Actually, General Kelly, compromise WAS offered on slavery.

[Ken Burch]

Last edited Wed Nov 1, 2017, 01:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Abraham Lincoln and others were willing to let slavery continue in the states where it already existed.

That wasn't ENOUGH for the South.

The South wasn't going to settle for anything short of one new slave state being admitted every time a new free state was admitted. AND the preservation of the Fugitive Slave Act.

[yallerdawg]

1. Compromise started at the Constitutional Convention...

was included in the US Constitution, and went on until the south seceded.

John Kelly isn't a "role model" for our children or a "reliable source" for our citizenry - either.

[unblock]

2. exactly. note on the fugitive slave act, the south was *against* states' rights, as northern states

were making it difficult for slavers to get people who escaped slavery back into chains.

then they they couldn't stop talking about states' rights when it came to claiming a right to secede.

even back then, right-wingers used "states' rights" as an argument of convenience -- when they have the power at the federal level, they're all about imposing their will on all the states, but whenever they don't, they insist on states' rights so they can keep their way as much as possible.

[oasis]

3. Kelly got his facts wrong again. Surprise, surprise.

incompetent, ignorant, clueless piece of shit.

[unblock]

4. and another note about expanding slavery west:

apologists for the southern rebellion always insist that the south just wanted to be their own country peacefully and it was the north who invaded them (they call it "the war or northern aggression".)

never mind that the first battle was a southern attack on union-held fort sumter....

more fundamentally, though, look at their reasons for seceding: (a) they wanted to expand slavery west and (b) they wanted co-operation in slavery from the north regarding people who escaped.

how on earth does seceding further either of these objectives?

it doesn't, unless you accept that the plan was always to use force. they were going to lay claim to western territories for the south in order to expand there. which meant they were always going to clash against the north, if only in the territories.

and what about co-operation from the north?

chances are really good that they were always planning on using military force to retrieve their "property".


secession didn't make sense otherwise.