slavery as they treated Africans worse than livestock in many cases, the inability to compromise was the best thing for the slaves and their ancestors ever since. Because it was due to that inability that led to the war that ended slavery and the South's aristocracy.

On this issue here though, Lee ultimately was a traitor to the U.S. Yes he was honorable for the state of Virginia, and for the country he served his entire adulthood for up until 1861. But taking up arms against the U.S. was his downfall.

That's what I've never understood with the statue issue. I've never looked, but I'm guessing it's a short list of people who committed treason and were subsequently honored and memorialized through tax dollars by those they committed the act against. I don't see it as a race issue (although that's what it largely became) as much as it's weird to honor someone that wasn't much different than Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph. Instead of taxes or making a Dominionist paradise, Lee betrayed his country over slavery.

[Millhouse]

(10-31-2017, 02:31 PM)Benton Wrote: That's what I've never understood with the statue issue. I've never looked, but I'm guessing it's a short list of people who committed treason and were subsequently honored and memorialized through tax dollars by those they committed the act against. I don't see it as a race issue (although that's what it largely became) as much as it's weird to honor someone that wasn't much different than Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph. Instead of taxes or making a Dominionist paradise, Lee betrayed his country over slavery.

Same here. The only exception to where a statue of Lee should never come down is on the battlefield at Gettysburg for example.  That statue depicts actual history on that space of ground it is on. A statue of Lee in a park in Arkansas or wherever doesnt depict actual history but instead represents something else entirely imo.

[Benton]

(10-31-2017, 03:44 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Same here. The only exception to where a statue of Lee should never come down is on the battlefield at Gettysburg for example.  That statue depicts actual history on that space of ground it is on. A statue of Lee in a park in Arkansas or wherever doesnt depict actual history but instead represents something else entirely imo.

I can see a case for that, or in the guy's home town. But it's pretty surprising to me (who has lived south of Ohio his entire life, and spent a good deal of time between Mississippi and Florida) the number of monuments to Lee, with little or no connection (wikipedia partial list below). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memorials_to_Robert_E._Lee

[Dill]

(10-31-2017, 03:44 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Same here. The only exception to where a statue of Lee should never come down is on the battlefield at Gettysburg for example.  That statue depicts actual history on that space of ground it is on. A statue of Lee in a park in Arkansas or wherever doesnt depict actual history but instead represents something else entirely imo.

Good example.  A statue on a federally maintained historical site is one thing, a statue set up decades after the war to affirm white identity/power is another.  

I still don't have much of a problem with Lee statues. Just like I don't have a problem with other "enemies" like Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse getting a statue because they are part of history and their memorialization is also a valuation.  It depends on where and why--i.e., what the statue is actually supposed to memorialize.

Jefferson Davis or statues commemorating Klan members are another story.