Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for Republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood?

They suggest that the unjustness of slavery should be obvious.

Explanation:

In this extract from The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro by Frederick Douglas, he rhetorically asks if he would have go into a serious discussion to discredit the moral wrong that is slavery. Asking a question in rhetoric as you probably know is when one asks a question that they do not expect an answer to as it usually states the viewpoint of the person who said it. So when he asks all these questions with a hint of sarcasm, he is telling the intended recipients that the wrongfulness of slavery should be obvious.

- "sack of constantinople, (april 1204). the diversion of the fourth crusade from the holy land to attack, capture, and pillage the byzantine city of constantinople divided and dissipated the efforts of the christians to maintain the war against the muslims. the fourth crusade was corrupted from its purpose early on."

- "the crusades were a series of religious wars undertaken by the latin church. the first crusade arose after a call to arms in 1095 sermons by pope urban ii. the first crusade unleashed a wave of impassioned, pious catholic fury, which was of constantinople, the capital of the christian-controlled byzantine empire."

< 3

what are the options?