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 -