King says condemning his peaceful actions for precipitating violence is like:a. condemning a robbed man because he had money b.
condemning Socrates because his commitment to the truth forced people to make him drink hemlock c. condemning Jesus because his devotion to God caused his crucifixion d. All of above
The king condemning his own peaceful actions to be the cause of violence is in complete contradiction to one another. An oddity occurs and the action is in complete contrast to the outcome. One cannot justify that the corresponding actions may have led to the specific outcome. such is also the case in the example:
a; condemning a robbed man for having too much money does in no way justifies the action of robbing. Blaming a source that was done only for the reason of ones own satisfaction.
b; condemning Socrates for his truth to force people to make him drink the hemlock, is as absurd as the above example.
c; condemning Jesus for his devotion to God shows that the intention of the action was completely different but the outcome was in complete contrast.
Two emerging factors after the War of 1812 that contributed to development of sectionalism were "an increase in the number of men voting" and "the concept of manifest destiny," since both of these led to a more "aggressive" nation that was becoming more and more divided on how to exploit that aggression.
