General Kelly and the Civil War

[homersapien 10,152]

Well, my recent doubts about Kelly have been reinforced.  He's just got too much Trump in him. 

This sums up the problem succinctly:

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ta-nehisi-coates-john-kelly_us_59f86880e4b0c0c8e67ca208?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Ta-Nehisi Coates Tears Into John Kelly’s ‘Creationist Theorizing’ On Civil War

“Shocking that someone charged with defending their country, in some profound way, does not comprehend the country they claim to defend.”

[TitanTiger 17,602]

Coates is a talented writer who I nonetheless find to fall into the "when all you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail" kind of guy on race issues.  He literally finds ways to tie anything and everything to race or racism at times to me.

But he's spot on here.  And it's just a basic understanding of history.  Kelly is embarrassing himself.  I'd say he's embarrassing the administration, but that's damn near impossible given all Trump himself has said and done.

[SaltyTiger 6,519]

Had to Google the guy. obviously hates President Trump

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/13/15636276/marvel-black-panther-and-the-crew-cancelled-ta-nehisi-coates

[aujeff11 6,243]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Shocking that someone charged with defending their country, in some profound way, does not comprehend the country they claim to defend.”

He was a great battlefield commander for America. Chief of Staff isn’t for him, but his resume speaks for himself and this goofy remark can’t take away from his defense of America. His left pinky has been more honorable than you ever could be for this country. That will be all. 

 

[homersapien 10,152]

I recommend Ta-Nehisi Coates "Between the World and Me" to anyone who wants to truly understand what being black in this country today is about.  He is a brilliant writer and he writes from a place of truth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/books/review/ta-nehisi-coates-between-the-world-and-me.html

 

 

[TitanTiger 17,602]

11 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

He was a great battlefield commander for America. Chief of Staff isn’t for him, but his resume speaks for himself and this goofy remark can’t take away from his defense of America. His left pinky has been more honorable than you ever could be for this country. That will be all. 

Non sequitur.

[aujeff11 6,243]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Non sequitur.

Hardly. And if this isn’t all you have, thanks for playing.

[TitanTiger 17,602]

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Hardly. And if this isn’t all you have, thanks for playing.

I think you meant, "and if this IS all you have..."

And it's totally non sequitur.  No one questioned his performance as a battlefield commander or his resume.  They questioned his knowledge of American history and his performance as Chief of Staff based on these remarks.

[aujeff11 6,243]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And it's totally non sequitur.  No one questioned his performance as a battlefield commander or his resume. 

 

Thanks for doing autocorrect’s job, big guy. When I’m multitasking and using my phone, the message can end up distorted. 

Many of the left questioned his honor to America and whether he was a defender of the country that “he claimed to defend” based on an opinion advanced in a totally different profession. Who are you to say that “no one” questioned it? Have you talked to everybody on this God-given green earth and obtained their opinion of him? I wouldn’t put it past you, but why talk in absolutes other than to knowingly mislead? 

[TitanTiger 17,602]

9 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Many of the left questioned his honor to America and whether he was a defender of the country that “he claimed to defend” based on an opinion advanced in a totally different profession. Who are you to say that “no one” questioned it? Have you talked to everybody on this God-given green earth and obtained their opinion of him? I wouldn’t put it past you, but why talk in absolutes other than to knowingly mislead? 

No, I'm talking about this thread as any normal, reasonable person would deduce.  Particularly the person who's post you quoted to make your out of left field non sequitur.  

[aujeff11 6,243]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No, I'm talking about this thread as any normal, reasonable person would deduce. 

Oh. So the significance of “no one”  is now suddenly to reduced to a few posts on this thread.

Weasel gonna weasel. 

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Particularly the person who's post you quoted to make your out of left field non sequitur.  

You cannot even show the non-sequitur, stop. 

[TitanTiger 17,602]

4 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Oh. So the significance of “no one”  is now suddenly to reduced to a few posts on this thread.

Weasel gonna weasel. 

Great.  Now, just for Jeff, I need to specify that "no one in this discussion/on this forum/in this thread" is who I mean when I say "no one" in the context of a thread and specific post that he quotes.  Thanks, Rainman.  You're the only one in the history of message boards that somehow thinks that means every single person about of 7 billion people on Planet Earth and possibly lifeforms in other galaxies.

Wait..."only one" would have to mean I've read all other message boards in the world and have discovered this for a fact.  Do I need to specify this also?

 

Quote

You cannot even show the non-sequitur, stop. 

I did.  Your argument about his battlefield service and his resume does not follow from anything anyone was talking about, much less the post you quoted to say it.

[aujeff11 6,243]

14 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You're the only one in the history of message boards that somehow thinks that means every single person about of 7 billion people on Planet Earth and possibly lifeforms in other galaxies.

When you say no one, I accept your words at face value. 

 

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

did.  Your argument about his battlefield service and his resume does not follow from anything anyone was talking about, much less the post you quoted to say it.

You didn’t. And really, the glamorization of the few tweets by this so called writer is hilarious. Show me where or why the General needed to be schooled? From one General to another, he probably thought Lee was honorable. The Union thought he was honorable after the war. Many military leaders did after the war. 

[TitanTiger 17,602]

15 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

When you say no one, I accept your words at face value. 

Ok, for future reference, when you are active in a thread and you quote a particular person and I say "no one," unless I explicitly make the grandiose claim to have full knowledge of all discussions everywhere in the known universe, I mean "no one in this discussion/forum."  Glad we could clear that up for you.

 

Quote

You didn’t.

Then you, frankly, don't understand what a non sequitur is.

 

Quote

And really, the glamorization of the few tweets by this so called writer is hilarious. Show me where or why the General needed to be schooled? From one General to another, he probably thought Lee was honorable. The Union thought he was honorable after the war. Many military leaders did after the war. 

Well, this was about more than just General Lee, it was about the obliviousness to history in saying the Civil War happened because they couldn't compromise, when everything about the issues leading to the Civil War had been a series of compromises, as was pointed out.  You could take the "Lee being honorable" issue off the table completely and Kelly is still wrong and needs to educate himself on Civil War and related American history.

[AUDub 10,145]

[aujeff11 6,243]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Then you, frankly, don't understand what a non sequitur is.

 

And you frankly, have no room to talk

 

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Ok, for future reference, when you are active in a thread and you quote a particular person and I say "no one,"

 Or you can just be more clear next time.

 

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, this was about more than just General Lee, it was about the obliviousness to history in saying the Civil War happened because they couldn't compromise, when everything about the issues leading to the Civil War had been a series of compromises, as was pointed out

War would’nt have ever started if there was compromise. General Kelly wasn’t wrong. 

[TitanTiger 17,602]

[aujeff11 6,243]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

?Glad we got that cleared up. 

[TitanTiger 17,602]

23 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

At some point you just have to opt out. 

[SaltyTiger 6,519]

34 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

 

47 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Then you, frankly, don't understand what a non sequitur is.

 

And you frankly, have no room to talk

 

47 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Ok, for future reference, when you are active in a thread and you quote a particular person and I say "no one,"

 Or you can just be more clear next time.

 

47 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, this was about more than just General Lee, it was about the obliviousness to history in saying the Civil War happened because they couldn't compromise, when everything about the issues leading to the Civil War had been a series of compromises, as was pointed out

War would’nt have ever started if there was compromise. General Kelly wasn’t wrong. 

 

He did say "lack of ability"

[aujeff11 6,243]

And just to bring up one of his talking points, the 3/5ths compromise had zero to do with the moral issue of slavery,  or the idea that a black man is 3/5ths a white man and had everything to with representation and tax purposes.

The compromise is an eyesore in American lore, but the compromise was literally the only way the new Constituion could get the necessary number of states to ratify and to get rid of the weak and pathetic Articles of Confederation. Practicality over idealism. Tse can claim that our country is founded upon slavery, but without the 3/5ths compromises, there is no evidence that this country would be what it is today without it. Like Thomas Jefferson said, slavery was like holding a wolf by his ears, couldn’t let it go without it killing you, and couldn’t hold onto it without it killing you. If it was that easy to get rid of slavery, Congress most surely would have done so in 1808 when the Congress finally had the power to prohibit the importation of more slaves. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

4 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

He did say "lack of ability"

Yep. Can’t compromise when states were already seceding. Which, IMO, is the real reason why states went to war.

[ArgoEagle 1,465]

A tribute to ICHY

You can take a break from face palms for a little bit. This will take care of the next 10 for you.

[aujeff11 6,243]

10 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

And just to bring up one of his talking points, the 3/5ths compromise had zero to do with the moral issue of slavery,  or the idea that a black man is 3/5ths a white man and had everything to with representation and tax purposes.

The compromise is an eyesore in American lore, but the compromise was literally the only way the new Constituion could get the necessary number of states to ratify and to get rid of the weak and pathetic Articles of Confederation. Practicality over idealism. Tse can claim that our country is founded upon slavery, but without the 3/5ths compromises, there is no evidence that this country would be what it is today without it. Like Thomas Jefferson said, slavery was like holding a wolf by his ears, couldn’t let it go without it killing you, and couldn’t hold onto it without it killing you. If it was that easy to get rid of slavery, Congress most surely would have done so in 1808 when the Congress finally had the power to prohibit the importation of more slaves. 

To keep going, sometimes I think we need to view this peculiar time period in context of the 19th century social norms, not 21st century norms. It was a completely different world back then and it’s not fair to judge them by today’s standards. Overseas, I experienced culture shock seeing an Afghan policeman slap a woman for not covering her face. That was surreal to me. In two hundred years, their behaviors may eventually dawn on them that they were in the wrong, but until then, their behavior is as normal as squatting beside the road, and wiping with their left hand. Heck, unless I misread, having whipping boys is culturally fine to some as well. 

Although  Lee and Stonewall Jackson held backwards views, both weren’t exactly slavery defenders. They didn’t go out of their way to limit slavery, but both did seem to try and raise the position of their slaves. Is it not true that Stonewall Jackson would send money home during the war just to make sure the white and black kids learned how to read and were given bible school? Is it fair to wash out their circumstance and histories in favor of appearing PC? The present circumstances are not so extravagant that we must be wary of possibly finding any good or redeemable qualities in the Condederate soldiers. We are not tasked with ensuring the protection of the integrity of mankind, after all. Is it so important that we refuse to realize (ignore) that many of the Confeferate soldiers that risked their lives are automatically considered a disgrace even though many (if not most of them) didn’t own slaves?  We don’t have to absolve the war, defend slavery, or give Lee an official holiday, but damn, it would be nice if the history books could go back to giving the facts, and not have to worry about offending others. Knowing that imprisonment, torture, and slavery was the result of the times doesn’t make the pill any easier to swallow, but it provides a basis for understanding without demonizing the inhabitants within. 

Yes, I think Lee was just as honorable as the rotation of Union Generals that were constantly fired on the job for being incompetent, and it’s a shame that his legacy is still being skewed and cherry-picked 200 years after the fact over the sins of the land back in the day. After all, his confederate qualities didn’t make him a great General. He was Superintendent of Westpoint before he decided to join the state of Virginia cause. Maybe one of these days ESPN won’t have to call off an Asian basketball reporter from calling a game just because his name so happens to be the same name of a Confederate General almost two hundred years ago. Just maybe, someday the people will have enough gonads to appreciate the historical perspective of the past not only for the finite knowledge that it provides, but also for the teachable experience and precedent that luminates the path going forward.

Slap yourself, Itchy

[Mims44 1,546]

The "failure to compromise" would have been on the states that seceded, not the union. They basically started the process of leaving the second Lincoln won the election.

 

The 2nd thing, calling Lee honorable is being a bit nit-picky. tons of enemy generals to America have been seen as honorable. I feel like that was kinda thrown in at the end of the article because the writer handled the "fail to compromise" bit and wanted to lengthen stuff out a bit more.