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

Amadeus said:
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.
Click to expand...


Standing Ovation!

I get called a racist when I tell this truth.

Racist white men in power hasn't been good for this country.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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.
Click to expand...


which partof a black should have remained a slave? A foot maybe or a hand?
 
Threedee said:
It wasn't even about the money. As the secession documents show, it was about a racial hierarchy of society.
Click to expand...
Well white supremacy did play an important roll in the South’ reluctance to give up the peculiar institution I think it had far more to do with the massive profits the aristocratic planter class was making off the backs of slaves.
 
Corazón said:
Give me strength, the Brits did exactly that. You should know that I've told you enough times!
Click to expand...

Yes that’s true but we weren’t talking about Britain. To their credit the Brits gave up slavery peacefully. So did most of the Northern US States. That didn’t happen in the South for a number of reasons.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes that’s true but we weren’t talking about Britain. To their credit the Brits gave up slavery peacefully. So did most of the Northern US States. That didn’t happen in the South for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...

So therefore your statement below is incorrect.

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.
Click to expand...
 
CFM said:
It was the our way or no way "compromise" the South was offered.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. The north didn't seem much willing to compromise on its economic policies harming the south, and that's a problem.

But - not to his credit - Lincoln had said he would allow slavery to continue in order to preserve the union.

Yet it was simply in reaction to his election before he took office that the south seceded.

One compromise idea that had been talked about was paying slave owners for their loss by ending slavery. They weren't interested.
 
Right said:
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?
Click to expand...

Perhaps more than you understand that there's no such thing as a "Democrat Party".
 
Craig234 said:
That's not entirely true. The north didn't seem much willing to compromise on its economic policies harming the south, and that's a problem.

But - not to his credit - Lincoln had said he would allow slavery to continue in order to preserve the union.

Yet it was simply in reaction to his election before he took office that the south seceded.

One compromise idea that had been talked about was paying slave owners for their loss by ending slavery. They weren't interested.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t about States rights either as the Southern States were demanding increased Federal Government enforcement of Slave Owners right in non Slave States and more aggressive enforcement by the Federal Government of the fugitive slave act. The argument that the Civil War was about States Rights is the most laughable aspect of the Lost Cause mythogies.
 
aloysious said:
Is that true?
Click to expand...

It's true with regard to the Emancipation Proclamation, which was issued under his war powers as a wartime measure against the CSA. The American states of Misery, Maryland, Kentucky, and Deleware (and, eventually, West Virginia), were all permitted to maintain slavery.

Eventually, he worked to unite the Republicans in Congress to push through the 13th Amendment. Since the president doesn't sign constitutional amendments, anti-Lincoln/pro-CSA types will claim that Lincoln played no role in freeing all slaves.
 
That being said, the Emancipation Proclamation ordered the freedom of probably greater than 90% of the slave population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top