Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, November 02, 2017

White House chief of staff John Kelly argued the Civil War resulted from a lack of compromise -- but author and Civil War obsessive Ta-Nehisi Coates destroyed his claims. ... Coates, a national correspondent for The Atlantic, took down Kelly's claims Tuesday morning in a series of tweets. "(The) notion that Civil War resulted from a lack of compromise is belied by all the compromises made on enslavement from America's founding," Coates began. "I mean, like, it's called The three fifths compromise for a reason. But it doesn't stand alone. Missouri Compromise. Kansas-Nebraska Act."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Coates pointed out that these historical compromises were hardly obscure and inaccessible, and he pulled the cover off Kelly's implicitly racist argument against applying today's standards to the past.

"Shocking that someone charged with defending their country, in some profound way, does not comprehend the country they claim to defend. Notion that we are putting today's standards on the past is, in itself, racist --implies only white, slave-holding, opinions matter. ...

"But, like, when the 'adult in the room' believes a war for slavery was honorable," Coates continued, "believes that the torturer of humans, vendor of people, who led that war was honorable, when that dude portrays a sitting member of Congress as some shucking and jiving hustler, when he sticks by that portrayal of a black women, in the face of clear video evidence, when he has so descended into the dream, You really do see the effect of white supremacy."

Comments

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


A good leader raises those around him.

Pres Trump seems to have the opposite effect on those around him. He drags them down to his level.

Chief of Staff Kelly's moral compass has apparently been destroyed, or severely hurt, by his association with Pres Trump.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-10-31 11:22 AM | Reply

I just can't understand why Kelly needs to lie.

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-31 11:38 AM | Reply

Because he's a deplorable careerist.

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

I just can't understand why Kelly needs to lie.

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner

About what?

#4 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-10-31 02:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

This has nothing to do with Kelly's comment on compromise (which Ta-Nehisi pretty much supports until the end of his tweet storm) as he notes "Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party's first presidential platform was a compromise between abolition and expansion. "Lincoln was not an abolitionist," Coates argued. "He proposed to limit slavery's expansion, not end it. During the Civil War, Lincoln repeatedly sought to compromise by paying reparations -- to slaveholders -- and shipping blacks out the country." Many Civil War historians make the same point and use it to support the fact that Lincoln could not achieve compromise with the Southern States before secession.

This has everything to do with Kelly's comments on Congresswoman Wilson and how Ta-Nehisi feels about that. IMO Kelly was wrong and should apologize, but to conflate these two issues doesn't make sense to me.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-31 03:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

About what?

#4 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2017-10-31 02:49 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

About the facts. He claimed she did something that she did not.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-31 05:07 PM | Reply

WTF are you talking about bru?

#7 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-10-31 07:05 PM | Reply

can retired Generals be demoted?
how did this guy get through officer's school?

#8 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-10-31 11:47 PM | Reply

"Many Civil War historians make the same point and use it to support the fact that Lincoln could not achieve compromise with the Southern States before secession."

And why would that be? Because they didn't want to give up their slaves even if they were compensated for them because as we learned in Mississippi State History, "cotton was King," and cotton was a very labor intensive crop but it made plantation owners rich if, and only if, they had a large supply of free labor.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-02 09:00 AM | Reply

"WTF are you talking about bru?

#7 "

"Hi I'm (fake news) sniper, I'm either ignorant and shouldn't be posting on this thread, or I'm intellectually dishonest. That latter is super easy due my low intellect"

#10 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-11-02 09:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Advertisement

Advertisement

A bunch of the seceding states released statements explaining why they did it in their own words. They are not taught in schools because they contradict the watered down narrative we've been fed. That people still insist that the Civil War was not fought over slavery shows just how stupid it was for the US to defer so much to Confederate butthurt after the war.

The Confederates were not shy about their pro slavery and racist position. Read it in their own words.

#11 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-02 09:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#9 | Posted by danni

Ethics and morals aside - Slaves were not "free" labor. Cheap labor compared to paying people but not free labor by any stretch of the imagination.

This plays directly to Illegal Immigration and workers today in this country. It's the same thing that goes on today with crops across this country except it involves illegal workers that work their butts off for low pay. They are not slaves but they are comparable in many ways given their fear of the law. It takes 2-3 Americans for every one of them and you can't get Americans to work for what they do - ask any farmer. Why do you hear about crops rotting in the field when the Latino workers evaporate? Why do you think they won't do anything in Washington to address immigration and legitimize migrant workers? $$$$$$$$

#12 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-02 09:39 AM | Reply

#11 | Posted by Sully

I don't disagree. Everything I know about the Civil War amounts to Slavery was the key issue. The Southerners of the Civil War era are the Republican's of today. No compromise is enough. They want it their way period. They would rather burn it down than compromise.

#13 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-02 09:43 AM | Reply

How is Kelly's argument implicitly racist? There is no implicit about it.

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-02 10:22 AM | Reply

republicans believe compromise from the democrats is when the democrats capitulate and let them do what they want.

republicans believe compromise from their side is merely showing up to give their demands

#15 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-02 11:28 AM | Reply

So ---- what? Are we going to start analyzing every single decision ever made in history and start holding descendants responsible for it all? If so, then do it already. If not, then shut up about it and move forward, not backward. Just accept that our ancestors were --------, they weren't as forward-thinking as the history books want us to believe, and then move on. Work to make today better, not to make yesterday worse.

#16 | Posted by humtake at 2017-11-02 12:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Just like Coates, the arguments advanced so far actually support the central point of his statement: That Lincoln and the North tried to compromise up until the date of secession (as did a number of Southern Senators and Congressmen) and failed because the South refused to give up their slaves for any type of compensation, resulting in a war over slavery. If you think Kelly is racist for pointing that out, then you have greatly expanded the meaning of that term.

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 12:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Just like Coates, the arguments advanced so far actually support the central point of his statement: That Lincoln and the North tried to compromise up until the date of secession (as did a number of Southern Senators and Congressmen) and failed because the South refused to give up their slaves for any type of compensation, resulting in a war over slavery. If you think Kelly is racist for pointing that out, then you have greatly expanded the meaning of that term.

#17 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2017-11-02 12:23 PM

The point is that Kelly doesn't think it was the South that was at fault. He believes it was the North who refused to compromise and let the South expand slavery that caused the war

#18 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-02 02:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I just can't understand why Kelly needs to lie.
#2 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

He doesn't need to lie, but you can bet anyone willing to join that administration must be morally bankrupt; so he does lie. The generals trump seems to like have been; one traitor, one illegally appointed warmonger, and one slavery-loving compromise to replace Bannon. All three are exactly the military types the FF wanted to keep out of federal government.

#19 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-02 02:12 PM | Reply

He believes it was the North who refused to compromise and let the South expand slavery that caused the war
#18 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

There are 4 Union slave states that prove Kelly both wrong and proverbially retarded.

#20 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-02 02:14 PM | Reply

"That Lincoln and the North tried to compromise up until the date of secession (as did a number of Southern Senators and Congressmen) and failed because the South refused to give up their slaves for any type of compensation, resulting in a war over slavery."

So, in other words, there was no more room for compromise. Especially after Confederate artillery opened fire on Fort Sumter.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-02 02:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why compromise? Just let them secede. The confederacy discussed with Lincoln a peaceful resolution of the Fort Sumter situation but he would not hear of it. Stupid war. You do know that lincoln felt the war would be swift and bloodless at its onset (wonder if he would have acted differently if he knew it would have turned into a bloodbath - Iraq war anyone?) and the war was fought over the economics of slavery NOT the civil rights of blacks. A common belief 100 years ago was that if it wasn't for the mississippi river the war would never have been fought

#22 | Posted by danS at 2017-11-02 03:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The point is that Kelly doesn't think it was the South that was at fault. He believes it was the North who refused to compromise and let the South expand slavery that caused the war

#18 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 AT 2017-11-02 02:04 PM

and

There are 4 Union slave states that prove Kelly both wrong and proverbially retarded.

#20 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES AT 2017-11-02 02:14 PM

As I pointed out in the other thread, you are unilaterally assigning that position to Kelly, he never said or implied that.

Also, Indy perhaps inadvertently makes Kelly's point for him, since there were slave states on the Union side compromise had to go both ways. It never happened, and we went to war over slavery.

Donnerboy is correct, the time for compromise ended when the South started taking Union property and attacked Fort Sumter...up until that point, Lincoln and Congress were trying to work out reparations and other economic support to get the South to end slavery.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 03:14 PM | Reply

#22

We went to war over slavery---basic human rights, the impact on the South's economy and preservation of the Union were all part of the equation.

To say otherwise merely feeds into the alternative history that the South tried to promulgate after Reconstruction.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 03:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Why compromise? Just let them secede."

Because Lincoln rightly believed he needed to preserve the union at all costs.

The U.S. Constitution explicitly empowers the federal government (the Congress, actually, Article 1, Sec. 8) to "suppress insurrections."

So you actually support the concept of allowing slavery to exist on our borders?

And assuming such a thing could have been allowed who do you think the South would have aligned itself with in WWII?

#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-02 03:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Why compromise? Just let them secede."

Because Lincoln rightly believed he needed to preserve the union at all costs.

The U.S. Constitution explicitly empowers the federal government (the Congress, actually, Article 1, Sec. 8) to "suppress insurrections."

So you actually support the concept of allowing slavery to exist on our borders?

And assuming such a thing could have been allowed who do you think the South would have aligned itself with in WWII?

#25 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

I'm giving you a NW for what I put in bold.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 03:25 PM | Reply

"And assuming such a thing could have been allowed who do you think the South would have aligned itself with in WWII?"

I am gonna go ahead and answer this because it might be tough for some of our intellectually challenged members.

Since both were White Supremacists the obvious answer is:

The Nazi Party.

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-02 04:32 PM | Reply

ROC - he didn't blame the south. He was clearly trying to implicate both sides.

Given 100+ years of revisionist Confederate horse crap and it's negative consequences - including the current KKK resurgence - many Americans are tired of the BS.

The war was fought over slavery. They admitted it at the time. If he couldn't tell the truth he shouldn't have commented. The only reason to mislead is to score points with people who are invested in the Confederate mythology. And they tend to be scum.

#28 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-02 04:58 PM | Reply

Enough with the both sides are equal crap. There are two very different sides and they are NOT equally to blame.

Stop trying to find an excuse to stay on the dark side by pretending the light side is bad too.

Just admit that you are ok with evil as long as you personally benefit and be done with it

#29 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-02 06:15 PM | Reply

DONNERBOY Slavery would have existed for at least another 40 years if the south had not seceded. That was an argument many people in the south held against secession. Yeah Yeah Yeah it violates the constitution - tell that to the mothers of the 850,000 people who died in the conflict. It was a stupid war. A passion for the constitution had little to do with the north blocking secession. The economic implications of slavery and more importantly the mississippi river played the largest role in the conflict. This is why it was difficult for Lincoln to recruit soldiers and generals from the northeast (remember the draft riots in new york) - they had no stake in the game. One of Lincoln's problem at the beginning of the war was selling the war to the european powers. They viewed him as a tyrant, he presented the cause belli of the war as the only constitutional issue you describe and they felt it was a stupid cause (not saying the souths cause was any better but they weren't invading the north)

#30 | Posted by danS at 2017-11-02 10:30 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