It would Obviously be impossible to fulfil the needs of both parties without the other not liking the result. The only way would to slowly give both north and south freedoms to allow them to do what they want. For example, if a slave escaped to the north and was caught, instead of sending him back to the south to once again become a slave, you could reimburse the slave owner with the money that they would lose. That way the slave would have his freedom and the slave owner would not lose the money for the slave. Gradual laws made benefiting both sides would be a hard and a long debated task but if they were able to continue to do this then war may have been avoided. Both sides would have lost and gained in any compromise that is made. The problem is finding one where there was more good than bad for both …show more content…
The Congress regulates our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable degree their happiness.... And now the simple, bold, and even awful question which presents itself to us is this:...shall we establish human bondage, or permit it by our sufferance to be established?... I confess that the most alarming evidence of our degeneracy which has yet been given is found in the fact that we even debate such a