In a Fox News interview which aired yesterday, White House Chief of Staff, General John Kelly, made several inflammatory (and incorrect) statements about the Civil War. For starters, Gen. Kelly claimed, "Robert E. Lee was an honorable man, he was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state which 150 years ago was more important than country...."
Kelly also argued, "The lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand with their conscience, had them make their stand [sic]."
Finally, in response to Laura Ingraham saying, "They're going to be pulling down the Washington Monument at some point! What are they going to rename it?", Kelly suggested we name it after "some cult hero" like "Andy Warhol."
There's so much wrong with all of this that it's hard to know exactly where to start. So let's start here: the White House Chief of Staff- a person in an enormous position of power and influence in the United States- does not appear to think the Civil War was worth fighting and openly praises a person for giving up his country and actively fighting against it. That's not just irresponsible, it's anti-American.
With that fact being said, Gen. Kelly apparently also has no grasp of history. This point takes a bit longer to unpack.
The Civil War did not occur because of a failure to compromise. In fact, one could argue the Civil War occurred precisely because of compromise which made a war ultimately unavoidable.
The United States very nearly fell apart before it even got going. The original thirteen colonies declared independence from England in 1776 and quickly thereafter had to begin the difficult process of forming a government. It took a bit more than a year before the Articles of Confederation came into force and not much longer to realize the new structure was a failure. States had far too much power and authority relative to the federal government and the system was unworkable long-term. So, in 1787, once again the states set out to determine the best path forwards. While the stated purpose of the convention was to amend the Articles of Confederation, several influential delegates, like Madison and Hamilton, believed an entirely new document was required and in the end their views prevailed and the Constitutional Convention began the difficult task of drafting a Constitution.
Slavery immediately became a key concern for all involved in the process. The issue was highly contentious on several fronts. Should slaves be counted as persons when determining the population of a state (and therefore the number of representatives to Congress which are apportioned to each state)? Should slaves be counted as persons if the government were to assess taxes to the states on the basis of their respective populations? Should the US allow states to participate in the international slave trade? Should slavery be legal at all?
These contentious issues were deferred until late in the process to allow progress on other difficult points. However, it was clear from the outset that without slavery, there would be no union. The Southern states would not join a compact which outlawed slavery. And so, the North and South compromised.
Slavery would be allowed. Congress would have no power to regulate or ban the international slave trade for 20 years after ratification of the Constitution. Slaves would be counted for purposes of representation and tax allocation as 3/5 of a person. Slaves could not vote.
These compromises had a dramatic effect on the nation up to the Civil War- in particular the 3/5 compromise. Consider that in 1790, Virginia had about 690,000 people of whom about 290,000 were slaves (for a total free population of about 400,000). Pennsylvania, on the other hand, had about 435,000 people of whom less than 5,000 were slaves (for a total free population of about 430,000). If slaves were not counted at all in apportioning representatives to Congress, Virginia would have had fewer congressional delegates than Pennsylvania. Additionally, because the electoral college gives votes to states based off of how many senators that state has (always two) plus the number of congressional representatives elected by that state, Pennsylvania would have had more influence in the electoral college than Virginia. If, however, you count slaves as 3/5 of a person AND you don't allow slaves to vote, then the remaining free population gets a 3/5 boost to their voting power in the electoral college and in Congress for every slave they own. The outcome of this compromise, as one would guess, was a lot of Southerners won the presidency before the Civil War.
In fact, from 1790-1861 (when the Civil War began), the United States elected fifteen presidents. Of those, only six came from Northern states, and three of those six were elected as the last three presidents before the Civil War began (Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan). Eight of the first ten presidents of the United States came from the South (only John Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams, came from the North). The electoral college was badly slanted against the North from the beginning.
Correspondingly, the South also was given more seats in Congress each year prior to the Civil War. In 1790, for example, if slaves had not been counted in determining the number of representatives given to a state, the Southern states would have held 33 seats in the House of Representative. Because of the 3/5 compromise, however, they instead held 47 seats- a 42% "bonus" for having owned slaves and nearly a 2/3 majority of the 64 member House of Representatives.
With the extra votes provided in the House of Representatives from the 3/5 compromise, and with the additional power to elect the president, the Southern states were then able to enact many repugnant laws to further entrench the institution of slavery in the United States, including the the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 (signed into law by Pierce, a Northerner, but one who opposed infringing on Southern states' rights).
Finally, because the president nominates Supreme Court and lower court justices, and because the president was highly likely to come from the South, most Supreme Court and lower court justices were nominated by a Southern president before the Civil War (increasing the odds that the justice would be pro-slavery). Of the 34 Supreme Court justices appointed before 1861, only 9 were nominated by a Northern president. This led to truly grotesque court decisions, such as Dred Scott.
The North's population grew more rapidly than that of the South leading up to the Civil War, and that translated into additional seats in Congress and votes in the electoral college (and contributed to three consecutive Northern presidents being elected in the years leading up to the Civil War). The nation was reaching a point where it was clear that the old compromises which may have been necessary to allow the country to form now needed to be ended or the nation would cease to exist. Abraham Lincoln was elected during this point of crisis knowing, as he famously proclaimed in a speech in 1858, that "A house divided against itself cannot stand... [T]his government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free."
Before Lincoln even took office, the first state, South Carolina, seceded. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas all followed South Carolina's lead and seceded before Lincoln's March 4, 1861, inauguration. Shortly thereafter, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee would join them. While modern day apologists want to make the secessionist states' concerns about states' rights rather than slavery, the Civil War was always about slavery. South Carolina's Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union was all about slavery. To the extent South Carolina seceded over "states' rights," it was only to the extent that its "right" to hold slaves was being questioned.
So now we arrive at the Civil War. Here, after all this history, after multiple compromises, after the blood spilled by millions of slaves, after reaching a point where slavery was going to destroy the union, Gen. Kelly boldly proclaims that more compromise was needed. Well then.
One wonders what compromise, precisely, General Kelly thinks would have been successful. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was designed to limit the expansion of slavery to states falling below the 36° 30' line. That effort at compromise failed and yet another compromise was extended in the Kansas-Nebraska Act which repealed the Missouri Compromise and allowed slavery to expand north of the line into Kansas and Nebraska if the people elected to have it. Efforts were underway to buy or conquer Cuba and turn it into two new slave states (giving the South control over the Senate and yet more representation in the House and electoral college). Was that "compromise" required? Did the United States have to agree that anytime the Southern states lost representation in the House due to population growth in the North, a new slave state would have to be admitted?
Slavery was a cancer on the United States. It was a disease with a 100% mortality rate. The United States had to cut it out, through the most painful means necessary, if it was going to survive in any form. And cut it out we did.
If General Kelly cannot see the Civil War for what it is- a righteous war necessitated by the evil institution of slavery- then one wonders under what circumstances General Kelly would think war is necessary. Was World War II appropriate, or should Churchill have simply followed the path of compromise offered by Chamberlain at all costs?
War is ugly. War should be avoided where possible. But sometimes, avoiding war is not possible. I cannot think of any clearer examples of this fact than the Civil War and WWII and it's precisely because both wars share a common theme- the grotesque oppression of people by tyrants and the need of any group which considers itself civilized to stop such tyranny.
It's also shocking to hear Gen. Kelly flatly proclaim that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. And not just for any reason- for a very specific one! For the reason of having turned on his own country to fight for his state in its defense of slavery. That isn't "honorable." That is treason in defense of an indefensible institution.
I can understand and agree that we cannot apply today's standards when judging the actions of those who lived long ago. However, that cannot mean that we must therefore accept everything which was done a long time ago as having a morally strong foundation. A majority of the people in 1861 did not view Robert E. Lee's actions as "honorable." They did not consider slavery to be acceptable. They went to war over the issue and gave their blood and lives to decree for all future generations that slavery is evil and cannot be tolerated. And today, we live on the heritage that they built.
This is not to suggest that anyone who fought for the South, or anyone who today celebrates the history of the South, is a bad person or has no honor. Again- we must always be careful when judging the actions of those who lived long ago and the South has a lot of history and culture worth celebrating. It may very well be that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man in the context of his entire life. I haven't studied his life well enough to know. But my issue with Kelly's comments is that he ascribes "honor" to a specific act by Robert E. Lee- that of turning on his country to fight for his state's right to hold slaves. That specific act was not honorable. Not by today's standards and not by the standards of 1861.
It's completely appropriate for people to celebrate their Southern heritage. We all grow up in certain cultures and environments and have a fundamental need to celebrate who we are and where we came from. It is not appropriate for people to celebrate Southern heritage if what they mean is "slavery."
This point gets to the heart of the monuments issue to which Laura Ingraham referred in her interview with Kelly. Should we tear down the Washington Monument because he was a slave owner? Of course not. That's absurd. The Washington Monument celebrates the life of General George Washington, and his life is worthy of celebration. He bravely led the United States military in our fight for independence. He served as the President of the Constitutional Convention. He served as our first president and then nobly stepped down and transferred power to a newly elected president (not someone he chose) when many others would have become a king instead. And he owned slaves. The monument does not commemorate him because he owned slaves. If it did, I'd favor tearing it down. It commemorates his amazing life, without which we may not have a country today.
Are there monuments to other Southerners which celebrate their life for reasons unrelated to slavery or some other evil? Obviously, there are. But there are many which were erected solely to intimidate and harass blacks in America and those have no business existing. It may not always be easy to understand the real reasons for which monuments were erected, but it should be easy for all of us to agree that monuments which were erected to harass and intimidate blacks have no place in our society. It should also be easy to understand that removing such monuments has nothing to do with others which celebrate imperfect people for good reasons.
General Kelly showed a complete ignorance of history with his comments. He praised a man for the least praiseworthy part of that man's life. He suggested that we can't take down any monuments unless we take them all down and in the process showed just how shallowly he has considered this question. Many hoped Gen. Kelly would temper the worst characteristics of President Trump and help guide Trump towards a better path. Now one must wonder if he isn't making things worse.
If you like this, please check us out at www.separatepowers.com! Thanks