Tuesday, November 28, 2017

A Strange Season

It's a strange holiday season.  Auburn is again playing for the SEC Championship next Saturday.  There's a hot Senate race in Alabama.  These days are filled with excitement.

Monday, November 27, 2017

For Christmas

All I want is to find out that the last year has been an illusion and that Trump is not president.  Doubt if I will get my wish.

Saturday, November 25, 2017

The 2017 Alabama Game

It's here, the game expected to be the biggest since 2013.  Alabama is 11 and 0; Auburn is 9 and 2.  The winner plays in Atlanta with a chance to be in the final four.  Alabama is a 4 point favorite which is about what it was in 2013.  My biggest question going in: can our offense be consistent enough to help the defense?  That means being able to run the football and pass well enough to be balanced.

FIRST QUARTER

After the teams swap possessions the Tigers drive 94 yards to take lead.
On third and two from the three KJ hits  Nate Craig-Myers on a TimTebow pop pass for the score.
Great play.  Great play call.

Auburn 7  Alabama 0

Alabama gets the benefit of an interference call and pushes on to the Auburn 43.
A chop block backs them up.
Hurts fumbles and Tre Williams recovers!!!

Auburn on the Alabama 44 first and 10.
First down to the 19.
First down to the 6.
Kerryon Johnson to the four.
We move to the third and goal from the four.
Stidham drops the snap and Alabama recovers on the 9.  Oh,my.
The quarter ends on a downer.
Stidham drops the snap and can't  pick it up.  Looks like he tried to pick it up rather than fall on it.
Bad, bad, bad in a game like this.
We miss a golden opportunity to go up early by two scores.
Maybe Stidham can redeem himself later.

SECOND QUARTER

The second period starts with Alabama first and 10 on their nine yard line.
This will be a four quarter game.
The Tide goes three and out .  Yes!
Alabama gets a big bounce on the punt and we start on our 22.
Roberts should have fielded that punt.
Their punter has been their biggest asset so far.

Auburn goes three and out.
Alabama had a good rush on Stidham that time.
We are hurt by Roberts not fielding that punt.
Alabama takes the ball on their 40 with the clock just under 12 minutes.

Alabama to the AU 48.
Hurts is a good runner.
He is most of their offense carrying the ball on keepers.
The possession goes to 4th and 1.
Hurts runs for the first down.  He is their offense.
Alabama on the Auburn 36.
First down TD pass.  Our defender got turned around and their receiver catches the ball in the end zone.  It was almost a hail Mary and our defender lost the ball.
8:31 to go and we are tied.

Auburn 7  Alabama 7

We've had the Stidham fumble inside their 5 and an offensive play by Alabama and we are tied.
A bad go by Dinson in the end zone on that TD pass.
Auburn starts on the 23.
KJ for only one.
First down pass to Davis to the 34.
First down run by KJ.
Gain of 7 by KJ.
First down run to the Alabama 45.
But there is a 4 yard loss by Malik Willis on a keeper.
AU moves to third and 12 just across midfield.
Auburn has to punt on 4th and 9.  The Willis play put us behind the chains.
The punt is downed at the Alabama two!  A good punt for once.
The Tide goes three and out and is punting from their seven.
Roberts fair catches at the UA 49.

KJ for four yards.
On a pass downfield Slayton is pushed down but there is no interference call.
Big time pass completion to the UA 22.
We move to third and eight from the 20.
Timeout with 48 seconds left.
A completion but only to the 16.
Timeout UA with five seconds left as Auburn lines up for the field goal attempt.
The 34 harder is good as the half ends.  Auburn leads at the half.

Auburn 10  Alabama 7

THIRD QUARTER

Alabama receives and drives right down the field unimpeded by our defense all on the ground except for one short swing pass.
That was ugly.  What happened to our run defense on that series?  They ran thru gaping holes.  Goodness!  That was power running 79 yards right down the field.

Auburn 10  Alabama 14

AU starts around their 21 or 22.
This is a big point in the game.
If they stop this possession we could be in trouble.
We move to third and three.
There is a 21 yard completion to Hastings.
There is an incompletion to Slayton and once again no interference call.
We get a five yard substitution penalty though.
First down to the UA 45.
There is a 15 yard PF on Alabama.
The ball moves to the UA 29.
We move to third and 8 at the Alabama 27.
Alabama is getting pressure on our QB.
We move to a field goal attempt.
The kick is good!  At least we answered with three.

Auburn 13  Alabama 14

Alabama is three and out after a great open field tackle by Stephen Roberts.
Auburn starts on their 31,
We move to third and five.
There is a completion to Ryan Davis to the UA 41.
We move to third and seven.  They are getting too much pressure on Stidham.
Stidham scrambles for the first down to the UA 27.
Stidham scrambles to the Tide 12 on a quarterback draw.
KJ is close to the 10.  We keep running Johnson between the tackles without much success.
Stove sweeps to the three and a third and one.
KJ runs to the one and a first down.
KJ up the gut for the score!
THAT was a statement drive.  Auburn is in this game to the end.
KJ is one tough running back.  He may have been nicked up on that last drive because he will lower his head and push.  That was a big drive.
The Tigers have scored ten straight points after Alabama's opening touchdown.

Auburn 20  Alabama 14

On the kickoff we give up another long return.
Alabama sets up at our 39. Yikes!
Alabama backs up five on procedure.
Dad gum that kickoff return burns me.
Davis is called on interference when they did NOT call similar plays on them.
There's another unfortunate event.  There was interference on Auburn but they did not call the same play on Alabama.
Alabama moves to third and 4 from our 13.
There is a deflected pass in the end zone ruled caught by Alabama and ruled a TD but the point of the ball was on the ground.  The play is reviewed and correctly ruled an incomplete pass.  Their QB threw it up for grabs.  Alabama was lucky on that play.
The FG attempt is no good as the holder cannot handle a good snap!
AU starts at the 26.

The quarter ends as Auburn picks up a first down at the 36 on another completion to Ryan Davis.
Can Auburn win this game over the last 15 minutes?

FOURTH QUARTER

This will be a 4 quarter game, but we knew that going in.
The Tigers drive impressibly for the touchdown.
I'm so nervous I can list every play.
Stidham scrambles for the score around left end.
The Tigers go for two on the point after.
The try is no good. The play didn't work.  Auburn still leads by 12.  Still a worthwhile effort.

Auburn 26  Alabama 14

Still early in the fourth quarter.  Plenty of time left.
Let's not give a big KO return please.
The kickoff goes out of the end zone thank goodness.
12:49 left.
From the 25 Alabama moves across the Auburn 40.
Alabama moves to third and 8.
Hurts runs for the first down to the AU 39.
Their QB is hard to contain.
UA is at the Auburn 33 on the next play.
We move to third and five.
There is a bad snap and a loss.
Here comes a big fourth down.
THERE IS ANOTHER BAD SNAP BACK AT THE ALABAMA 41 AS HURTS CAN DO NOTHING BUT FALL ON THE BALL!
THE CROWD AND THE PRESSURE GETS TO THE TIDE!
I LOVE IT!!!
The play is reviewed because there was an illegal snap as Auburn was getting players off the field.
Alabama could get the ball back with a 5 yard penalty for an illegal snap.
Alabama players were moving as the snap was made and Auburn was running players off the field.
They penalize Auburn even though Alabama had players moving.
Alabama gets another chance with a 4th and 4.
Alabama gets away with a snap with players moving.
AUBURN HAD 12 PLAYERS ON THE FIELD BUT THEY SNAP THE BALL WITH PLAYERS MOVING.
AUBURN GETS THE STOP!

Auburn regains possession at our 34.
We move quickly to a third and 4.
Stove is topped just barely for a yard gain.
Auburn is punting.
Alabama is offsides on the punt.
First down Auburn!
Alabama is making mistakes all over the field.
On the first down KJ goes down.  He is hurt.  He planted and went back left.
Timeout with 6:21 to go Auburn facing second and long.
KJ will go out not likely to return.  No more KJ between the tackles.  We still need to run the ball.
KJ does walk off the field under his own power however gingerly.
Second and 15.
Kam Martin runs to midfield and is slow getting up.
Now they are having to look at Kam Martin as he stays down.   Goodness!  Our running backs are dropping as we try to win this game.
We move to third down.  A first down would be awesome.
Auburn is punting from midfield with 5:40 remaining.  Stidham almost made the first down but there was a shoestring tackle to keep him short.  That might have been the play of the game so far.
It's going to be up to the Auburn defense the rest of the way.
Alabama fair catches the punt at their 16.

Hurts runs for 9 out of bounds.
First down at the 5:12 mark.
To the AU 31.
4:57 to go.
We move to third and seven.
Keep an eye on Calvin Ridley.
Hurts runs just enough for the first down.
Second and seven.
There's a pass to Ridley to the AU 30.
The clock runs close to the 3 minute mark.
False start on Alabama with 3:15 left.
Second and 15.
Hurts is sacked for a loss of 7.
Third and long and Alabama takes their last timeout.
Hurts has problems when Ridley is not there.
Third and very long.
Two more plays and this game will be on ice.
Third and 22 for Alabama from the Auburn 42.
Pass incomplete.
4th and 22.  This is the game right here.
Pass incomplete and Hurts was past the line of scrimmage !

Auburn takes the ball and Alabama cannot stop the clock.
Auburn runs the clock down to 14 seconds and calls timeout on 4th down and 12.
Auburn will punt with 14 seconds left and a 12 point lead.
The punt goes out of bounds with 8 seconds left.
The game ends after one long Alabama pass.

The Tigers win the West.  The Tigers earn another match with Georgia.
The Tigers rip Alabama.  How wonderful it is!!!
Saban has never beat an Auburn team with at least 9 wins.
















Thursday, November 23, 2017

Happy Thanksgiving

Like James Taylor I've seen fire, and I've seen rain, but I've never seen the country the way it is today. Yet I am thankful for the country I live in. We have so much to be thankful for, yet we are so divided. Perhaps the division is necessary to decide what kind of country we want to live in.

Don't Believe Trump


After granting pardons to two turkeys for Thanksgiving, President Trump proceeded to “pardon” Roy Moore. Mr. Trump defended the Senate candidate by saying Mr. Moore had denied the sex charges against him. In effect, Mr. Trump took Mr. Moore’s word over the word of several women accusing him. 
Two weeks ago, Mr. Trump defended Vladimir Putin by saying he was sincere in his denials that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Our president took the word of the Russian autocrat over the findings of America’s intelligence agencies.
Mr. President, you may believe both Roy Moore and Vladimir Putin. But pardon us, sir, if more and more Americans don’t believe in you.
--FRANK RICHTER, Letter to the Editor

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Nightmare

I am discussing the game with my dentist, who is an avid Alabama fan. He is trash talking, saying that Alabama is going to put the Hurts on Auburn and I said "War Eagle, pal. Up yours."
He says, "Just for that I am going to sedate you and pull all of your teeth," and he pulls out this HUGE needle with an evil smile.
I jump out of the chair and run out the door. His office was in this huge high rise with 175 floors. His office on the top floor.
I'm in the elevator, trying to get to the bottom floor, but each time the elevator door opens it's to a brick wall. I can't get out of the elevator! Then, all of a sudden, there are two young kids in the lift with me. They both smile, toothless, and say, "He's gone get you! He's gonna get you! Hahaha!"
Thank God I then wake up, shaken, not stirred.
Do we take college football too seriously in this state? '

Monday, November 20, 2017

Good Riddance

From 1992 to 2017, the stadium hosted more than 39 million fans and over 1,400 events. It has been replaced by Mercedes-Benz Stadium.

Friday, November 17, 2017

Today

Gotta 1) Check the fridge for anything that might be about to go bad. Friday is fridge check up day in our house. 2) Clean up my inbox. I've accumulated at least 4 emails this week to go thru. Four a week these days is about par for the course. 3) Pay attention to the news in case I have to to out as to where today's wrecks are around town. It's Friday so as a matter of principle there are at least 4. One of the interstates must be blocked somewhere as always. 4) Consider having my oil changed. But hey it's only been 6 months. Why ruin the day? 5) Remind myself not to cast any stones today. Let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

The Alabama Senate Race

It's been a national circus.  How will it end on December 12?  Polls are all over the place.  One poll out today shows Jones taking a dramatic lead 51% to 39%.  So there is hope.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Stephen Kinzer - The True Flag (Book Review)

This history of the beginning of American overseas imperialism, when the country started acquiring overseas territory, is most enlightening since I knew little about it.  I am less interested in present day ramifications than the simple history of what happened between 1898 and 102.  During this time, the US annexed Cuba, Guam, and Hawaii, and fought the Spanish to acquire the Philippines.  The country was split between the imperialists and those who opposed such imperialism.  The former were led by people like Theodore Roosevelt and William McKinley, the latter most prominently by Mark Twain.

How should the US act in the world?  An only a democratic example, or imposing its will on foreign countries.  P. 1

Debates over America's role in the world began in 1898.  P. 3

Henry Cabot Lodge was Roosevelt's chief backer and cheerleader.  P. 22

Carl Schurz, a leading anti-imperialist, is a most interesting historical figure.  He had such a long career.  P. 39

TR's actions in Cuba have the slimmest element of truth.  It made his famous.  P. 57

With the Spanish War over Cubs, there was a frenzy in the country over imperial expansion in 1898.  P. 81

According to this book, imperialism vs. anti-imperialism was hotly debated in the country.  I had no idea.  P. 84

Mention is made of Kipling and the white man's burden during this period.  P. 120

William Jennings Bryan is give credit for the passage of the Treaty of Paris which ended the Spanish American War.  P. 124

The Treat became law unamended.  P. 130

The water torture began in the Philippines.  P. 150

VP Hobart died which opened the door for TR to be elected Vice-President in 1900.  P. 156

Taft goes to the Philippines with a promise that McKinley will appoint him to the Supreme Court as soon as he can.  P. 160

A war of counterinsurgency .  P. 161

Lodge of imperialism and Manifest Destiny.  P. 165

Bryan couldn't move away from free silver and hence missed his chance at history in 1900.  P. 172

Mark Twain returns home to become the most publicized spokesman for the anti-imperialism.  P. 178

Cuba gaines its independence but remained firmly under US control.  P. 193

TR's ascension ended the anti-imperialist campaign.  P. 213

What would Twain say about the US imperialism today?  P. 223

This period of American history is most fascinating.  I knew nothing of this era before reading this book.  Fodder for further reading.

Friday, November 10, 2017

Madness

"We're all mad here."
Says the Cheshire Cat to Alice as we go down the rabbit hole of Alabama politics. Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Republicanism

The Republican Party has ALWAYS been the part of big business and the wealthy. Are people just now figuring this out? It amazes me at the reaction to what the GOP is now doing. It's like people are shocked at realizing that politicians lie and the hot water is on the left. The things they are doing now are things they have always wanted to do, and they are just getting started. We are getting what we should expect. It's been this way since 1854. Republicans are doing what Republicans have always done.

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

We Are Being Told

We're being told that if WE happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time we don't need reasonable, stricter gun control laws like every other industrialized country in the world, that we should instead hope that there's a good guy with a gun handy to save the day. Sure, and did you happen to fall off a turnip truck last week?

Saturday, November 4, 2017

Have a Good Day!

The New York Times Opinion Section
Facebook and Twitter are just a mirror, reflecting us. They reveal a society that is painfully divided, gullible to misinformation, dazzled by sensationalism, and willing to spread lies and promote hate.
We have a president who is mentally unstable and armed with nuclear weapons. He is a clear and present danger to our nation, and it’s up to us to take action.
Other than this, ya'll have a good day!

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

CW Not a Mistake

The Civil War Was Not a Mistake

John Kelly’s account of its causes reflects a widely shared—and incorrect—understanding of the conflict.
Kevin Lamarque / Reuters 
When White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told the Fox News host Laura Ingraham that the Civil War was caused by the “lack of an ability to compromise,” that the war was fought by “men and women of good faith on both sides,” and that Confederate General Robert E. Lee “was an honorable man,” he was invoking a rosy view of the Confederacy echoing that of his boss.
Kelly was also reflecting a popular perception of the war that has persisted for decades, largely on the strength and influence of an organized pro-Confederate propaganda campaign that has been conducted for a century. While the scholarly consensus is that the Civil War was about slavery, popular opinion has not entirely caught up. The Lost Cause campaign was so successful that perhaps the most widely seen piece of popular history related to the Civil War, Ken Burns’s 1990 PBS documentary of the same name, retains elements of its narrative.
“Basically, it was a failure on our part to find a way not to fight that war. It was because we failed to do the thing we really have a genius for, which is compromise,” the historian Shelby Foote says in Burns’s miniseries. “Americans like to think of themselves as uncompromising. But our true genius is for compromise. Our whole government’s founded on it. And it failed.” Burns’s documentary similarly describes Lee as a reluctant rebel and  a “courtly, unknowable aristocrat, who disapproved of secession and slavery, yet went on to defend them both at the head of one of the greatest armies of all time.” In The Civil War, the companion book to the documentary co-authored by Burns, the documentary's co-writer Geoffrey Ward describes Lee as  someone who "never owned a slave himself."* In truth Lee  opposed neither slavery nor secession, and owned slaves he inherited from his father-in-law, whom he only freed under court order.
Foote is correct in a sense that Americans have a genius for compromise. As The New Yorker’s Jelani Cobb points out, the path to the Civil War was littered with compromises over slavery. In the Constitution itself, the Three-Fifths Compromise granted political power to the slave states, and the fugitive-slave clause enshrined owners’ rights to their human chattel. There was the Northwest Ordinance, which outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory but contained a fugitive-slave clause; the Fugitive Slave Act; the Missouri Compromises; the House gag rule banning antislavery petitions; the Compromise of 1850; the Kansas–Nebraska Act, putting slavery to a popular vote within the territories; the unsuccessful Crittenden Compromise; and of course Abraham Lincoln’s own entreaties to the South to return to the Union with slavery itself intact. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it,” Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley in 1862, “and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
Lincoln would not be given the choice. But his letter makes clear that any compromise that could have been reached with the Southern states would have been a compromise over the personhood of black people—and, like all compromises before it, merely a delay of the inevitable conflict to come. The seceding states all noted the centrality of slavery in their declarations of secession, and Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens declared, “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.” Slavery could persist, or the Union could persist, but ultimately they could not persist together. Only one of these causes was just.
As my colleague Ta-Nehisi Coates points out, Kelly’s insistence that “it’s inconceivable to me that you would take what we know now and apply it back then” is a blinkered view of history that regards only the opinions of white slave owners as relevant. Both the slaves and the hated white abolitionists, whose movement could not have existed otherwise, knew that slavery was wrong.
What is strange is that the circumstances surrounding the abolition of slavery and the preservation of the Union are regarded as tragic. The issues debated on the eve of the Revolutionary War were more amenable to compromise than those that rent the Union in two in 1861. Many Americans died in the Revolutionary War; neither the United States nor Great Britain today regards its outcome as lamentable. Few regret that George Washington and King George III didn’t sit down at a table and hash out a compromise. Almost no one wrings their hands today about the uncivil tone of the Boston Tea Party, or the colonists’ stubborn insistence on self-governance.
That the nation’s rebirth, in which the promises of its founding creed first began to be met in earnest, is regarded as sorrowful is a testament to the strength of the alternative history of the Lost Cause, in which the North was the aggressor and the South was motivated by the pursuit of freedom and not slavery. The persistence of this myth is in part a desire to avoid the unfathomable reality that half the country dedicated itself to the monstrous cause of human bondage. The freedom that the South fought for was the freedom to own black people as property. The states’ rights for which the South battled were the right to own slaves and the right to expand slavery.
Of course, the compromises did not end there. American reunion was preceded by the violent reimposition of white supremacy in the South, with the acquiescence of the North. The New Deal was shaped by compromises between Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats that limited many of its benefits to whites. Republicans broke with their own abolitionist history, bending to oppose civil rights in exchange for Southern votes. America compromised when it outlawed de jure segregation and sanctioned de facto segregation. Paring back the welfare state and building up the carceral state was a compromise. Offering body cameras in response to unarmed black people being gunned down by armed agents of the state with impunity is a compromise. This is a significantly abridged list; you can trace the entire history of the United States through political compromises in which black rights are the currency of exchange.
Kelly’s remarks, then, are part of an American tradition of historical denial, and he is hardly its only adherent. It is fair to ask, however, why Kelly believes that there could have been compromise over the issue of slavery, that a war over human bondage could have contained “men and women of good faith on both sides,” and that a man could have killed thousands of his countrymen and still be honorable, but that a Gold Star widow who feels disrespected by the president’s words, that a congresswoman who defended her and was slandered by Kelly himself, and that the athletes who refuse to compromise on the question of black personhood should be given no quarter.

General Kelly's Civil War

Yesterday everyone was talking about White House chief of staff John Kelly’s interviewwith Laura Ingraham of Fox News in which he laid out his understanding of the Civil War. We heard nothing that should be surprising to our ears. 
by Kevin Levin
Here is what he said in its entirety:
Well, history’s history. And there are certain things in history that were not so good and other things that were very, very good.
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 Christopher Columbus did was wrong.’
You know, 500 years later, it’s inconceivable to me that you would take what we think now and apply it back then. I think it’s just very, very dangerous. I think it shows you just how much of a lack of appreciation of history and what history is.
I would tell you that 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. It was always loyalty to state first back in those days. Now it’s different today. But 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 where their conscience had them make their stand.
First, by Kelly’s own logic if it is wrong to apply our own standards 150 years later in judging Americans in the 1860s than it was also wrong for Americans at the turn of the twentieth century to do so with the dedication of the very monuments currently under scrutiny.
The comments that have received the most attention, however, are in the final paragraph. I am not going to quibble with his assessment of Robert E. Lee. Needless to say I disagree that a man who attempted to destroy this nation should be characterized as “honorable.” It is the other two points that are much more problematic.
Americans were not necessarily more connected to their state than the nation as a whole. One of the most basic concepts we teach in the classroom is the idea of “Manifest Destiny” which suggested that the nation had a right to expand westward and civilize areas occupied by Native Americans in the name of capitalism and Christianity. White southerners committed to slavery believed that the federal government could be leveraged to create a slave empire that expanded both westward and southward into the Caribbean and beyond. It was only after they realized that slavery could no longer be protected and strengthened through the federal government that they chose to begin the process of breaking up the Union.
But it is Kelly’s final claim about the failure to compromise that is the most perplexing. It reflects no understanding of the history of the United States from its very founding through the middle of the Civil War. It was compromising that brought the nation to the brink of war from the Three-Fifths Compromise to the Compromise of 1850. At the beginning of the war Lincoln supported an amendment that would have given federal protection to slavery. In 1862 he was still willing to compromise with slaveowners in the Border States to compensate them for voluntarily freeing their slaves. Compromise is everywhere you look.
You don’t get closer to understanding secession and war by suggesting that there wasn’t a sufficient attempt at compromise. You get there by focusing on just how committed some people were to protecting the institution of slavery.
Kelly’s understanding of the war should not be surprising if we step back and think about when he likely learned about the war for the first time. He may have picked up the compromise shtick from listening to Shelby Foote in Ken Burns’s documentary, but that doesn’t get us very far. Kelly learned the war in the 1960s during the centennial, which offered a sanitized version of the war. In his comments he failed to say anything about slavery, but keep in mind that he would have learned very little, if anything, about it growing up. The war would have been framed as a brother’s war that pitted white American against one another fighting for their respective causes.
In Kelly’s world, they were all “honorable.” Kelly’s understanding of the war is a time capsule that brings us back to the 1960s, but we forget just how long this Lost Cause/Reunion narrative had its hold on our popular memory of the war. It’s not until the late 1970s and early 80s that you even begin to see noticeable change in history textbooks, museum exhibits, and National Park Service sites.
A number of people have concluded that Kelly’s narrative reveals a racist agenda. I think that is an unwarranted conclusion. Certainly, his comments are unfortunate, but I suspect that if you sat the general in a room with an updated text or placed him in conversation with a reputable historian he would come around. This is a guy who hasn’t read a book about the Civil War, beyond the narrowly-defined field of military history, in decades.
Ultimately, Kelly’s understanding of the war and even Robert E. Lee is a product of an outdated and discredited view held by his generation.by 

Compromising on Slavery

Photo
African-Americans picking cotton in Savannah, Ga., near the time of the Civil War. CreditLibrary of Congress 
In an interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News last night, the White House chief of staff, John Kelly, said “the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War,” a statement that would shock, among others, the founding fathers. After spirited debates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, they included Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 in our Constitution, which said each slave, for legislative representation and taxation purposes, counted as three-fifths of a person. That provision is known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, a term that clearly states that Northerners and Southerners were, in fact, quite able to reach weird compromises on slavery.
But our country’s tortured attempt to find some kind of balance on whether it was right to enslave African-Americans wasn’t limited to the Three-Fifths Compromise. To argue that the Civil War came about because Americans couldn’t compromise on whether black slaves were truly people or not would require us to ignore at least six other major compromises on slavery, from the first fugitive slave law in 1793, which said that escaped slaves in any state could be caught, tried and returned to their masters, to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which allowed residents of the two territories to vote on whether to allow slavery. Slaveowners and abolitionists compromised on slavery over and over again, throwing black people’s rights onto the bargaining table like betting chips in a casino.
The Civil War ended slavery, but the legacy of all the prewar compromising on black people’s rights sparked new fights: the fleeting freedoms of Reconstruction; the punishing hand of Jim Crow; the limited triumphs of the civil rights movement; the quiet indignities of practices like racially restrictive covenants, which allowed homeowners to place terminology in property deeds to restrict ownership by race; and redlining, which reduced the value of homes in black neighborhoods compared with their white counterparts.
In the 1970s, President Richard M. Nixon opened a new front on the compromising with his war on drugs. One of his top advisers admitted to a reporter in 1994 that they had designed the war to target blacks and hippies, and it resulted in a large spike in the prison population, which took away many black people’s right to remain physically free.
And in 1973, the Supreme Court decided that school financing systems that relied on property taxes and therefore favored wealthy districts over poor ones weren’t unconstitutional. This decision, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, allowed districts to refuse to fix the continuing financial effects of housing segregation.
Just last week, a black criminal defendant in Louisiana was denied his constitutional right to an attorney because the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled six to one that he hadn’t really requested a lawyer when he told police during questioning: “I know I didn’t do it. So why don’t you just give me a lawyer, dawg, ’cause this is not what’s up?” The willfully ignorant justices ruled that the defendant had asked for a “lawyer dog,” not a lawyer, so he had not invoked his right to counsel.
Continue reading the main story
I practiced law for more than five years, and I remain unaware as to what a “lawyer dog” is, and sad that the Louisiana Supreme Court decided to make up an animal to deny a criminal defendant’s right to counsel. This case is an example of the now common denial of that right. And since criminal defendants are disproportionately black and poor, in part thanks to the war on drugs, redlining and discrimination, they are more likely to need state- appointed counsel.
But back to the Civil War. What if slavery itself was always an untenable compromise? What if, in a country that claimed to stand for freedom and justice for all, the idea that people should be kept in chains and forcibly separated from their families and bought and sold and killed was never going to be an idea that sat right with enormous sectors of the population?
It’s unnatural to ask us to compromise on whether certain types of people are equal to others, and to expect those deemed unequal not to cry out for justice while being punished, tortured and killed. It’s unnatural to treat people unequally. It requires the construction and maintenance of an economically inefficient system intended to oppress certain types of people. And in this country, it requires us to throw out all the honorable principles this country was founded on. Someone should tell John Kelly that our history is based on too much compromise concerning slavery and black lives, not too little.

Who DID Win the Reformation?

Photo
“Luther in Hell,” by Egbert van Heemskerk the Younger (1676-1744). CreditHeritage Images/Getty Images 
The Western world has not known quite what to do with the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. The powerful Protestant establishments that would have once celebrated the quincentenary wholeheartedly are mostly weak or impotent or gone, and while the disreputable sort of Calvinist and the disreputable sort of Catholic still brawl online, in official ecclesiastical circles the rule is to speak of the Reformation in regretful tones, like children following a bad divorce who hope that now that many years have passed the divided family can come together for a holiday, or at least an ecumenical communion service.
Meanwhile, the secular intelligentsia can only really celebrate the Reformation’s anniversary in instrumental terms. From the perspective of official liberalism, most of the Reformation fathers were fundamentalists and bigots, even worse in some cases than the Catholics they opposed. So for the Lutheran and Calvinist rebellions to be worth memorializing, it must be as a means to secularizing ends — the liberation of the individual from the shackles of religious authority, which allowed scientific inquiry and capitalism to flourish, made secular politics possible, and ultimately permitted liberalism to triumph.
Looking back through the chronoscope of religious history, then, the modern secular liberal is a Leninist: He watches Christendom tear itself apart and thinks, the worse the better, since only out of the wars of religion can his own society be born.
Of course this is a harsh way of putting it. But a 500th anniversary is a good time to be a little bit harsh about the world we all take for granted, a world that was built on the wreckage created by Christian civilization’s civil war. Neither the Protestants nor Catholics won that war between the faiths: The instrumentalists did, the Machiavellians, the Westerners who wanted political and economic life set free from the meddling of troublesome priests and turbulent prophets. And so 500 years after Luther threaded his 95 tweets together and pinned them to a door in Wittenberg, it’s their propaganda that deserves the most scrutiny, the most skepticism, the strongest doubts.
At the heart of that propaganda is a simple story about authority and the individual. First, this story goes, Protestantism replaced the authority of the church with the authority of the Bible. Then, once it became clear that nobody could agree on what the Bible meant, the authority of conscience became pre-eminent — and from there we entered naturally (if with some bloody resistance from various reactionary forces) into the age of liberty, democracy and human rights.
Continue reading the main story
The problem with this story is that like all propaganda it edits selectively and treats the experience of various fortunate groups as the measure of a much messier reality. The Reformation and its wars did indeed diminish religious authority, secularize politics and allow certain kinds of individualism to flourish. But they also empowered (and were exploited and worsened by) the great new gods of modernity, the almighty market and the centralizing state, which claimed their own kind of authority over everyday life, making the divided churches into handmaidens or scapegoats, and using Christianity as an excuse for plunder rather than a restraining counterforce to worldly lust.
This simultaneous expansion of commercial power and state power made the Western world more orderly and rationalized and much, much wealthier. It also licensed cruelty and repression on an often extraordinary scale. It produced some remarkable experiments in religious tolerance, our own Constitution among them. It also encouraged secular inquisitions that made the original look tame. It opened new opportunities for the rational and industrious. It also weakened or destroyed the places where one might retreat from commerce or refuse the world. It led to huge leaps forward in health and life expectancy for all. It also brutalized religious resisters, stacked non-European bodies like cordwood … and eventually revived the worst tendencies of the old Christendom, anti-Semitism and millenarianism, in fascist and Communist experiments that added the genocide of millions to the modern state’s list of crimes.
Even in our republic’s mother country, England, which escaped some of the worst horrors of the Continent, the Reformation’s religious conflict ended in victories for a brutal centralizing form of power. It was religious fanaticism that burned heretics and stripped altars and briefly raised up a Puritan theocracy. But the rapaciousness of Henry VIII and the police state of Elizabeth I, the evisceration of the old Catholic culture and the suppression of popular protest and dissent, the ethnic and religious cleansings carried out on England’s Celtic fringe — these were very modern projects, and their purpose wasn’t liberty but subjugation, not religious tolerance so much as the elimination of any religious challenge to the state.
In Hilary Mantel’s popular novels about Reformation England, “Wolf Hall” and “Bring Up the Bodies,” the figure of Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII’s enforcer, is presented as a sympathetic proto-modern alternative to the dueling zealotries of popery and Calvinism — more broad-minded and humane and secular, less bigoted and ascetic.
But Cromwell was also a ruthless killer who served a cruel tyrant. Which makes him an apt choice, even if Mantel does not intend it, to embody the secularizing forces that triumphed over Protestants as well as Catholics — because Cromwellism, mass murder in the service of secular power and commercial wealth, has just as strong a claim as liberty or individualism to define the world that succeeded Christendom’s collapse.
Here the objection will be that, yes, the road to modern liberalism was a bloody one, but it all could have been much worse. And indeed, worse could be imagined. It is possible to imagine a world where Western Christendom remained united but Europe refused the gifts of science and the church sank into permanent corruption, with Ottoman armies delivering a coup de grâce. It is also possible to imagine a world where an undivided Roman church harnessed science and technology to its own sort of religious-totalitarian ends, and became a theocratic boot stamping on a human face, forever.
So perhaps the modern world as we know it was the best we could do, the only path to liberty and pluralism and mass prosperity, however many Cromwells it required to get here.
But my own (biased, Catholic) guess is that given the technological and social changes already at work in early modern Europe, the great new modern powers, the state and the commercial interest, would have come to bestride the world no matter what happened to Christian unity. So a church that remained undivided probably wouldn’t have been able to strangle modern science or capitalism in the crib even had it wanted to. But it might have served as a stronger moral check on the new powers, a stronger countervailing force against greed and secular absolutism, than the divided churches that Europe had instead.
It is hard to read the history of Western colonial ventures, in which for hundreds of years it was mostly the intensely religious (as compromised and corrupted as their churches often were) that remonstrated against mass murder and enslavement, that sought to defend natives and establish norms for their protection, and not suspect that a still-united Western church would have found it easier to turn its moral critiques into more effective practical restraints. And it is harder still to read the history of the 20th century and have any kind of confidence that the world made by Thomas Cromwell and his successors was better than a world where Protestants and Catholics did not divide.
Indeed in secular liberalism there is an implicit tribute to this possibility, a kind of yearning for a vanished Christendom, that arose in part as a response to the horrifying place where secular politics ended up last century. What are our pan-national institutions, our United Nations and European Union, all our interlocking NGOs, if not an attempt to recreate a kind of ecclesiastical power, a churchlike form of sovereignty, on the basis of thinner, less dogmatic but still essentially metaphysical ideas — the belief in human dignity and human rights?
As the church did before its crackup, and might have done thereafter, these modern ecclesiastical agencies do have some gentling effect. But they are a made-up religion whose acolytes at some level know it — and the thinness of their metaphysics, their weak claim on human loyalties, makes them mostly just a pleasing cloak over the dark power that’s actually stabilized the modern world, the terrifying threat of nuclear war.
I’m being grim on purpose; more optimistic views than this are possible. But since the unity of Christendom isn’t coming back any time soon and our own society has a thousand incentives to lie to itself about how religious division was for the best, it’s worth considering the dark version of the long view.
The modern world offers many gifts, and the fact that Catholics and Protestants now dwell together without bloodshed is certainly one of them. But to assume that this division was a necessary means to a happy secular and liberal ending is to assume that we actually know the ending — even though the story so far has given us many novel forms of tyrannies as well as greater liberties, and the price of the modern experiment has been millions of unremembered dead.