re: Apparently, Gen Kelly saying "lack of compromise led to Civil War" is racist

quote:

---

He's referring to the Crittenden Compromise in 1860

---

The one which proposed a Constitutional Amendment codifying eternal slavery?

That's not a compromise, champ.

quote:

---

South must reduce slavery by 20% per year so that in 5 years slavery is abolished. Landowners will be compensated for 1/2 sale value of each slave released.This allows time for innovation regarding agriculture.

---

The South would never have gone for that, unless the time period was 10x what you're proposing.

But, back to the main point: The Civil War was about slavery. Period.

quote:

---

The South would never have gone for that, unless the time period was 10x what you're proposing.

---

We will never know since it was not proposed. But given hindsight they would have jumped on it.

quote:

---

South must reduce slavery by 20% per year so that in 5 years slavery is abolished. Landowners will be compensated for 1/2 sale value of each slave released. This allows time for innovation regarding agriculture.

---

I'd posted the below about 7 times as of 2015 and just saved it for future discussions.

quote:

---

I've thrown down the gauntlet a half dozen times asking someone to produce some shred of evidence that a single state legislator, governor, business leader, cleric, or prominent citizen of any kind had so much as proposed a sunset provision on slavery. Or discussed the manumission of children 5 generations down the line. Or proposed any little thing to restrict the institution or its spread in any way. You see, when something's going the way of the dodo, you start to see people chip away at it first. Southern economies, at the time of secession, were entirely tied up in the value of slaves and their labor. There was not a single proposition on the table to replace slave labor. There is not a single speech in any southern legislature to propose a way forward. In compromise to radical abolitionists, there was not a "sunset clause" introduced by southerners in congress. There was nothing. Several articles of secession specifically mention slavery as the overriding catalyst for secession. They weren't interested in compromise. They started a war about it.

---

Liberals: we want to be allowed to kill humans before they are born

Conservatives: we want to ban the killing of all humans before they are born


Supreme Court rules we can kill at will.

No compromise...


In 100 years can you say we won't look back on abortion as barbaric?



Just as liberals do not see a fetus as human. Slave owners did not see slaves as equals.

quote:

---

There was not a single proposition on the table to replace slave labor...They weren't interested in compromise. They started a war about it.

---

That's pretty fundamental to the historical narrative. Which doesn't by extension deny the points of naysayers who focus on other matters (financial imperatives that crossed north/south geography, cultural memory, etc., -although they too find their base in slavery).

All that said, it also is not impossible to imagine that a horrible compromise on the basis of slavery might have happened in a way that avoided war.

After all, there were a plethora of compromises both enacted and proposed prior to the war that all allowed slavery to continue, including: The 3/5s compromise, The Fugitive Slave Act, The Missouri Compromise(s), The Congressional Gag Rule, The Compromise of 1850, The Kansas-Nebraska Act.

So, to simply state that some kind of compromise could have avoided, or at least further delayed, the Civil War is just a reasonable speculation based on actual history.

It is certainly not advocacy for slavery or a winsome nostalgic wish that it had continued and juxtaposing that position onto Kelly's remarks is simply absurd.

quote:

---

Reporters yelling at SHS at today's press briefing as she leaves and after trying to mine this 'issue' for proof of racism,

"Sarah, does the President and the Administration think slavery is wrong?!?"

Anyone who can't see the utter horse shite of this whole proposition is beyond help or usefulness...



Corrected Sanders' initials.

---

See this is where Trump doesn't play hardball, if that were me, whichever network's "journalist" asked that question would never get another questioned answered or another interview with or by anyone within my administration until they offered an on air apology for even asking such a stupid question.

quote:

---

To speculate that a compromise could have forestalled or eliminated the need for the Civil War is to reveal a deep ignorance about the causes of said war.

---

This comment just reveals your inability to process information which was already posted regarding the many, many compromises that had already occurred and that, by definition, helped avoid war.

To imagine that yet another compromise might have occurred, while speculative, is purely based on the actual history of the country.

Don't frick with me, you poor, stinking bag of maggots...

quote:

---

the many, many compromises that had already occurred

---

None of which worked to eliminate chattel slavery in the future, merely to limit its spread.

There was no compromise on the table to end the institution of chattel slavery in the United States, as was called for by the abolitionists. The South went to war to preserve this institution.

Now get out of your racist talking points and come back to reality. It'll still be here, champ.