This is because both sides were beginning to grapple with the reality of a civil war and decided to stall a inflammatory discussion in an official place. Now whether that was a good or bad idea is hard to say as there are merits to both sides. The reasoning behind it being a good idea was that stalling could help the country stabilize and strengthen before the discussions regarding slavery began to rip Congress and eventually the country apart. Those who fought it as a bad idea, most notably John Quincy Adams, were adamant on it being a violation of the 1st amendment. It is hard to argue against a violation of constitutional rights but in this case, it was almost necessary. Our country was but barely the start of a blooming flower. To throw it immediately into the heat of such a perilous issue would have been certain death. Political necessity called for a blockade of this issue. On the other hand, the silencing of human rights abuses and Congress balking at any action other than stalling is a little bit more than repulsive. Between Scylla and Charybdis, it is near impossible to sail the ship to safety and Congress did what they thought was …show more content…
The rule brought to light an era of political stalling and paradoxical compromises. There were so many ways to maneuver through the Gag Rule but to truly solve the problem, it seemed like one had to do both things to avoid any type of war. No one was right in this decision and in the end everyone was wrong and ultimately helped to pay the price on a horrible war. At the end of this, the Gag Rule of 1836-1844 was neither a good or bad idea, it was just an idea and it stalled the war a little