What, do you think Trump is implying the slavers were too unreasonable in refusing to end slavery without a war first? Because I doubt they’re the ones he’s faulting for not negotiating…somehow they never are.
We all know the Civil War could have been avoided by the south simply not rebelling. There’s been more than a century of racist lamentation to try to hide that basic responsibility.
Exactly… Lincoln had a very centrist position, that slavery just should not expand west. He might have personally been pro-slavery, but he believed it was an economic system that did not have a future, and that free labor should be supported by the federal government as the US government pushed out Native Americans during westward expansion… It was southern enslavers who had no interest in compromise. But that’s another key element of the lost cause mythos… that the people who were extremists were the Republicans, who were uniformly abolitionist, while the enslavers were innocent victims who were dealing with uncompromising extremists.
Also, this just premiered…
Fighting to end an inhumane, brutal institution is rational. Fighting to retain it is not.
Considering he always screaming civil war will happen if he is not reelected, I suggest Mr. “Art of the steal” con man to be locked up with the key destroyed.
He’s right. Negotiation did end the Civil War. Robert Lee negotiated the end of the war through his surrender. The end. No time travel required.
I predict he’s laying the groundwork for the need to ‘negotiate’ to avoid Civil War if he is not elected President again. He will present himself on the pro-Union side of the North, claiming that the evil Democrats (because it was the Democrats in the South that seceded) are causing trouble, and that he will need them to ‘give up’ on their attempt to ‘steal the election’ from the ‘rightful’ Republicans. And if they won’t it will be on the Democrats, again, for starting the next Civil War in America that Trump valiantly tried to stop.
His followers (even in the South) will eat this stuff up. They will be cast as the ‘righteous’ defenders of the Union when they start to fire bomb Democrat politicians offices and form vigilante squads to round up ‘disloyal’ minority, non-evangelical, and/or other non-GOP voters.
The United States did not fight a war to abolish chattel slavery.
The Confederacy waged a war to preserve slavery. The North waged a war to preserve the Union (and in doing so, ended chattel slavery).
Pretty sure anyone who is firebombed or lynched by crazed right wing nut jobs egged on by Trump’s revisionist history lessons.
“Let’s negotiate this. I’m an amazing negotiator. I think everybody would be happy if we let the slaves only work half a day on Sundays. Plantation owners still get their crops harvested during the week and the slaves get a couple hours to rest on Sunday, right? Trust me I think both sides will agree that this is a beautiful solution.”
They revel in the pain they caused, so no, they don’t give a shit (the right wing terrorists). But, I really don’t give a shit about the fe-fes of people who embrace the far right… If we can stop them from taking power, THAT is what matters… If they feel bad that they can’t impose their shitty ideas on the rest of us, then that’s a big win.
I mean, I don’t want to live in a fascist hellscape, do you?
I don’t think people hurt by Trump’s stochastic terrorism have much reason to care exactly which of his countless lies tipped which particular assailant over. Trying to skew things so he’s the persecuted messiah and his opponents deserve hurting is all he does, starting before he was ever president, and it ought to be opposed in full.
You just need the right negotiator, right?
Facts always matter, and the facts are that Canada and England both abolished slavery without civil wars.
Then why did you ignore all of the facts posted in response to your last comment and cherry pick two examples that confirm your existing bias? There was some good info there and I hope you read it.
In the 19th century in the U.S. Christianity was weaponized to uphold white supremacy as a divine right. That precludes any reasonable expectation for successful negotiation. And it should sound familiar today.
So what did the negotiations in those cases look like that you think makes them important models here? How do they relate to the US, where the reason the Civil War happened is that a mob of slavers were dedicated to fighting against any trace of limits on them?
The United States was on a pathway that would have likely ended chattel slavery through the Constitutional process within the next generation. That’s exactly why the slavers organized an armed rebellion against the Union.
The idea that it was Lincoln’s inflexibility and failure to compromise that caused the war is ahistorical and idiotic. Unless you’re pro-slavery, in which case it’s just evil.
… based on what I know about the Lost Cause fandom, this counterfactual fantasy of a “negotiated end of slavery” basically means enslavers should have been “compensated for their losses” and Black Americans should have been “sent back to Africa” 
you know, i’m even going to go out on a limb here and say - if it takes a war to end the enslavement of human beings, go to it. because if war is bad: what of the death and suffering from letting it continue?
as for ■■■■■’s negotiating skills: it’s too bad he couldn’t stop his daddy from racial profiling housing applicants and profiteering off government housing contracts. 
( eye roll not directed at you of course. )
