Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 01, 2017

White House chief of staff John Kelly raised eyebrows when he discussed the historical context of controversial monuments dedicated to Confederate figures in the US Civil War. "I would tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man," he continued. "He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which 150 years ago was more important than country. It was always loyalty to state first back in those days. Now it's different today." Kelly continued to suggest that the Civil War was initiated after the North and South failed to come to a compromise. "But the lack of an ability to compromise led to civil war," Kelly said. "And men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Kelly's statement echoed President Donald Trump's condemnation of "both sides" following the deadly protest in Charlottesville.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Kneeling! Now that's an offense to the flag and a perfect union.
Succession from that very same union? not an offense at all

Sincerely

The Entire GOP party of ---------

#1 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-10-31 09:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

I see nothing wrong with what he said..

#2 | Posted by boaz at 2017-10-31 09:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

So Boaz, what would your compromise over slavery have been? How could the North have worked it out with the South over slaves?

#3 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-10-31 10:45 AM | Reply

#2 Because you're ignorant?

Here are the facts: www.rawstory.com

#4 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-31 11:10 AM | Reply

There is never enough compromise for the race supremacists. They want to see you dead or enslaved. History bears that out.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-31 11:15 AM | Reply

"So Boaz, what would your compromise over slavery have been? How could the North have worked it out with the South over slaves?"

Perhaps they could have just been slaves on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-31 11:16 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Slavery was added afterward. What was the original issue with the Civil War?

#7 | Posted by boaz at 2017-10-31 11:29 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Boaz, Kelly doesn't have a leg to stand on here. I even gave you a link. Just admit he's lying.

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-31 11:40 AM | Reply

Bruce,

Your link is hardly non biased.

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2017-10-31 11:56 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Slavery was added afterward. What was the original issue with the Civil War?
#7 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Slavery.

Sorry, no points for you today.

#10 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-10-31 12:12 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Kelly probably thinks the Russian Revolution involved a particularly nasty dispute about Feberge eggs that just got out of hand.

#11 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-10-31 12:14 PM | Reply

"What was the original issue with the Civil War?"

Boaz, were you gonna tell us?

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-31 12:18 PM | Reply

What was the original issue with the Civil War?

Separation of the union.

But. What spurred the south to want to separate?

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-10-31 12:33 PM | Reply

Bruce,
Your link is hardly non biased.

#9 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2017-10-31 11:56 AM | FLAG:

I disagree here. These are commonly accepted historical facts.

#14 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-31 12:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Historians respond to John F. Kelly's Civil War remarks: ‘Strange,' ‘sad,' ‘wrong'

"What's so strange about this statement is how closely it tracks or resembles the view of the Civil War that the South had finally got the nation to embrace by the early 20th century," she said. "It's the Jim Crow version of the causes of the Civil War. I mean, it tracks all of the major talking points of this pro-Confederate view of the Civil War."

www.washingtonpost.com

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-31 02:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What was the original issue with the Civil War?

#7 | Posted by boaz

Slavery.

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-31 03:51 PM | Reply

Bruce,
Your link is hardly non biased.

#9 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Why?

Because it contains those pesky "facts"?

Or because it was spoken from a black man's perspective?

#17 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-31 03:57 PM | Reply

Jefferson Davis unequivocally stated in 1861 that the cause of his state's secession was that "she had heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races."
volokh.com

But I still want to hear what Boaz has to say!

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-31 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here is an article from the Atlantic in 2013 that I think everyone needs to read and understand before weighing in on this issue:

150 Years of Misunderstanding the Civil War

From the article:

In recent years, historians have rubbed much of the luster from the Civil War and questioned its sanctification. Should we consecrate a war that killed and maimed over a million Americans? Or should we question, as many have in recent conflicts, whether this was really a war of necessity that justified its appalling costs?

Historians who came of age during the Civil Rights Movement placed slavery and emancipation at the center of the Civil War. This trend is now reflected in textbooks and popular culture. The Civil War today is generally seen as a necessary and ennobling sacrifice, redeemed by the liberation of four million slaves.

But cracks in this consensus are appearing with growing frequency, for example in studies like America Aflame, by historian David Goldfield. Goldfield states on the first page that the war was "America's greatest failure." He goes on to impeach politicians, extremists, and the influence of evangelical Christianity for polarizing the nation to the point where compromise or reasoned debate became impossible.

Goldfield sees slavery as the bedrock of the Southern cause and abolition as the war's great achievement. But he argues that white supremacy was so entrenched, North and South, that war and Reconstruction could never deliver true racial justice to freed slaves, who soon became subject to economic peonage, Black Codes, Jim Crow, and rampant lynching.

Nor did the war knit the nation back together. Instead, the South became a stagnant backwater, a resentful region that lagged and resisted the nation's progress. It would take a century and the Civil Rights struggle for blacks to achieve legal equality, and for the South to emerge from poverty and isolation. "Emancipation and reunion, the two great results of this war, were badly compromised," Goldfield says. Given these equivocal gains, and the immense toll in blood and treasure, he asks: "Was the war worth it? No."

Gary Gallagher, a leading Civil War historian at the University of Virginia, argues that the long-reigning emphasis on slavery and liberation distorts our understanding of the war and of how Americans thought in the 1860s. "There's an Appomattox syndrome--we look at Northern victory and emancipation and read the evidence backward," Gallagher says.

Very few Northerners went to war seeking or anticipating the destruction of slavery. They fought for Union, and the Emancipation Proclamation was a means to that end: a desperate measure to undermine the South and save a democratic nation that Lincoln called "the last best, hope of earth."

Gallagher also feels that hindsight has dimmed recognition of how close the Confederacy came to achieving its aims. "For the South, a tie was as good as a win," he says. It needed to inflict enough pain to convince a divided Northern public that defeating the South wasn't worth the cost.

#19 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-31 04:29 PM | Reply

More from the Atlantic article:

Just as the fight against Nazism buttressed a moral vision of the Civil War, so too have the last decade's conflicts given us a fresh and cautionary viewpoint. "We should be chastened by our inability to control war and its consequences," Brundage says. "So much of the violence in the Civil War is laundered or sanctified by emancipation, but that result was by no means inevitable."

It's very hard, however, to see how emancipation might have been achieved by means other than war. The last century's revisionists thought the war was avoidable because they didn't regard slavery as a defining issue or evil. Almost no one suggests that today. The evidence is overwhelming that slavery was the "cornerstone" of the Southern cause, as the Confederacy's vice-president stated, and the source of almost every aspect of sectional division.

Slaveholders also resisted any infringement of their right to human property. Lincoln, among many others, advocated the gradual and compensated emancipation of slaves. This had been done in the British West Indies, and would later end slavery in Brazil and Cuba. In theory it could have worked here. Economists have calculated that the cost of the Civil War, estimated at over $10 billion in 1860 dollars, would have been more than enough to buy the freedom of every slave, purchase them land, and even pay reparations. But Lincoln's proposals for compensated emancipation fell on deaf ears, even in wartime Delaware, which was behind Union lines and clung to only 2,000 slaves, about 1.5% of the state's population.

Slaveholders also resisted any infringement of their right to human property. Lincoln, among many others, advocated the gradual and compensated emancipation of slaves. This had been done in the British West Indies, and would later end slavery in Brazil and Cuba. In theory it could have worked here. Economists have calculated that the cost of the Civil War, estimated at over $10 billion in 1860 dollars, would have been more than enough to buy the freedom of every slave, purchase them land, and even pay reparations. But Lincoln's proposals for compensated emancipation fell on deaf ears, even in wartime Delaware, which was behind Union lines and clung to only 2,000 slaves, about 1.5% of the state's population.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-31 04:36 PM | Reply

Sometimes I wonder if Boaz is intentionally ignorant or just biased based on what he wants to and needs to believe. Let me have Ta-Nehisi Coates give him a little direct history lesson on why Kelly couldn't be more wrong in his assessments:

The reality is that the path to civil war was marked by numerous compromises on slavery, as the author Ta-Nehisi Coates pointed out on Twitter Tuesday morning. In fact, the war started because of the people who wanted to maintain and expand the right to own other people as property.

"I mean, like, it's called The three fifths compromise for a reason," Coates tweeted early Tuesday, referring to the constitutional provision that increased representation for slave states in the House of Representatives in 1787.

"But it doesn't stand alone," Coates said. "Missouri Compromise. Kansas-Nebraska Act."

After the Civil War, he later tweeted, there was also the Compromise of 1877, which further disenfranchised black people once federal troops withdrew from Southern states. President Abraham Lincoln, Coates noted, also compromised on several occasions. Not only did he not actually want to abolish slavery, but he "repeatedly sought to compromise by paying reparations ― to slaveholders ― and shipping blacks out the country."

He didn't even mention the Compromise of 1850, which among other things allowed the South to implement slavery in new U.S. territories gained during the Mexican-American War.

www.huffingtonpost.com

What is sad is that a grown black man doesn't even know when a white supremacist is spouting ignorance right to his face. Kelly's statements over the last couple weeks beg the question how he ever reached the upper echelons of the US military with such a lack of character and wholly ignorant view of US history that can be easily rectified by picking up a book or having a conversation with someone who actually knows US history. Which of course is not the Jim Crowized version clung to by those wishing to downplay the unmitigated fact the US Civil War was fought to maintain a small minority's right to own other people as property.

#21 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-10-31 04:39 PM | Reply

Final excerpt:

Nor is there much credible evidence that the South's "peculiar institution" would have peacefully waned on its own. Slave-grown cotton was booming in 1860, and slaves in non-cotton states like Virginia were being sold to Deep South planters at record prices, or put to work on railroads and in factories. "Slavery was a virus that could attach itself to other forms," says historian Edward Ayers, president of the University of Richmond. "It was stronger than it had ever been and was growing stronger."

Most historians believe that without the Civil War, slavery would have endured for decades, possibly generations. Though emancipation was a byproduct of the war, not its aim, and white Americans clearly failed during Reconstruction to protect and guarantee the rights of freed slaves, the post-war amendments enshrined the promise of full citizenship and equality in the Constitution for later generations to fulfill.

What this suggests is that the 150th anniversary of the Civil War is too narrow a lens through which to view the conflict. We are commemorating the four years of combat that began in 1861 and ended with Union victory in 1865. But Iraq and Afghanistan remind us, yet again, that the aftermath of war matters as much as its initial outcome. Though Confederate armies surrendered in 1865, white Southerners fought on by other means, wearing down a war-weary North that was ambivalent about if not hostile to black equality. Looking backwards, and hitting the pause button at the Gettysburg Address or the passage of the 13th amendment, we see a "good" and successful war for freedom. If we focus instead on the run-up to war, when Lincoln pledged to not interfere with slavery in the South, or pan out to include the 1870s, when the nation abandoned Reconstruction, the story of the Civil War isn't quite so uplifting.

#22 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-31 04:39 PM | Reply

ROC,

The issue is not solely the reasons behind the Civil War, it's Kelly's opinion that compromise could have possibly stopped it from being fought. History shows that compromises were made for years and decades yet the war itself was inevitable as non-Southern society turned away slavery as you noted above and the Southerners fought to maintain their way of life at great cost to the Union itself.

#23 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-10-31 04:42 PM | Reply

Tony, as I pointed out in the Coates thread, he is at cross purposes with his own argument, Ta-Nehisi points out all sorts of compromises, including that Lincoln wanted to compromise but failed.

War is a failure of diplomacy, which by its nature involves compromise. Lincoln desperately didn't want war, but the country was so polarized that it came despite his efforts.

I know people hate Kelly for his allegiance to Trump and his comments about Rep Wilson or Gen. Lee, but his comment about failure to compromise isn't off the mark.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-31 04:45 PM | Reply

"But the lack of an ability to compromise led to civil war," Kelly said. "And men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand."

This could be said about every single war that was ever fought. It's trite and wholly without any real merit, and in this case because the sides were drawn between those wanting to own other human beings as property versus those willing to fight to cease the practice, the moral high ground is retained by one side, and one side only.

Kelly's argument is an immoral homage to "bothsiderism," something that should be beneath any military general pledging an oath to the US Constitution. Nowhere within a modern understanding of our document is any quarter for placing the right to slave ownership and one's individual human right to liberty on an equal plane. Kelly's notion is disgusting to me and it should be to any sentient, freedom-loving American imo.

#25 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-10-31 04:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As the Atlantic article points out, the North was split on abolition and was (and still is) deeply racist. Up until the Articles of Confederacy were enacted, negotiations were constant in the House and Senate to try to figure out a way to avoid secession. Lincoln was willing to pay for emancipation and reparations but the South saw that as an existential threat to their economy driven by the Industrial North. Some people in the North were also against it, since there was a lucrative trade in selling slaves from the North to plantations in the South.

As people have pointed out in other threads, payment for emancipation and reparations worked in the West Indies, Brazil and Cuba and could have worked in the US. The failure to compromise wasn't from a lack of trying but from economic and racial divisions that still persist today.

#26 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-31 04:54 PM | Reply

Nowhere within a modern understanding of our document is any quarter for placing the right to slave ownership and one's individual human right to liberty on an equal plane.

Kelly isn't making that point, you are assigning that position to him.

#27 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-31 04:56 PM | Reply

Kelly isn't making that point, you are assigning that position to him.

No, simple English comprehension assigned him that position because words matter. I highlighted what he said, and under no known definition of context can the term "...men and women of good faith on both sides" mean anything but a moral equivalency. I'm sorry if you see wiggle room in such a straightforward interpretation of 9 words. This isn't some sophistic argument, it's a common sense definition of the unambiguous meaning of the words.

There is no "good faith" for people wanting to own other people as property. I'm sorry you fail to understand this simple concept. The difference between personal liberty and enslavement doesn't rest on the "good faith" of slave owners. It rests upon upholding the moral code of this nation or discarding it for an immoral economic purpose for the personal enrichment of a few.

#28 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-10-31 05:07 PM | Reply

I highlighted what he said, and under no known definition of context can the term "...men and women of good faith on both sides" mean anything but a moral equivalency. I'm sorry if you see wiggle room in such a straightforward interpretation of 9 words. This isn't some sophistic argument, it's a common sense definition of the unambiguous meaning of the words.

It is well documented that brothers fought against each other during the Civil War. Are you absolutely sure that one brother embodied good and one brother embodied evil?

Most historians would disagree that it was as clear as your moral indignation seems to see it.

#29 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-31 05:09 PM | Reply

What about poor whites who were conscripted into the Army of the Confederacy during the War. Were they evil too?

#30 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-31 05:11 PM | Reply

It is well documented that brothers fought against each other during the Civil War. Are you absolutely sure that one brother embodied good and one brother embodied evil?

Aren't the goalposts getting heavy? You know we aren't addressing the soldiers, we're addressing the political leadership and their decisions which led to war.

You're better than this ROC, c'mon. Kelly was not referring to soldiers because they only follow orders. He was referring to those who sent the soldiers to war and you know it.

Slavery = immoral. The cause of those fighting to end the immoral practice of slavery = moral.

Of course the Union army did immoral things in their pursuit of victory as did the confederacy, but that isn't the debate.

#31 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-10-31 05:15 PM | Reply

I'm heading out to dinner, so don't think my silence is agreement with anything after this. ;^)

#32 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-10-31 05:17 PM | Reply

Kelly was not referring to soldiers because they only follow orders. He was referring to those who sent the soldiers to war and you know it.

I didn't read it that way, especially since he was talking about men and women making a stand. If he was talking about the leadership he wouldn't have used that broad a brush.

This is a far more complex situation than you are admitting to, but I know the passionate lens through which you view this.

I am not disagreeing that slavery is immoral and I bet you Gen. Kelly agrees with that as well.

One last point: as noted in the Atlantic article, most Northerners were fighting to save the Union, not to abolish slavery.

Enjoy your dinner.

#33 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-31 05:24 PM | Reply

most Northerners were fighting to save the Union, not to abolish slavery.

Many individual soldiers fought for many reasons but that is not why there was a civil war in America.

Race has been a poison pill in our society since 150 years before America was founded. Both sides of the issue believed that God was on their side. The only way to prevent any further wars was to end slavery and compromise was no longer possible.

And it really is just about that simple.

#34 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-31 05:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Well said Donner.

#35 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-10-31 05:55 PM | Reply

"One last point: as noted in the Atlantic article, most Northerners were fighting to save the Union, not to abolish slavery."

What they thought they were fighting for is almost entirely irrelevant.

Do you think in 150 years they'll say "They thought they were fighting to restore democracy to Kuwait."

They might say that, so long as the next sentence is "But really, Kuwait was never a democracy; they fought to maintain the hegemony, nothing else."

So it was with the Civil War.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-01 02:42 AM | Reply

"America is waking up to the awareness that 1/3 of Americans would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches". - Werner Twertzhog

#37 | Posted by schmanch at 2017-11-01 09:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

John Kelly is a white supremacist.

#38 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-11-01 09:34 AM | Reply

"America is waking up to the awareness that 1/3 of Americans would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches"

I am now taking bets on this cage fight.

#39 | Posted by RevDarko at 2017-11-01 10:27 AM | Reply

I guess John Kelly LOVES the 3/5th compromise.. Supremecist.

#40 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-11-01 11:12 AM | Reply

...and Kliff dive bombs the thread without having read any of the posts.

#41 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-01 11:45 AM | Reply

""I would tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man,"

"ROBERT E. LEE.
HIS BRUTALITY TO HIS SLAVES."

fair-use.org

#42 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-01 12:26 PM | Reply

"...and Kliff dive bombs the thread without having read any of the posts"

Be fair. He read 3/5 of them.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-01 12:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Documentary filmmaker Ken Burns is diving into the fallout over recent White House comments on the Civil War, saying exactly one factor caused the 19th century conflict: slavery."

thehill.com

#44 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-01 01:45 PM | Reply

"...and Kliff dive bombs the thread without having read any of the posts.

that is correct. so?

haha

#45 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-11-01 03:02 PM | Reply

#44

No one is debating that Danni, it's a little more complex than just that word and all it connotes.

#46 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-01 03:15 PM | Reply

"Black slavery" then?

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-01 03:17 PM | Reply

Lincoln did not directly threaten slavery where it was practiced. So why did the South seceded? Look up the Morel Act. Basicly it was a protective tariff that would have bankrupted the South. It also required cotton fill the mills in New England first, before the more lucrative European markets. Lincoln was just the straw that broke the Democrat's back. Yes, the Civil war was a Democrat Party creation.

#48 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-02 01:26 PM | Reply

#48 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

The south never wanted to help the union, in other words. They only cared about perpetuating an artificially inflated slave economy.

#49 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-02 05:15 PM | Reply

#49 | Posted by IndianaJones And after the Civil War the new boss was the same as the old boss. The people who actually made money from slavery were comfortably setting in offices in New York, Philadelphia and Boston. They certainly reestablished the plantation system rather quickly. Same slave quarters, same people in the field, different owners.

#50 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-03 02:51 AM | Reply

Right, we didn't actually fix the civil rights issue until a century later.
Owing to deep-seated racism which persist to this day.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 02:54 AM | Reply

#51 | Posted by snoofy, and the sad fact is black people down south were better off during the Jim Crow era, than they are now. Government basically destroyed the black family, emasculated the black man, and made being a young black man more dangerous than being a soldier in WWII. I am fully in favor of civil rights for everyone. But is seems that things like promising a higher benefit in welfare if the man of the house is gone, is just plane evil.

#52 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-03 12:54 PM | Reply

"Posted by snoofy, and the sad fact is black people down south were better off during the Jim Crow era, than they are now"

So were white people.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 12:56 PM | Reply

"Government basically destroyed the black family, emasculated the black man, and made being a young black man more dangerous than being a soldier in WWII."

Strong work, for a government that can't do anything!

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 12:56 PM | Reply

"But is seems that things like promising a higher benefit in welfare if the man of the house is gone, is just plane evil."

I can see the perverse incentive. I just don't see much of a way around it. What's yours? Just end welfare altogether? That seems more evil.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 12:58 PM | Reply

What government should have done for poor, black and white alike, is actually funded the War on Poverty.
It was working, for the few years it was actually in play.
But it's politically useful to have a boogeyman class; ours is poor blacks.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 01:04 PM | Reply

#56 | Posted by snoofy Yep, the War on Poverty got Nixon elected, and it actually increased poverty by creating a dependency mentality. Why work at a low paying job if you can live just as well setting at home? As far as blacks being a boogeyman class, remember when you go way down south, half the population is black. Maybe the white people had more of a reason to fear them than in a northern city where you can force them into an urban ghetto.

#57 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-03 01:28 PM | Reply

"the War on Poverty got Nixon elected, and it actually increased poverty by creating a dependency mentality."

Standing down the government commitment to eradicating poverty did that.
You understand this War on Poverty was only running at full steam for like three years.
You understand you can't fix a century of Jim Crow and three centuries of slavery in three years.

Also, "The War on Poverty got Nixon elected" is code for "Racism got Nixon elected."

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 01:34 PM | Reply

"As far as blacks being a boogeyman class, remember when you go way down south, half the population is black."

Yeah. You think Techwood Drive is a safe place to chill, or are there any "Boogeymen" there?

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 01:34 PM | Reply

Yeah. You think Techwood Drive?, that must be a Chicago thing, never heard of it. But in the same vein, do you roll up your windows and lock your doors as you drive on any street called Martin Luther King? The War on Poverty accomplished nothing, As I remember cities burned during the third year of that boondoggle. It did not raise the standard of living in the black community, it probity made thing worse. It turned black working class neighborhoods into war zones. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. In this case it was paved with tax dollars. You also forget there were plenty of other things going on, like Vietnam, "liberation" movements, domestic terrorism and a serious riot every month. You have the prospective of written history, I lived through that turbulent era.

#60 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-03 01:54 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort