Daily Excerpt: When Liberty Enslaves (Aveta)
Excerpt from When Liberty Enslave by Jerry Aveta
There is a common experience between our experiences today and those before the Civil War many years ago. The effect of the intersection of faith and politics during these two experiences has had on our elections and our governance is uncanny in their similarities. Both times an election insurrection was stopped by the sitting vice president. Both times had people of the same faith on both sides of the social issues of the day claiming God’s favor and willing to divide the nation over those competing positions.
Part 1 of this writing focuses on the Civil War era and how liberty centered around the issue of equality. Some people of faith believed all men were equal, some did not.
Part 2 focuses on our present times and how liberty centers on the sanctity of life concerning abortion and gun control. Some in our nation feel enslaved by the liberty of others.
Part 3 describes methods for closing the divide in our nation beginning with the faith communities.
Keywords:
faith and politics, religion and governance, election insurrections, Vice President's role in history, Civil War and liberty, faith and equality, religious divide in America, sanctity of life, abortion and gun control, freedom vs. enslavement, political and social division, healing a divided nation, faith communities and unity, history repeating itself, intersection of religion and policy, Election 2024, Election 1860, slavery, abolitionists
An Overview of the Times Past
One of my favorite holiday movies is
A Christmas Story. Portraying the
experiences of a young Indiana boy in the 1940s, the movie reflects many social
traditions both of the season and the times. Such scenes as buying the family
Christmas tree, visiting Santa at the local department store, and gathering as a
family for meals in the kitchen twice daily are heartwarming reminders of a
time that has passed. I find this movie endearing because it reminds me of my
experiences as a child growing up in New Jersey in the 1960s. Comparing my
Christmas boyhood experiences to that of an Indiana boy decades earlier, I find
similar traditions being passed down through the generations.
It is only when we take the time to
reflect on those times past that we get a better understanding of our present
times. Our past establishes a point of reference for our present. That is why a
movie like The Christmas Story is so
effective: for many of us, it puts our past in contact with our present. In
most cases, that is a good thing. Most of us enjoy the pleasures of an improved
lifestyle because of the advent of new technologies over the decades. Some of
us enjoy the fruits of an education our parents did not have and are able to
live a different lifestyle than they did. But all of us bring forward the
social traditions of our former life and are free to express them to the
generations that follow us. That is the American experience of both today and
of the past. However, not all the social impacts from one generation to the
next have been beneficial to the well-being of our nation.
The objective of this chapter is to
illustrate one such case from a time in our nation’s past experiencing social
phenomena similar to those in our nation today. Such a time is the mid-19th
century, just prior to the Civil War. Let us begin by trying to understand the
social issues of those times.
I am not a social scientist, a political
analyst, or a historian. I am a person who has lived long enough to see some
social traditions passed on from one generation to the next. I realize my
experience is extremely limited when trying to understand generational trends
in a nation. To get some clarity on how that happens, I refer to the works of
current day historians. Jon Meacham, a fellow of the Society of American
Historians, in one of his recent writings describes Lincoln as a politician in
search of the “public sentiment” which would be a measure of perceived values
and attitudes of his current society. We will use this reference for our
purposes of trying to identify the social trends of his time.
AN INDICATION OF TIMES PAST
Lincoln’s assessment was that the
dominant social issues of his times were influenced by either one’s politics,
the financial implications of the issue, or the prejudice within the heart of
the individual citizen. Lincoln determined that the past experience of the
issue, one’s faith, or appealing to one’s reason did not influence the relative
importance of the social issues of his times. History, faith, or reason were
not compelling effects of social priorities. Politics, finances, and prejudice
were.
We have the advantage of knowing
Lincoln’s experiences past 1859 when he was just a candidate. We know that
Lincoln’s presidency began on March 4, 1861, being inaugurated as the 16th
president of the United States. After his reelection four years later, he was
assassinated on April 15, 1865, just 42 days into his second term. We know that
what Lincoln observed in his candidacy, he realized to be true during his
presidency. That is, slavery, the top social issue of his administration, was
accepted in the nation because of its economic and political alignment. These
were the same indications he had learned as a candidate many years earlier that
influenced the social preferences in the nation. The truth was that there was a
lot of money to be made in the American economy on the backs of the American
slaves. It also was an issue that aligned politically with the Democratic South
and which caused division in the nation after the election of a Republican
president named Lincoln. Other factors had little effect on the decision to
embrace slavery for many Americans in our nation at that time.
THE INTRODUCTION OF SLAVERY TO OUR NATION
Slavery, a moral corruption as
viewed by us today, was commercially introduced into the life of our preborn
nation. A small contingent of approximately 20 kidnapped Angolans arrived in
the British colony of Virginia on August 20, 1619. At this point, the enslaved
Africans were bought by the English colonists which marked the beginning of 2
1/2 centuries of slavery in America.[1]
A depravity that infected our nation during its formulation took root and was
present in our nation at its birth.
Annette Gordon-Reed, historian, and
the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard University, offers a different
account of the start of slavery in our nation. The traditional historic growth
in slavery is attributed to the original 20 slaves growing to four million by
the time of Emancipation in 1865. Gordon–Reed contends that racially based
slavery began on American soil in St. Augustine, Florida, established by the
Spanish as early as 1565. Documentation of the presence of Africans in St.
Augustine exists in surviving parish records and historical accounts of the
conflicts that arose between the enslaved people and their Spanish captors. In
1735, the Spanish governor chartered a settlement for enslaved Africans who
escaped from the English colonies and made it to St. Augustine. The settlement
of free Blacks existed until the Spanish ceded Florida to the United States in
1819.[2]
Within 60 years of the arrival of the first slaves in the colonies,
slavery had become a morally, legally, and socially acceptable institution.
Property owners in the southern colonies began establishing plantation farms
for rice, tobacco, and sugar cane, all requiring an increasing demand for
labor. Wealthy planters turned to traders who imported a vast number of slaves
from West Africa. As the “inventory” increased, a new industry was born: the
slave auction.[3]
These slave auctions were open markets where humans were
inspected like animals, bought, and sold to the highest bidder. By the mid-19th
century, a skilled and able-bodied enslaved person could be sold for up to
$2,000 although prices varied by state. Slave labor became entrenched in the
Southern economy. When delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in
Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, approximately 700,000 enslaved people were
living in the United States. The delegates were split on the moral question of
slavery with its human bondage and its inhumane practices, but they were
convinced of its economic necessity.[4]
Lincoln observed as a candidate for President that the
growth of slavery was due to its overwhelming economic benefits to the newly
formed nation. This observation was
confirmed by Lincoln’s experience as President.
Slavery was deemed socially acceptable because it was key to the
profitability of the agricultural industry of the nation. Slavery’s history of
human degradation made no difference. Even the degree of people’s devotion to
their faith made no difference. Slavery was ingrained into the social fabric of
our nation.
SLAVERY: A LOGICAL CHOICE OF THE TIMES
It is
impossible for us to relate to or identify with the circumstances under which
slavery was introduced to our nation. It would be a challenge to research the
attitudes of those first British colonists of Virginia, a task far beyond the
scope of this writing. Yet, a quick look at the history of slavery through The Free Encyclopedia of Wikipedia gives
us some insight.
John Locke
(1632-1704) was an English philosopher and physician and was widely regarded as
one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the
“father of liberalism.” Locke seems to hold a distinction between legitimate
and illegitimate forms of slavery. Locke, writing during the time of
European expansion, argued that only the conquest of certain peoples during a
just war could justify their enslavement. But Locke remained silent on the issue of African American enslavement,
causing some confusion on the issue. It has been stated that John Locke’s
arguments regarding slavery have been cited by both abolitionist and
Confederate leaders in defending their positions. In this vacuum of any clear
distinction on the legitimacy of slavery in America, one can understand the
acceptance of the practice purely as a business decision by the British
colonists.[5]
Life in the colonies and in the early days of our nation
is hard for us to imagine. The amount of labor required to run a substantial
farm was not possible with only family members. Considering the lack of
technology, automation, and any modern conveniences, considerable labor was
required to make a living. One can imagine the difficulty in refusing to use
the relatively inexpensive labor available from the slave industry. After an
initial capital investment, a modest recurring expense of room and board was a
relatively inexpensive solution to the labor problem. One can easily imagine
compartmentalizing the use of slaves as a business decision and dismissing any
thought of the morality of that decision.
SLAVERY: A GATEWAY TO
RACISM
From our vantage point, hundreds of
years after the inception of slavery in our nation, we can easily conclude that
slavery is racism in its worst form. It is logical to assume that the extent of
human depravity and the horror of the experience exacted on these African
citizens could only be the result of racially motivated antipathy and/or
indifference toward these people.
However, the depths and the extent
to which racism is experienced in our nation today differ substantially from
the racism experienced in our nation generations ago. Racism became more
complex and insidious as it has passed from generation to generation throughout
our history. Originally, slavery was localized in the colonies, then spread to
the southern states. Today, racism is pervasive. Slavery was explicit, violent,
and degrading then. Racism can take many forms today.
In order for racism to adapt, it had
to be nourished and sustained over the life of our nation. It is logical to
think that the concept of slavery introduced racism to our nation. Slavery was
the means used to mature racism during our nation’s formative years, developing
a spirit of racism by its dehumanizing tactics, leading to an abhorrence in the
colonists, then throughout the southern portion of our nation, toward a people
that had a darker skin pigmentation, a different language, and a different culture.
This spirit of racism, initiated through slavery, passed from generation to
generation, finally resulting in the form we now experience in our nation
today.
The evolution of slavery was a slow,
deliberate movement in the governing of our nation and in the soul of its
people, requiring and acquiring political and religious underpinnings,
ultimately dividing a country willing to be half slave and half free. Slavery
was not considered racism by many during the Civil War era. The confluence of
faith and politics during that time allowed many to support slavery while still
being loyal to both their faith and their politics. Slavery was merely an
acceptable social practice of the time.
The Civil War brought about the
demise of slavery but not the end of racism. On the contrary, racism morphed
from a socially accepted practice into the underbelly of the social structure
in our nation. Gordon-Reed describes slavery as being replaced with a racial
hierarchy.[6]
I agree with Gordon-Reed’s point. This racial hierarchy I refer to as the
spirit of slavery. There, hidden from public view, racism is free to evidence
itself in various forms at unpredicted times in fashion true to the spirit that
it is. In this way, racism has survived being publicly scorned but privately
preserved.
THE DIVIDING OF A NATION
Division of a nation as big and
diverse as ours, even during its formative years, requires a physical
separation of boundaries, governance, and assets—and the soul of a nation. The
soul of a nation is nothing more than the composite of the individual souls in
that nation acting collectively in a predetermined way.
The
soul of an individual is comprised of the mind, will, and emotions. In
addition, every soul is accompanied by a spirit which I characterize as an
energy, an intangible source of direction that brings life to us. That is why
Scripture refers to us as living beings (Genesis 2:7) with a soul (Mathew
16:26). For a nation’s soul to be
divided simply means the minds, wills, emotions, and spirits of the people in a
nation are separating into factions.
For
a nation to embrace the Civil War, more than a physical divide is required.
There must be a division in the nation’s collective soul to fuel the will,
emotions, mind, and spirit to fight for respective causes.
A NATION PHYSICALLY
DIVIDED
Civil
war does not occur overnight. Barbara Walter has spent her career studying the
process of civil war in many nations throughout history. Walter writes,
In the Civil War, so-called Minute
Men militias—who modeled themselves after the Revolutionary War-era
patriots—began to crop up throughout the South as early as the 1830s, decades
before the Civil War broke out. These militias were organized by small groups
of radical secessionists, almost all of whom were white plantation owners, who
wanted to build support for Southern independence. It took them years to rally
the white working class to their cause.[7]
Declaring a
physical divide of a nation requires strategies, assets and establishing a
method of governance. But before any of
those can be put in place, people must be recruited to the effort. This is true
for any new organizational development, including a business, a political
campaign, a church, or a new nation. The minute-man militia successfully
achieved that purpose. Walter also notes that “it was the election of President
Abraham Lincoln, the first president able to win power without the support of
Southern Democrats, which convinced Southerners to secede.”[8]
Walter describes how a nation can
divide physically. She also states a political event such as an election is
sufficient to initiate that divide. But
I believe in order for a nation to successfully complete that divide it is
because the soul of the nation has been divided as well.
A NATION’S SOUL DIVIDED
On
Monday, March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office as President of
the United States. Lincoln was elected
with the majority of votes being cast for other candidates. This was due to an election determined by
the electoral count being dispersed over several presidential candidates. A phenomenon we have experienced in recent
presidential elections twice.
The issue that divided the politics
of our nation during the election of Lincoln was slavery. The issue that
divided the soul of our nation was faith. This division of soul was made
evident by the division in the faith communities—faith communities that shared
the same faith. The mix of faith and
politics had caused a new fervor and a determined resistance to unity. President Lincoln was well aware of this
divide and tried to calm fears in his second inaugural speech. He addressed the
fact that people reading the same Bible and praying to the same God were on
both sides of the issue of slavery. Each
side was invoking God’s aid against the other. In his address Lincoln invoked
Mathew 7:1,2 which warns Christians not to judge one another at the risk of
being judged. In spite of Lincoln’s
comments, the opposite took place. The South felt judged by the North for their
moral superiority. The North felt judged by the South for their preference to
preserve the union over slavery.
In the hours just before dawn on
April 12, 1861, in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina the first shots were fired
on Fort Sumter from Confederate batteries. “The last ray of hope for preserving
the Union peaceably expired at the assault upon Fort Sumter,” Lincoln remarked.
On Saturday, April 13 Lincoln made his intentions clear by writing “And, in
every event, I shall to the extent of my ability, repel force by force.”[9]
Our nation was at war.
FAITH ADAPTING TO POLITICAL PREFERENCES
When people of faith embrace a
social outcome that hurts other people, it results in a spiritual consequence.
That is, a conscious decision to embrace a practice that violates the
fundamentals of one’s faith changes the perspective of one’s faith. To embrace
slavery with its complement of violent behaviors and dehumanizing tendencies is
a clear violation of some of the basic tenets of the Christian faith. Even
those scriptures that refer to the servant/master relationship allude to God’s
watchful eye for the sincerity of heart and concern for one another in that
relationship (Ephesians 6:1-6). The ability to ignore or interpret scripture in
such a way as to accommodate different political interpretations is referred to
in scripture as “a spirit of stupor” (Romans 11:8). For the purposes of this
writing, I describe this phenomenon as a “spirit of racism” being passed from
generation to generation. It is a spiritual dynamic that affects people’s faith
and allows them to accommodate their political preferences.
This issue will be discussed in
detail in the next two chapters. However, let’s illustrate from the days of
Lincoln examples of how views of faith can change over time with the changing
of a nation’s political landscape.
It has been well documented that
influential Christian ministers of various denominations were hypocritical in
their approach to slavery. Many would
initially describe slavery as “evil” only to reverse their position years later
to describe it as divinely sanctioned and should be defended out of duty to
God.
Slavery
Ordained of God published
in 1850s by a Presbyterian minister stated that if a pro-slavery Christian
decided that God willed a particular slave to continue as a slave, he would
thereby retain his own position as a slave. If that pro-slavery Christian
decided that God willed a slave to be free, the slave thereby had the right to
be free. This view was a widely accepted Christian view in the middle of the
19th century.
Knowing “God’s will” has been a
subject debated over the centuries for all communities of faith. My personal
belief is that regardless of our best efforts we are not able to fully
comprehend the mind and heart of God. However, in trying to determine if our
actions are according to God’s plans as a bare minimum they should not be in
conflict with scripture. As mentioned previously, the tendency is to ignore or
interpret scripture in such a way as to accommodate different political
interpretations. The lesson to be learned through this example is the heart of
this writing. That is, the confluence of faith and politics is a toxic blending
of soul and spirit that only divides communities of faith. In this case,
embracing “the Ross argument” assigns God’s will to a fickleness that randomly
grants freedom or bondage for a subject based on a third-party appeal. That
sounds more like a lottery than a sovereign God Creator of all mankind. That is
the result of the confluence of faith and politics.
People of the same Christian faith developed
different perspectives of their faith to support their political position with
regard to slavery. Or was it the other way around? Did their political position
affect their faith? I think we see a little of both in the days of Lincoln, and
I believe it to be true currently in our experience today. Sometimes, one’s
faith shapes one’s politics. Sometimes, one’s politics cause one to rethink the
perspectives of faith. I know this to be true in my own experience of faith and
politics.
THE PRICE OF ENSLAVEMENT
There is a price paid by all in a
nation for the enslavement of some. It does not matter whether it is a literal
enslavement of one’s life or the enslavement of liberty once held. Both the
enslaved and the free share the consequences of the times. President Lincoln's
words and reflections on his views of slavery are well recorded in our
history. He used words like hate when
describing his feelings concerning the subject.
He described slavery as a monstrous injustice. He also understood that embracing slavery
reflected badly on how other countries viewed our nation. Outside free institutions would view us as
hypocrites and doubt our sincerity with regard to freedom while criticizing our
Declaration of Independence.
President Lincoln knew that if only
part of a nation supported enslavement, the reputation of the entire nation
would be diminished. All people of all nations that respect liberty would judge
the actions of some in our country to represent our entire nation as a whole.
In other words, all of us are painted with the same brush of embracing the
enslavement of others regardless of our position on the issue. It was true in
the days of Lincoln, and it is true today. If we as a nation tolerate the
enslavement of some, we are embracing the concept of slavery for all. History
has shown it is a short step between those two extremes.
I would like to close this chapter with a
recent illustration of just how close these two extremes exist to one another
in our nation today.
At the time of this writing, South
Carolina is considering proposed legislation that treats abortion as murder and
applies penalties accordingly. The South Carolina Prenatal Equal Protection Act
(H.3549) would “afford equal protection of the laws to all preborn children
from the moment of fertilization” and reclassify any act that ends a pregnancy
as “willful prenatal homicide.” This means that an abortion could be punished
like any murder, with sentences at a minimum of years in prison to,
conceivably, the death penalty, though the latter isn’t spelled out in the
bill. There are no exceptions for rape or incest, though the bill does allow
one if a woman “was compelled to do so by the threat of imminent death or great
bodily injury.”
U.S. Representative Nancy Mace
(R-S.C) is a pro-life Republican, whose testimony is that she was raped at 16,
is “deeply passionate” about this issue. She is quoted as saying “It’s
unbelievable to me that this is where we are. My [pro-life] record is almost
100 percent, but this is an American issue. Execute a woman for abortion? It’s
also hypocritical. You can’t be pro-life and then kill a woman for having an
abortion.”[10]
Clearly, we have lost our way when
our legislators are confused by the proposed legislation that they are
sponsoring. This is an example that Lincoln’s thoughts are valid for today.
When some people in our nation are enslaved, we are all guilty of embracing
slavery in some form, regardless of our positions. Rep. Mace has confirmed that
for us.
[1] First enslaved Africans arrive in
Jamestown, setting the stage for slavery in North America”, Feb. 23, 2023;
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/first-african-slave-ship-arrives-jamestown-colony
[2] On
Juneteenth by Anette Gordon-Reed; P.57,61-62; Liveright Publishing Corp.,
2021.
[3] How
Slavery Became the Economic Engine of the South by Gregg Timmons; March 6,
2018; www.history.com
[4] Ibid.
[5] John
Locke and American Slavery - Humanities at Davidson. Downloaded from https://humes.laurenmeyers.net/john-locke-and-american-slavery, July 29, 2024.
[6] On
Juneteenth by Anette Gordon-Reed; P.28; Liveright Publishing Corp., 2021.
[7] How
Civil Wars Start by Barbara F. Walter; P.97; Random House, 2022.
[8] Ibid.,
P. 93.
[9] Ibid.,
P.237-238.
[10] “South Carolina’s Iran-like crackdown on
women” by Kathleen Parker, Washington
Post, March 19, 2023.
Want to know more about Jerry and his book? Click here for more posts and here for the book trailer.
For more information about this book, click HERE.
Awards
Gold Medal, Christian Thought/Enduring Light Category, Illumination Book Awards
Gold Award/Category Winner (Political Non-fiction), American Writing Awards
Gold Award, Literary Titan
Winner, Independent Press Award (category: political)
Literary Global Book Awards:
(1) Winner Nonfiction History
(2) Finalist Nonfiction Inspiration
(3) Finalist Nonfiction Social Change
Check out recent issues.
 |
Follow MSI Press on Twitter, Face Book, Pinterest, Bluesky, and Instagram.
Interested in publishing with MSI Press LLC?
Check out information on how to submit a proposal.
Planning on self-publishing and don't know where to start? Our author au pair services will mentor you through the process.
Julia Aziz, signing her book, Lessons of Labor, at an event at Book People in Austin, Texas.
Comments
Post a Comment