Trump CoS John Kelly says Robert E Lee was an “honorable man”

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rogifan, Oct 31, 2017.

  1. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    It makes no sense to me why the White House keeps going back to this and painting people who fought for the confederacy as honorable. Pretty soon Kelly or Huckabee Sanders will be out there saying the civil war wasn’t about slavery it was about states rights. Heck Kelly basically said it here.

     
  2. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #2
    You're not real familiar with Robert E. Lee are you ?

    Before joining the confederacy he was a distinguished officer in the Army who fought alongside Grant.

    You can't paint a broad stroke across the south during those times.

    In my grandfather's state of Tennessee they were split down the middle during the civil war.
     
  3. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #3
    Wrong now, wrong then, and the “state rights” they fought for were the right to buy, sell and trade other humans as property.
     
  4. mac_in_tosh macrumors 6502

    mac_in_tosh

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Location:
    Earth
    #4
    Just like Kelly is honorable? He still hasn't apologized for smearing Congresswoman Wilson with a story that in no way represented the speech she made at the dedication of an FBI building.
     
  5. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502a

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #5

    He fought in the army of a bunch of states that unconstitutional seceded from the US over the issue that the newly elected POTUS might push for an end to the practice of trading humans as chattel.

    Don't think very much else needs to be known.
     
  6. VulchR, Oct 31, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017

    VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #6
    Any yet 'honourable' Lee failed to free slaves he inherited as per the will that granted him ownership of those slaves. Being a professional solider is necessary but not sufficient for a general to have honour. There is such a thing as fighting on the wrong side and fighting for the wrong principles. I grew up in Northern Virginia and there are stills scars from the fighting there. The sooner we stop romanticising the Civil War the better. One side was wrong, and the other side was less wrong.

    EDIT: 'scars', not 'cars' :oops:
     
  7. poloponies Suspended

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #7
    And you really need to see Kelly's comments in context. He appears to be bent out of shape at the "revisionist" views of history we have today.:

    “I think we make a mistake, though, and as a society and certainly as individuals, when we take what is today accepted as right and wrong and go back 100, 200, 300 years or more and say what those, you know, what Christopher Columbus did was wrong,” Kelly said. “You know, 500 years later, it’s inconceivable to me that you would take what we think now and apply it back then.”

    Basically his opinion is that European attitudes on conquering native races and Confederate views of slavery should be respected rather than judged through the filter of history. In short, the white perspective is the right perspective.

    He's a pretty ***** empty barrel.
     
  8. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #8
    Remember when we thought General Kelly was a moderating and force for good in the White House? Good times.
     
  9. Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #9
    I don’t understand why the White House wants to get into relitigating the civil war. Why are they even talking about it? All they have to say is whether statues stay up or come down is a state by state issue and the WH does not wish to get involved. And as far as Christopher Columbus? The White House doesn’t have to comment on every liberal nut job out there protesting something.
     
  10. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #10
    I'm not saying Lee was a pinnacle of politically correctness civil war version.

    Just that Kelly was probably looking at Lee from the perspective of a life long military man.

    And by the way. Even though Jefferson advocated freeing slaves his ideas were not very nice.

    In his writings on American grievances justifying the Revolution, he attacked the British for sponsoring the slave trade to the colonies. In 1778, with Jefferson's leadership, slave importation was banned in Virginia, one of the first jurisdictions worldwide to do so. Jefferson was a lifelong advocate of ending the trade and as president led the effort to criminalize the international slave trade that passed Congress and he signed in 1807, shortly before Britain passed a similar law.[6]

    Here's how he wanted to do it. Treat the slaves as assets.

    In 1779, as a practical solution to end slavery, Jefferson supported gradual emancipation, training, and colonization of African-American slaves rather than unconditional manumission, believing that releasing unprepared slaves with no place to go and no means to support themselves would only bring them misfortune. In 1784, Jefferson proposed federal legislation banning slavery in the New Territories of the North and South after 1800, which failed to pass Congress by one vote.[7][8] In his Notes on the State of Virginia, published in 1785, Jefferson expressed the beliefs that slavery corrupted both masters and slaves alike, supported colonization of freed slaves, suspected that African-Americans were inferior in intelligence, and that emancipating large numbers of slaves made slave uprisings more likely.[9] In 1794 and 1796, Jefferson manumitted by deed two of his male slaves; they had been trained and were qualified to hold employment.

    Jefferson was a politician. Lee was a military man.
     
  11. poloponies Suspended

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #11
    Apparently he still wants us to judge him for his pre-Trump days and not for the tool that he has become. He's getting a very quick education in how easily a lifetime of service can be tarnished or overshadowed by bad judgment, however brief.
     
  12. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502a

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #12
    That just adds further proof as to why having military men in government functions is a bad idea.....
     
  13. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #13
    Lee was a honorable man. A product of his times which found himself in a bad spot.

    “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.“
     
  14. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #14
    Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Kelly but.

    Dwight D. Eisenhower was President.
     
  15. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502a

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #15
    One good apple in a truckload of rotten ones....
     
  16. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #16
    Much more needs to be known. It is easy for you to judge in a time which is ruled by a more centralized government. At the time of the civil war most people felt more citizens of their own state rather than the federal government (that’s why the XIV Amendment was necessary after the war).
    While I might argue and agree that it’s not constitutional to secede (although the Declaration Of Independence makes it clear that legitimacy depends on the consent of the government), at the same time it is impossible to forget that back then the situation was much different and the US was at the same level, if not lower, than the States.
     
  17. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17

    Yes, a lovely fellow. :rolleyes:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/
    --- Post Merged, Oct 31, 2017 ---
    Please, please, please, one more story before bed. Tell us some more revisionist history, Dad.
     
  18. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #18
    No. He was not lovely. I am not a fan of Lee, not at all. However I can’t forget that he was living in a time which is very different than ours. Franklin and Jefferson weren’t lovely either.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 31, 2017 ---
    Where would the revision be? If you don’t know history don’t call other people revisionists please. I can’t stand revisionism.
     
  19. bopajuice Suspended

    bopajuice

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Location:
    Dark side of the moon
    #19
    The bigger issue is supporting confederate heroes, monuments, and flags in any way related to maintaining core voters?
     
  20. poloponies Suspended

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #20
    Looking at Lee from the modern perspective, where we can recognize that all men (and women) are truly created equal, is not revisionist. Justifying attitudes at a time when people of color were regarded as property and lacked basic freedoms shows a willful ignorance, especially when there were many honorable people in the North willing to view Lee's (and other Southerner's) views in the proper perspective. Lee's honor to racism and subordination of "lesser" races can never be defined as honorable.
     
  21. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #21
    I don’t justify slavery, or racism, or discrimination.
    However I can’t point the finger to a guy who lived embedded in a culture and applied the values of such culture, especially if the same guy had several positive traits and even the audacity to think that something in that culture was wrong.
    In other words, I can blame the confederacy in general on a macro level, and I can blame some of the most extreme proponents of confederate values. At a micro level I can’t blame one of the most moderate individuals - remember he was also a military man and he did his job - for being part of a much larger culture and applying some of its values.
    Same goes for the Romans, the Maya’s etc
     
  22. poloponies Suspended

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #22
    Like I said, it's not revisionist when enlightened people knew it was wrong at the time. Warren Jeffs and his fundamentalist Mormons grew up in a culture of child rape and perpetuated it. You can't shroud yourself in faith and honor and "heritage" when it violates basic human rights.
     
  23. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #23
    My take on this is that we're not viewing Lee from the 1860's. We're viewing him from 2017, and by our current standards we can only admit that slavery was wrong and anybody who fought to preserve it was wrong. So I think Kelly is mistaken, it's not that we shouldn't use our current values to judge our history, it's that we must use our current values to judge history. Nothing else makes sense. FWIW I don't think we should be glorifying Sherman (intentionally conducting warfare against non-combatant property, which now would be considered a war crime) or Grant (corrupt drunkard, albeit he had some redeeming qualities).
     
  24. duffman9000 macrumors 68000

    duffman9000

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Deep in the Depths of CA
    #24
    There were people back then that also thought slavery was wrong. Kelly really blew up whatever credibility he had left with his "compromise" remark.
     
  25. Mousse macrumors 68020

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #25
    Honest Abe wanted Lee to command the US Army, but he was loyal to Virginia. If Virginia had decided to stay in the Union, he would have lead the Union Army. He didn't fight for the Confederacy. He didn't fight for slavery. He fought for Virginia. There's a huge difference.
    After the war, he opposed to having Confederate memorials built. And before the war, in a letter to his son, he secretly opposed the states seceding from the Union.
     

Share This Page

122 October 31, 2017