31.738
Bearbeitungen
Abolitionism: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
keine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| Zeile 48: | Zeile 48: | ||
=== Open Questions === | === Open Questions === | ||
==== Does the Abolition of Slavery justify the Use of Violence? ==== | |||
There has been small-scale violence, there has been a bloody civil war, and there has been corruption in order to bring about abolition. It is an open question if all or some of this violence and corruption was a conditio sine qua non of abolition. If it was, at least to some extent, then the question arises in how far the (morally justified) end justified the (problematic) means that were necessary to bring it about. | |||
#Violence. Most abolitionists were decidedly non-violent; this was especially true of the Quakers as the main protagonists. On the other hand, violence did play a role both among pro- and anti-slavery activists. There were attempts to start large-scale slave rebellions (Nat Turner, John Brown), there were attacks on the life of abolitionists (Elijah Lovejoy), and many forms of aggression were part of the controversies surrounding slavery. Most of all, of course, the Civil War itself was the most violent episode in U.S. history - and without it, would abolition ever have come about? | #Violence by abolitionist individuals and small groups. Most abolitionists were decidedly non-violent; this was especially true of the Quakers as the main protagonists. On the other hand, violence did play a role both among pro- and anti-slavery activists. There were attempts to start large-scale slave rebellions (Nat Turner, John Brown), there were attacks on the life of abolitionists (Elijah Lovejoy), and many forms of aggression were part of the controversies surrounding slavery. | ||
#The | #Violence as military action in a civil war. Most of all, of course, the Civil War itself was the most violent episode in U.S. history - and without it, would abolition ever have come about? Is abolition worth it, can abolition justify all the suffering of a civil war? What if without violence abolition would not have been possible to achieve? | ||
# | #The Lincoln Administration used a multitude of corruptive strategies to secure support of the 13th Amendment. | ||
#The sudden liberation of slaves may have had counterproductive effects on an unknown number of ex-slaves. Some or many of them may have been literally worse off after than before liberation, because they were suddenly without means for housing, making a living, etc. This raises questions like: (a) would a slower and more pragmatic emancipation have been possible/preferable to the immediatist approach in politics? Does theoretical abolitionism have a responsibility for the negative consequences of liberation? (b) does the victory of the principle (abolition) justify to suppress evidence of negative consequences of liberation? | |||
#Another open question refers to the pre-conditions that allowed the abolitionist discourse to gain hegemonial status within half a century. Did the "innocence" of the slaves play a role in abolitionist narratives? How did worldly (human rights) and religious (salvery as a sin) arguments relate to each other? What was the role of popular books (Uncle Tom's Cabin) and symbols (Wedgwood medallions) in convincing the larger public of the abolitionist cause? | |||
#What was the specific potential of the Quaker religion to bring about such an involvement? | #What was the specific potential of the Quaker religion to bring about such an involvement? | ||
#What influence the claim that slavery was unjust - and what made this claim successful? Here we touch upon [http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Gallie-Essentially-Contested-Concepts.pdf essentially contested concepts] and fundamental conflicts that have been riveting the public of all ages and cultures. By definition, abolitionists turn against an established order by challenging the legitimacy of one of its legal institutions (e.g. slavery) which they, the abolitionists, claim to be utterly unjust and morally completely untenable. This radical reproach does not make them popular with the defenders of the status quo. More often than not they picture abolitionists as irresponsible and dangerous radicals at the lunatic fringes of society. Every now and then, though, history concedes victory to the abolitionist cause - such as in the case of slavery. In those cases, abolitionism gains high respect after victory, and to have overcome an inhumane institution suddenly turns into a source of pride for the whole nation. | #What influence the claim that slavery was unjust - and what made this claim successful? Here we touch upon [http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Gallie-Essentially-Contested-Concepts.pdf essentially contested concepts] and fundamental conflicts that have been riveting the public of all ages and cultures. By definition, abolitionists turn against an established order by challenging the legitimacy of one of its legal institutions (e.g. slavery) which they, the abolitionists, claim to be utterly unjust and morally completely untenable. This radical reproach does not make them popular with the defenders of the status quo. More often than not they picture abolitionists as irresponsible and dangerous radicals at the lunatic fringes of society. Every now and then, though, history concedes victory to the abolitionist cause - such as in the case of slavery. In those cases, abolitionism gains high respect after victory, and to have overcome an inhumane institution suddenly turns into a source of pride for the whole nation. | ||