Lincoln and the Republicans were open to plans for gradual, compensated imagination and proposed such plans in Congress. Russia was working out similar plans to end serfdom at about the same time. The American slaveowners weren't interested in getting money in exchange for giving up their slaves. The reasons were many and complicated. But it's true that they had power and control and regarded themselves as righteous and didn't want to lose any of that.
But, no, it didn't have to end with poverty and humiliation, unless the loss of power was in itself humiliating. I should note, though, that in the end, things didn't work out well in Russia either. Neither the serfs or the former serf holders were satisfied.
The American slaveowners weren’t interested in getting money in exchange for giving up their slaves.
How idiotic does one have to be to see this statement is full of horse malarkey. The slaveowners din’t want compensation for their slaves, they wanted to remain in business and produce a good. It’s all they have wanted because that is where the money was. Your drawn out inference was wrong. A plantation owner, who also happened to be a slave owner as the slaves were his labor force, wanted to produce and manufacture a good to sell in an open market to produce a profit. That is all they wanted. It took vast amounts of land to do that and it took vast amounts of labor to sow and plant those fields. You want an analogy, the demoncraps are importing America’s next slave labor force. Although no one calls them slaves, they call them cheap immigrated labor. Something most people on this board have been fighting against for a very long time. Low wages, poor living conditions are exactly what the plantation owners of the 1800s provided to the slave. Only difference is the slaves were not free. If you think this is another wrong analogy, you would be wrong because I have seen the conditions these cheap immigrated laborers work and live in. Sure they have four walls, a roof and a cot but so did the slaves. Just because you refuse to see the corrollation between what was happening in this country in the 1800s and what is happening in this country today, doesn’t mean it is wrong. Open up your eyes. Or not it is your choice. But you better make a choice soon because America of today is actually repeating the history of the 1800s, only the names and dates have changed. Demoncraps have never let go of the loss of the Civil War and they have worked very hard to get here. How hard will you capitulate to the repeated history of the 1800s?
I almost feel sorry for DL at this point. He is gradually regressing into his own peculiar myths about the Civil War, and it is hard to watch. He is back to ranting about something that exists only in his mind, namely “the British Union”. There is simply no such entity and there never was. But he thinks if he can make out the United Kingdom to be a “Union”, it will bolster his bad analogy of comparing the American Revolution to the Civil War. Oh, and also his homegrown, unique take on the Corwin Amendment (as if it passed and became an Amendment to the Constitution.) I also empathize with his struggle to find the proper analogy for what happened at Fort Sumter. He is conflating Lincoln’s analogy of comparing the separation of the North and the South (in his first inaugural address) to the separation of a married couple. Along with the following three Bad Analogies relating to the situation at Sumter, from none other than the President of the CSA!
To wit:
#1. “Statement to his cabinet ( President Davis ) “The order for the sending of the fleet was a declaration of war. The responsibility is on their shoulders,not ours. The juggle for position as to who shall fire the first shot in such an hour is unworthy of a great people and their cause. A deadly weapon has been aimed at our heart. Only a fool would wait until the first shot has been fired.”
#2. “From Davis's point of view, to permit the strengthening of Sumter, even if done in a peaceable manner, was unacceptable. It meant the continued presence of a hostile threat to Charleston. Further, although the ostensible purpose of the expedition was to resupply, not reinforce the fort, the Confederacy had no guarantee that Lincoln would abide by his word. And even if he restricted his actions to resupply in this case, what was to prevent him from attempting to reinforce the fort in the future? Thus, the attack on Sumter was a measure of "defense." To have acquiesced in the fort's relief, even at the risk of firing the first shot, "would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired."
#3. Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun."
https://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html