Kelly: "The lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War."

[thucythucy]

54. The north DID compromise--

Lincoln said repeatedly, before and after his first inauguration, that he had no intention of abolishing slavery where it already existed.

This wasn't good enough for southern slave owners, who wanted to EXTEND slavery into the western territories, annex more of Mexico, seize Cuba, and establish a slave empire in central and south America, as well as in the US. They also refused to recognize northern state laws prohibiting slavery--the Dred Scott decision--decided by a majority southern Supreme Court--said that southern slave owners could keep their slaves even when they travelled through the north. BTW, many southern states refused to allow Abraham Lincoln's name even to appear on their ballots.

It was only after a year and a half of bloody rebellion, showing the south had no intention EVER to compromise on anything to do with slavery and white supremacy, that Lincoln issued his preliminary emancipation proclamation in September 1862. Even this was a half measure--it said the south could keep all its slaves if only they'd stop the rebellion by January 1, 1863. Not a single southern state accepted the offer. Even that was a compromise--slavery continued to exist in non-rebelling "border" states until passage of the 13th amendment in 1865.

So in fact there was compromise after compromise to placate "the slave power," and it only emboldened the white supremacists to want more. Kind of like what happened in Munich in 1938.