Abolitionist- upset at the institution of the fugitive slave laws
Southerners- viewed it as an attempt to cap slavery from expanding to the west (it was)
Answer:
An individual, forced to endure negative stimuli, becomes unable to avoid this stimulus.
Explanation:
Learned helplessness happens when a creature is over and overexposed to an aversive improvement that it cannot get away. Inevitably, the creature will quit attempting to maintain a strategic distance from the development and carry on as though it is defenseless to change the circumstance. In any event, when chances to escape are exhibited, this educated vulnerability will anticipate any activity.
At the point when individuals feel that they do not influence their circumstances, they may start to carry on in a powerless way. This inaction can lead individuals to disregard open doors for help or change.
The question asks, "What is YOUR philosophy?" I can't really tell you what YOU should think ... but I can present for you the ideas of a couple different political philosophers who took opposing stands on the issue.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both English philosophers who wrote during the 17th century.
Hobbes published a famous work called <em>Leviathan </em>in 1651. The title "Leviathan" comes from a biblical word for a great and mighty beast. Hobbes believed government is formed by people for the sake of their personal security and stability in society. In Hobbes view, once the people put a king (or other leader in power), then that leader needs to have supreme power (like a great and mighty beast). The people are too divided and too volatile as individuals -- everyone looking out for his own interests. So for security and stability, authority and the power of the law needs to be in the hands of a powerful ruler like a king or queen. That was Hobbes' view.
John Locke famously published <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690. According to Locke's view, a government's power to govern comes from the consent of the people themselves -- those who are to be governed. This was a change from the previous ideas of "divine right monarchy" -- that a king ruled because God appointed him to be the ruler. Locke repudiated the views of divine right monarchy in his <em>First Treatise on Civil Government. </em> In his <em>Second Treatise on Civil Government, </em> Locke argued for the rights of the people to create their own governments according to their own desires and for the sake of protecting their own life, liberty, and property. Locke always favored the people remaining in charge, and asserted that the people have the power to change their government and remove government leaders if the government is not properly serving the needs and well-being of the people.
As you write your own answer to this question for your class, you will want to decide, perhaps, if you agree more with Hobbes, that security and stability are most important ... or with Locke, that the authority and liberty of the people are always paramount.
