There has never been so much division in America. Positions have hardened. Yet there is still time to come together, to agree to disagree with civility and try to do better. Is there anything more important than that? Are the issues that divide us so stark that we can not in humility make mutual concessions to move forward as a country and meet the challenges that face us all?
I refer, of course, to the tragic events that seem to have set us on an irrevocable collision with partisan intransigence. It is hard to overlook, to put aside, the action of South Carolina in firing upon Fort Sumter on December 20, 1860 and declaring itself separate from the United States. For the good of the country we should consider it, however distasteful that may be.
While an extreme action and arguably an act of rebellion, it should also be remembered that South Carolina has much at stake regarding the whole question of slavery. It would destroy their economy to abolish it. People who fear for their livelihoods do not always act wisely. Cooler heads should be able to find a better way forward than armed conflict, regardless of who started it.
The fight over whether new states coming into being should be slave or free is fraught. The slave states do not want to find themselves turned into a minority in their own country. They fear the loss of political power and the ability to defend their critical interests in the national government. This is not unreasonable.
A compromise would be to allow slavery in new territories as they become states, but with a concession. It need not be slavery for life.
Persons born into slavery who have benefitted from the care and support from their owners as children should be willing to concede some period of servitude in recompense. After a point to be agreed on, after some term of faithful servitude during their adult years, they should be permitted to apply for manumission — if they so desire it. The consequence would be forgoing continued access to the free food and shelter provided to those in servitude.
It can be argued that this would result in a gentle transition away from the worst abuses of slavery. Slave owners would have an incentive to treat their slaves well in order to retain their labor; slaves would have an incentive to avoid disruptive behavior that might endanger their eventual release from bondage if they truly desire it.
While this may not be the preferred goal of those who wish to see slavery abolished, it would nonetheless represent a real concession on the part of slaveholders as well as a means for those currently in servitude to earn their freedom. It would end the division over the fate of slaves currently fleeing bondage to the northern states and beyond.
In the further spirit of compromise and reform, this would initially be limited to new territories becoming states; current slave states would be allowed to maintain the status quo until such time as they decide for themselves when best to adopt this transformation.
The behavior of South Carolina cannot be totally excused. Some form of recompense for the damages caused by their acts should be required, along with some form of censure and a solemn pledge to eschew such conduct in the future. It should be seen as an opportunity to more clearly refine the vision of the founders and the constitution with regard to the powers of the states and federal government.
This will not wholly satisfy the die-hard partisans on either side of the issues dividing the country, but it offers the chance to find some central ground to go forward from together. Surely men of reason and good will can find a way. This will not solve all of the problems we are currently confronting, but it provides a means to go on.
The alternative is too dreadful to contemplate; it might go so far as open warfare between the states if passions remain unchecked. If some injustice is the price of avoiding conflict, it is a price we must weigh carefully. We must make our choices with prudence and caution if we are to avoid worse consequences from strict adherence to partisan ends.
God Bless America.
This diary was… inspired? by Hunter’s post on centrism. YMMV.
Meanwhile, something a little less centrist. Different context now, but it’s still a good question.