Really... you know what they say about guys with small feetYou know the last thread was getting kind of interesting at the end. For example, we found out that Kut is into tiny feet and toes...
Question. Was the impeachment of Clinton justified? I'm curious of what people think concerning this.
She has long feet, and worse long toes. Not that I'm suggesting she have her feet bound, but she better be tall with those skis. The rest stellar.
Welp, John Kelly isn't going to win any "Historian of the Year" awards.
“the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War.”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...-the-civil-war
As he apparently forgot about these:
-3/5 Compromise
-Missouri Compromise
-Kansas-Nebraska Act
Even with being so ill-informed, you think he'd be tactful enough to avoid the gotcha question that would be sure only to divide more.
Among the many oddities to be found in Donald Trump’s response to the violent neo-Confederate protests in Charlottesville in August was his complaint that protesters who wished to remove the statue of Robert E. Lee at the University of Virginia would not stop until they’d removed statues of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, too.
In a more normal time, it would have been jarring to observe a politician born and raised in New York City place Robert E. Lee, a Virginian who attempted to overthrow the United States government, in the same category as Washington and Jefferson, who’d built that government in the first place.
He went on to argue that “the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War.” It would be tempting to see this as the Trump Administration inching closer to Orwellian Ministry of Truth fabrications about the past, but this mythology predates Trump’s arrival in the White House and remains widespread a century and a half after the end of the war.
One is his tolerance for the idea that someone’s state loyalties could reasonably supersede national ones, though he works in an Administration that is obsessed with the possibility of Muslim citizens placing their religious loyalties above their American ones.
The argument that Lee was moved to take up arms in defense of slavery according to the abstract principle of “states’ rights” is belied by Virginia’s 1861 Ordinance of Secession, which clearly states that its grievance lies with “the Federal Government having perverted [its] powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding states.”
These arguments—prominently, unabashedly presented at the time—are nearly absent from current popular discussion of the South. It is this absence that allows space for people to believe that the men who fought for the Confederacy were “honorable” and warrant the monuments and memorials dedicated to them, both in and beyond the South.
It erases the moral culpability of slaveholders. It excuses contemporary white Americans from feelings of guilt that this nation was nearly torn in half because of a debate over whether black people are human beings.
Southerners, aware that history would judge them for fighting to their last for the right to buy, sell, rape, breed, and exploit human beings, retreated into a fantasy that the war was due to the vagaries of federalism.
Were states’ rights the primary cause of the conflict, the states should have exploded into open warfare following the Supreme Court’s McCulloch v. Maryland decision, which drastically diminished state powers of taxation while increasing those of the federal government.
Trump’s self-declared goal of making America great again is also a marketing campaign to make white people feel good again, even if doing so requires parting company with annoyances like facts, data, evidence, and, currently, the historical record.
The more fundamental point, the one that Trump unwittingly articulated two months ago and Kelly confirmed on Monday night, is that, while April, 1865, marked the end of the war, the end of the hostilities is another matter entirely.