Former President Trump and leading GOP candidate for the 2024 presidential election stated over the weekend that the Civil War could have been negotiated and insinuates that the war could have been avoided altogether. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? by Dean Owens

2024-01-08 18:38:55 UTC

Compromise of 1850 was an inevitable failure. If they "just negotiated," slavery would have remained and they would fight about it again.

2024-01-08 18:39:22 UTC

I disagree, there were many years before the civil war that helped cause the buildup if he was able to do anything it would have only lasted a couple of years because of the very visible divisions between each half of the country

2024-01-08 18:39:23 UTC

Disagree, as constant negotiations and compromises has been occur in the 30 years leading up to the Civil War and even before. The election of Lincoln was simply the tipping point in an inevitable war.

2024-01-08 18:39:34 UTC

I don't that that the war could have been avoided by Lincoln simply negotiating. The country had already passed the point of no return by the time Lincoln was elected.

2024-01-08 18:39:44 UTC

Don't you think they tried negotiation? War was inevitable because slavery would have remained an issue and would later be a conflict anyway.

2024-01-08 18:39:45 UTC

negotiations wouldn't really have worked because both sides were so firm about their beliefs. there was no middle ground over which to negotiate at all

2024-01-08 18:39:54 UTC

I disagree because by that time, the sectional divide had become too much to ever fully reconcile without conflict.

2024-01-08 18:40:03 UTC

I disagree with Trump's statement because it is not that simple to just "negotiate" and make the country unified. The Civil War had many years of buildup and was inevitably going to occur within someone's presidency.

2024-01-08 18:40:12 UTC

I think overall anything and everything you learn about, you could go back and say it could have been "negotiated" so I can at least respect the thought but overall, after so much tension the Civil War would have been extremely hard to negotiate making this opinion questionable.

2024-01-08 18:40:27 UTC

I disagree that the Civil War could have been negotiated because I think the conflict over slavery would inevitably end up with fighting/war. Before the Civil War there were plenty of attempts to negotiate about slavery, and ultimately these attempts failed to heal the divide in the country.

2024-01-08 18:40:32 UTC

I don't think the Civil War could have been avoided. Violence was inevitable due to differing opinions and slavery wasn't just going to disappear. Many Southerners were expansionists (specifically of slavery) and that was what many Republicans were trying to prevent.

2024-01-08 18:41:02 UTC

disagree: "Just negotiating" may have appeased a few government officials, but by the time of Lincoln's presidency, tensions were inciting violence to a point of no return. Violence would continue no matter what official negotiations were made until the point of war.

2024-01-08 18:41:08 UTC

In a perfect world sure. But that's unrealistic and totally unattainable. The issue of slavery isn't as easy as comparing apples to oranges. It was the livelihood of the South vs the rights and liberties of human lives. So no. Lincoln could not have simply negotiated. The south would have seceded whether they had a formal discussion or not. The Civil War was an inevitable result to white supremacy, manifest destiny, and the reliance of slavery altogether.

2024-01-08 18:42:12 UTC

I disagree that the civil war could have been negotiated because there had already been countless attempts to solve the issue of slavery and none of them had succeeded. The south was not happy with anything besides slavery being fully legal. Trump's arrogance led him to believe that he could negotiate his way out of a war that people much smarter them him had tried to stop and failed.