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.

[BroJoeK]

MountainWalker: " I simply do not agree that slavery would have survived much longer from its own onerous political weight."

But slavery had no "onerous political weight" -- none, zero, zip, nada weight -- in the Deep Cotton South.
In 1860, in the cotton South white Americans were more prosperous, on average, than anywhere else on Earth, and they knew it and they knew why!

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation..."
--A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union, January 1861

Nothing would change those people's minds and nothing short of war would convince them to change their laws on this.
Surely even you can see that?

Of course we cannot say what might have happened in 50 years, or 100 or 150 years, but why-ever would a Confederacy successful at war, successful at independence and most especially successful economically -- why-ever would they wish to change their winning formulas?
Slavery had been part of their political DNA, from the beginning, and no sane person would wish to change that, would they?

"The greatest material interest of the world."

[aumrl]

You make my point.
What do you do with slaves while the land is lying fallow?
Cotton was a labor intensive crop as I am sure you know.
Further anti slavery sentiment was strong in England (Wilberforce) and a boycott of Slave ‘produced’ cotton would have further decreased market.
Oh and other crops were not as in demand since a far higher percentage of the country was agrarian.

[MountainWalker]

You seem pretty sure in your assumptions of the future of slavery had things happened differently. I’ll remind you, idea that Trump was not going to be president was an extremely safe historical assumption until about 9PM Nov 8, 2016. Thankfully, history was able to test and falsify that assumption.

I’ll admit that I’m only speculating, but I just don’t see slavery surviving long-term next to a separate, hostile abolitionist state. I think the attrition rate of escaping slaves as well as a maturation of Western society would soon make it untenable. The Mason-Dixon line is a lot shorter distance to freedom than the Canadian border.

[Vlad The Inhaler]

First we should note Confederates claimed Kentucky & Missouri and sent armies of conquest to hold them.
They also invaded Maryland, hoping to flip it from Union to Confederate.
Second, those were all Southern slave states except Nebraska, which was a territory, not a state.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said:

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

In this case you have your facts wrong.

There is no disagreement among scholars or documented history on the fact that there were only 11 states in the Confederacy and Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland are not among them.

The eleven Confederate states were South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina.

Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were known as Border States.

Once West Virginia separated from Virginia it too was considered to be a Border State.

Border States remained loyal to the Union but state citizens generally had divided loyalties.

[x]

There is no disagreement among scholars or documented history on the fact that there were only 11 states in the Confederacy and Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland are not among them.

Nonetheless, the Confederacy claimed that Missouri and Kentucky were in the CSA.

Count the stars:

[mrsmith]

The British did try freeing the slaves for soldiering and it cost them the war. Period.

Not because there were anything wrong with Negro troops, but because that lost Britain all the Loyalists in the Loyalist-heavy south.
And South Carolina, where slaves greatly outnumbered free, was the crux.
Britain could have divided the colonies in Charleston harbor, and marched securely to Washington DC, then crushed the NE if it didn’t submit.
Why did they manumit the slaves then? It must have been obvious it would cost them the war!
Abolition was still in it’s infancy in Britain, this was 50 years before the Slavery Abolition Act.
Just over-confidence in their military I guess.

And South Carolina’s strategic position explains why it could veto any compromise during the Revolution. And the agreements made in the Revolution had to hold as long as Britain threatened.
Cotten became King as Britain’s threat receded and there was no longer any opportunity for compromise. Compromise had to have happened before the Revolution.

Ironic that had SC went with the British slavery would have ended there 20 years before Civil War, or would Britain have turned against abolition for their slavery profits?
Anyway, love to see history in terms of self-interest and error. Much more useful than theories.

[rockrr]

They had to claim 13 or else the flag would be unbalanced. That just wouldn’t do...

[BroJoeK]

aumrl: "first; our farming methods were not practiced at that time."

Of course some methods were -- farmers of necessity always have methods and the most basic method of all is: plant one year, leave fallow the next or two depending on conditions.
To suggest that such was never practiced with cotton is just nonsense.

aumrl: "The need for slave states to expand west was caused by decreasing productivity in the south."

No, you have it exactly backwards.
The reason more & more land was devoted to cotton was because world-wide demand for cotton exploded.
After 1800 US cotton production doubled, redoubled & doubled yet again:

aumrl: "How is production in Mexico carried out?
Do car companies employe the obviously cheap labor in 1950s era factories?
NO - they are new modern factories."

Sure, but the cheap labor I'm talking about is this:

Cheap labor drives out mechanization.

[BroJoeK]

aumrl: "What do you do with slaves while the land is lying fallow?"

Consider this: a wealthy antebellum planter might own a section of land (section = 644 acres = 1 sq mile).
Each year he could plant, say, 200 acres in cotton, leaving, say 400 acres fallow, rotating fields each year.
That would give him the highest possible yield per acre, perhaps a bale per acre, times 200 acres = 200 bales @$150 per bale = $30,000 in 1860, equivalent to roughly $10 million today.

Or, he could plant 300 acres in cotton, leaving just 300 fallow.
Over time that would reduce his yield to two bales per three acres = 200 bales total = $30,000 same as above, but from 300 instead of 200 acres.

And, if he eliminated all crop rotations, planting only cotton, he could expect just one bale in three acres, still = 200 bales total but again with much more work.

The issue in farming is always: what practices produce the longest term highest sustainable yields.
All farmers know that.

[aumrl]

You might think it nonsense; but it is a fact.
Don’t leap to conclusions based on emotion.

IF US cotton production doubled it was because of mechanization.
And the rest of the world was not investing in slaves.
European countries already had interests in our hemisphere.

And I see no chains in your colorful pictures.

[BroJoeK]

aumrl: "IF US cotton production doubled it was because of mechanization."

But there's no "IF" about it, here are actual numbers.
US cotton production per year:

1. 1790 = 3,134 bales
2. 1800 = 73,145 bales = 23 times increase
3. 1820 = 334,378 bales = 5 times increase
4. 1830 = 731,452 bales = doubled
5. 1840 = 1,346,232 bales = doubled again
6. 1850 = 2,133,851 bales = 60% increase
7. 1860 = 3,837,402 bales = 80% increase
8. 1861 = 4,485,893 bales = 17% increase

Note these increases in US cotton production happened without any major new cotton machinery, except the gin.

aumrl: "And I see no chains in your colorful pictures."

Chains? You want chains?
Why?

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "200 bales @$150 per bale = $30,000"

Sorry, my decimal in the wrong place.
Cotton in the 1850s sold for about $15 per bale, making 200 bales worth $3,000 or about $1,000,000 today.

[BroJoeK]

MountainWalker: "You seem pretty sure in your assumptions of the future of slavery had things happened differently."

No, not just "things happened differently", but for the specific case of Confederates winning the Civil War.
That is a huge change in the overall trajectory of history, which at the time was bending towards our current understanding of "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator".

A Confederate victory would put the lie to those words and stand as a beacon of racial supremacy for the world to rally around.
Had Confederates proved successful, many others worldwide would take note and ally themselves with their fellow racial supremacists -- Central Europe & East Asia come to mind, but there would be plenty of others.

MountainWalker: "I’ll admit that I’m only speculating, but I just don’t see slavery surviving long-term next to a separate, hostile abolitionist state. "

Speculating, sure, but in your hypothetical alternate reality, remember that we've stipulated Confederates won the Civil War.
That makes them the dominate power, gives Confederates the whip-hand and provides them with leverage to dictate terms they like.
Confederate victory makes the Union weak & submissive, subject to the demands of their stronger Southern neighbor, eager to please the great military slave-power on their border.

Under such circumstances the World takes notice that a determined slave-power defeats weak-willed free men in battle and the World adjusts its behavior accordingly.

MountainWalker: "I think the attrition rate of escaping slaves as well as a maturation of Western society would soon make it untenable."

But we are talking about a victorious Confederacy dictating its own terms to a humiliated United States.
Surely those terms would include aggressive rounding up & return of fugitive slaves, right?

[BroJoeK]

mrsmith: "The British did try freeing the slaves for soldiering and it cost them the war. Period.
Not because there were anything wrong with Negro troops, but because that lost Britain all the Loyalists in the Loyalist-heavy south."

Thanks for a great insight, I'd never seen that before.
What I have seen is that George Washington himself expressed concern that British offering freedom to slaves for service would win Brits the war, and that was Washington's justification for matching them.

I've also seen where Washington's army at Yorktown was reported as 1/4 African Americans, but, iirc, those troops had recently moved from New York to Virginia and so we must suppose they had been recruited mostly from Northern freed-blacks.

But your insight that British use of fugitive slaves lost them loyalty amongst Southerners is new to me, will have to mull that over a bit...

[MountainWalker]

I’m sorry for interrupting your reauthoring of history flowing downstream from all the moral mandates as the result of a resounding confederate victory on the battlefield and your certitude for how that would have shaped the future. But, it’s kind of telling that the guy building his case on a mountain of assumptions has already excluded the other most obvious possibility that could have easily happened: no war at all.

[aumrl]

LOL
“except the gin”
and we know that was no big thing
You neglect machinery in europe

now why would you jump to the conclusion that I WANT chains?

[aumrl]

Assumptions galore!

[x]

"The British did try freeing the slaves for soldiering and it cost them the war. Period. Not because there were anything wrong with Negro troops, but because that lost Britain all the Loyalists in the Loyalist-heavy south."

I'm not so sure about that. You'd have to check it state by state and region by region.

I assumed the loyalists lost out because of a mixture of British atrocities and better patriot commanders. My understanding was that loyalists mattered more in North Carolina, where slaves were less of a factor than in South Carolina, where they mattered more, but I'm no expert on any of this.

Maybe it was more of a passive thing: if you were a large slaveowner with Tory sentiments, you probably wouldn't commit yourself openly to the loyalist cause if you knew it would mean losing your slaves.

But, strange though it may seem now, more loyalists came from the middle and lower rungs of the social ladder than the higher ones. A lot of them were Scots who'd already fought the British and lost and weren't inclined to go through all that again.

Anyway, so far as I know it's not been proven, but it's well worth examining more closely.

[x]

An officer among British forces at Yorktown estimated that one in four of Washington's men were black.

That estimate may be too high, but there were African-American troops in the patriot army. Rhode Island did promise freedom to those who fought, and a Black Rhode Island unit fought at Yorktown. New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Connecticut also had African-American soldiers, sometimes enlisted as substitutes for their masters. Close to half of the black troops were in service and supply positions, so an observer at headquarters might see proportionally more African-American soldiers than there were in the forces as a whole.

[BroJoeK]

MountainWalker: "it’s kind of telling that the guy building his case on a mountain of assumptions has already excluded the other most obvious possibility that could have easily happened: no war at all."

So I take it from your words that you concede my points in the hypothetical case of Confederates winning the Civil War, and now you wish to discuss another alternate hypothesis: there was no Civil war, what then?

Well, the only way there could be no Civil War was for the Union to grant every Confederate demand, from occupying Union forts like Sumter to subsuming Union slave-states like Kentucky, Missouri & Maryland, plus territories like Oklahoma & New Mexico.
But the only possible way the United States could meekly submit to such demands would be if it felt defeated & humiliated, just as if it had lost a Civil War to Confederates.

In other words, if the United States put preserving the peace as a higher priority than maintaining its own integrity, then it must act as if it were defeated in war, and that would produce the same global affects I mentioned above.