Ok, so White House Chief of Staff and man who was either brainwashed or castrated this month, John Kelly, has some “deep” thoughts he wants to share with you about the Civil War.
But before we get to that, let’s just recap what’s happened to the General over the past two weeks. Kelly has been variously described as one of the only people standing between Donald Trump and America, so there’s a bit of ambiguity here in terms of whether he actually believes the things he’s saying or whether he’s merely saying them in order to ensure he remains in a position to, as Bob Corker put it, “separate us all from chaos.” But that caveat aside, Kelly has disgraced himself this month.
First of all, he allowed Donald Trump to get away with claiming that former Presidents didn’t call the families of dead soldiers. He should have immediately called the President out on that lie after Trump uttered it in the Rose Garden on October 16 during what was supposed to be a speech about tax reform.
Not only did Kelly not rebuke Trump, he stood idly by while the President used Robert Kelly (who was K.I.A. in Afghanistan) to defend the egregious proposition that Barack Obama didn’t call grieving families.
Meanwhile, Trump had simultaneously created another PR nightmare by pissing off the widow of one of the soldiers killed in Niger.
And this is where it’s important to step back and try to appreciate how absurd this became. The miracle of Donald Trump is that he not only has an uncanny knack for creating bad situations and then immediately making them worse, but also for creating bad situations and then pyramiding them on top of each other.
So first, he managed to turn a press conference on tax reform into a referendum on which Presidents cared the most about dead soldiers. That, in and of itself, was a truly incredible feat. That pivot (from tax reform to dead soldier pissing contest) is not only difficult to make, it’s damn near impossible. But he did it. And then, instead of just letting it go, he doubled down on the claim that ex-Presidents didn’t call dead soldiers by dragging John Kelly and his dead son into things.
Meanwhile, he was in damage control mode with regard to criticism that he hadn’t yet contacted the families of soldiers killed in Niger so he scrambled around to call them and when he did, he accidentally insulted a widow. When he was called out on that by a lawmaker who overheard the discussion, he tried to lie about it, but that didn’t work because as it turns out, he was on speakerphone apparently without realizing it.
So then he made John Kelly hold a press conference the sole purpose of which seemed to be to discredit Frederica Wilson. That was going ok-ish until Kelly went off on a tangent about respecting women and the sanctity of Jesus. And then about 24 hours later things really went awry after the media went back and dug up the video of the Frederica Wilson speech that Kelly referenced and discovered that in fact, Kelly was bald-face lying too.
Wilson later demanded an apology from Kelly (which she never got) and then, in the final insult, Trump accused Myeshia Johnson of not remembering the call correctly after she went on national television to validate Wilson’s account and the “evidence” he offered up in defense of that contention was that “I have one of the great memories of all time.”
John Kelly not only let this happen, he participated in it, much to the chagrin and in some cases, outright horror of high ranking military men with whom he served.
So, that brings us to an interview Kelly did with Fox News on Monday following the Manafort indictments. Predictably, it was fucking egregious.
The punchline came when he said the following about the Civil War:
Chief of Staff John Kelly praises Robert E Lee as "honorable man," says "lack of an ability to compromise led to the civil war," not slavery pic.twitter.com/GSuVRrGKlQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 31, 2017
Sorry John, but the Civil War was not caused by “the lack of an ability to compromise” – at least not where “compromise” means some kind of system that would have allowed African Americans to remain slaves.
And for the thousandth goddamn time, we all need to come to some kind of consensus about the simple fact that as times change, so too are we forced to reevaluate the morality of institutions that existed in the past. Just because something was “the norm” at one time, does not mean that everyone who participated in it gets a free pass years later when we all finally admit that something was wrong. That makes no sense.
Now of course we need to exercise some degree of restraint where that might mean, for instance, not doing away with Humanities 101 at Reed on the inherently dubious contention that Plato is pushing a racist agenda from beyond the grave and using college syllabi as a conduit, but this idea that Christopher Columbus and Robert E. Lee get free passes when it comes to historical injustices is ridiculous.
The rest of the nonsense that came out of Kelly’s mouth isn’t even worth repeating, but allow us to just go ahead and pick one clip out of the hat to demonstrate how everyone associated with this administration is bald-faced lying to you (also note that this particular soundbite was bolded and underlined at a Russia-linked blog in a post this morning):
"The reaction of the administration is let the legal justice system work… we'll see where it goes." —John Kelly on Manafort indictment pic.twitter.com/YmFrY3Ptwe
— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) October 31, 2017
Got that? “Long before they ever met Donald Trump.”
That. Is. A. Lie.
Trump met Manafort more than 35 years ago. And everyone knows that.
Getting back to Kelly’s outrageous Civil War comments, I suppose it makes sense that he would say that, because remember, he works for a man who once said the following about Andrew Jackson:
He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, “There’s no reason for this.”
Andrew Jackson died 16 years before the Civil War began.
I’ve listened to what Kelly said…carefully..several..he is PRECISELY correct. Lee WAS an honorable man…it was an open issue in the South (and by many abolitionists in the North) whether secession was a legitimate right of any State….Abolitionists wanted some Northern States to secede because they wanted nothing to do with a slave South. Of course, some slaves existed in EVERY Northern State.
To those knee jerkers maybe a little historical refreshing is necessary. Lincoln was very willing to live with a Slave South..he ONLY opposed slavery’s expansion into the Territories. He was a Henry Clay Internal Improvements man..Union First..Tariffs Second…Slavery contained..period. Lincoln wouldn’t have pushed putting down the “Rebellion” ( he did NOT consider it a war because that is something you wage against a Nation..and the Confederacy was NOT a Nation in his mind…) for slavery…he needed the tariff money too much. The South paid for 80% of the US Government by paying those tariffs on imported goods…that money came from cotton.
Lincoln famously said he would abolish slavery immediately if it meant preserving the Union..or he would never abolish it if it also meant preserving the Union. Lincoln was the same man who in the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY freed those slaves held in Rebellious parts of the South…not all the South..an none in the North. Does that sound like a man who sent a Nation into conflict for African Americans????
Spare us the BS…the Civil War was about money..that slaves ended up being freed and granted rights was another battle, one Lincoln would have been very pleased to avoid.
What about the statues??? Put them in the front yard of some yahoo who thinks they are worth revering..they are as politically cartoonish as the crap I read in the article above concerning the Civil War…
yeah, ok Greg. you’re right. we can rationalize slavery if we just try hard enough. you know, people also rationalize the holocaust using the same kind of tortured “analysis.”
Greg is correct. the actual start of the civil war and agitation leading up to it had everything to do with property rights (via taxation and tariffs).
Greg,
Most of what you write is correct until you get to your conclusion. If the civil war was not ultimately about slavery, then why did compromises (perhaps what Kelly is thinking about?) designed to avert war, such as the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment, center on slavery?
Greg – you are absolutely correct in your analysis and presentation here. As demonstrated below, however, your thought has been denigrated in a sarcastic manner (unjustified in response to your own level tone) by the host here. The host certainly has that prerogative and it demonstrates to us how the world, country, and the internet are vast wastelands of left bias and right bias with a thinning sliver of rational consideration in the middle.
The bottom line of “…the Civil War was about money….” could not be more plain and true. Inasmuch as a statue of Lee is a cartoon, so is a statue of Lincoln. The tables could very easily have been turned. Why take the statues down? Taking down statues is akin to destroying the masters and all copies of The Simpsons or South Park. To the thinking person, statues and cartoons are important for the ironies they expose.
What does this have to do with anything? Caveat emptor when it comes to investing – whether it applies to your funds or your beliefs.
No Greg is not correct. Have a look at the Peace Conference of 1861, a last ditch effort to avoid conflict. The Conference was almost exclusively about slavery. Why talk about slavery if tariffs are the big issue? This economic argument is almost universally rejected by current scholars, even on the center right.
Jamal, you’re on the right track but may not be taking it quite far enough. For better or worse (for better in my opinion) Northern financial interests saw the ultimate unsustainability of the slavery business model. Having substantial capital at stake, in numerous forms, that depended on a sustainable macro business model, these interests moved public and official opinion as necessary to facilitate the conflict that would ultimately set things right as per their agenda.
From a Federal standpoint, slavery became unsustainable on several levels and on several time frames. It was unsustainable in the (relatively) short term – from the Federal perspective – because it provided slave states – substantially the South – an “unfair” competitive advantage that could ultimately – in the intermediate term – give the South more autonomy and power through capital formation as a result of foreign investment seeking higher returns. That became a significant issue by the mid 19th Century.
As a long term proposition, of course, slavery was and is unsustainable within the context of an otherwise free society; especially one that purports itself to be under one Federal umbrella. The slavery model requires a very tightly controlled tyranny in order to be sustainable long term – not what we were or are all about; at least for ourselves.
So you seem to cede my point that slavery was the issue at the heart of the start of the war. Then you argue that the reason the North wanted to end slavery was people or institutions ( you don’t specify) thought slavery wouldn’t last as a business model because it a) offered the South a competitive advantage, b) would attract foreign investment and capital development, and c) it’s antithetical to a free society. Further, you agree with Greg that the North needed the tariffs provided by the South.
There are a lot of internal contradictions to that argument that I hope you see.
Admittedly, it is difficult to directly refute (or affirm) your assertion that Northern public opinion of slavery was molded by business interests who saw the writing on the wall. Regardless, Republicans and Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery because they thought it was abhorrent, and the South disagreed and wanted to preserve and expand slavery, thus leading to war. You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to come up with reasons for the war that leave out the morality of slavery, which was The Heisenberg’s point in the first place.
“Taking down statues is akin to destroying the masters and all copies of The Simpsons or South Park. To the thinking person, statues and cartoons are important for the ironies they expose.”
Frank, by all means, fill your house with Simpsons DVDs and Lee statues. Does that mean I have no voice in deciding that I don’t want a public park named after a person that fought to extend slavery?
Although, Cartman Park has nice ring to it.
Keep in mind, we live in a different world now. How different is digital content like the Simpsons or South Park occupying (or littering) the internet really that much different than a Lincoln Park or a Lee Street or various statues occupying (or littering) the physical space? Certainly there is a difference, but that difference has become blurred in my opinion.
My view – Lee wasn’t fighting to extend slavery, per se. Lee was fighting to preserve a competitive advantage that interests in the South had carved out for themselves using the slavery business model. I think that’s actually more insidious than fighting to extend slavery in and of itself. It’s worse because, without the financial incentive (or perceived financial incentive), anyone other than a psychopath or moron would eventually reject slavery.
This is no different than most other military leaders who defend and/or fight on behalf of financial interests.
Andrew Jackson, who was president from 1829-1837, helped to avert a plausible civil war, generations before the actual one. In the 1830’s, South Carolina insisted on its right to nullify, or ignore, federal law. The South Carolinians objected to taxes – federal tariffs on the imported goods they were buying from Europe.
Jackson insisted that federal law reigned supreme. Through a carefully calibrated mixture of threats (a warship actually appeared in the harbor at Charleston, ready to open fire if need be) and compromises (Congress cut the tariff a little), he persuaded the nullifiers to back down.
This is a good history lesson on OUR nation building.
What goes on in the White House, tell lie upon and lie, get caught in them, and still lie. What is the rationale “Fuck it ,they believe anything I say” “Who cares if its a lie, I am the President” “I cant remember one like from the next, but I am a genius” That chump Trump has no respect for the citizens of this country, time for his psycho-babelonian followers to wake up.
The Civil War WAS about property….slaves were property that were bought, paid for, and deeded just like all property. The irony is that the modern economic model of “wage slavery” is cheaper than actual slavery since wage slaves don’t require to be purchased (no cap-ex), and bosses are not required to pay enough to house, clothe, feed, transport, and take care of healthcare. Slave owners had to invest capital when purchasing slaves, and then had to pay to keep them in working condition in order to protect their investment.