John Kelly
- Thread starter str8line
- Start date
So are we to remove all compliments from any one on the confederacy side. Only negative comments will do?
Also what's wrong with saying there was a lack of compromise in the civil war?
Care to provide some context or we just on a witch hunt? For real, where we headed with this?
Also what's wrong with saying there was a lack of compromise in the civil war?
Care to provide some context or we just on a witch hunt? For real, where we headed with this?
By all accounts, Robert E Lee was an honorable, high character, person.
My understanding, I'm not particularly well educated or informed on the Civil War, is that the Confederate generals were superior to the Union generals but that ultimately it was the production capability in the North that won the war for the Union. Robert E. Lee, as far as I've ever heard, was an exceptional general. I'm not sure if it was him or one of the other prominent Southern generals who was not in favor of slavery, but who felt obligated to fight for the South since that's where they were from. I mean that's my elementary school, Disney version, understanding of the Civil War.
But before anyone says it, the Civil War was fought so that states could have the right to enslave human beings. If anyone wants to talk about "state's rights" let's be crystal clear on the primary right those states were interested in, which was unquestionably the right to keep the institution of slavery.
But before anyone says it, the Civil War was fought so that states could have the right to enslave human beings. If anyone wants to talk about "state's rights" let's be crystal clear on the primary right those states were interested in, which was unquestionably the right to keep the institution of slavery.
I'll encourage everyone to take a moment to review Robert E. Lee's wikipedia article(including cited references), this Smithsonian article on him, and another article from historylessons.net.
Decide what honorable is, then figure out what his historical accounts make of him.
As for the Civil War, there's only one compromise that would have stopped it from happening.
********, he led the fight for slavery.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Lee took up arms against our country in defense of slavery and white supremacy. I don't think it's too much to expect for him not to be lionized by our leaders. Plus, he ****ing lost. He's a loser.
Anyway, I'm not sure we should be surprised, after all Kelly oversaw Trump's DHS before he became chief of staff. I'm not sure we should be surprised by his backwards view of the confederacy.
Where I think he has been ruined by Trump is how he is now so willing to tell brazen lies in support of the administration. He lied last week about a speech a Democratic congresswoman gave. And he was at it again last night saying that the activities that Manafort, Gates and Papadopoulos were indicted for took place before the campaign.
Which is a remarkable lie in part because the very crime that Papadopoulos was charged with was lying to the FBI about whether his contacts with a Russian cutout took place before the campaign or during.
Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app
Anyway, I'm not sure we should be surprised, after all Kelly oversaw Trump's DHS before he became chief of staff. I'm not sure we should be surprised by his backwards view of the confederacy.
Where I think he has been ruined by Trump is how he is now so willing to tell brazen lies in support of the administration. He lied last week about a speech a Democratic congresswoman gave. And he was at it again last night saying that the activities that Manafort, Gates and Papadopoulos were indicted for took place before the campaign.
Which is a remarkable lie in part because the very crime that Papadopoulos was charged with was lying to the FBI about whether his contacts with a Russian cutout took place before the campaign or during.
Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app
I'm embarrassed for you that you don't understand what we're dealing with here. We are talking about owning another human being to torture or do whatever the **** you want with.
Got it. You just want to demonize. OK, good to know. Carry on with your crusade.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
What exactly is the problem with demonizing slavery?
Also here's a really great twitter thread about the misguided idea that the civil war was brought about because of a lack of compromise:
https://twitter.com/tanehisicoates/status/925289478943633408
Sent from my SM-G935V using
JazzFanz mobile app
I didn't say or even indicate there was a problem with it. It's vile and disgusting.
But there is not a single thing in any of his posts that leads me to believe that this was ever about discussion. I asked where this post was headed and he gave his answer.
No I don't. It's not demonizing to call someone out on a dangerous view. What did you mean when you said "what's wrong with saying there was a lack of compromise in the Civil War?"
This post can go either way, in favor of Kelly or against him. I'm not keeping you from your viewpoint. But I can call you on it can't I?
My understanding is that the South wanted to secede mainly to preserve the institution of slavery. However, the north did not fight the war to end slavery. They fought to prevent the south from seceding. The abolishment of slavery came later in order to encourage black defection and establish a moral dividing line to ensure Britain and France, who had strong economic ties to the south, do not intervene on their behalf.
You provided zero context about it. At face value, with no context, what's wrong with that statement. There was no compromise during the war.
Also [MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=145]Harambe[/MENTION] tried to engage about the nature of Robert E Lee as a person and shot that down. You are not interested in discussing him. That's fine. I was legit asking the nature of your post and you provided it.
I'm not even gonna argue it.
From what I remember a large part of that was how slaves would be counted in votes. How it gave more weight to the south.
As a military leader Robert E. Lee was, as far as I've ever understood, exceptional. He didn't conduct himself, or conduct his military strategy in dishonorable ways.
Yes, he served on the side fighting for slavery. Give him all the criticism in the world for that. If you can't separate the side he fought on and what that side stood for from how he conducted himself as a military commander, fair enough.
But we don't need the world to be made up of cartoon villains and heroes. It just isn't as simple as that.
Yes, he served on the side fighting for slavery. Give him all the criticism in the world for that. If you can't separate the side he fought on and what that side stood for from how he conducted himself as a military commander, fair enough.
But we don't need the world to be made up of cartoon villains and heroes. It just isn't as simple as that.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I don't think that we need to put Robert E. Lee on a pedestal. I certainly don't think that we should celebrate what he did but you are trying to erase one of the most important lessons of the Civil War. Good people do horrible things. We have to be willing to question and reevaluate our morals no matter how socially entrenched they are. By going to the extreme that Robert E Lee was a hundred percent evil loser piece of s*** we lose the ability to see ourselves in Robert E Lee and thus the caution that would bring to our lives.
Fair enough, I thought it was obvious in my original post, which was:
"What is the danger of John Kelly's characterization of Robert E Lee as honorable and the Civil War as lacking compromise?
Seems to me he is trying to prove to Trump he's as ****ed up as he is."
So, WHAT IS THE DANGER?
I think that's a bit earlier on the historical time line. When the constitution was written, the northern states did not want slaves to count as people AT ALL. That's because most slaves were in southern states. Thus the 5/8th of a person compromise.