[rayiner]

“Freedom” in the American context means something different than the how people use it today. It’s closer to “freedom to make the right choices.”

John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He was making an important point that has nothing to do with theology. Society can have extensive individual freedoms when people are socialized to mostly to make the right decisions without government coercion. If we loosen the social guardrails, as we have done, more government coercion becomes necessary to suppress anti-social behavior.

[pdonis]

> It’s closer to “freedom to make the right choices.”

Not quite. It means, individuals have to have the freedom to make their own choices, because nobody can be trusted to know what the "right" choices are and dictate them to others.

By "a moral and religious People", John Adams did not mean that every one of those people must agree on exactly what the right thing to do is. He meant that the people have to have the concept of right and wrong as things they are supposed to discern, things outside themselves that aren't dictated by any other authority (or at least not any human one), and to understand that they have a duty to do their best to make the right choices. The problem with our society today is that that concept of "right" has been discarded; instead there is a different concept of "right" that revolves around adherence to whatever political ideology is favored by those in power.

> more government coercion becomes necessary to suppress anti-social behavior

The problem is that the government can't be trusted to do that job. That's what "freedom" means in the American context. That's why the US Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the power to do it. The fact that our government does it anyway is a bug, not a feature.

[int_19h]

Your words amount to saying that freedom is only allowed when it's meaningless because nobody is actually exercising it in any way that matters.

Separately from that, I don't think that the original US constitution - you know, the document that explicitly protected the interests of slave owners, i.e. the vilest kind of filth - could be meaningfully said to be made for "a moral and religious People". Or, if we take that at face value, then that tells us volumes about the value of said morals and said religion, and it's deeply negative.

[rayiner]

> Your words amount to saying that freedom is only allowed when it's meaningless because nobody is actually exercising it in any way that matters

It’s interesting that you think freedom is only “meaningful” if people actually engage in the anti-social conduct which they’re free to do. I would say the point of freedom is to eliminate the apparatus of control because you can trust nearly all people to do the right thing without it. That’s the highest form of society.

That slavery existed is not some trump card that negates everything else. It’s also a particularly uneducated comment to level at John Adams of all people. The idea that slavery is intolerable, which you easily hold in your head in 2025 without having worked for it—was bequeathed to you by John Adams and his ilk. In 1789, you would have looked the other way at slavery, just like you look the other way at everything you tolerate today. You probably would’ve even called John Adams a religious nut for believing everyone was created equal in the eyes of god, and demanded scientific proof of that.

[jacquesm]

> The idea that slavery is intolerable, which you easily hold in your head in 2025 without having worked for it—was bequeathed to you by John Adams and his ilk.

That's a rather US centric point of view. Slavery was considered intolerable in many places, the US was different in that it actually allowed it for as long as it did. Of course there are many guises for slavery that are practiced in other places but on a moral level lots of people realize it is wrong and John Adams had absolutely nothing to do with that.

[rayiner]

Yes, I was talking about the U.S. Though I don’t know anywhere that opposed slavery with the moral fervor of Anglos. Who went to war and killed their own people to free slaves from a different ethnic or religious group?

[jacquesm]

Slavery was common in large parts of the world that all dropped it well ahead of the United States, and in most cases without a civil war (though there were some):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slave...

You could spend a good chunk of a lifetime studying this subject and still not have the complete picture. The main difference is not the 'opposition to slavery with the moral fervor of the Anglos' as much as the resistance to getting rid of slavery.

That is what sets the US apart, the stark division between the pro and the con side and the fact that the South figured out that this was the thing that they could not give up. And their roots were just the same as the side that opposed them, they just had an economic interest.