Constitutionally recognizing regional autonomy via the creation of two Autonomous Republics within the greater federal union, a Southern and Northern one. Each A.R governs itself internally according to an unamendable bill of rights, with a common market-customs union and free travel guaranteed between them, a shared military, and a federal Senate that each A.R elects delegates to, who then select from among themselves a Chancellory composed of one Southern and one Northern Delegate, which acts as an extremely limited federal executive that solely has control over foreign policy pertaining to both A.R's unified front and zero domestic responsibility. Both A.Rs are constitutionally mandated to meet a basic level of rights elucidated by the unamendable Constitution but otherwise are free to govern internally how they want, and even organize their internal governments in different ways, so long as both A.R's stay republican.The Southern A.R, in exchange for giving up all claims on the West Coast and most of the Mountain West, is given Kansas, what becomes Colorado and New Mexico, and a "Butternut" State composed of the Southern halves of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, used as a buffer to prevent fugitive slaves from meandering north and inflaming tensions over property retrieval. The South also agrees to help in a planned war against the United Kingdom at some point in the future to try and claim Canada for the Northern A.R. With regional autonomy recognized as an institutional component of the federal unions' framework, Southern Fire-Eaters will have the steam taken from their movement and fail to get secession proposals or votes passed, the North gets to rid itself of the moral and political conundrum of slavery while also a guarantee on Free territory in the West. Slavery, not being mentioned in the constitutional bill of rights, means that the South is free to continue its practice until it becomes unviable or they decide otherwise.
>>16886754>common market-customs unionInherently requires a certain level of regulatory and standards harmonization.> composed of one Southern and one Northern DelegateThey had by far the smaller population, and lower growth prospects. Who would ever agree to this? > unamendableIt was dumb with the Crittendon amendments. It's dumb here.>giving up all claims on the West Coast and most of the Mountain West, is given Kansas, what becomes Colorado and New Mexico, and a "Butternut" State composed of the Southern halves of Ohio, Indiana and IllinoisIn exchange for giving up what they don't have and can't get, they'll get valuable bits of other states. >a buffer to prevent fugitive slaves from meandering northWouldn't work, in the same way that Kentucky and Virginia didn't actually shield the deep south. >fail to get secession proposals or votes passedThe maintenance of slavery required the active participation of the rest of the country. Non-interference still leaves it on a dead-end trajectory. >that the South is free to continue its practice until it becomes unviable or they decide otherwise.So exactly what they had before the great chimpout of 1860, except the entire country would be "permanently" oriented around it.
>>16886769White people dont chimp out. chimpouts dont take the form of organized political and martial movements.skimmed your post didnt feel like replying to it since its low IQ and youre an anti-racist.
>>16886769Your whole post displays a very deep lack of knowledge on antebellum American politics, but I'll respond anyway. >Inherently requires a certain level of regulatory and standards harmonization.Yes. Which already existed and would not be under threat in an A.R model. >Who would ever agree to this?What? How retarded are you? We're talking about the country that already agreed to giving smaller states more senators, and has an electoral college, most people in the 1850s weren't "muh NYC and LA need to decide everything for all of America" sycophants like you seem to be. >unamendableThis is the one salient point you have, in truth no constitution is unamendable but simply using the word eases tensions. >In exchange for giving up what they don't have and can't getNo one is sure who is getting what in the 1850s. The Southerners are putting up a good fight in Kansas and so far EVERY compromise involving slavery has led to its extension. Northerners getting a guaruntee on 90% of the West is absolutely something they'd want, in fact, that's what they were fighting for the entire time. It was called Free Soil. Open a book.>Wouldn't workIt would certainly make the Underground Railroad significantly harder and lead to less need to go into Free States to retrieve slaves. >The maintenance of slavery required the active participationRetarded 60s lib talking point that actually doesn't make sense. It didn't require active participation on anyones part but the South, outside of that, all it required was the North not caring. >So exactly what they hed before the great chimpout of 1860Not at all, before the great chimpout of 1860 they had no guarantee on slavery, no guarantee that the North couldn't eventually out vote them on the issue, no guarantee on any Western territory. This gives them domestic self-governance and a guarantee on everything above while also allowing them to remain tied to the North and benefit from that.
>>16886773>I can't read seven lines - this proves that ur a dum dum Compelling and high-quality contribution. We salute you, O standard-bearer of Western civlization.
>>16886754We invade Canada and Mexico, starting a war with the Brits and French. As the war goes on, we are forced to free the slaves and draft them into the fight, ending slavery without an internal fight.Think about how kino it would be. The best of the Union and would be Confederacy on the same side, slaying bongs and frogs in their thousands and ensuring the primacy of the Monroe Doctrine for eternity. Grant and Lee fighting side by side. Sherman and Forrest together. If only.
>>16886754Got a much simpler and better solution for you:>Buchanan actually does his job and squashes the rebellion before they have time to organize
>>16886789>would not be under threat in an A.R model.It requires one legislative/administrative body with authority over the entire common market. >the country that already agreed to giving smaller states more senators, and has an electoral college'Big states' never existed as a coherent bloc. That isn't the case here, where the North+West increasingly had a self-identity. Again, what would be in it for them, to give an inferior region a legal equality? >NYC and LA need to decide everything for all of AmericaThe top 10 cities in 1860 had ~8% of the US population. If anything, enshrining the will of a minority like that would be the real imposition.> EVERY compromise involving slavery has led to its extensionThere wasn't a default such that slavery would be banned. In many cases, slavery in the territories predated statehood. And if you're doing that, then your autonomous republics aren't actually regionally-based, but slavery based. And given the shifting of economic, demographic, and political power toward free states, the future was not looking bright for the slavers, which helped motivate the succession decision. >less need to go into Free States to retrieve slavesWhy would free states care about this, let alone enough to reorganize the country around it or give up territory for it? If there is no federal Fugitive Slave Act, there is no (legal) retrieval of fugitive slaves happening. >all it required was the North not caring.And allowing slave retrievals, and suppressing abolitionists, and supporting expansion activities in the Caribbean and the West, and providing one of the key markets, and...>they had no guarantee They were free to continue slavery as they pleased. Not even the Republicans called for abolition where it existed, nor could they possibly have gotten the votes for that on any meaningful timescale. >guarantees Or in other words, "the entire country would be permanently oriented around it".
>>16886754TKD simple as
>>16886919
>>16886754>the solution to the federal vs states power ambiguity problem is to insert another layer between them to make everything even more complicated and ambiguous
>>16886894Wouldn't solve sectionalism, especially because slavery isn't getting abolished in a scenario like that. The OP unironically has a pretty good solution.
>>16886926This would make everything less ambiguous actually, its inserting another layer but constitutionally recognizing it, rather than leaving it up to interpretation like the traditional states vs federal power debates. Those debates might still exist, but would mostly be internal to each republic, I suppose.
>>16886902It has one legislative and administrative body, the Senate and Chancellory, along with a federal constitution, and shared military. That's what enforces the common market, which had already been established anyway and wasn't going anywhere. I don't get your point about big states. It doesn't address what I said, which is just that no one was advocating erasing states, the electoral college or more representation for smaller states. Sure, there was no default on whether a territory would allow slavery but Northerners hated Popular Sovereignty. They wanted a guarantee of Free Soil, that's why they elected Lincoln. So you concede the point here, Northerners had something very important to gain from this deal.Northerners didn't suppress abolitionists; they didn't support Southern filibustering into the Caribbean and Central America; they were coerced into the Fugitive Slave Acts by a Southern Supreme Court and often rioted when southern slave hunters came north to catch escaped slaves. So, again, you're wrong about that. Your comment about allowing slavery misses the Southern standpoint entirely. What Southerners were worried about was the North eventually surrounding them on all sides and outvoting them on the issue, not immediate abolition. That's why they wanted independence. Lincoln saying he'll allow slavery doesn't mean future generations won't say different; here, they get an autonomous republic and self-government where that threat is eliminated sans anyone going to war to end slavery immediately which no one wanted to do by your own admission. Yes, the country would be oriented around admitting sectional differences. That's the point. That's why its a compromise. That's why it averts the war.
>>16886923Secret societies need to be outright banned and ruthlessly prosecuted. Have the balls to join a gang, an extremist political group or a militia or something, or the decency to hold better company if you're past it age-wise. No need for confused philosemitic LARPs.
>>16886754This wouldn't mend the problems within the union financially or ideologically. It's like a change of uniform without solving most of the core issues, and only addressing some.
You've contrived an elaborate appeasement scheme undermining both federal authority and state autonomy merely in order to contain abolitionism instead of slaveryYou propose to seize land from Northern states to give them to the South, in exchange for territory the slaveocrats merely "claimed" political entitlement to, i.e. imaginary cession of imaginary assets i.e. an absurdist's parody of compromiseYou propose to solve sectionalism by permanently enshrining sectionalism as its own form of government, and you installed a perpetual Bleeding Kansas in the middle of it all, on the retarded premise that it will solve the problem of slaves running til they reach free soil. You goon
Just give slaves more rights in line with humanitarian reforms like better treatment/housing and not splitting up families at auctions without abolishing slavery - problem solved.
>>16887567castrate all black males, like in arab countrieslet slaves naturally expire by the time they will become obsolete anyway
>>16886754>How To Prevent The American Civil WarKill all niggers, now there's no reason to fight.
>>16886754>creation of two Autonomous Republics within the greater federal union, a Southern and Northern one.Attempted with the Kansas Nebraska Act and failed accordingly with Bleeding Kansas. Americans got the right for autonomy and democracy, then couldn't do it and started shooting each other mid-vote. US Marshals then the Army attempted then failed to restore order when Congress itself began fighting.The ACW was just inevitable. Fundamentally, American society contradicted itself with slavery and there way no way for it to continue peacefully.
>>16888548Fletcher v. Peck
>>16886964No, it would not. By giving states right to nullify more federal laws, you are giving them the right to nullify each others' at will and for arbitrary reasons. States would fight each other rather than debate it in Congress. The Union would dissolve much faster, just as it did in 1860.Please explain how you fix the Nullification and Fugitive Slave problems without a bureaucracy that has authority in free states, who won't respect it.
>>16886754>How To Prevent The American Civil WarKing James bans slavery in British N.America before it gets started.
>>16888571The south had already done so much for the north
I think it would have required international pressure from European trading partners which probably would have eventually come anyway if the civil war had not happened when it did and probably introducing them early to TotallyNotSlavery alternatives like the sharecropping system as well as legal compromises that would make blacks non-threatening second class citizens without being slaves like denying them the vote to assure the planter class their supremacy would not be challenged
>>16886754>leggings beat cartridge box and knapsackLolPrevent the civil war by redrawing the constitution under continental lines and replacing common law with civil law. Centralize everything and assure the south of shared prosperity and dignity, the immediate tangible benefits being monthly money and engineers to industrialize like the North,in exchange for monthly reforms leading to eventual abolition of slavery
