"But attributing to them the qualities of selfishness, greed and evil does a disservice to them."
Maybe this is where we're getting our wires crossed. I'm not doing this at all. In fact, if you notice, I haven't referred to the abolitionists a single time.
The abolitionists wanted to abolish slavery, not strike compromises. But they weren…
"But attributing to them the qualities of selfishness, greed and evil does a disservice to them."
Maybe this is where we're getting our wires crossed. I'm not doing this at all. In fact, if you notice, I haven't referred to the abolitionists a single time.
The abolitionists wanted to abolish slavery, not strike compromises. But they weren't able to do this because they were *opposed* by those who were too selfish, greedy, and in some cases, evil to consider it. I wasn't calling the abolitionists any of these things.
I'm not really criticising the people who made the compromise, at least not those who did it to weaken the power of those who supported slavery. I'm criticising the compromise itself. I'm criticising the fact that more wasn't done. I'm criticising the fact that a compromise was necessary on an issue that should have been so simple and fundamental.
I'm reminded of a talk James Baldwin gave about the Little Rock Nine. He mentioned how some Americans were proud that the national guard had been brought in to make sure those black kids could attend their school in accordance with Brown vs Board.
"No other country in the world would have gone so far", said one proud white liberal at the time. "True," said James, "but you don't seem to have realised that no other country would have *had* to."
I agree on all counts (with the caveat mentioned above). And I guess that this ended up being the dialogue that I think is critical but typically gets sidelined in any discussion of the compromise (in my experience).
I honestly did intend it to be a "small point" as I originally wrote and not as thorough a discussion as this ended up being (and probably not warranted by a single line in an exchange between you and Michael) but I appreciate it.
"But attributing to them the qualities of selfishness, greed and evil does a disservice to them."
Maybe this is where we're getting our wires crossed. I'm not doing this at all. In fact, if you notice, I haven't referred to the abolitionists a single time.
The abolitionists wanted to abolish slavery, not strike compromises. But they weren't able to do this because they were *opposed* by those who were too selfish, greedy, and in some cases, evil to consider it. I wasn't calling the abolitionists any of these things.
I'm not really criticising the people who made the compromise, at least not those who did it to weaken the power of those who supported slavery. I'm criticising the compromise itself. I'm criticising the fact that more wasn't done. I'm criticising the fact that a compromise was necessary on an issue that should have been so simple and fundamental.
I'm reminded of a talk James Baldwin gave about the Little Rock Nine. He mentioned how some Americans were proud that the national guard had been brought in to make sure those black kids could attend their school in accordance with Brown vs Board.
"No other country in the world would have gone so far", said one proud white liberal at the time. "True," said James, "but you don't seem to have realised that no other country would have *had* to."
I agree on all counts (with the caveat mentioned above). And I guess that this ended up being the dialogue that I think is critical but typically gets sidelined in any discussion of the compromise (in my experience).
I honestly did intend it to be a "small point" as I originally wrote and not as thorough a discussion as this ended up being (and probably not warranted by a single line in an exchange between you and Michael) but I appreciate it.