So, there were two sides to the abolitionist movement. One side believed that the best way to abolish slavery was through reasoning and progressive legislation. The other side believed that slavery was SUCH a ridiculous hypocrisy against the liberty that the United States claimed to espouse, that violence against current slaveowners was a legitimate response.
Looking back, both sides seem to have merit. A violent fight for the rights of a person, who at the time was censused at 3/5 of a person and treated like a mere animal, seemed worthy.
Today, you have people fighting for the rights of a person, who is currently censused at 0/5 of a person. And if they blow up an uninhabited medical facility, it seems wrong for them to go around the law like that, even if they don't hurt anybody.
Is it simply the legitimacy of the argument that causes our differing responses? Will time change our response? Or like we discussed yesterday, will something only be "wrong" when the law says it is? April 25, 2007
Civil War Week Pt. 3
So, there were two sides to the abolitionist movement. One side believed that the best way to abolish slavery was through reasoning and progressive legislation. The other side believed that slavery was SUCH a ridiculous hypocrisy against the liberty that the United States claimed to espouse, that violence against current slaveowners was a legitimate response.
Looking back, both sides seem to have merit. A violent fight for the rights of a person, who at the time was censused at 3/5 of a person and treated like a mere animal, seemed worthy.
Today, you have people fighting for the rights of a person, who is currently censused at 0/5 of a person. And if they blow up an uninhabited medical facility, it seems wrong for them to go around the law like that, even if they don't hurt anybody.
Is it simply the legitimacy of the argument that causes our differing responses? Will time change our response? Or like we discussed yesterday, will something only be "wrong" when the law says it is?