What thread do you think you’re in? JSM hasn’t posted in this one yet.
As to applying the question to current events, I agree that the question posed could be relevant–but I would also state that there are two levels to address (as indicated in my follow up in that post): at the individual level and at the society/government level.
No, not kill/die. But what you say here is what I meant.
; but expressions of that side/view/belief/etc. are the things that create reactions from others.
Abolitionists might have been peaceful, but they their political stand set the gears in motion for bloodshed.
So it would go more towards to what extent should an individual go for their view/beliefs; and to what extent should a society/government go to act on the “collective” view/belief.
Not quite sure what you mean here though.
They weren’t all peaceful. See: John brown.
We’ll make our own message board
With blackjack
and slavery
Bump, for recent incorrect answers and opinions about the US Civil War.
First came Republican candidate Nikki Haley, who answered a question at a Dec. 27 event in Berlin, New Hampshire, about the Civil War’s cause. Haley’s answer didn’t refer to slavery, and instead cited “the role of government and what the rights of the people are.” (She later said that “of course the Civil War was about slavery.”)
Well, technically she was right the first time, in that “what the rights of the people are” meant (IMO), “whether some people have the right to enslave other people, and the right for those other people to be enslaved.”
Then Trump, likely off-script (is there a script?) opines as well:
Then, in Newton, Iowa, on Jan. 6, former President Donald Trump said the Civil War “could have been negotiated” rather than causing years of bloodshed.
Students and scholars of American history might be tempted to ask the presidential candidates to take a refresher course.
From what I’ve read, the negotiations (threats to secede, compromises, bloody territorial spats, and such) were ongoing for four score and (checks math) five years.
Oh, here is a guy, the CSA Vice President:
The “corner-stone” speech: On March 21, 1861, Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens presented slavery as one of the reasons behind the “revolution” that produced the Civil War.
The Confederacy’s constitution, Stephens said, “has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the (N)egro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”
He added that the Confederacy’s “corner-stone rests upon the great truth that the (N)egro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.”
Basically stating that slavery is a natural consequence of racist philosophy.
Oh, and remember three minutes ago, when I said I read things?
“There was extensive, decades-long negotiation,” said Martin P. Johnson, a historian at Miami University, Hamilton in Ohio and author of “Writing the Gettysburg Address.”
It started with the discussions at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when the framers, despite the reservations about slavery among some of them, let the importation of enslaved people to continue until 1808; required the return of fugitives from slavery; and counted an enslaved person as three-fifths of a free person for the purpose of congressional representation. The framers made these compromises because they were concerned that, without them, the southern states would reject the document.
Negotiations later produced the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850.
As late as December 1860, just weeks after Lincoln’s election and a few months before hostilities broke out at Fort Sumter in South Carolina, Sen. John Crittenden of Kentucky offered the “Crittenden Compromise,” which would have extended to the Pacific Ocean the line originally drawn by the Missouri Compromise, prohibiting slavery north of the 36°30’ parallel but allowing it below that line. It died in committee.
The war’s start “was not a failure of negotiation or process,” Johnson said. “It was about a fundamental difference of outlook, ideology, and understanding of the American experiment. Are we a nation founded in assuring the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all? Or a compact to guarantee property only, specifically property in humans?”