Say you are a northern abolitionist who strongly opposes slavery. Is it ok for you to push for the outlawing of slavery in the south even though you do not live there?
I need a paragraph answer. Pleeeasse..
2006-12-13 13:55:33 · 6 answers · asked by football_crazy_62 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Yes many abolitionist's had abolished slavery,even tho they had'nt lived in the south, due to the fact some southerner's were helping the abolitionist's in the north, but most of the southerner's kept they're freeing the skave's silent, just incase they're were to be caught by the other southern people who were racist. which was part of te under ground rail road... the underground railroad was with harriet tubman and the southern people who helped free some of the slaves were some who met harriet, some never did but they still helped.
2006-12-13 14:06:07 · answer #1 · answered by aria19_lovely 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depending on the methods taken to oppose slavery it may or may not be legal. Let's take a case study ...
Henry Ward Beecher, Bostonian preacher, brother to the author Harriet Beecher-Stow ( Who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin) and a prominant abolishist used shipments of "Beecher Bibles" to the western territories to attempt to persuade them to oppose slavery in their territorys in the hopes that should the territory become a state it would be a free state and swing the balance in favor of the abolitionists. The crates his congregation in Massachuesetts sent west were clearly marked "Bibles" and when opened contained ... rifles. The settlers could protect their homes and feed their family using these rifles and they knew they came from abolitionists. It was the hope of the preacher that the settlers would feel enough gratitude towards the abolitionists to support their cause.
Was it "OK" to do this? That would be a persoanl judgement. Did it work? It seems historically all the territories he sent his "Beecher Bibles" to supported the abolitionists except for the Texas territory which remained nuetral due to sharing borders with slave states.
Now if he instead decided to send the rifles to abolitionists in the south to rise up against the local authorities that would've been illegal on definately not "OK."
2006-12-13 22:14:10 · answer #2 · answered by b_plenge 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not only is it OK, there's a strong moral imperative. The problem comes in advocacy without conviction. Yankees could have ended slavery bloodlessly by the simple expedient of buying up the market. Please remember that the importation of slaves was banned decades before the War Between the States. The supply was finite, and the 5th Amendment requires just compensation for the seizure of property, so the solution is obvious. Had there been enough abolitionists, it could even have been done as a private (that is, non-governmental) manner.
2006-12-13 23:46:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The above question is only one of the quandries that faced the US in the 1860's.
Slavery was not what the war started to be about it was what the war became about.
The above question applies primarily to States Rights, which is what the war was really about.
Now, go do your own homework, dear.
2006-12-13 22:27:00 · answer #4 · answered by ajtheactress 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. This was a question of basic human rights.
An analogy would be if child abuse was legal in another state, would you not still advocate that child abuse be outlawed even though you don't live there?
2006-12-13 22:50:27 · answer #5 · answered by third_indiana_cavalry 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do your own homework, okkkkkayyyyyyyyyyyy
2006-12-13 22:20:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋