アメリカにおける争い
- 言語:
- 英語
- 状態:
- 完全な作品
- 著者性:
- 著者自身による
- テキストの状態:
- スキャンのノイズは検出されていません (全文に対する自動測定で、人の目では確認していません)
- 分量:
- 約 8,000 語 · 38 節
この作品を引用
- APAジョン・スチュアート・ミル. (n.d.). The Contest in America [アメリカにおける争い]. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/john-stuart-mill/the-contest-in-america
- MLAジョン・スチュアート・ミル. The Contest in America [アメリカにおける争い]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/john-stuart-mill/the-contest-in-america.
- Chicagoジョン・スチュアート・ミル. The Contest in America [アメリカにおける争い]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/john-stuart-mill/the-contest-in-america.
SigPhi が再現している版の参照です。SigPhi はそのデジタル再現であり、出版者ではありません。版の刊行年はメタデータにないため「n.d.」とし、訳者は記録がある場合のみ記します。
何についての本か
アメリカ南北戦争についての一八六二年の論説。イギリスの世論が南部に傾きつつあったときに書かれた。
背景と歴史
ミルは、この戦争は関税ではなく奴隷制をめぐるものだと論じる。イングランドの半分が言っていたことに逆らって、である。短く、そして勇気のある文章だ。自分の読者層に逆らっている。
これは編集上の背景であり、引用できる典拠ではありません。作品本文の一節とは異なり、これらの記述はコーパスで検証できません。
principle was not protection for protection, but as much of it only as might incidentally result from duties imposed for revenue. Even the Morrill tariff (which never could have been passed but for the Southern secession) is stated by the high authority of Mr. H. C. Carey to be considerably more liberal than the reformed French tariff under Mr. Cobden's treaty; insomuch that he, a Protectionist, would be glad to exchange his own protective tariff for Louis Napoleon's free-trade one. But why discuss, on probable evidence, notorious facts? The world knows what the question between the North and South has been for many years, and still is. Slavery alone was thought of, alone talked of. Slavery was battled for and against, on the floor of Congress and in the plains of Kansas; on the slavery question exclusively was the party constituted which now rules the United States: on slavery Fremont was rejected, on slavery Lincoln was elected; the South separated on slavery, and proclaimed slavery as the one cause of separation. It is true enough that the North are not carrying on war to abolish slavery in the States where it legally exists. Could it have been expected, or even perhaps desired, that they should? A great party does not change suddenly, and at once, all its principles and professions. The Republican party have taken their stand on law, and the existing constitution of the Union. They have disclaimed all right to attempt anything which that constitution forbids. It does forbid interference by the Federal Congress with slavery in the Slave States; but it does not forbid their abolishing it in the District of Columbia; and this they are now doing, having voted, I perceive, in their present pecuniary straits, a million of dollars to indemnify the slave-owners of the District. Neither did the Constitution, in their own opinion, require them to permit the introduction of slavery into the territories which were not yet States.…