Compromise wasn’t an option in Civil War

The guest column writer, David Goldfield, blames politics and religion fueling unjust slaughter (“Civil War's lesson,” July 22). He claims the slaughter of 750,000 people could have been prevented by compromise.

Framers of the Constitution of the “Home of the Free” inserted subtle wording to allow slavery because the southern states would not sign without it. It was the first compromise. Many were formed later, including the famous 1820 Missouri Compromise and the final one in 1850.

In 1847, the Wilmot Proviso was passed in the House to prevent the spread of slavery in new territories. Lincoln voted for it in one form or another over 40 times but it was always blocked by the Southern-controlled Senate. The South had to expand slave states to equal free states or it would lose control of the Senate.

In 1854, Stephen Douglas's Nebraska-Kansas Bill was passed to allow Kansas and Nebraska to become states. It eliminated the Missouri Compromise to allow Kansas to be a free or slave state. Settlers moved in from both the North and the South to swing the vote either for or against slavery. The result became “Bloody Kansas.”

Lincoln did not want slavery to spread but said it could exist for another 100 years where established. This was the option the South had when Lincoln was elected president.

I'm convinced the only way the Civil War could have been avoided would have been to allow two nations, the United States and the Confederate States.

Ivan Hardt

Cedar Rapids