So, when did the meaning of “Compromise” change to; “Do it OUR WAY, with NO CHANGES AT ALL, or we will totally SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT!!”? Maybe Rafael Ooze knows…
Chief of Staff John Kelly mentioned in an interview this week that the Civil War was caused because of the “lack of ability to compromise.”
Look, I have what some may consider more nuanced opinions over the Civil War, but it’s always important to shy away from the “Lost Cause” campaign of lies. There was a LOT of compromise going on in the decades leading up to Southern secession, and it was always at the expense of an entire population of people being enslaved. Compromise wasn’t the issue, it’s what kicked the can down the road, from president to president.
It’s especially troubling coming from the Chief of Staff.
As far as Kelly’s endorsement of Robert E. Lee goes, well, I’ve made my views known: http://www.twopartyopera.com/comic/robert-e-lee/
There were 15 slave states, counting the Union border states. So to get an anti-slavery amendment through would have taken 15 + 46 = 61 states. Maybe if we could get some Canadian provinces on board. Long before then, the North would have crippled slavery by abolishing the Fugitive Slave Act or banning slave goods from interstate commerce. That, I think, was the real fear, and Lincoln was the “no more Mister Nice Guy” moment.
Those same types are still wanting a compromise. Do you think if we let them own people they wouldn’t put up such a fuss at taking down their statues to traitors?
The real compromise of the time was Stephen Douglas’s Popular Sovereignty, which went down in Bleeding Kansas. By 1860, there was no more room for compromise. Ironically, once the states succeeded, the ones left had the votes to abolish slavery. The South still had a majority on the Supreme Court and enough Senators to keep slavery, but how long was the determining factor. Perhaps Delaware was the best model. By 1960, slavery was virtually gone, and Maryland was probably next. (Harriet Tubman was part of it.) Britain had abolished slavery in 1832, which included Canada.
Kymberleigh over 6 years ago
Ummmm, Brian … I think you meant the Compromise of 1850, not “1950”.
Masterskrain Premium Member over 6 years ago
So, when did the meaning of “Compromise” change to; “Do it OUR WAY, with NO CHANGES AT ALL, or we will totally SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT!!”? Maybe Rafael Ooze knows…
Brian Carroll creator over 6 years ago
Chief of Staff John Kelly mentioned in an interview this week that the Civil War was caused because of the “lack of ability to compromise.”
Look, I have what some may consider more nuanced opinions over the Civil War, but it’s always important to shy away from the “Lost Cause” campaign of lies. There was a LOT of compromise going on in the decades leading up to Southern secession, and it was always at the expense of an entire population of people being enslaved. Compromise wasn’t the issue, it’s what kicked the can down the road, from president to president.
It’s especially troubling coming from the Chief of Staff.
As far as Kelly’s endorsement of Robert E. Lee goes, well, I’ve made my views known: http://www.twopartyopera.com/comic/robert-e-lee/
dutchs over 6 years ago
There were 15 slave states, counting the Union border states. So to get an anti-slavery amendment through would have taken 15 + 46 = 61 states. Maybe if we could get some Canadian provinces on board. Long before then, the North would have crippled slavery by abolishing the Fugitive Slave Act or banning slave goods from interstate commerce. That, I think, was the real fear, and Lincoln was the “no more Mister Nice Guy” moment.
Mr. Blawt over 6 years ago
Those same types are still wanting a compromise. Do you think if we let them own people they wouldn’t put up such a fuss at taking down their statues to traitors?
VegaAlopex over 6 years ago
The real compromise of the time was Stephen Douglas’s Popular Sovereignty, which went down in Bleeding Kansas. By 1860, there was no more room for compromise. Ironically, once the states succeeded, the ones left had the votes to abolish slavery. The South still had a majority on the Supreme Court and enough Senators to keep slavery, but how long was the determining factor. Perhaps Delaware was the best model. By 1960, slavery was virtually gone, and Maryland was probably next. (Harriet Tubman was part of it.) Britain had abolished slavery in 1832, which included Canada.