“Compromise” like we’ve done far too many times with gun control. Or border security.

He didn’t “compromise” because these people weren’t interested in compromise, they wanted appeasement. Slavery was abhorrently wrong and you cannot in good faith defend a state for seceding in defense of it (and it was about slavery, not just “state’s rights.” Because those “rights” were mainly focused around owning other people).

The victim mentality was strong with the south. Their guy didn’t make it in, and they wanted to keep their gravy train going, so they threw a major fit and seceded.

Sounds like the left to me, except the left today couldn’t secede from their Starbucks if they tried, nevermind a country.

“Compromise” like we’ve done far too many times with gun control. Or border security.

He didn’t “compromise” because these people weren’t interested in compromise, they wanted appeasement. Slavery was abhorrently wrong and you cannot in good faith defend a state for seceding in defense of it (and it was about slavery, not just “state’s rights.” Because those “rights” were mainly focused around owning other people).

The victim mentality was strong with the south. Their guy didn’t make it in, and they wanted to keep their gravy train going, so they threw a major fit and seceded.

Sounds like the left to me, except the left today couldn’t secede from their Starbucks if they tried, nevermind a country.