- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Apparently, Gen Kelly saying "lack of compromise led to Civil War" is racist
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:00 am to The Spleen
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:00 am to The Spleen
quote:
It's ignorant, at the very least.
Yes, your team relies on ignorance to advance the agenda.
Good lord you people are shameless.
I'm so glad I no longer vote alongside you and your ilk. What a disgrace.
0
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:01 am to The Spleen
quote:
Start with the 3/5 Compromise, then the Missouri Compromise.
I mean "compromise" is right there in their names.
Yes. That's it!!
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:05 am to mmcgrath
quote:
The more people hear about this issue, the more they will be educated on the biggoted and ignorant views that support them. That isn't going to end well for the statues.
Keep believing that, see how it turns out.
Geez, it's like you people learned NOTHING from last Nov. 8th.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:06 am to The Spleen
bullshite
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:06 am to The Maj
quote:
Hasn't that been true for most wars in history?
It certainly could have stopped the American Revolution.
A compromise:
The British let us elect our own govt independent of the crown.
We agree to keep speaking English, use God Save the Queen as our National Anthem, and play soccer instead of baseball.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:07 am to winston318
quote:
What he said was true but can also be said about every other war.
Too much compromise led to WW2.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:12 am to The Spleen
quote:
No it wasn't. There were many compromises in the lead up to the Civil War. Maybe he meant a lack of commitment to prior compromises from either side. That would be accurate. To say there was a lack of compromise couldn't be more wrong.
I think he meant compromise as in avoiding war altogether, which I don't think was possible.
A very interesting but I think somewhat forgotten piece of history was Civil War propaganda. You had mostly people who only knew their state and the threat of outside invaders from the North coming in and changing your way of life. Both Union and Confederate forces used propaganda to further their agenda.
LINK
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:14 am to Zach
quote:
It certainly could have stopped the American Revolution.
Honestly, the only thing it would have taken was being given a voting member in the house of commons. That way, the colonies would have had "representation" when issues of "taxation" were being decided.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:15 am to Godfather1
I keep asking the question to no avail, why wasn't the U.S. looked down upon regarding slavery as much as the CSA was? Seems to me if the Confederate statues bother people, then how come the statues of northern soldiers do not offend them also? Slavery was rampant in the good ole USA pre Civil War. Listening to the anti-statue clowns, slavery didn't begin til 1861.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:16 am to bamarep
quote:ive seen people attack this line also. Do people on the left really believe there were no good and decent people in the south back then?
and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand.”
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:17 am to The Spleen
quote:
There were many compromises in the lead up to the Civil War.
But virtually none in the 10 years leading up to Fort Sumter. The Compromise of 1850 was the last great compromise before hostilities were commenced. Problem was...it was such an abysmal failure that everyone was pretty much radicalized against each other from there on out.
So yes, Kelly is right. It was our failure to compromise in the 5-10 years leading up to the Election of 1860 that brought on the Civil War.
So what if we had compromised from 1787-1850? Those 10 years between 1850-60 had more to do with the outbreak of the war than all those years that came before.
This post was edited on 10/31/17 at 11:19 am
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:19 am to cajunangelle
quote:
They outright disparaged this man and called him an old school racist. Frick them calling everyone and thing that does not fit their warped narrative-- racist.
I think most people would classify me as far left on this board. However, it truly bothers me when anyone calls John Kelly an old school racist, especially without knowing his track record. I'm no fan of Trump's cabinet, but I have MUCH more confidence in Trump, with Kelly by his side.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:21 am to bamarep
It was from a lack of an ability to compromise, and there were good men on both sides. That doesn't mean we aren't better off since the South was fighting to protect their right to have slaves. In that sense, I'm glad there was no compromise. That also doesn't mean how the North treated the South after the War was justified, to be fair.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:22 am to Dignan
quote:
However, it truly bothers me when anyone calls John Kelly an old school racist, especially without knowing his track record.
Thanks for a post with a content of realism.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:29 am to RollTide1987
Mainly when Lincoln was elected he basically said no more compromise. Part of the platform he ran on was that no new states would ever allow slavery.
With westward expansion imminent that meant that new states would all be free states and eventually greatly outnumber the slave states and would control all government.
The south saw the writing on the wall and tried to force compromise to which Lincoln claimed he refused to be blackmailed and refused all compromise to the Republican platform.
With westward expansion imminent that meant that new states would all be free states and eventually greatly outnumber the slave states and would control all government.
The south saw the writing on the wall and tried to force compromise to which Lincoln claimed he refused to be blackmailed and refused all compromise to the Republican platform.
This post was edited on 10/31/17 at 11:30 am
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:35 am to bamarep
quote:
You're arrogance about your stupidity is going to cost you BIGLY!
You racist baw
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:43 am to Pelican fan99
just like when the owner of the Texans said "you can't let the inmates run the prison" obviously he flubbed up the idiom, it's asylum not prison, but it wasn't a racist comment.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 12:04 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Those 10 years between 1850-60 had more to do with the outbreak of the war than all those years that came before.
The Corwin Amendment was in 1861.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 12:04 pm to bamarep
They could have made a deal I guess.
South gets new mechanized farm machinery made in northern factories. In return slavery is phased out with repatriation back to Africa.
It should have at least have been looked at. Better than killing a half million.
South gets new mechanized farm machinery made in northern factories. In return slavery is phased out with repatriation back to Africa.
It should have at least have been looked at. Better than killing a half million.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 12:15 pm to Dead End
quote:
Everything is racist, so nothing is racist. The word is meaningless now.
It's really gotten to the point where I don't even give this word much credence any more. I literally hear it every day.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News