Today's date, what is the date today?
Liberals and conservatives keep switching roles
November 1, 2017
John Kelly is a retired 4 star General who previously served as the commander for the Southern Command for the United States and is currently White House Chief of Staff for President Trump.
He made a statement that had all the liberal news outlets something to pounce on, that negotiations could have avoided Civil War in the mid 1800's in the US.
The statement by the Washington Post as seen in this Google News snapshot from November 1, 2017 is far from the truth. Slavery would not have been enshrined. Slavery was on the way out in all the more developed nations of the world at that time, it was just happening in different time frames. Civil War happened because a Republican President of the United States declared it and just as Kelly stated, there was no compromise by Lincoln.
What's amazing to notice here though is that in politics it's loudly proclaimed by Liberals that it's the Conservatives that are considered to be always starting wars, whereas in stark contrast the Liberals tend to be known for staunchly being against war and instead are always seen siding with the concept of negotiations even if it takes decades, avoiding war and bloody conflicts at all cost because of the innocent lives lost.
Today we see the oddity of these political groups switching roles. John Kelly a Republican's statement 'lack of comprimise led to the Civil War' now has Liberals pouncing all over it. 
Today these Liberals approve of a war that decimated a huge part of the US population, killing hundreds of thousands because as their actions and loud words would say, that ending slavery at all cost is worth it. It's like they totally approve of the Civil War or any war that frees slaves regardless of the blood shed on US soil across many state lines.
It's incredible to see this shift. It is such a massive contradiction in something that is not at all trivial as many contradictions seen in politics are, as living humans that are "enslaved" and only prepared for war as a defense, and not engaged, are thousands of times better than lost lives due to a US government that declared war on a part of itself.
It's kinda like declaring war on your lower half of your body.
Liberals seem to not be currently giving much thought to the dynamics of the Civil War other than the slavery aspect, they don't emphasise the massacre of US citizens and slaves that lived amidst the conflict until war killed them all. They don't tout the horror of starvation in the upsets that follow every war, no, today in 2017 they hail the Civil War as great because it ended slavery. It ended it not as a purpose. The end of slavery was a secondary result that was not at all intended. The purpose of the war was to keep the UNION together at any cost due to the quest to preserve lucrative tariffs that filled the US Treasury full to the brim.
Sorry Liberals, the war was fought for money. The facts are that 3/4 of the troops would have laid down their weapons if the war was about freeing slaves. They fought for the UNION in the North. They fought for the STATES rights in the South. Not slavery.
America's Civil War in the mid 1800's that killed 625,000 people living in the United States
Most Americans hardly know anything about the Civil War other than it helped end slavery and they make that the pinnicle of what it was all about but that is far from the truth.
Slavery was on the outs anyway, fading from most governments of the world, as industrialization was beginning to take hold, and the manual labor was not as necessary as was in the past for thousands of years. It was already fading from the southern states though not as fast as had happened in the north because the northern states had enjoyed a massive surge in industrialization.
Yet recent reports by many popular media outlets don't seem to want to focus on that important aspect, slavery was already mostly shunned even in the south by the time of the Civil War. It was only a matter of time for it to be completely erradicated in all industrialized nations and states.
News outlets today in 2017 keep painting the picture that the southern US states were evil and the Civil War was all about slavery. It's a quest to keep their TV audience held captive.
The Civil War was about independence
The resistance movement of that time by the south is like many movements in securing freedom from opression. The northern states, under President Lincoln, became oppressive to the south.
Resistance movements are even happening today in the US.
The current resistance movement by LA Pride which has now labeled it a Resistance Movement is because they hate Trump. They no longer are celebrating sexual freedom, but now rather involving themselves in resistance to everything they erroneously believe Trump stands for.
Their view does not reflect the gay community as a whole as there are both liberals and conservatives, they still decided to resist.
The south resisted. Resistance is a thing. To massacre people for resistance is not a good thing yet that is what Lincoln did.
Today in 2017, imagine Trump declaring war on Pride, or any other resistance movement such as White Supremecy or Black Supremecy, sending in troops, killing thousands, because they are resisting. Absurd to even think that would happen but that is what happened in the south, resistance to immediate rather than phased out slavery was unacceptable to US Government which always knows what's best. Even if the state of California resisted, demanding sucession, would Trump send in troops and declare war on California? Liberals seem to think so as they consistently paint a dire picture of the man but I don't think that would happen, nor would Liberals approve of such a measure, but again, they seem to embrace Lincoln, a Republican, who declared war on southern states, that's many states!
Liberals should at very least hate Abe Lincoln like they hate Trump but they embrace him and the massacre that he declared.
With proper negotiatioins and some patience the Civil War could have been avoided, just like the Republican John Kelly stated.
That would have saved 3/4 of a million United States citizens lives. 
Think about the enormity of that, the Civil War was in the United States. Imagine a war in the city you live in and your friends, neighbors, and family dying in the war all in the "name of ending slavery" which actually was about tarriffs imposed by The Union on the Southern States, would YOU demand NEGOTIATIONS? Of course.
Imagine a war in Los Angeles declared by Washington, DC, by Trump, in order to stop sucession movement, is THAT ok? Of course it isn't but Liberals don't seem to get it. They are now hell bent on declaring war on John Kelly's statement.
The Civil War was about ending the desire of the southern states to split from the North. California and Texas have tried this with much support from Liberals and little from Conservatives.
Had that split happened from the north, a tremendous amount of wealth and world control via ports and oil revenues for the US government would have evaporated. The south had many plantations that were key to the economy local and for the federal government.
In those days States rights were paramount to federal rights. The idea that northern states could dictate what southern states would do was absurd and a profound change.
Great negotiators can change the dynamics of just about anything, and had Lincoln been that, a great negotiator, instead of the instigator like how most Liberals view president Trump today, many feel that the war never would have happened with a little patience so it's so odd to hear liberals all claiming now that the war was such a great thing.
Of course it cannot be emphasised enough, slavery was not approved of in the 1800's by most people anyway. It was changing and would have ended even on it's own, but especially so with proper negotiations instead of massacres.
So how is it that Democrats now support a Republican president who declared war half the US people for any other reason than ignorance of the facts.
750,000 American citizens and slave lives lost!
Popular current news reports don't emphasise the horrific reality of how many died due to the demands of Abe Lincoln and the federal government, all they focus on is the fantasy of how slavery was bad, which is not entirely true. It was for some, it was not for others. History does present that most slave families were taken well care of much like a good employer takes care of it's employees. I mean think about it, how do you get someone today to do a good job? How does Google treat employees? Very well and they do a great job slaving at work every day for the company.
There were even negotiations allowed by a "slave owner" when they didn't want to work for an "owner" anymore or found they weren't a fit, like when an employer wants to downsize and presents a severence package, or an employee discusses need to move on. It wasn't like how Oprah and other distorted television hype machines make slavery it to appear whereas they only feature the abuse which was not the norm.
TV ratings do not soar by presenting this boring evidence.
Although banning slavery was good, it was not good for one powerful man to order war when negotiations, as John Kelly, a conservative, pointed out, could resolve matters without such death and destruction.
Negotiations are everywhere, throughout every time period, it just wasn't law in the south to uphold those slaves individual rights.......YET. It would have happened in 10 maybe 20 more years.
Things were moving that way most definitely just at a slower pace than in the industrialized north.
One has to try to get in the mindset of those days. The demand to end slavery in the north's timeframe was not feasible for the south. Abolishing it completely, fully, immediately would devastate their economy, that meaning it would be horrible for all people there including slaves. Giving it some time would have saved lives, saved lives, saved lives, why aren't liberals emphasising saving lives? They do that in the war on AIDS, the war on cancer, it's all about saving lives, but when a president declares war on it's own people they embrace him and his ideal because it ended slavery?
Blood was everywhere.
None of these hype media news outlets tell the fact that lives were lost, not just men in war, all people in the south. When an economy suffers a horrific blow people die. There wasn't welfare and food stamps then. This is why Trump today keeps condemning the media calling it "fake news". They are only interested in the hype.
After having learned the non-hyped history which took dedicated study I began to look at the $5 bill in my pocket differently*. It has an image in the center of Abraham Lincoln. When I hand one to someone I think of HOW HORRIFIC IT WAS THAT A US PRESIDENT NAMED ABE LINCOLN declared war, gets recognition as a hero, and I feel sad for those men, women, children who lost their lives while futilly waving their Confederate flag, fighting for INDEPENDENCE, trying to avoid being slaves to the US Government and trying to save the lives of their slaves.
1040 tax forms can be found here
*Harriet Tubman might be a better choice on the $5 bill and what is also odd is that Conservatives would balk at that statement but then when we consider the following statement of Abe Lincoln we see that he even admits that the war was not about slavery.
Many slaved died horrible deaths during and after the United States Civil War. The least we can do today is RESPECT those who carry and/or display the flag/statue of their choice, including the Confederate flag in honor of their dead family members and slaves that they cared for who because of Abraham Lincoln and lack of negotiations ended up no longer able to negotiate, slave in the fields, and talk with their children.
a Confederate flag symbolizing freedom not slavery
a United States flag symbolizing freedom not slavery
Feature image of a collage of war pictures of that time and of a Confederate flag are in the the public domain.