LogFAQs > #889851033

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'
mooreandrew58 11/06/17 3:05:57 AM #31:	streamofthesky posted... 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. the south rebelled over taxes from all I learned. while the slavery thing did piss them off, it hadn't been made law yet so it wasn't the most major deciding factor. Lincoln from all i've learned didn't give a rats ass about the slaves but his motives don't matter to me they needed to be freed. as far as nothern agression goes, as a southerner I laugh at that, the south attacked first. but it is true a lot of the war if I recall took place in the south, as the south usually did pretty damn good at winning battles on their turf but got their asses handed to them anytime they went up north. (and in the first couple of years or so the south won a large chunk of the battles) ultimately both sides had major flaws, but as far as human rights is concerned the better side won imo. but funnily enough it was the north who tried claiming the slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person when it came to tallying population. the south wanted them to count fully but admittedly for all the wrong reasons --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:889851033] in John Kelly... [t:75940438]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</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> the south rebelled over taxes from all I learned. while the slavery thing did piss them off, it hadn't been made law yet so it wasn't the most major deciding factor. Lincoln from all i've learned didn't give a rats ass about the slaves but his motives don't matter to me they needed to be freed. as far as nothern agression goes, as a southerner I laugh at that, the south attacked first. but it is true a lot of the war if I recall took place in the south, as the south usually did pretty damn good at winning battles on their turf but got their asses handed to them anytime they went up north. (and in the first couple of years or so the south won a large chunk of the battles) ultimately both sides had major flaws, but as far as human rights is concerned the better side won imo. but funnily enough it was the north who tried claiming the slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person when it came to tallying population. the south wanted them to count fully but admittedly for all the wrong reasons --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1