![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Published 1849.
Contains a ripping passage about the effects of Constitutions (and by implication other authoritative texts) that can be interpreted by twisty means not to condone moral evils, but certainly don't actively denounce them.
If the Constitution is as Anti-Slavery as Mr. Spooner asserts it to be, how happens it that such egregious mistakes have been made concerning it? Can a real Anti-Slavery document be so misconstrued, as to satisfy slave-holders, who dread the least appearance of Anti-Slavery, as Satan does the truth of God? We will grant for the sake of argument, that it does not directly sanction Slavery; still we assert that it is a pro-slavery document for the following reason. Anti-Slavery is a bold, outspoken, and unmistakable thing. It is "known and read of all men, a living epistle," and can be no more mistaken for pro-slavery, than the shining of the sun, for total darkness. The difference between the two is so great, that they can never be mistaken, the one for the other; or at least genuine Anti-Slavery can never be regarded as pro-slavery to the full satisfaction of slave-holders. We cast our eyes over the history of our country, and from the commencement of its political existence until the present time, we see Slavery justified by the Constitution.
I think Stearns is right. If the plain meaning of a text passively accepts or fails to denounce something, then the document isn't anti-that-thing. If the document is fiction, then it's fine if fiction fails to denounce all moral evils at once. If the document is non-fiction and claims to be a guide to good government or general ethical living, and it fails to condemn some pretty obvious evil thing, then that's probably a problem.
I think people who wring torturous but noble meanings out of a text look into their own hearts to do so, and it does their nature though not their reading comprehension credit...
Effectively, Stearns' proposal is for the North to secede first. It's an interesting notion and one wonders if it could have saved some bloodshed. (Both Union and Confederate soldiers endured horrible times, high casualty rates, horrendous medical treatment, and awful conditions in battle and as prisoners of war.) The idea is that the North withdraw all public support, national military, and funding from slave-holding states and announce that any slave who can cross the border is free.
Today as the North/South divide continues in the United States, some people from prosperous left-learning American blue states still speculate if they should withdraw public assistance from poorer right-wing American red states. But that proposal sounds cruel and divisive today. Stearns' proposal, though, in the days of slavery and with less government investment in the lives of ordinary people, might've been more practical back then.
Contains a ripping passage about the effects of Constitutions (and by implication other authoritative texts) that can be interpreted by twisty means not to condone moral evils, but certainly don't actively denounce them.
If the Constitution is as Anti-Slavery as Mr. Spooner asserts it to be, how happens it that such egregious mistakes have been made concerning it? Can a real Anti-Slavery document be so misconstrued, as to satisfy slave-holders, who dread the least appearance of Anti-Slavery, as Satan does the truth of God? We will grant for the sake of argument, that it does not directly sanction Slavery; still we assert that it is a pro-slavery document for the following reason. Anti-Slavery is a bold, outspoken, and unmistakable thing. It is "known and read of all men, a living epistle," and can be no more mistaken for pro-slavery, than the shining of the sun, for total darkness. The difference between the two is so great, that they can never be mistaken, the one for the other; or at least genuine Anti-Slavery can never be regarded as pro-slavery to the full satisfaction of slave-holders. We cast our eyes over the history of our country, and from the commencement of its political existence until the present time, we see Slavery justified by the Constitution.
I think Stearns is right. If the plain meaning of a text passively accepts or fails to denounce something, then the document isn't anti-that-thing. If the document is fiction, then it's fine if fiction fails to denounce all moral evils at once. If the document is non-fiction and claims to be a guide to good government or general ethical living, and it fails to condemn some pretty obvious evil thing, then that's probably a problem.
I think people who wring torturous but noble meanings out of a text look into their own hearts to do so, and it does their nature though not their reading comprehension credit...
Effectively, Stearns' proposal is for the North to secede first. It's an interesting notion and one wonders if it could have saved some bloodshed. (Both Union and Confederate soldiers endured horrible times, high casualty rates, horrendous medical treatment, and awful conditions in battle and as prisoners of war.) The idea is that the North withdraw all public support, national military, and funding from slave-holding states and announce that any slave who can cross the border is free.
Today as the North/South divide continues in the United States, some people from prosperous left-learning American blue states still speculate if they should withdraw public assistance from poorer right-wing American red states. But that proposal sounds cruel and divisive today. Stearns' proposal, though, in the days of slavery and with less government investment in the lives of ordinary people, might've been more practical back then.
