Poll of the Day > John Kelly: 'The lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War'

(+) Yeah! (+)

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly on Monday said, "the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War"

"I think we make a mistake ... when we take what is accepted as right and wrong, and go back 100, 200, 300 years or more and say, 'What Christopher Columbus did was wrong,'" Kelly said

The retired general's views echo those of his boss, President Donald Trump, who claimed in August that "both sides" were to blame after violence broke out during a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/john-kelly-a-lack-of-ability-to-compromise-led-to-the-civil-war.html
---

---

I mean. I suppose that's technically true, but compromise is not always the answer.
---

i think being halfway happy was not the solution to "should people be able to own other people"
---

Wasn't the North quite willing to let the South keep up slavery if it meant keeping the country together?
---

Golden Road posted...

Wasn't the North quite willing to let the South keep up slavery if it meant keeping the country together?

I'm pretty sure Lincoln didn't even free the slaves until it was a good idea to do so to win the war. He wanted the union intact first and foremost.
---

Works busy today, any chance of a summary?
---

Perhaps if they'd met the confederacy half way, or maybe even...three fifths of the way?

Rumors of John Kelly's sensibility have been greatly exaggerated.

I'd like someone to actually press him on what sort of compromise would've worked. Keep slavery?! Maybe a "hey, you guys seceded and attacked a U.S. military installation just because the country elected someone you didn't want and we really don't like that, please come back" letter to the Confederate leaders?

Also, lulz, apparently the Missouri Compromise never existed, nor all the decades slavery was an issue prior to the Civil War that involved all sorts of negotiation.

Garlands_Soul posted...

Golden Road posted...

Wasn't the North quite willing to let the South keep up slavery if it meant keeping the country together?

I'm pretty sure Lincoln didn't even free the slaves until it was a good idea to do so to win the war. He wanted the union intact first and foremost.

Ironically, confederate defenders will cite this as proof that Lincoln is somehow a "fraud" when it comes to fighting to free the slaves, yet at the same time from the other side of their mouths claim it was a "War of Northern Aggression" because Lincoln was gonna force them to free their slaves, so they just had to rebel.

Doctor Foxx posted...

i think being halfway happy was not the solution to "should people be able to own other people"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q--iGgtRn8
---

And who is less flexible than AntiFa and Dick Spencer? Bright future...
---

Smarkil posted...

I mean. I suppose that's technically true, but compromise is not always the answer.

It's not true though. The country repeatedly compromised throughout its history. Compromise did not prevent the Civil War. The Civil War war was caused by the South seceding and attacking a military base because they were convinced that Lincoln would end slavery. Hilariously, some idiots in the southern states still call it the War of Northern Aggression. It's like, you guys know you attacked first, right?

SushiSquid posted...

Smarkil posted...

I mean. I suppose that's technically true, but compromise is not always the answer.

It's not true though. The country repeatedly compromised throughout its history. Compromise did not prevent the Civil War. The Civil War war was caused by the South seceding and attacking a military base because they were convinced that Lincoln would end slavery. Hilariously, some idiots in the southern states still call it the War of Northern Aggression. It's like, you guys know you attacked first, right?

Morally, ending slavery was obviously a righteous cause (albeit not the only issue). I find it hypocritical that America could be all "fuck you, England! We're out because we don't like your policies!" only to be "fuck you, South! You have to accept our policies!" some time later...
---

SushiSquid posted...

Smarkil posted...

I mean. I suppose that's technically true, but compromise is not always the answer.

It's not true though. The country repeatedly compromised throughout its history. Compromise did not prevent the Civil War. The Civil War war was caused by the South seceding and attacking a military base because they were convinced that Lincoln would end slavery. Hilariously, some idiots in the southern states still call it the War of Northern Aggression. It's like, you guys know you attacked first, right?

It was a lack of the ability to compromise for either end. Or at least it would be if it weren't in reference to owning humans, as I said. Sometimes you shouldn't compromise, but it is technically true to say that if both sides were able to compromise that the civil war wouldn't have happened.

It's just morally objectionable to compromise over the value of human lives.
---

Don't look over there

Look over here
---

"Freeing slaves fixed everything."

That's all I'm getting from people in this topic. That 100 years after? Irrelevant.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

SushiSquid posted...

Smarkil posted...

I mean. I suppose that's technically true, but compromise is not always the answer.

It's not true though. The country repeatedly compromised throughout its history. Compromise did not prevent the Civil War. The Civil War war was caused by the South seceding and attacking a military base because they were convinced that Lincoln would end slavery. Hilariously, some idiots in the southern states still call it the War of Northern Aggression. It's like, you guys know you attacked first, right?

Morally, ending slavery was obviously a righteous cause (albeit not the only issue). I find it hypocritical that America could be all "fuck you, England! We're out because we don't like your policies!" only to be "fuck you, South! You have to accept our policies!" some time later...

The American Revolution was because the colonies were being taxed w/o representation in England.

The south had representation in the U.S., and were fine with it for nearly a century. Until it reached a point where they were outnumbered in voters and didn't like it anymore. Which is one thing if some outsiders who outvote you are trying to force you to change your way of life, I suppose. But "owning other humans" is not a way of life, and fuck off if you think it is.

Veedrock- posted...

"Freeing slaves fixed everything."

That's all I'm getting from people in this topic. That 100 years after? Irrelevant.

Literally no one in this topic even implied that. You getting something from this topic that wasn't in it says something. I'm honestly not sure what, but it says something.

SushiSquid posted...

Veedrock- posted...

"Freeing slaves fixed everything."

That's all I'm getting from people in this topic. That 100 years after? Irrelevant.

Literally no one in this topic even implied that. You getting something from this topic that wasn't in it says something. I'm honestly not sure what, but it says something.

It says "desperation"

Desperate for what?

Brag about your intelligence more.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

i think being halfway happy was not the solution to "should people be able to own other people"

they could have paid the south to set the slaves free.

one side wants slaves one side doesn't, maybe we can compromise by saying black people are 3/5ths of a person

Veedrock- posted...

Desperate for what?

Brag about your intelligence more.

To you, demonstrating that I passed elementary school history classes is bragging about my intelligence?

Zikten posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

i think being halfway happy was not the solution to "should people be able to own other people"

they could have paid the south to set the slaves free.

the south absolutely would not have agreed to this, it's nonsense. southern society was built on slavery as a way to pacify poor whites

Zikten posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

i think being halfway happy was not the solution to "should people be able to own other people"

they could have paid the south to set the slaves free.

Aren't you 40 y/o, this seems like you're joking, ok?
---

ClarkDuke posted...

Zikten posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

i think being halfway happy was not the solution to "should people be able to own other people"

they could have paid the south to set the slaves free.

Aren't you 40 y/o, this seems like you're joking, ok?

I am 36 and serious. I saw someone else suggest this same thing on CE.

Zikten posted...

ClarkDuke posted...

Zikten posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

i think being halfway happy was not the solution to "should people be able to own other people"

they could have paid the south to set the slaves free.

Aren't you 40 y/o, this seems like you're joking, ok?

I am 36 and serious. I saw someone else suggest this same thing on CE.

Then that changes everything, ok?
---

Look at Zikten trying to prevent the deadliest conflict in American history and you're just shitting on him. So righteous.
---

Zikten posted...

ClarkDuke posted...

Zikten posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

i think being halfway happy was not the solution to "should people be able to own other people"

they could have paid the south to set the slaves free.

Aren't you 40 y/o, this seems like you're joking, ok?

I am 36 and serious. I saw someone else suggest this same thing on CE.

Ok, that was pretty good. Gave me a big laugh. Well done!

Veedrock- posted...

Look at Zikten trying to prevent the deadliest conflict in American history and you're just shitting on him. So righteous.

Don't get your gimmick fam.
---

streamofthesky posted...

Rumors of John Kelly's sensibility have been greatly exaggerated.

I'd like someone to actually press him on what sort of compromise would've worked. Keep slavery?! Maybe a "hey, you guys seceded and attacked a U.S. military installation just because the country elected someone you didn't want and we really don't like that, please come back" letter to the Confederate leaders?

Also, lulz, apparently the Missouri Compromise never existed, nor all the decades slavery was an issue prior to the Civil War that involved all sorts of negotiation.

Garlands_Soul posted...

Golden Road posted...

Wasn't the North quite willing to let the South keep up slavery if it meant keeping the country together?

I'm pretty sure Lincoln didn't even free the slaves until it was a good idea to do so to win the war. He wanted the union intact first and foremost.

Ironically, confederate defenders will cite this as proof that Lincoln is somehow a "fraud" when it comes to fighting to free the slaves, yet at the same time from the other side of their mouths claim it was a "War of Northern Aggression" because Lincoln was gonna force them to free their slaves, so they just had to rebel.

the south rebelled over taxes from all I learned. while the slavery thing did piss them off, it hadn't been made law yet so it wasn't the most major deciding factor.

Lincoln from all i've learned didn't give a rats ass about the slaves but his motives don't matter to me they needed to be freed.

as far as nothern agression goes, as a southerner I laugh at that, the south attacked first. but it is true a lot of the war if I recall took place in the south, as the south usually did pretty damn good at winning battles on their turf but got their asses handed to them anytime they went up north. (and in the first couple of years or so the south won a large chunk of the battles)

ultimately both sides had major flaws, but as far as human rights is concerned the better side won imo. but funnily enough it was the north who tried claiming the slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person when it came to tallying population. the south wanted them to count fully but admittedly for all the wrong reasons
---

Mechanization would have ended slavery about thirty years later anyway. It would have likely been far worse for the slaves, possibly with some sort of mass culling.

Blightzkrieg posted...

Perhaps if they'd met the confederacy half way, or maybe even...three fifths of the way?

Oh, you!
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Rumors of John Kelly's sensibility have been greatly exaggerated.

I'd like someone to actually press him on what sort of compromise would've worked. Keep slavery?! Maybe a "hey, you guys seceded and attacked a U.S. military installation just because the country elected someone you didn't want and we really don't like that, please come back" letter to the Confederate leaders?

Also, lulz, apparently the Missouri Compromise never existed, nor all the decades slavery was an issue prior to the Civil War that involved all sorts of negotiation.

Garlands_Soul posted...

Golden Road posted...

Wasn't the North quite willing to let the South keep up slavery if it meant keeping the country together?

I'm pretty sure Lincoln didn't even free the slaves until it was a good idea to do so to win the war. He wanted the union intact first and foremost.

Ironically, confederate defenders will cite this as proof that Lincoln is somehow a "fraud" when it comes to fighting to free the slaves, yet at the same time from the other side of their mouths claim it was a "War of Northern Aggression" because Lincoln was gonna force them to free their slaves, so they just had to rebel.

the south rebelled over taxes from all I learned. while the slavery thing did piss them off, it hadn't been made law yet so it wasn't the most major deciding factor.

Lincoln from all i've learned didn't give a rats ass about the slaves but his motives don't matter to me they needed to be freed.

as far as nothern agression goes, as a southerner I laugh at that, the south attacked first. but it is true a lot of the war if I recall took place in the south, as the south usually did pretty damn good at winning battles on their turf but got their asses handed to them anytime they went up north. (and in the first couple of years or so the south won a large chunk of the battles)

ultimately both sides had major flaws, but as far as human rights is concerned the better side won imo. but funnily enough it was the north who tried claiming the slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person when it came to tallying population. the south wanted them to count fully but admittedly for all the wrong reasons

The initial Confederate states actually seceded from the union over the election of Lincoln (or at the very least they used it as a rallying point to garner support). Most of these states did not even put Lincoln on the ballot. Lincoln won without getting a single electoral college vote from a slave state, and also received less than 40% of the popular vote. Trumps election has nothing on how divisive Lincoln was historically.

streamofthesky posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

SushiSquid posted...

Smarkil posted...

I mean. I suppose that's technically true, but compromise is not always the answer.

It's not true though. The country repeatedly compromised throughout its history. Compromise did not prevent the Civil War. The Civil War war was caused by the South seceding and attacking a military base because they were convinced that Lincoln would end slavery. Hilariously, some idiots in the southern states still call it the War of Northern Aggression. It's like, you guys know you attacked first, right?

Morally, ending slavery was obviously a righteous cause (albeit not the only issue). I find it hypocritical that America could be all "fuck you, England! We're out because we don't like your policies!" only to be "fuck you, South! You have to accept our policies!" some time later...

The American Revolution was because the colonies were being taxed w/o representation in England.

The south had representation in the U.S., and were fine with it for nearly a century. Until it reached a point where they were outnumbered in voters and didn't like it anymore. Which is one thing if some outsiders who outvote you are trying to force you to change your way of life, I suppose. But "owning other humans" is not a way of life, and fuck off if you think it is.

America was also getting the best tax rate of the colonies. It was just greed.
---

AverageBoss posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Rumors of John Kelly's sensibility have been greatly exaggerated.

I'd like someone to actually press him on what sort of compromise would've worked. Keep slavery?! Maybe a "hey, you guys seceded and attacked a U.S. military installation just because the country elected someone you didn't want and we really don't like that, please come back" letter to the Confederate leaders?

Also, lulz, apparently the Missouri Compromise never existed, nor all the decades slavery was an issue prior to the Civil War that involved all sorts of negotiation.

Garlands_Soul posted...

Golden Road posted...

Wasn't the North quite willing to let the South keep up slavery if it meant keeping the country together?

I'm pretty sure Lincoln didn't even free the slaves until it was a good idea to do so to win the war. He wanted the union intact first and foremost.

Ironically, confederate defenders will cite this as proof that Lincoln is somehow a "fraud" when it comes to fighting to free the slaves, yet at the same time from the other side of their mouths claim it was a "War of Northern Aggression" because Lincoln was gonna force them to free their slaves, so they just had to rebel.

the south rebelled over taxes from all I learned. while the slavery thing did piss them off, it hadn't been made law yet so it wasn't the most major deciding factor.

Lincoln from all i've learned didn't give a rats ass about the slaves but his motives don't matter to me they needed to be freed.

as far as nothern agression goes, as a southerner I laugh at that, the south attacked first. but it is true a lot of the war if I recall took place in the south, as the south usually did pretty damn good at winning battles on their turf but got their asses handed to them anytime they went up north. (and in the first couple of years or so the south won a large chunk of the battles)

ultimately both sides had major flaws, but as far as human rights is concerned the better side won imo. but funnily enough it was the north who tried claiming the slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person when it came to tallying population. the south wanted them to count fully but admittedly for all the wrong reasons

The initial Confederate states actually seceded from the union over the election of Lincoln (or at the very least they used it as a rallying point to garner support). Most of these states did not even put Lincoln on the ballot. Lincoln won without getting a single electoral college vote from a slave state, and also received less than 40% of the popular vote. Trumps election has nothing on how divisive Lincoln was historically.

yeah I just remember taxes being a major major sore spot with the southerners, but something had to be that "straw that broke the camels back"

how many years was it into the war though before Lincoln freed the slaves? I honestly don't remember but I don't think he did it right away.
---

And the lack of common sense led to Kelly becoming White House Chief of Staff.
---

https://imgur.com/a/oZYsw
---

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

https://imgur.com/a/oZYsw

Has the polling been going on for only seven decades, or is that where the infographic stops because Truman's approval ratings sucked worse?

TheCyborgNinja posted...

America was also getting the best tax rate of the colonies. It was just greed.

There's also the fact that George Washington and Robert Dinwiddie's incompetence basically kicked off the Seven Years War when they attacked a French-Canadian fort at Jumonville, despite the fact that France and Britain were not at war. This forced Britain to significantly increase their military presence in North America in order to stave off the French and wound up nearly bankrupting Britain.

Asking America to help pay for the "damages" that their own military officers had caused isn't exactly the outrage that American historians tend to paint it as.
---

Bump
---

TIL: Christopher Columbus, who never stepped foot on American soil, caused the civil war
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

https://imgur.com/a/oZYsw

Has the polling been going on for only seven decades, or is that where the infographic stops because Truman's approval ratings sucked worse?

Supposedly Truman couldn't run for a second term because he knew he would have lost. Nobody really mentions it but the Korean war was actually much MUCH less popular then Vietnam. So much so that Truman was the only Incumbent president in history to loose the primaries, and did so without wining a single vote.
---

Lokarin posted...

TIL: Christopher Columbus, who never stepped foot on American soil, caused the civil war

The more ya know.
---