Back To The Future?

Note:  This post is a follow up to the previous, “Book Report”.  The books cited in that post, along with several others, provide  the context for what follows.

Sometimes when people die they are remembered by loved ones not as they really were in life.  Ever experienced that?  I have.  But from what I could tell it was a need on the part of those remaining and did no real harm.  However, I’ve seen that history can also be rewritten so as to reflect something better than what it truly was.  And since we are supposed to learn from history, not dealing the facts of its reality is harmful.  Not facing up to a historical reality deprives us of the opportunity to keep striving to do better as a community.  At least, that is how I see it.   

I seem to hear a lot about our founding fathers lately.  And about how the history I was taught in school did not reflect their true Christianity and intent for our country.  I hear some say we need to read what they themselves wrote to see clearly the Christian principles on which our country was founded.  From my personal perspective, I simply don’t understand that.  First and foremost, I see slavery.  That’s a big stumbling block for me.  But besides that, there is another fundamental question in my mind.  If I want to reflect on whether or not Christian principles were their foundational tools, why would I use as my standard what they themselves wrote?  Or what some present day religious/political commentator  announces as true?  Don’t we Christians believe that Scripture is the measuring stick?  Do we believe God is interested in what we say, whether verbally or in written form?  Or do we believe He is more interested in how we live, how we actually apply Christian principles?  I, personally, think it is the latter. 

Given that opinion, and my interest in American history, not to mention all that I have read and learned recently, I have begun to wonder how some things came to be and why we think the past, filled with slavery and hate, seems so Christian?  I’ve tried to imagine how the discussion went originally.  Here’s what I hope my position would have been, had I been a representative to the Constitutional Convention, and were speaking before the group. 

Fellow Representatives, although we traveled here to Philadelphia in order to revise the Articles of Confederation, we readily agreed, with in a few short months, that the design of those Articles required substantial editing.  In fact, we became in accord with one another that no less than fundamental changes were required.  Consequently, we then united in the opinion that a new Constitution should be proposed.  We now have a most commendable draft of a Preamble to that Constitution:  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”[sic]

Gentlemen, as we dispute the various aspects regarding the relationship of the federal government with the states and our peoples, let us use not only the beliefs asserted in the Declaration of Independence as a guiding framework and standard, but also the ideas put forth by this Preamble.  I implore us all, as a body of representatives, that we not so quickly concede to agreements, which are in direct contradiction to that which we have professed to be self-evident.  Let us not agree to any that speak to the opposite intent outlined in this Preamble.  

I speak specifically of our discussion regarding slavery.  Rather than abolish this offensive and despicable institution, it has been suggested that provisions such as I will list here be included in the constitution:

• Allowing for the continued importation of persons for the sole purpose of placing them into bondage and to make them, by law, the property of another.
• Prohibiting our citizens from providing assistance to any such persons able to escape the institution and further, requiring them to return any escapees to their owner/s.
• Counting slaves as “three-fifths” of a person when calculating a state’s population for representation and federal taxation.  And that is, of course, to determine representation for their white owners; not for the slaves themselves. 
• Prohibiting amendments or legislation changing any provisions regarding slavery for the period of 20 years.

And why are we affording time to such debate?  Because some, although strongly opposed to slavery, are being persuaded that a broken Union presents an evil with consequences more dire than those resulting from permitting the state of slavery to be worked out over time. 

In the time allotted to me I propose to offer specific arguments against such compromise.  I will address the issue from both a religious and non-religious, strictly logical reasoning process.  From the Christian perspective for several reasons.  One is simply that in our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, “Nature’s God” and man’s “Creator” are mentioned within the first two sentences.  And in the last paragraph we speak of the “Supreme Judge of the world” and “divine Providence”.  Another rationale for the presentation of a Christian point of view is that most of us are of the Christian faith, whether Protestants of various denominations, or Catholic.  But an approach based on a process of reasoning is also necessary because at least a few are deists.  I believe the argument against slavery is very easily made from either position.  I will attempt to limit the comments for each stance simply due to time constraints, although, I must tell you, that a good number of additional arguments could be presented. 

For those who believe God does, in fact, intervene in the lives of men, let me suggest several Biblical references and thoughts that I think we need to carefully consider.  First, it is wise to remember that this decision regarding slavery is a battle, no less real than our fight for freedom from Great Britain was.  Ephesians 6:10-12 tells us to be strong in the Lord and HIS mighty power because our “…struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities against the powers, of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”  It is most likely that this concept to one degree or another could be easily agreed to by even those who are deists or who hold no religious persuasion.  Why?  Because it is a generally accepted truth that both good and bad exists in our world.  We need only look to much of the great literature.  It often deals with the conflict between good and evil.  We can also unite on this principle due to the tyranny and injustice we felt at the hands of England.  We fought against the opposing military.  But, the physical battle was the representation of another underlying battle; one in which the enemy was power, greed, and lack of any concern for us as humans beings.

Secondly, Scripture cautions us to look ahead and thereby deliberate conscientiously the possible result of any action.  I remind us all that in Proverbs 22:3 and again in Proverbs 27:12 (RSV) we read “A prudent man sees danger and hides himself; but the simple go on, and suffer for it.”  The warning in Galatians 6:7-8a is more urgent.  “Do not be deceived; God cannot be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows.  The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction…” (Emphasis mine.)  And I believe there is an admonition that is particularly salient to such a foundational disagreement as ours over slavery.  Jesus Himself said, both in Mark 3:24-25 and Luke 11:17, “Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, (Emphasis mine.) and a house divided against itself will fall.”  If we claim to be Christians, how can we then so blatantly ignore His words?  Why do we want to fail to accept the wisdom given us in Scripture, when that wisdom tells us we are headed for the most serious of trouble?

Thirdly, we as Christians must heed the warning against hypocrisy.  Recall that in Matthew chapter 23 Jesus repeatedly called the teachers of the law and the Pharisees hypocrites.  He denounced their habits of preaching and insisting on one thing while doing another and/or doing what they did for wrong motives.  Let me cite two explicit examples.  In Matthew 23:23 he condemned them for giving one-tenth of their spices but neglecting “the more important matters of the law – justice, mercy and faithfulness”.  In verse 25 He censured them for cleaning the outside of the cup and dish but not first cleaning the inside which he declared full of greed and self-indulgence.  Gentlemen, I urge us to reflect on what Jesus’ criticism of us would be, should He be in presence at this convention.  There can be no doubt whatsoever that He would compare what we have said by means of our written documents with what we are seriously thinking about doing.  What self-professed Christian here could assert that He would not see greed and self-indulgence as the core issue?  Greed on the part of those wanting to benefit from slavery and self-indulgence on the part of those who would agree to such an injustice in order to get the Union they see as the only desirable one. 

Before I recite other Biblical references about Jesus Himself, let me briefly recall for all of us some verses that are germane to this debate and any conclusions befitting who we are as Christians.

§       “Your own soul is nourished when you are kind; it is destroyed when you are cruel.”  Proverbs 11:17.  (TLB)  I submit, gentlemen, that this issue of slavery is at the very core of our nation’s soul and we are forewarned.

§        “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of those who are destitute.”  Proverbs 31:8

§       “You should defend those who cannot help themselves.  Yes, speak up for the poor and needy and see that they get justice.”  Proverbs 31:8-9.  (TLB)

§       “For you closed your eyes to the facts and did not choose to reverence and trust the Lord, and you turned your back on me, spurning my advice.  That is why you must eat the bitter fruit of having your own way, and experience the full terrors of the pathway you have chosen.”  Proverbs 1:29-31. (TLB)  My friends, this bitter fruit of having our own way refers to us all equally, whether “our own way” is the continuation of slavery or our choice of the Union’s makeup. 

Fellow Christians, how does making legal the enslavement of a group of people exemplify either the adherence to Jesus’ commands or any attempt to model our lives in accordance with how He lived His?  I know what some proponents of slavery would offer as justification.  They would point to Ephesians 6:5 where slaves are told to obey their earthly masters with respect and fear, as if obeying Christ.  However, it cannot be argued that the verse condones slavery.  The verse recognizes that slavery exists and tells slaves how best to live in their condition.  Sadly, it must also be said, that neither does the verse condemn slavery.  But these are not the words of Jesus.  Looking to the Christ from whom we draw our name “Christians”, does, in fact, clarify the issue completely.  His life illustrates servanthood, not of any desire to enslave others to His will.  However, should we not understand or be able to interpret a message from observing His life, we have His own words.  He told us to not only love one another as we love ourselves; but also, in John 15:12 to love others as He has loved us.  Who among us would want to be the property of another, with no say or choice whatsoever over any aspect of our lives?  Who among us would want that existence for those he most loves on earth?  I say existence (if it can even be termed such) because it is not a life.  And certainly not life as it is described in our Declaration of Independence; one of liberty and the ability to pursue one’s own happiness.  If slavery is not what we would desire for  our loved ones, or ourselves, then deeming that kind of life acceptable for any other human being gives no reverence for and submission to Jesus’ commands.  In fact, we should not want such for even our enemies, since Jesus tell us to also love them.  Therefore, slavery should not be a topic for discussion at this convention.  Rather, it should be something emphatically rejected by at least those of us who call ourselves Christians.

For those among us who are deists, or otherwise, and believe not that the Creator actively intervenes in our lives, I suggest a purely rational discussion, committing to the use of logic throughout both the process and to examine the result. 

Let me first encourage us, as we attempt to build a nation’s foundation, to build such that the documents already put forth and any on which we are now working show no disparity with the truth of reality itself.

In the Declaration of Independence one of the many accusations we presented against the King of Great Britain was that he “refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only”.  Friends, we need be most frank and forthright.  For what percentage of white men in the combined states have we allowed the subject of slavery to become an issue?  And to what percentage of our population, claimed by us to be equal, would we be denying representation?  No man can say that the number benefiting from allowing the continuation of slavery represents “large districts of people”.  Rather, if we include slaves, the percentage unrepresented would be vastly greater than those for whom we are willing to set aside our worthy aspirations.  Moreover, by this act of acceding, we are deciding to act in a manner incongruous with what we say we believe; to immediately commit the same offense suffered by and condemned by us!  Further, it bears asking, would such a decision to eliminate huge numbers of people from representation ultimately be any more wise for us than it came to be for King George?  Logic simply does not come to such a conclusion, does it?

Let me next offer what should be an unnecessary reminder.  Also in our Declaration of Independence, we maintained that we believe some truths to be self-evident, one being that certain rights are unalienable.  And it is my strong assertion that many of us do believe that.  Sadly, it appears some now believe that in theory only.  But let us face up to a reality; one demonstrated by us, those who declared independence from England.  That reality?  We did not, at the beginning think in terms of divine, immutable, or inalienable rights.  We wanted our rights and we got them when we were strong enough to make good our claim on them.[i]  Does is make sense to build a nation’s foundation in such a way that at some future time some of our people will feel it necessary to make claim on the very rights they see identified by us as coming from the Creator; rights further defined by us as unalienable, but which they enjoy not?  How does such a decision represent orderly and consistently coherent thought?  

As another point, my fellow Representatives, I believe it to be extremely naïve to think that 20 years from now, in 1808, we will then be able to come to an amiable and unifying agreement about slavery.  We must all admit, if only to ourselves, that even individual, relatively harmless habits, long practiced, are most difficult to overcome.  How much more so when a question of a societal habit or tradition, far more complicated and therefore burdensome?  Particularly when that habit or tradition has been given ample time to become firmly ingrained as part of a culture, an economy, and everyday life?  Postponing a decision on our new nation’s policy regarding slavery shows lack of sound reasoning.  We, ourselves, and our own actions, prove the general principle that says addressing problems at an appropriate time is the wise course of action.  Leaving a pressing issue without a timely and solid solution allows not only the problem itself to fester, but for other problems to arise as a result.  Rationally, it cannot be argued that avoidance equates solution, at least not one desired and beneficial to all concerned.  Great Britain’s defeat at our hands is proof enough. 

We have come this far in an extremely arduous struggle, gentlemen.  Why are we now failing to face up to this next challenge?  I ask you, would losing a few states from the Union put us at risk, as we certainly were when we began our fight for freedom from Great Britain?   At that point we had to promote unity.  Now we have some strength of unity already functioning.  I also ask, do those states demanding the continuation of slavery in return for their willingness to stay unified believe they can survive as individual entities indefinitely? 

I ask these questions rhetorically, but with serious intent.  From my perspective it is not necessary to debate them.  We can handle the challenge from a different approach that might more easily and surely lead us in a better direction for all concerned.  Let us spend time and effort discussing ideas on how the economy of these few slave states can not only exist but also thrive without owning other human beings.  We have accomplished much.  I believe we can likewise manage this.  In our Declaration of Independence among the list of proofs we provided in regards to King George’s tyrannical treatment of us, we said, “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions of the rights of people.”   Who here can say that we are showing the same “manly firmness” to prevent the government we are forming from denying the rights of others?  Let us be as determined as we were when the Declaration was written.  Who here can deny that to do so would be in perfect agreement with our stated reason for separation from Great Britain and also with the design for a more representative and responsive form of government towards which we have been working?  Please consider that “The biggest mistake sometimes is to play things very safe in this life and end up being moral failures.2

In the same way that war was a result of our being denied rights, is it not very reasonable to assume that we would, by the denial of those very same rights, and some far more basic to human existence, be creating the crucible for another?  “Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.”3

I would like to end by making a suggestion, which to my mind, should clarify and truly simplify the issue.  Let us travel to our homes before expending further effort together.  Let us look at our children or grandchildren.  Let us ask ourselves if our actions are conducive to securing “the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” as the Preamble defines as our purpose for establishing a constitution?  Which decisions more definitively point to blessings as opposed to strife and/or worse?  And let us do one other thing while at home.  Let us seek out and watch the children or grandchildren of others, be they white or black.  In fact, I encourage us to develop, during our journey home, a deep desire to really see a black child.  And after observing that child, let us ask but one question of ourselves.  “If that child were mine or of my family, what would I want for him or her?”

 Although assuredly a task requiring much effort, we must look outside ourselves and attempt to view both the present and the future from the eyes of another.  Why?  “Much of the insensibility and hardness of the world is due to the lack of imagination which prevents a realization of the experience of other people.”4  I propose that if we truly look at the future made possible, if not probable, by a decision to continue slavery, we would see such things as we would never choose for our Posterity.  It is not at all irrational to think we would see intense strife, if not war, over the question of slavery, the question we chose not to face up to.  And it would be a territorial conflict, just as it is now.   We would see future citizens following our example of rebelling, in whatever way, in order to lay claim on equal rights.  We would see blessings for our citizens not realized because the environment would be such that much intellect and many talents would go undeveloped because of a young person’s skin color.  For those of us who are Christians, we would see our descendents reaping what we have sown; hatred for each other and the failure of Christians of different colors to work together.  In fact, we might well see Christians leading the cause for hatred, Christians who are puffed up and prideful.  Once having looked to this future, we would need to ask ourselves but one question.  If a representation of reality, would we want to go back to the future we just envisioned?

One other suggestion, if I may.  When we return to this convention, let us, before beginning discussion, read the last line of our Declaration of Independence; the line where we pledge our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor to each other as support of that Declaration.  Let us live up to that assertion.  Let us not put fortunes or individual lives above our mutual support.  Let our decisions reflect that pledge of not only honor, but sacred honor.  It is of utmost importance that we keep foremost in our minds that “The eyes of the future are looking back at us and they are praying for us to see beyond our own time.”5

---

[i] Helen Keller, writer, lecturer, activist, advocate for the disabled, 1880-1968

2 Dorothy Day, social activist, journalist, 1897-1980

3 Frederick Douglass, antislavery orator and writer, 1818-1895

4 Jane Addams, social reformer, 1860-1935

5 Terry Tempest Williams, writer, environmentalist, activist, 1955 -

Book Reports

Strange how different aspects of everyday life can converge just so, causing you to feel there might be some particularly significant meaning, if only you can divine what that could be.  That’s exactly what has happened recently.  Books read, some personally chosen, others almost at the insistence of friends, and some for book group, have seemed to address similar social issues.  Snippets of television programs caught while changing channels have underscored the topics. (Remember “All Of The Above”?  Didn’t I say I have that annoying knack regarding television?) Add my enjoyment of American history and the personal experiences of friends.  I tried to make sense of it all by writing most of it out.  As a rule I find that helpful.  Not the case this time.  

The occurrences, the timing of those occurrences, the mixture of my own preferences, decisions, and selections and those resulting from external influences, as well as my attempt to see from another’s perspective reminded me of eighth grade Algebra; lengthy word problems I was supposed to be able to organize in such a way as to come up with a solution.  (Just as an aside, who EVER thought it was a good idea to attempt to teach eighth grade girls Algebra?)    All I can say is that I feel as if  I’ve been following a curriculum of study.  And not just any curriculum; a very well developed one; designed to include various means and vehicles for learning.  I know; I know!  Sounds weird.  It does to me too, believe me!  But, that’s where I find myself. 

A number of the books I just spoke about caused me to go back and review in some detail the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.  I want to share parts of some of those books.  They eloquently present actual truth with clarity and impact.  So much so that a sincere, even minimal, effort to compare and contrast the various situations described, with the assertions of the Declaration of Independence, not to mention the Constitution, will be revelatory, I expect. 

An Hour Before Daylight by Jimmy Carter has practically nothing to do with politics.  (I made sure before deciding to read it.)  Rather, it tells the story of President Carter’s boyhood on a Georgia farm.  He describes every aspect of his early life:  learning to fish, hunt, and run a farm; his friendship with the Blacks who worked on his father’s farm; his father and mother; his relationship and interaction with each, etc.  Along with all that I, the reader, was exposed to some of the science and complexities of farming.  It was American history and I totally enjoyed it.

Remember the Articles of Confederation?  You know, our first Constitution, replaced by our existing Constitution by delegates to the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia in 1787?  At this convention there was a good deal of debate about how best to determine taxation and representation to the House of Representatives for each state.  It was eventually agreed that the number of representatives would be calculated by “adding to the whole Number of free Persons….three-fifths of all other Persons…”.   This “three-fifths compromise” allowed slaves to be counted as three-fifths of a person in order to increase the representation apportionment for sates in which said slave owners lived.  Slave owners received one more thing from their slaves; a valuable political tool to be used to promote their agenda.  But, the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution repealed that compromise.  That was in 1868.

However, that three-fifths continued to be a basis for purposes of calculation.  Give me a minute and I’ll tell you why I say that.  Miss Lillian, Jimmy Carter’s mother, was a nurse who cared for many in and around the small community in which they lived during his childhood.  She tried to keep up with any who were patients of hers;  she wanted to know about their care later on.  Some of the destitute patients had to be moved to what was called the “Poor Folks” home in Sumter County.  As a boy President Carter would, at times, go with her to these homes.  This is how he described one such place:  “a  large and somewhat run-down former plantation home with a broad front porch and a large vegetable garden on the side for white folks (emphasis mine), and two old houses nearby for blacks”.  Miss Lillian felt strongly that more should be done to care for them all.  She was pleased when finally the government increased the monthly stipend.  (State and/or federal government, I do not know as yet.)  The increased amounts?  $10 for white people and $6 for blacks.  And how many years had passed since repeal of the “three-fifths compromise”?  Remember, Jimmy Carter was not born until 1924! 

Another right was granted by the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution in February of 1870.    That amendment gave equal voting rights to various races, people of various colors, and former slaves.  Jimmy Carter himself saw from a personal experience the denial, or attempted denial, and abuses designed to disallow those equal voting rights.  He asserts that those with whom he felt the strongest bond as a boy were the black adults in his life.  He spent many hours in their homes and learned from them to fish and hunt with a dog.  Black boys were among his close friends.  Consequently he embraced the equality of rights.  But he stood alone.  And paid the price at times.  Racist groups of Sumter County boycotted his business, Carter’s Warehouse, on at least two occasions because of his “liberal” views on race.

Here’s an example of the extent of hate-inspired abuses in the early years of the civil rights movement.  Representatives from the Justice Department apparently visited black communities to inform them that the law guaranteed their right to vote.  Such a representative visited the church of Jimmy Carter’s older black friend, Willis Wright.  He was seen as a leader among his black neighbors.  He therefore was to be the first to try to register to vote in Webster County.  Upon arriving at the courthouse early in the morning he found the office closed.  It was “dinner time” before the registrar showed up to open the office.  Willis explained why he was there.  After being asked to wait a few minutes, the registrar presented him with written questions about citizenship.  Willis informed the registrar that the gentleman from the Justice Department had made it clear that blacks did NOT have to answer such questions in order to be able to vote.  At this point the registrar opened a drawer from which he withdrew a pistol and promptly placed it on the counter.  Referring to Willis with a vile epithet, he suggested Willis think it over for a few days before deciding what her really wanted to do. 

Willis went to Jimmy Carter for advice.  Although President Carter offered to go with Willis to the registrar’s office, Willis declined the offer, saying it would mean nothing if Willis did not show up alone.  He only wanted verification of his understanding and advice.  Jimmy Carter not only confirmed that the questions were not a requirement for voter registration, but that he, himself, could not answer all of the 30 questions.  Some of the questions?  Name ALL of the Supreme Court justices.  Give the legal definition of a felony.  Quote portions of the U.S. Constitution.  Explain when appropriate to depend on habeas corpus.  Willis Wright returned to the registrar’s office, making it known that he had consulted with Jimmy Carter, who had corroborated the fact that no citizenship test was required before registering to vote; and that, yes, he did want to register to vote.  He was then allowed to register. 

Cane River by Lalita Tademy, is, according to the author herself, a “work of fiction deeply rooted in years of research, historical fact, and family lore”.  She writes the story of four generations of her female ancestors, from those born in slavery to those who lived through the Civil War, and on into the early 20^th century.  Some truths I learned, either in summary form, or directly from the author’s wisdom expressed in dialogue:

A plantation owner had passed away and his property was to be auctioned off.  With respect to the plantation slaves:

“A dollar figure was suggested and declared among the assessors.  When they came to agreement they marked it down in the book.  A special notation was made for any defect, physical or mental.  On auction day it was honorable (my emphasis) to provide full disclosure among gentlemen, seller to buyer, of any damaged merchandise (again, emphasis mine).” 

A young slave, Clement, was allowed to marry (emphasis mine) Philomene, a young slave from a neighboring plantation.  The wedding ceremony went as follows:

“ ‘You, Philomene, do now, in the presence of God and these witnesses, take Clement to be your husband; Promising that so far as your present relation as a servant shall admit, you will perform your part of a wife toward him:  and in particular, You will promise that you will love him; and that as you shall have the opportunity and ability, you will take proper care of him in sickness and in health, in prosperity (Just have to ask, what prosperity??!) and adversity; and will cleave to him only, so long as God shall continue his and your abode in such places as you can conveniently come together…Do you thus Promise?’”

“’Oui…’”  (“Yes”.  French was their language.)

“’ I then, with the consent of your masters and mistresses, do declare that you have license given you to be familiar together as husband and wife, so long as God shall continue your places of abode as aforesaid; and so long as you shall behave yourselves as it becomes servants to do; For you must both of you bear in mind that you remain still, as really and truly as ever, your master’s property, and therefore it will be justly expected, both by God and man, that you behave yourselves as obedient and faithful servants toward your respective masters and mistresses for the time being.’”

(Note:  I read about a similar wedding ceremony in The Bondwoman’s Narrative, mentioned below.)

Clement, once married, asked permission of his master to work on a rocking chair for Philomene after his duties were done.  Permission was granted.  Clement was allowed to use oak wood from newly felled branches.  The chair came to be called “the moonlight chair”; it was at night that Clement could work on it.  He also had to ask Philomene’s master if she could be allowed to keep the chair. 

“He and Philomene…were allowed to own nothing (emphasis mine) by law.”

During the second year of the Civil War, plantation owners were gathered at the home of one for an afternoon “coming-together”.  Of course, conversation included the war and its effects, both economically and socially. 

‘”Just last week I had to turn two of my hands over to a Confederate impressment agent, to work on the defenses of the Red River.  There was no refusing.  I can only hope that when I get them back, they don’t have Yankee fever, spreading foolish ideas and dangerous habits they’ve picked up to the others.’”

“’Monsieur Greneaux reported two runaways last week…’”.

‘”We keep ours close to home.  No more passes…’”.

“’The longer the war goes on, the slower mine work…’”.

“’I see it on my own farms…The Negroes in the field and the house are skating along the ragged edge of disobedience.’”

One of the women at the table, someone new to the group says:

“’This is going to be a long war…Too many lives will be lost to defend the right of a few to own slaves.’”

Within days the gentleman who hosted the afternoon get together received an anonymous package of tattered petticoats and an attached note:

“’Rich Man’s War, Poor Man’s Fight’”.

That same gentleman, being under the age of 45, was to serve in the Confederacy.  For a “fee”, not payable in Confederate money, he could, because he had twenty slaves, be exempted.  He was told about the “twenty-Negro law”:

“’The Confederate Congress says one man can be exempted for every twenty Negroes on a plantation.”

And this same man’s view regarding education after the war’s end:

“(he)didn’t hold to the notion the carpetbagger government pushed, that all children should attend a public school set up in the parish, regardless of their color, race, or previous condition of servitude, mixing indiscriminately.  No good could come from that.  It was wrongheaded to expect his taxes to pay for children he didn’t know and had no responsibility for, whose own parent couldn’t pay for their education.  Everyone should take are of their own.  He had engaged tutors for all of his children, white or colored”.  (emphasis mine)

For the 1880 census, the oldest black female family member was home alone when the man came to gather information.  Her assessment shows how she had to respond to such situations in the past:

“He seemed a pleasant enough white man, unlikely to do immediate harm…”

In answering his questions about who lived in the house:

“She told him she couldn’t help him out on the spelling of the names, he had to puzzle that out for himself.  They didn’t get to reading, writing, and spelling until Emily.” (emphasis mine)

She wondered:

“Could he even understand the pride in being able to say that Emily could read and write?”

One of the younger generation lived with a white man, the father of her children.  He was eventually forced to stop living with them because of threats to their safety.  He wanted, however, to leave his children his property and money upon his death.  He explains to the mother of his children:

“’I went to the lawyer again, today.  He said I don’t have much of a chance, that I have to give it up…Trying to pass my land to the children.  He says it can’t be done inside the law.  That even if it was legal, the town wouldn’t stand for it.  He says only so much can be given because they’re illegitimate, but it’s really because of color.  He won’t help.’”

“’I should be able to do as I please with my own money.’”

Her response:

“’That’s not the world we live in.’”

Years later, when elderly, this same black woman goes to “town” to purchase a few items.  She walks 3 miles through Louisiana woods to the road to catch a bus.  It had been 5 years since she had been on the bus, but whites were, of course, in front, and blacks in back.  Seeing no one who would recognize her, and confident of her lighter coloring, she takes a seat in front.  At the store there is a young man who does not know her.  He politely asks if can help her and tells her he is glad to see her in the store.  While waiting on her, another woman enters and tells the young man what she requires.  He explains he will help her once he is done with Mrs. Fredieu.

“’Excuse me?  You’ll help me now.  Miss Emily will be glad to wait.’”

The young clerk understands what he did not previously, switches to Emily’s first name rather than last, and tells her to step aside.  As he finished completing that white woman’s order, another enters.  He asks how he may help her.  She reminds him that Emily was there first. 

“’She knows her place.  I can help you next.’”

The woman does not object, immediately grasping the situation.

Emily leaves the store without waiting for her “turn”.  While waiting for the bus she is hungry and thirsty.  A black man passes her and goes to the back door of a nearby café.  He reemerges with a brown bag.  Emily declares to herself:

“’I’ll never be hungry enough to go to anyone’s back door.’”

When the bus arrived and Emily got on, she was the only passenger at that point in time.  She lifts her chin, pays her fare, and walks “deliberately to the front seat”.  (I must say, for me, the book could not have concluded better.  I was mentally cheering Emily on, and I was proud of her.)

The Bondwoman’s Narrative by Hannah Crafts, and edited by Henry Louis Gates, Jr., is considered to be the first book written by a female slave, perhaps the first book written by any black woman.  It has been authenticated in various ways through the study of the paper, the ink, the vocabulary, etc.  When Hannah was still small enough to be allowed a little play time, she was instead secretly taught to read and write by some kind neighbors.  Since this was illegal, those neighbors were arrested.  Hannah kept teaching herself in any way she found possible, even if listening when others were being taught and she was there to serve.  She eventually was able to “pass” (escape) and become free.  Following are some passages I found particularly powerful.  (Note: The editor was adamant that any misspellings and/or grammatical errors should be printed just as written by Hannah.  I have done likewise.  So, for example,’ it’s’ as opposed to ‘its’ is what was in the original text.  Another example is the spelling of judgment.  You will notice an “e”.  I point this out to remind you that Hannah was, in good part, self- educated.)

Hannah and another woman, her (former) mistress were, for a time, incarcerated.  Hannah’s comment: 

“At finding ourselves, and without having committed any crime, thus introduced into one of the legal fortresses of a country celebrated throughout the world for the freedom, equality, magnanimity of its laws, I could not help reflecting on the strange ideas of right and justice that seemed to have usurped as place in public opinion, since the mere accident of birth, and what persons were the least capable of changing or modifying was made a reason for punishing and imprisoning them.”

In that prison they met a Mrs. Wright, who had attempted to smuggle a neighbor’s young slave, Ellen, out of the country.  Ellen’s master had sold her to a slave-trader to take to the New Orleans prostitution market.  Mrs. Wright’s thoughts:

“I used to hate slavery…born in a slave state, educated in a slave state, with slavery all the time before my eyes I could see no beauties in the system.  Yet they said it was beautiful, and many thought me a fool for not seeing it so, but somehow I couldn’t; no I couldn’t.

“…I have learned what all who live in a land of slavery must learn sooner or later; that is to profess approbation where you cannot feel it; to be hard when most inclined to melt; and to say that all is right, and good; and true when you know that nothing could be more wrong and unjust.”

Mr. Trappe, a slave trader, explained his point of view:

“My conscience never troubles me…The circumstances in which I find people are not of my making.  Neither are the laws that give me an advantage over them.  If a beautiful woman is to be sold it is rather the fault of the law that permits it than of me who profits by it.  If she sells cheap my right to purchase is clear; and if I choose to keep her awhile, give her advantages, or otherwise increase her attractions and then dispose of her again my right is equally unquestionable.  Whatever the law permits, and public opinion encourages, I do, when that says stop I go no further.”

He went on to offer advice to Hannah:

“I shall tell you…Good sense must long ago have taught you that obedience was the chief essential to one in your condition…that you must never dream of sitting up an independent will – must have no mind, no desire, no purpose of your own…but never for a moment forget that submission and obedience must be the Alpha and Omega of all your actions.”

On a night in Washington, DC, Hannah made this observation:

“Congress men jostling each other at street crossings, or perhaps losing their foothold, where a negro slave was seen slipping and sliding but a moment before.  Alas; that mud and wet weather should have so little respect for aristocracy.”

A young female slave, who had given birth to a child fathered by her master, killed both her baby and herself because she was being banished, sent away with nothing and no way to sustain herself.  About that situation Hannah wrote:

“Dead, your Excellency, the President of the Republic.  Dead, grave senators who grow eloquent over pensions and army wrongs.  Dead, ministers of religion, who prate because poor men without a moment’s leisure on other days presume to read the newspapers on Sunday, yet who wink at, or approve of laws that occasion such scenes as this.”

Other observations of Hannah:

“…those that view slavery only as it relates to physical sufferings or the wants of nature, can have no conception of its greatest evils”                                                                                                                                                               

“The greatest curse of slavery is it’s hereditary character.  The father leaves to his son an inheritance of toil and misery, and his place on the fetid straw in the miserable corner, with no hope of possibility of anything better.  And the son in his turn transmits the same to his offspring and thus forever.”

“What do you think of it Doctors of Divinity?  Isn’t it a strange state to be like them….It must  be a strange state to be prized just according to the firmness of your joints, the strength or your sinews, and your capability of endurance.  To be made to feel that you have no business here, there, or anywhere except just to work –work –And yet to know that you are here somehow, with once in a great while like a straggling ray in a dark place a faint aspiration for something better, with a glimpse, a mere glimpse of something beyond.  It must be a strange state to feel that in the judgement of those above you you are scarcely human, and to fear that their opinion is more than half right, that you really are assimilated to the brutes…that even your shape is questionable as belonging to that order of superior beings whose delicacy you offend.”

“It must be strange to live in a world of civilization and, elegance, and refinement, and yet know nothing about either, yet that is the way with multitudes and with none more than the slaves.  The Constitution that asserts the right of freedom and equality to all mankind is a sealed book to them, and so is the Bible, that tells how Christ died for all; the bond as well as the free.”