Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly Says ‘Lack of Compromise’ Led to Civil War

NBC News ^ | October 31, 2017 | ALEX JOHNSON

[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.

[rockrr]

It’s not being destroyed. Disrespected sure, but not destroyed.

[rockrr]

Who are you calling “the prince of fools” - Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump?

[rockrr]

It was always about preserving the Union, and not exactly the noble reasons espoused by Lincoln, et al.

Of course it was (as it should be) and that stands as Lincoln's noble reason.

[rockrr]

You say that without a hint of irony...

[Magnatron]

We all say awkward things sometimes. When we do, it passes quickly and is forgotten. If it’s anyone associated with the Trump administration, it’s front page news for three days.

[Dawgreg]

Just one statue moved from it’s place is the first step in destroying.......and look at screwells, they’re trying to take “offensive” things out of the classrooms. I think it’s just designed to see how far they can go all the while knowing what they’re (revisionists, SJW’s) doing is stupid and they just want to see how stupid whitey is as to how far they push it. I think they may be surprised in the near future.

[Dawgreg]

Even being a Southerner and loving the history of the Civil War I have great respect for some of the Union commanders. I have a problem with Sherman but am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that his men got out from under him and took it too far on his march to the sea but nothing we can do about it now. I would never want a Union monument taken down and I sure don’t like to see Confederate monuments taken down. This pandering and stupidity has got to stop. Taking them down is taking away the reminders of how far this country has come since those dark days even though it took another 100 years or so to get rid of Jim Crow......or should I say the DEMOCRATS Jim Crow........(sorry, couldn’t help myself).

[central_va]

The reason why there was no amendment prohibiting secession after the Civil War, which could have been easily done, is that to have done so would be an admission and remove all doubt ( as if there ever was any ) as to the constitutionality of secession prior to such amendment. It would have codified the South's right to secede!

The reason why there is no article or section prohibiting secession in the original USC is because it would have never been ratified in the first place.

[central_va]

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.

So what do you think of that rockstar?

[rockrr]

I think it’s pretty dunderheaded.

[aumrl]

Please refer to my second sentence.
BTW; One would think that the’high prices for slaves’ would have led ‘owners’ to treat them well.Better might be a better word.

[wgmalabama]

We should study and understand the painful history the most. It’s the history we need to celebrate (success and failure) so that we never repeat it.

Liberals want to distort, revise, blame, posture, and use as a metric because they want to use it again in the future but for their purposes.

Oh well. When the shooting starts kill them, any of them as fast as you can because they will kill you slowly.

Civil war was unnecessary but was due to greed. Like most wars. Just plain old greed. I would say power but ultimately the power is used for money. Maybe power and greed is the reason.

[Retain Mike]

That makes sense to me. An amendment after the war would have admitted the Confederacy existed. A Constitution ennobling the people and ignoring the primacy of states in the Articles of Confederation was already a difficult proposition to swallow.

[jmacusa]

Let me tell you again General I’m not a liberal. If anyone is a liberal here it’s you , you dumb shit. The Confederacy was created by Democrats, leftists, big government liberals of their day. You’re their ancestor.

[DoodleDawg]

Do you actully think white people in the antebellum South didn’t lay bricks, saw lumber or pick/chop cotton?

Not for others they didn't.

Are you really that brainwashed stupid?

If I were then I'd be a Confederate supporter.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

The Civil War was the result of one of many Democrat temper tantrums because they couldn't have what they thought they were entitled to. Sound familiar? Their sense of entitlement has always led to violence. In this case, it led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

It's bad enough we have the Democrats trying to tag us with their history, without so many on our side trying to accept it on our behalf.

[Impy]

Frank Luntz Twatted in reply to the General: Back then, a “compromise” only counted African-Americans as three-fifths of a human.

I continue to be blown away by extreme ignorance regarding the three fifths compromise.

Frankie, dumbass, it wasn't some symbolic BS that stated Blacks were only 60% human, it was how people were counted for the census. If you were alive back then and against slavery guess what your position would have been. It would have been to NOT COUNT THE SLAVES AT ALL (and why in the hell should any people that can't ever vote be counted?). It was the slave owners who wanted them counted and FULLY so theirs states would get more House seats to fill with pro-slavery Congressman. Capiche, moron? Please return your college diploma and re-enroll in 8th grade.

Are libs and RINO idiots like Frankie so unbelievably stupid that they would have supported giving slave owners more seats because the wording of the Constitution made them feewl bad or do they just read at a Kindergarten level?

[GOPsterinMA]

Useful idiots.

Reading at a kindergarten level would be a step up for them.

[PJammers]

Thank you for your insight. I still believe the “compromise” was for the south to end slavey and the Federal Government would leave them alone. The south refused the offer.

Even after losing the war, the south remained a segregated, however, since I grew up in the north, but live in the south, the modern south is far more integrated than the North. Unlike the north, people grow up in the same neighborhoods, go to the same schools, attend the same churches and work with each other.

[DoodleDawg]

One way to look at it is to ask, “How many countries used a Civil War to end slavery?”

Still another way to look at it is to ask, "How many countries had region willing to launch a bloody rebellion to protect their institution of slavery?" The answer to that is one also.