(In what way is this comprimise different on a notable level from mine? Is there something in the Davis Comprimise you find unacceptable? i am still open to edits and suggestions.)
The differences may be summed up as followed, divided into "pro north" and "pro south" for simple reference (in which "pro north" refers to points which are generally more supported in the north, and pro south refers likewise to points more supported in the south).
pro-north:
- A set of Fugitive Slave laws which, unlike some proposals ((i.e. what actually became the fugitive slave laws)), give more protection to men held in servitude in free states. They may be bought or buy themselves out of the slavery, keeping free states from needing always to enslave them again ((and giving abolitionists something to do personally and legally to help, rather than sit around frustrated and form underground railroads and such)) while compensating the owner of the slave fairly. Also, they provide protection against freedmen being falsely or unreasonably seized and re-enslaved.
- Less antagonistic wording towards Mexico ((a very minor thing, but Gallatin isn't really enthusiastic about another war with them)).
- Removal of the clause for an unrealistic and arbitrary quota on soldier recruitment. The military of the United States should be able to recruit all willing members of society as it needs to without having to keep a balance between geographical divisions (which are not even of equal population, much less population of potential soldiers). The army has no need of being arbitrarily reorganized.
pro-south
- A set of Fugitive Slave laws giving a clear legal direction to the issue of escaped slaves, wherein owners can seize their slaves or be compensated for it.
- Kansas given to a vote of popular sovereignty re the slavery issue, as it already has some history which already makes it exist culturally between the "free" and "slave" states.
- More flexible laws regarding the fine for the beating to death of a slave. The fine then may be determined based on the jury's recognition of the owner's motives and intent.
Also, the term young child was more clearly delineated in my bill.
Of course, I too am willing to make changes, especially to the extent of the various clauses (the maximum fine for beating to death of slaves, the maximum compensation, et cetera, the minimum age before a child may be separated in a slave auction, et cetera) but also in other details.
I would support Section 2 of this new proposal, if the part stating the Government to pay for the slave's freedom were to be taken out. The Government can not be seen to openly support either side of this issue just yet. Let a private interest pay for the slave's freedom if they so wish, but only at twice the value of the slave at the time of seizure in the free states.
The Federal government may not pay for the freedom of a slave with the current wording ((unless I messed something up)). The funds must be private funds, unless a state decide to implement the laws with some public support. I do not feel that mandating that local governments may not provide some support is practical (due to work arounds) or correct politically (given the Constitutional union of the states, and the rights of states, states which determine to be free states). The slave owners get compensated either way, and states will only do what is practical (for they do not want to throw away money).
As for the price of compensation, I do not think that twice the value of the slave is reasonable. Instead, I might suggest the market price of a slave plus compensation for the money lost in pursuing the slave. Is this reasonable?
I may consider the matter of state government or other local government funds more later, if a good counterargument is given against their usage (or the ability for states to let them be used).
King:
;-)
(cough)
The differences between the compromises are as followed: put generally, the Davis Compromise is not so much a compromise as a gaining of power of the South over the north, the Texas compromise is the exact replica of the real compromise of 1850 and is in many ways neutral.
((that would actually be accidental if it's an exact replica [and I was specifically trying to make a less abolitionist hated Fugitive Slave Act, to counter the lack of bringing in California as a Free State and D.C. slave trade abolishment (which in real life compromises would reward the north more. Here we just have a couple humanitarian things that they can agree on, while the south gets Texas and some appeasement about future expansion - along with greater power in the David Compromise) ] ))
((I Am a bit of a history geek and i noted the similarity, but a new fugitive slave act would lead to the faster collapse of the union, not a slower one. The comprimise of 1850 is generally seen as having saved the union in the short term to doom it in a decade nowadays.))
*Cough*
My comprimise plan is meant merely to prevent a tryanny of the majority. the 1:1 ratio part favors the south with its smaller population; however, this is only because we with our lessser industrial output and lower population need to be able to defend ourselves quicly in the event of a National Emergency
((We're going to doom the union either way, eventually. At this point, I think both north and south are leveraging for power. The south would be torn by Texas coming in as free... and so the north would be pretty upset with Texas going slave, the Missouri Compromise only, and the other requirements. Given the situation, and with a FSA which doesn't slam the north, I don't think it will just cause everything to crumble much more than in real life [or at least Gallatin can't predict that it would cause everything to crumble so much]))
The army is no tyrant's sword. We respect in this country the rights of minorities, and the rights of states. This is why in the senate the south has so many votes compared to their size (and is gaining more with the admission of Texas as a slave state, should either compromise pass). This is why southerners may be admitted to serve their country in the military just as much as northerners may - but why limit the military (or else limit the south, forcing them to produce more soldiers)? Here, the military is an instrument of war, not of political control as in some third rate "republic". Virginians do not fight against Pennsylvanians, nor do the men of Ohio seek to battle the men of Texas with this army. No - instead Virgians, Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Texans, and all others fight for each other - no matter what their geographical distinction is. This is the United States of America. If there is an emergency in the south, northern soldiers and southern soldiers can fight side by side no matter whether they are at a ratio of 1 to 1 or a ratio of 1 to an elephant. It does not matter in a peaceable and constitutional union such as ours.