LogFAQs > #889512903

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	John Kelly: 'The lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War'
streamofthesky 10/31/17 5:17:17 PM #9:	Rumors of John Kelly's sensibility have been greatly exaggerated. I'd like someone to actually press him on what sort of compromise would've worked. Keep slavery?! Maybe a "hey, you guys seceded and attacked a U.S. military installation just because the country elected someone you didn't want and we really don't like that, please come back" letter to the Confederate leaders? Also, lulz, apparently the Missouri Compromise never existed, nor all the decades slavery was an issue prior to the Civil War that involved all sorts of negotiation. Garlands_Soul posted... Golden Road posted... Wasn't the North quite willing to let the South keep up slavery if it meant keeping the country together? I'm pretty sure Lincoln didn't even free the slaves until it was a good idea to do so to win the war. He wanted the union intact first and foremost. Ironically, confederate defenders will cite this as proof that Lincoln is somehow a "fraud" when it comes to fighting to free the slaves, yet at the same time from the other side of their mouths claim it was a "War of Northern Aggression" because Lincoln was gonna force them to free their slaves, so they just had to rebel. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:889512903] in John Kelly... [t:75940438]...</cite> <quote>Rumors of John Kelly's sensibility have been greatly exaggerated. I'd like someone to actually press him on what sort of compromise would've worked. Keep slavery?! Maybe a "hey, you guys seceded and attacked a U.S. military installation just because the country elected someone you didn't want and we really don't like that, please come back" letter to the Confederate leaders? Also, lulz, apparently the Missouri Compromise never existed, nor all the decades slavery was an issue prior to the Civil War that involved all sorts of negotiation. <cite>Garlands_Soul posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Golden Road posted...</cite> <quote>Wasn't the North quite willing to let the South keep up slavery if it meant keeping the country together?</quote> I'm pretty sure Lincoln didn't even free the slaves until it was a good idea to do so to win the war. He wanted the union intact first and foremost.</quote> Ironically, confederate defenders will cite this as proof that Lincoln is somehow a "fraud" when it comes to fighting to free the slaves, yet at the same time from the other side of their mouths claim it was a "War of Northern Aggression" because Lincoln was gonna force them to free their slaves, so they just had to rebel.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1