Posted on 10/31/2017 8:17:25 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Unlimited demand in Europe for US grown cotton is what US made cotton production explode from 3,000 bales in 1790 to 4.3 million in 1861.
Of course there was new technology, from the gin & powered looms to steam transportation, but the basic farming methods in 1860 were the same as they had been in 1790.
aumrl: "now why would you jump to the conclusion that I WANT chains?"
First you asked for chains, but now you say you don't want them?
aumrl wishes to discuss hypothetical alternate histories which necessarily require we stipulate things which did not, in fact, happen.
The first stipulation was: Confederates won Civil War.
Now aumrl wishes to discuss another case -- where there was no Civil War at all.
Feel free to join in, if you wish.
I was never specifically arguing either scenario. I was merely pointing out that the war would have happened over slavery or something inconsequential because it’s always secondary the state maintaining control over uppity rebels. You agreed with this premise before you decided to pretend you were a cranky Nostradamus predicting all the twists and turns off history if different historical events were changed.
Sure, but there is also no disagreement among scholars that the Confederacy claimed not only Kentucky & Missouri, but also the Union territories of Oklahoma and New Mexico.
And in claiming, Confederates sent armies to take & occupy them, against the clear wishes of their states' resident majorities.
Further, Lee's invasion of Maryland in 1862 was motivated in part by Confederate hopes that Lee's army would inspire Marylanders to revolt & overthrow Union government there.
Fortunately, in no case was Confederate invasion of Union states or territories successful long-term in winning Confederate goals.
Kelly is getting pummeled here by the same race baiters and south basher vermin that have infested
this forum long as I’ve been here
It’s a cadre
The names change on occasion
They’ll never stop as long as Fresno tolerates it
We warned demonizing the south would lead to more prized targets like Jefferson and Washington and the Alamo and any icon deemed not minority sensitive enough
That day has come yet they still harp free of charge on this forum
They should have been long zotted
When did "the state" maintain control over the "uppity rebels"?
This observation came from Mrsmith post #146, to which I responded, quoting Mrsmith, in post #154.
I had not seen such analysis before, but it seems to make sense.
It appears that most, or all, of Washington's black troops came from New England states like Rhode Island, and what specific promises were made -- or kept -- regarding their post-service freedom, I don't know.
But Rhode Island in 1790 had about 1,000 slaves and 3,500 freed blacks.
After 1840 Rhode Island had no slaves and by 1860 4,000 freed blacks.
MountainWalker post #163: "I was never specifically arguing either scenario.
I was merely pointing out that the war would have happened over slavery... "
Seems to me you invited a discussion of hypothetical "what if" situations, but now they interest you less.
MountainWalker "...because it’s always secondary the state maintaining control over uppity rebels.
You agreed with this premise before you decided to pretend you were a cranky Nostradamus... "
The original question (i.e., post #128) was, in effect: how important was slavery to the Civil War and you, like all pro-Confederates, wish to minimize it while I merely reported accurately that slavery was a central issue, at least number two and for many number one.
Appreciate the ping but had just wanted to point out the foolishness of limiting looking for compromise to only period just before the war.
And the great difficulty SC, specifically, posed to compromise before that.
On Britain’s stupidity of freeing slave I see it as inertia from Dunsmore’s bitter, spited strike combined with a ‘one size fits all’ policy for the Colonies.
But SC was very different.
The census was only estimated in 1773 but showed 110,000 slaves in SC.
About twice the number of free there, and 10 times the number in Va and 4 times the number in NC.
The 1790 census was not estimated and only showed 109,000 slaves. But I think it safe to say the British took a lot away.
You must be mistaking me for someone else.
i made no assumptions as to slavery lasting into the 20th century,and slavery expanding to the world, and the South ruling a weak ‘United States’.
Come on man. You are contradicting yourself.
You stated there was no new technology.
You attempted to place modern farming practices into 1860 but now say methods were the same ‘as they had been in 1790’.
Nothing personal. But also I didn’t ‘ask for chains’.
I speculated that it would be difficult for a slave state to survive long term next to an abolitionist state, moreso without the moral mandate of victory on the battlefield. I didn’t put a precise timetable on the practice’s sustainably, but your suggestion that slavery would perhaps still be in practice today in any scenario seems about as plausible as a zombie apocalypse.
Whether or not slavery was #1 on the list of the reasons for the South to secede was irrelevant to the war since preservation of the union was number #1 on the list of the aggressor.
BJK #162: "aumrl MountainWalker wishes to discuss hypothetical alternate histories..."
aumrl #170: "You must be mistaking me for someone else."
You are correct, my mistake.
My post #162 should have read as you see it above.
I was responding to you injecting yourself into the discussion of alternate histories, i.e., "what if" Confederates won the Civil War.
This discussion was invited by MountainWalker, who now seems to have lost interest in it...
First, let's remember this discussion began with your post #35:
That's why I say you cannot claim that in 1860 slavery was somehow "on its way out" or that anything on the horizon then would somehow end it naturally, or peacefully.
You disagree?
Depends on your definition of "victory".
If the Confederacy had survived at all, that would be "victory" and plenty enough for resourceful propagandists to extol the "Southern way of life" against those evil Northern abolitionists.
Further, remember the only possible way to avoid Civil War was for the Union to behave as if it had already been defeated in battle and so must accept the terms Confederates dictate to them.
Under such conditions, efficient return of fugitive slaves would certainly be near the top of Confederates' wish lists.
You disagree?
MountainWalker: "Whether or not slavery was #1 on the list of the reasons for the South to secede was irrelevant to the war since preservation of the union was number #1 on the list of the aggressor."
But Confederates were the aggressors in 1861, for weeks & months before the Union made any military response.
So Confederate motives in forming their new slave-nation are highly relevant.
And while the Union did fight to preserve itself, it also found emancipation of slaves a major factor in that effort.
So slavery was highly important both to Confederates and Unionists during the Civil War.
You disagree?
I’m not reading your zany and tedious posts anymore. Just an FYI before you write another essay. I do think you have a future in tarot card readings, however.
of course
BTW; How many southerners died in the war?
How many slave owners were there in the south?
Use common sense
As strange as it might seem now, the big South Carolina planters in the lowlands weren't inclined to be loyalist. One reason may be that they had debts and grievances with the British merchants they traded with. Another reason was that they had been in the colonies much longer than those on the frontier, who were often newly arrived from the British Isles.
Things may have been different in Virginia. Jefferson and other Virginians were quite frightened by Lord Dunmore's proclamation promising freedom to runaways who signed on with the British forces. Lately some people are trying to sell the idea that fear of slave rebellion was a major force driving the revolution. So far, though, I don't quite buy it.
This is the response first repeatedly practiced by DiogenesLamp.
By refusing to even acknowledge my arguments he was able to continue posting his own nonsense, over & over & over.
So, I take it MountainWalker & DiogenesLamp went to the same school for internet trolls?
According to this source, about 300,000 Confederates died.
According to this source about 400,000 Southern families owned slaves, 26% of all Southern families.
But those numbers ranged from nearly 50% in Mississippi & South Carolina, to 37% average in the Deep South, to 25% in Upper South states, to just 13% in Border States.
And your point is what, exactly?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.