An Interesting Conversation and (I think) a Great AnalogyYesterday, I participated in a comment-conversation here with some folks from Portugal concerning the events of 9/11 and the anniversary. It was a great conversation, with opinions being a rough mix of all sorts, all with sympathy for America as it remembered its honored dead.
In the midst of the conversation, I was trying to point out to one commenter who had said that at least the United States had done something about terrorism while Europe had done nothing that sometimes doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing. I used th following analogy from US history, even though i wonder how many were familiar enough with our history to understand the nuances involved:
It is April, 1861, and the South Carolina militia, following orders from the secessionist state government, shells Ft. Sumter. In response, not only to the military thraet, but to the political reality of a secessionist south, Lincoln, who has pledged to keep the Union entact, attacks Ohio because it harbors individuals who violate the federal Fugitive Slave Law. While clearly in violation of federal law, and a source of friction between the North and the South, my question is, how would history have seen such an attack, as other than pure insanity?