Yes, it was..constantly, I even showed you the several times through various legislation how they kept putting it off. Those laws were all comprimises about the slave issue.

You are misunderstanding the historical context as well as the nature of a republic.

there is a huge difference between the history of slavery and the republican History .. each one of the has his own policies and his own constitutional system , I think that you mixing up with content of the prospective ..

^_^

"Republic" isn't the issue in this context. I am demonstrateing how state representatives, through various laws, IE Mason Dixon Line, 3/5ths rule and such. Were essentially delaying haveing to confront the Slavery issue head on, when it would have been much easier to deal with. Instead they kept working "around" it, thus other issues built up like a wall around it, with it being the morter. Issues such as trade tarriffs and state's rights, and who was actually human and who wasn't.

okay , I don't see what's the slavery got do with that !!

what u r referring at is called " dictatorship"

Republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government.

^_^

Let's try this one more time I think we are not talking about the same thing here. I'm not talking about Dictatorships or Republics at all. What I was trying to talk about was how the US government, at it's founding, kept putting off the slavery issue via various compramises instead of dealing with it right then. Wich resulted in more problems than it was worth. Essentially what I was trying to say is the tendency to put off small issues onto future generations compound said issues, it doesn't make them smaller.

Now we are on the same page . I Agree ^_^

and by the way , what an amazing point of view ..

but there is one thing .. Define "various compromises"

Not really. I can't see how Chinese would change the world.

Mason Dixon Line was one compramise, basically saying any State brought into Union above said line would be "free" and any state below would be "slave". The 3/5th's rule...came about becuase the North didn't want the "one man, one vote" thing being allowed for southern slaves, since the slaver holders could make them vote anyway they wanted. So they compramised and had 5 slaves equal 3 votes, IE, a black person was only worth 3/5ths of a white person. Those "compramises" made things worse over time, specially when the Courts weighed in with odd opions. The US still suffers problems, that are old hang ups from those past decisions.

Okay ..

but you still didn't answer my question .. Define ( Various Compromises ) ?

what is the prospective behind the ( Compromisation )

When you r talking about compromising , u talk about a lot of countries and federal systems not just the US ..