What would have been a good compromise on the Civil War?

Amadeus

Verified User
The 3/5ths compromise was already tried. All this time we thought John Kelly was a voice of reason, but he's just another white supremacist. And I don't use that term loosely.
 
Let Alabama and Virginia keep slaves if they were 90% African, and Georgia as long as they were 50%....
 
The sad part is that the North tried to compromise, they were not trying to free the deep South, they were simply trying to prevent slavery from expanding to the new parts of America.
 
The sad part is that the North tried to compromise, they were not trying to free the deep South, they were simply trying to prevent slavery from expanding to the new parts of America.

Kelly's comments on the Civil War, slavery, and the treasonous South are far more deplorable than anything Trump has ever said (except perhaps when Trump suggested slaughtering women and children). There is no hope for America when the voice of reason in the Republican party is as morally bankrupt as John Kelly. Trumpism has revealed America for what it is -- a nation with deep-rooted white supremacist tendencies and apologetics.
 
Interesting question in the thread title, then the OP statement blows it. Does the OP author even understand that slavery was an institution of the Democrat Party?
 
The "compromise" the south offered was 'we free the slaves and you pay us more money for producing cotton so we can pay the help'

does that make sense to you?
of course not
 
The 3/5ths compromise was already tried. All this time we thought John Kelly was a voice of reason, but he's just another white supremacist. And I don't use that term loosely.

Anyone that disagrees with you, BOY, is someone you consider a white supremacist.
 
The sad part is that the North tried to compromise, they were not trying to free the deep South, they were simply trying to prevent slavery from expanding to the new parts of America.

Compromise isn't saying do it our way or else, son.
 
The south freed the slaves when they seceded. The south had too few people. too little industry and a much smaller railroad network. The confederate leadership should have been shot for stupidity.
 
Interesting question in the thread title, then the OP statement blows it. Does the OP author even understand that slavery was an institution of the Democrat Party?

The Conservative Democrat Party, you didn't really think the Radical Republicans were conservative did you?
 
The early Democratic Party was racist. That changed in the 1960’s!

Sure it was, it was a conservative political party, States Rights, weak Central Gov't, etc., as the Republicans at that time leaned left, hard left, there is no rule that a political party maintains it's ideology thru time
 
I mean, technically what he said was correct

Probability is he didn't mean it the way it sounded, but it showed a very limited understanding of history, compromise had been the theme for the eighty plus years leading up to that time, the southern States were the ones who booked in 1860, to rationalize succession due to the lack of compromise is misleading
 
The 3/5ths compromise was already tried. All this time we thought John Kelly was a voice of reason, but he's just another white supremacist. And I don't use that term loosely.

Well actually Kelly was right. The genius of American politics is our ability to compromise to get things done. The Civil War is just one example where that ability to compromise failed badly.

There were all sorts of compromises that could have been made to compromise on slavery. Restitution, relocation, graduated emancipation, permitting slavery to expand, in some manner, into the territories, etc,. So there we failed badly.

What Kelly is glossing over is that the reason we failed so badly is that no society in human history has willingly given up an investment in capital (human slaves) that large peacefully in human history. The slave owning States were intransigent about giving up that capital even if dully compensated for it. That made room for compromise pretty small.
 
Well actually Kelly was right. The genius of American politics is our ability to compromise to get things done. The Civil War is just one example where that ability to compromise failed badly.

There were all sorts of compromises that could have been made to compromise on slavery. Restitution, relocation, graduated emancipation, permitting slavery to expand, in some manner, into the territories, etc,. So there we failed badly.

What Kelly is glossing over is that the reason we failed so badly is that no society in human history has willingly given up an investment in capital (human slaves) that large peacefully in human history. The slave owning States were intransigent about giving up that capital even if dully compensated for it. That made room for compromise pretty small.

It wasn't even about the money. As the secession documents show, it was about a racial hierarchy of society.
 
Well actually Kelly was right. The genius of American politics is our ability to compromise to get things done. The Civil War is just one example where that ability to compromise failed badly.

There were all sorts of compromises that could have been made to compromise on slavery. Restitution, relocation, graduated emancipation, permitting slavery to expand, in some manner, into the territories, etc,. So there we failed badly.

What Kelly is glossing over is that the reason we failed so badly is that no society in human history has willingly given up an investment in capital (human slaves) that large peacefully in human history. The slave owning States were intransigent about giving up that capital even if dully compensated for it. That made room for compromise pretty small.

Give me strength, the Brits did exactly that. You should know that I've told you enough times!
 
Back
Top