Respect for Rights Quotes
His government had just used force to disarm the rebellion of religious Kurds.
Karol Jozef Wojtyla
In June of 1850, a bipartisan group of Southern politicians met in Nashville, TN for the purpose of organizing strategy and tactics to ward off and defeat the growing aggressiveness of Northern politicians and other leaders in trying to abolish slavery. They issued an address to the people. This is one of the clearest statements of the position of most of the Southern Politicians on the increased efforts to abolish or curtail slavery. They felt that a deal had been made by the founding fathers and the first Congress not to deal with the slavery issue, and that deal must be honored in perpetuity. Most Northerners agreed that a deal had been made, but it was not binding forever—that a Congress could not limit the scope of a future Congress except via a Constitutional Amendment. The deal on Slavery was a deal not to address it for a while. It was not a deal to accept the Southern point of view. And none of it was written into the Constitution because opinion was even then split and a majority could not be mustered for a compromise that would write legal slavery into the Constitution. But many Southerners believed that its absence implied that it could not be addressed by the government. They demanded the right of their states to choose slavery if they so wished. Time was not on the side of the South and the Southerners who insisted on State’s Rights regarding slavery opposed States Rights for Northern States who wished to disallow fugitive slaves to be returned to owners. The more fugitive slaves there were, the more hypocritical the Southern position became as they needed Federal preemption on the issue of Fugitive Slaves, else slavery would end by escape and non-return of slaves.
This political issue has been in contention in every major world power since the Roman Empire. There has always been a division between hard liners and others. At issue is whether the nation should defend and or take up the cause of any national, individual, corporation, ideals even against a foreign country who may object to the behavior or use their own legal system to punish violators of their local laws. Failure to do so, they have argued over the years, makes the power appear weak and will invite further insult and transgressions. They claim that the government’s duty is always to protect its citizens from foreign elements regardless of whether the citizen’s behavior is right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable, honest or dishonest. Also, this view holds that the nation should NEVER apologize as this makes it seem weak. These people have argued that it is the obverse of “My Country, Right or Wrong” and should be “Our Citizens, Right or Wrong”. On the other side, it is claimed that defending citizens or institutions that are clearly in the wrong not only is morally and ethically improper, but by being so indiscriminate, it weakens the nation’s power and credibility when it later wants to defend its citizens who are in the right and are being railroaded and discriminated against. And an apology, if the individual and institution has been in the wrong or caused harm and damage, is the proper thing to do and will often resolve matters and this is the best outcome often for the erring individual or institution. It is such a universal political issue of contention, that in the 2012 Presidential Campaign Mitt Romney had castigated President Barack Obama for apologizing to the African Nations for forcing their ancestors into American Slavery, even though Romney was very much opposed to slavery. It was the apology that makes America seem weak. The other side is that the apology shows that America has strong democratic principles and occasionally falls short, and when it does so, it acknowledges and corrects it setting a democratic example for all.
Most Americans would with this characterized their own judges. This is the most formalized and sophisticated compendium of laws of the so-called “barbaric peoples” of Europe. The compilation was in many ways a documentation of the traditional laws of the Visigoths that had evolved over hundreds of years.
