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

NBC News ^ | October 31, 2017 | ALEX JOHNSON

[Mr Rogers]

More on Brazil, since I knew nothing about it:

” Although initially a conservative ruler, Pedro II eventually recognized the inherent unfairness of the slavery system affecting so many millions of his subjects.

Pedro gradually passed laws that liberated his subjects. By the late 1880s, it was just a matter of time before the emperor abolished slavery in Brazil altogether. Unfortunately for the Crown, Brazilian landowners and the country’s military leadership were not keen on the liberalizing policies of Pedro II. The abolition of slavery subjected landowners to higher capital investment in manpower, and since these conservative groups were the mainstay of the military, the armed forces were predisposed to side with the land-owning classes. Dom Pedro was traveling in Europe when Princess Isabel (shown 3rd from left, standing), acting as regent in her father’s stead, passed a law abolishing slavery in Brazil on May 13, 1888.

This law, commonly known as the Golden Law, not only brought international praise to the Brazilian imperial family, but also condemned the Crown. The landowners quickly organized and built opposition to the monarchy. Revolts broke out in different regions of the country. In many instances Brazil’s republican neighbors, countries that had always resisted having an emperor in Latin Americ, helped these revolts. Princess Imperial Isabel’s decree eventually led to the proclamation of the Brazilian Republic on November 16, 1889.”

http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/brazil-abolishes-slavery

The Emperor was overthrown in part FOR ending slavery.

[uncbob]

Same people who did it after they were freed

[x]

So your belief is that because a united America was going to be a great and wealthy power someday, that people in the 19th century were fighting for that?

Historically that's putting the cart before the horse. People -- ordinary soldiers and even military and political leaders -- were fighting for what they knew, not for what might someday be.

Arguments like yours demand far too much purity of people. The assumption seems to be that you can only pursue non-materialistic ends if you seek your own ruin.

Are you suggesting the quest for empire, whether it was Rome, Britain or the US, was based on patriotism, rather than a naked quest for power, wealth & control?

There is a difference between expansionism and attempts to preserve what one has. Arguably, we weren't fighting Mexico for idealistic ends, but it's harder to make such a statement about a country in civil war. Ideas and ideologies matter a lot more when it comes to civil wars than they do in reference to wars of territorial expansion.

Here's a question for you: why the high suicide rates among former military? Could it be veterans found out the truth after they were used, abuse and discarded, much like a cheap whore? Next, I imagine you're going to assert that GW1 & 2 were *not* about blood for oil.

Keep posting like that. See where it gets you.

I don't have an issue with those who wish to entertain morality and other theological motivations; but, please, keep it to yourself.

"I don't have an issue ... but please, keep it to yourself" means "I do have an issue."

It's the height of foolishness to engage in the wider field abroad.

I'm not sure what that means. The ACW wasn't a foreign war.

[central_va]

those who contend that the memorials honor Southern defenders of slavery who betrayed their country by launching an armed rebellion.

I think of a dozen or more ignorant Freepers that think exaclty the same way.

[semantic]

And now the discussion moves, as it typical among those who hold dear certain theological belief systems, faith. Faith in fantasies, myths & fables, whether secular or ecclesiastical.

Here's a free tip: follow what is occurring in genetic research. Scientists are getting closer to identifying certain brain gene expressions that govern & control rationale thought. The flip side, of course, is the ability to manipulate the kind of characteristics you propound. Imagine the power accessible to genetically alter and program and entire nation/army of drones.

People like you have always been fodder. Some eventually figure it out, others, well, not so much. However, it's not your fault; actually, you were just born this way. So, if there's any blame to go around, blame our proto-human ancestors. Darwin is a bitch, and ruthlessly culls anyone not subscribing to tribal conventions.

[central_va]

The bloodiest conflict our country ever endured resolved the issues of states’ rights

The Civil War settled nothing regarding states rights. There is(still) nothing in the US Constituion prohibiting state(s) secession. Nothing.

Ever wonder why after the Civil War there was no secession prohibition amandmant added?

[semantic]

Keep posting like that. See where it gets you.

I thought FR consensus now considers both Bushes as traitors of the worst kind. Are you now suggesting that Trump's criticism of their engagement in'selective wars' is contrary to current FR commenting policy?

Please, why don't you expand on this a little more so that others may have the opportunity to be educated as to your, let us say, interesting option(s).

[central_va]

We put up a lot of BS from you. Your insults are getting annoying. Do you actully think white people in the antebellum South didn’t lay bricks, saw lumber or pick/chop cotton? Are you really that brainwashed stupid?

[central_va]

I wish liberals like you would get the zot.

[Theophilus]

The cause of the Civil War was a lack of submission to God.

[x]

I thought FR consensus now considers both Bushes as traitors of the worst kind. Are you now suggesting that Trump's criticism of their engagement in'selective wars' is contrary to current FR commenting policy?

Policy differences don't make people "traitors of the worst kind."

I also really doubt President Trump would say that US soldiers were "used ... like a cheap whore."

Many would take objection to that kind of talk.

From what I've seen today, you are one of those people who can't help exaggerating and going over the top.

That makes it hard to take what you say seriously.

[Theophilus]

The cause of the Civil War was a lack of submission to God. He confounds His enemies. Just like at Babel.

[MountainWalker]

By 1860? No. By 1900? Maybe/probably. Brazil was the last in the West to do abolish it and that was in 1888 and without a war.

[semantic]

I can sympathize with your qualifying. Sometimes assertions are made without really thinking through the greater implications.

FR mirrors the larger organic processes which result as more information is discovered/revealed over time. Individually or collectively, adjustments are made that make previous held positions appear untenable.

OK, let's change track here for a moment. Question for you: why is the deep state so opposed to Trump? I mean, what exactly is it that he represents - or is - that poses such an existential threat? Why are they willing to violate numerous constitutional, legal and political conventions in an effort to thwart/remove him from office?

Answer that question, and you'll discover the explanation that drove many/most of this nation's policy directives.

[x]

I don't know the answer. My interest was more in the Civil War angle.

If we are a rich and powerful country, then preserving the country would most likely mean remaining richer and more powerful than some other countries.

But it's not all about materialistic factors. Patriotism also plays a big role.

That was certainly true in 19th century America, which may have been destined to play a big role in the wider world, but wasn't doing it yet.

[MountainWalker]

BroJoeK: "Of course it was about protecting the Union from Confederates' aggressive actions to destroy it. But protecting slavery (Confederates) and freedom for slaves (Unionists) were never far from the top of the list of reasons for war."

My point (which was your point before you forgot) stands. The war was principally to hold the union together. Even if reason #2 were a over a cause less noble than abolition, the war would have still happened.

[Vlad The Inhaler]

For starters, Federal ownership of many seized properties throughout the South, including forts, ships, arsenals & mints.

Did they belong to the Federal government or to the people?

And were they worth 600,000 lives?

[semantic]

The answer is war. Actually, the answer is always war. War is the health of the state. War is a racket. Those who oppose efforts to expand and/or engage in war are targeted for elimination. Trump's anti-(selective) war sentiments run counter to deep-state foreign policy.

All societies, ancient or modern, have either rigid or implied caste systems. Warriors (kings) are always the top echelon, with priests running second. It is the responsibility of the intelligentsia - as represented by the shamans - to sell the virtues of war to the masses. It's actually quite easy: they simply appeal to patriotism.

Samuel Johnson coined the famous phrase "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels". However, most do not realize he had this to say about our country's founders in 1777: "How is that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes (sic)?" (Page 364, Life of Johnson; Boswell)

You and I are on the same side. I just advocate considering more than rote, surface level sentiment to discover historical drivers.

[Retain Mike]

That brings up an issue I alluded to in the letter to the editor. Politicians could have settled the issues, but military action could only resolve them. The definitions I found are:

Settle: To determine what is uncertain; to establish; to free from doubt; as, to settle questions or points of law.

Resolve: To arrive at an end by some recognized authority.

If the issues had been settled politically, the outcome would have been a foundation agreed to by all parties and useful for the future. The application of military force, as the supreme recognized authority, caused the parties to arrive at a destination, and the stronger imposed its will on the weaker. The Union never recognized the Confederacy and it never surrendered. Therefore, the mutuality of a settlement was never achieved.

Your last question is one I have not thought about. I’ll speculate that the politicians after the Civil War had the same lack of mental energy and moral determination as those before. I doubt they could see much personal profit from thrashing out secession.

[Vlad The Inhaler]

By 1860 there were 18 Northern slaves and 4 million Southern slaves.

Not according to the 1860 Census.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

1860 Slave Count For Non-Confederacy States

DELAWARE - 1,798
KENTUCKY - 225,483
MARYLAND - 87,189
MISSOURI - 114,931
NEBRASKA - 15