Daily Excerpt: When Liberty Enslaves (Aveta)
Excerpt from When Liberty Enslave by Jerry Aveta
Book Description:
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
The
Land of the Free
In September 1814, our nation’s war
with the United Kingdom, known as the War of 1812, was in its third year. The
British had sacked the capitol city of Washington and torched the White House
while taking prisoners. Among the prisoners was a popular doctor from Prince
George’s County in Maryland. A friend of the doctor, a 35-year-old lawyer named
Francis Scott Key, sailed on a ship flying a truce flag to negotiate a prisoner
exchange with the Royal Navy.
The mission was successful, with the
British commanders agreeing to free the doctor, but the doctor and his friend
would not be allowed to leave the vessel until a surprise attack on Baltimore
had been completed. That’s how Key ended up witnessing the bombardment of Fort
McHenry while aboard a British ship. As he witnessed the battle, from his
vantage point he could not tell who had won or lost.
At dawn, Key saw the American flag,
15 stars and 15 stripes at the time, still waving over the fort and was
inspired to write a poem. Soon, it was set to the same tune that exists today
and came to be known as “The Star-Spangled Banner.”[1]
AN ANTHEM OF FREEDOM
The “Star-Spangled Banner” was first
recognized for official use by the U.S. Navy in 1889. On March 3, 1931,
President Herbert Hoover signed into law a joint resolution passed by the U.S.
Congress making the song the official national anthem of the United States.[2]
It is a song we all have been accustomed to hearing played at most sporting
events in our nation, professional and amateur competitions alike. All of us
are usually stirred when we hear this song played during Olympic competitions
with athletes from our country standing on the award platforms with medals
draped over their shoulders. At those moments, there is no doubt in our minds
that we are a blessed nation because we are “the home of the brave” and “the
land of the free” as the song dramatically states in its conclusion.
Or are we? Maybe we have not been
such a land of freedom for all, all the time. Maybe we have not been so brave
to face that part of our history. The version of the “Star-Spangled Banner” we
sing today is not the form of the original verse. The writing was originally
called “The Defense of Fort M’Henry.” The second half of the third verse ends
like this:
No
refuge could save the hireling and slave
From
the terror of flight or gloom of the grave,
And
the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er
the land of the free and the home of the brave.
THOSE EXEMPTED FROM FREEDOM
It was the British practice to force
the conscription of American sailors to fight for the Royal Navy. In addition,
the British promised refuge to any enslaved black people who escaped their
enslavers. Men who escaped their bonds of slavery were welcome to join the
British Corps of Colonial Marines in exchange for land after their service. An
estimated 4,000 people escaped from Virginia and Maryland through the Royal
Navy. The original text written by Key refers to the recruitment and hiring of
the slaves, along with the implied revenge by the American victory that night.
These lyrics clearly reference the Colonial Marines,
according to Jefferson Morley, author of Snowstorm
in August: Washington City, Francis Scott Key, and the Forgotten Race
Riot of 1835. They are meant to scorn and threaten the former African
American slaves who took the British up on their offer. Key surely knew about
the Colonial Marines, and it’s even possible he saw them among the contingent
of British ships that sailed into Baltimore Harbor.[3]
AN ANTHEM WITH A CONTEXT
I have sung the National Anthem an
untold number of times during my lifetime, as have most of us. In all those
times, never has the thought of slavery come to my mind. I am not sure that
black people in our nation feel the same. Obviously, Colin Kaepernick felt
differently.
Colin Rand Kaepernick is an American
civil rights activist and a football quarterback who is now a free agent. He
played six seasons for the San Francisco 49ers in the National Football League.
In 2016, he knelt during the national anthem at the start of NFL games in
protest of police brutality and racial inequality in the United States. He has
not played in the NFL since.[4]
Kaepernick’s actions were not
received kindly by the NFL owners and was even the target of criticism from the
president at the time, Donald J. Trump. What resulted was a protracted
discussion concerning players' rights and the power of the owner's prerogatives
concerning players’ social views. While slavery was never mentioned during this
experience to my knowledge, one can make a connection between the racism being
experienced today to the slavery that existed in our country many years ago. I would describe that connection to be a
similar spirit between the slave owners of the past and those guilty of racist
actions today. Both have the same target for their actions: people of any skin
color that is not white. Both have the same motive: to restrict the liberties
of the targeted people. One is clear as we examine the history of our nation.
The other is evident in our current national experience.
But how have these racist subtleties
in our nation’s history, like the original language of our national anthem,
evaded exposure? Why were the traces of racism excluded from the discussion of
our nation’s past in some fashion when we were first taught in our primary and
secondary public schools? At least they were many years ago when I experienced
my education directly and my children’s education indirectly. Let’s examine another’s childhood educational
experience in the state of Texas.
A HISTORY REVEALED IN PART
Historian Annette Gordon-Reed
remembers Texas state history being taught in both her fourth and seventh grade
education experiences without slavery being mentioned. If it was mentioned it was characterized with
regard to states’ rights whether to embrace it or not. In her case any educational void regarding
slavery was satisfied by the experiences of her parents and grandparents. Gordon-Reed’s point is that the history she
was taught was emphasized as a state’s right to pursue statehood. Slavery was
not the key issue with regard to the Civil War.
The slow adoption of the truth about slavery in her home state is
described in her writing On Juneteenth.
June 19, 1865, was the day that
enslaved African Americans in Texas were told that slavery had ended, two years
after the Emancipation Proclamation had been signed, and just over two months
after Confederate General Robert E. Lee had surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant at
Appomattox. Despite the formal surrender, the Confederate army continued to
fight on in Texas until mid-May. It was only after they finally surrendered
that Major General Gordon Granger, while at his headquarters in Galveston,
prepared General Order Number 3, announcing the end of legalized slavery in the
state.
It took two years for news of the
Emancipation Proclamation to reach the borders of Texas. Granted there was no
internet, Facebook, or Twitter to advance news as it does today. Even
considering the slow pace of mail in those days, limited telegraphing, and
limited access to such a remote part of the nation, it does seem amazing that
no indication of such a monumental decision affecting a large portion of our
nation’s population at the time was so slow in arriving. By contrast, it took
only a few months for word concerning Lee’s surrender to reach Texas. One can
surmise that the news curtailing the war to preserve slavery was more important
than the news that curtailed slavery in Texas. The first curtailed the loss of
white people’s lives. The second curtailed the loss of black people’s
lives.
While Gordon-Reed’s specific
perspective is the effect of slavery on the formulation of the state of Texas,
similar experiences occurred throughout our nation. Before the Civil War, the
fight for slavery’s acceptance was raging over the many territories that were
now seeking to be included in the Union. The issue was either to include
slavery in the expansion of the United States or keep it confined to the
Southern states to die a slow death by attrition. At stake was the issue as to
whether our nation would truly remain “the Land for the Free” or would settle
into a nation of being a free land for only some of the people.
These aspects regarding the Civil
War and the expansion of our nation were not included in U.S. History classes
when Gordon-Reed attended school as a child in Texas nor for me as a child
being educated in a different state as part of a different generation. Not
having been in a U.S. history class recently in our nation’s schools, I assume
that the social/political underpinnings associated with slavery still are not
discussed throughout our nation today. When these issues are included in some
fashion of contemporary schools, they usually make the headlines of the
national media expressing the resistance to such a curriculum. The absence of
this discourse in the classroom results in a lack of understanding as to how an
evil like slavery persisted for so many years. Perhaps if we knew the answer to
that question, it would help us confront the racism that permeates our nation
today.
In my educational experience, the
history of our nation described slavery as the principal cause of the division
in our country that led to the Civil War.
Although different from Gordon-Reed’s experience, my experience was
similar in that slavery was presented casually, including some specifics like
the Dred Scott decision and the 13th amendment to the Constitution,
both to be discussed at length in a later chapter. In presenting slavery this way, we divorce
the social linkages embedded in the spirit of our nation of the slavery of
times past from those linkages to the racism of times present. The result is we
permit the false impression that we have been and still are “a land of the
free” for all in our nation at all times.
ACQUIRING LAND FOR SLAVERY’S EXPANSION
Slavery could not have spread beyond
the Southern states without political influence. Political leaders often are
divided over social issues. What results is a conspiracy of efforts on the
local, national, and international levels to achieve a desired political
outcome. That is true today and was true back in the 18th
century.
The Missouri Territory was part of
the 800,000 square miles bought from France in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.
In 1818, the nation was deeply divided into pro- and anti-slavery factions when
the Missouri Territory first applied for statehood. It was clear that many in
the territory wanted to allow slavery in the new state. If approved, Missouri
would have been the first state west of the Mississippi River to allow slavery
within its borders.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820
admitted Missouri to the Union as a state that allowed slavery and Maine as a
free state. It was a political compromise preserving the delicate balance
between slave and free states. It also banned slavery from the remaining
Louisiana purchase lands and remained in force for over 30 years. This
legislation managed to temporarily keep the peace, but it failed to resolve the
long-term question of slavery in our nation. Southerners opposed the compromise
because it set a precedent for Congress to make laws concerning slavery.
Northerners disliked the law because it meant slavery was expanding into the
new territory.[5]
Slavery was spreading to other areas
of our nation as well. Stephen F. Austin was described as a Virginia-born,
Missouri-raised moving to Texas while it was still a Mexican province. Austin had come to Texas not to create cattle
ranches but to produce profitable cotton fields. The Mexican government was
eager to have Americans come and develop the Texas area; however, there was a
strong anti-slavery sentiment in the country.
Austin and his Tejano (ethnic Mexicans living in Texas) partners
convinced Mexican legislators to protect slavery as a way of ensuring the
success of their colonization effort.
When Texans successfully rebelled against Mexico and set up the Republic
of Texas in 1836 the issue was settled.
With this move, the right to enslave was secured, and the White settlers
poured into the new republic.[6]
The future of Texas being admitted into the Union was resolved with the
election of Polk as President of the United States.
POLK’S ADVANCE OF SLAVERY
James Knox Polk was elected the 11th
president of the United States, serving from 1845 to 1849. Polk won a close election with 49.5% of the
popular vote. Polk’s victory was his
advocacy of the annexation of Texas.
Henry Clay, his opponent, was opposed to it.
It was well known in the political
circles of the times that Mexico threatened war if the United States annexed
Texas. Armed conflict and a declaration
of war came after a controversial April 1846 skirmish between U.S. and Mexican
troops in territory along the Rio Grande.
By late 1847, U.S. Forces had prevailed, and Polk arranged for a $15
million purchase price for the territory that became known as the Mexican
Cession. Mexican-owned land would
eventually come to comprise all or parts of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.
As our nation expanded, it remained
deeply divided over the issue of slavery. A nation divided over social issues
will produce a nation that is politically divided. This is as today as it was
during the days of slavery. Social division creates a politically charged
environment in the governance of our country.
SLAVERY AND THE CONSTITUTION
All governance in our nation is
bound by and finds its authority through the Constitution of the United States.
But the intent of the Constitution may be interpreted in many ways. This was
especially the case with regard to slavery. Also, legislation written earlier
in our nation’s experience (to be discussed next) caused additional conflict
among the lawmakers. In spite of what our Declaration of Independence states,
not all lawmakers of that time believed that all men were created equally.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the
earliest legislation to have an impact on lawmakers, proposed a legal structure
for the settlement of land in five present-day states: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, and Wisconsin. Ratified by Congress on July 13, 1787, the Northwest
Ordinance prohibited enslavement in territories north of the Ohio River—the
first federal law to address slavery. In addition, the Northwest Ordinance
created a 3-step process for new territories to become states.[7]
Regardless of this precedent-setting
early legislation, the interpretation of the Constitution itself marked the
greatest disagreement among lawmakers.
Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution directs states to count the
number of free persons, add to it the number enslaved multiplied by 3/5, and
subtract the number of Indians within that state to determine the number of
people in a state to be represented and taxed. These conditions were eliminated
by the passing and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment Section Two on July
9, 1868.
However, even Lincoln was conflicted
over his long-held position that the government had no power to abolish slavery
where it existed. Lincoln’s position was
that the Founders fully embraced the concept of “all men created equal” but
recognized it would take some time for that concept to be embraced with regard
to the enslaved of our nation. They recognized that slavery was embedded in the
nature of our nation from the beginning, and they were willing to let the country
have the time to mature and correct this fundamental flaw of liberty.
A HISTORY
DESTINED TO BE REPEATED
We have all heard something like the
expression “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” Wikipedia
tells us various such statements can be attributed to either Edmund Burke, an
Anglo-Irish politician, or George Santayana, a Spanish philosopher, poet, and
novelist. Both men are of considerable distinction and worthy of being known
for more than an expression they may or may not have made. However, it seems to
be appropriate to reference a phrase like this at this point in this writing.
The social and political
circumstances that collided many years ago in the history of our nation to
bring about the Civil War seem to be reappearing in a similar form in our
nation today. While the concern is not over a renewed outbreak of slavery, we
are witness to a similar curtailing of liberties. Our present-day experience does not require
the addition of more land to expand the violation of liberties to additional
people. It requires the tampering of the
political electoral boundaries of each state to restrict people's
liberties. Today’s threats to our
liberties do not require baiting a neighboring country into war to expand our
sphere of influence in exploiting the liberties of people. All it takes is our elected officials
tampering with our nation’s internal controls over justice and liberty through
the three (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) branches of our government. The effect is not a redistribution of
property, but rather a redistribution of liberty throughout our nation. Just as
in the days of Lincoln when states were labeled as pro and anti-slavery, we now
can label our nation in terms of blue states and red states, pro-life and
pro-choice states and pro-gun and anti-gun law states.
Just as we can sense a tangible
divide in our nation over social issues, the effects of slavery are still felt
by many in our nation due to racism. I offer the following results of a recent
poll as an illustration of the residual impact of slavery still being felt
today in our nation through racism.
A Post-Ipsos (Washington Post and
Ipsos is a global market research and public opinion company) poll found
“Sixty-nine percent of Black Americans say it is a ‘more dangerous’ time today
to be a Black teenager than when they were teenagers. Just four percent say it
is a less dangerous time while 25% describe the environment for teenagers as
being ‘about the same’. Nearly six in 10 Black adults say they are very or
somewhat worried that they or someone they love will be attacked because they
are Black.”[8]
This same poll indicates that
“concerns about public stances in certain states extend to Black Americans’
belief that they are not getting a fair shake from the country’s political
system. Nearly eight in 10 Black Americans also say they have ‘very little’ or
just ‘some’ political power in the United States.” [9]
A recent example of these racist
trends in politics was also cited in this poll. “Over 6 in 10 Black adults say they were
worried when GOP lawmakers in the Tennessee House voted this spring to expel
state representatives Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, both Black Democrats,
for leading a gun-control rally at the Capitol. They were reinstated to the
body after votes by local officials.”[10]
I realize this is one poll, but it
is safe to say it offers anecdotal evidence of similar fears to those of the
enslaved people in our nation many years ago. My alarm is rooted in the many
other instances of violence toward black people that we read about in our
nation’s daily news. My deep concern is based on my faith experience in
Evangelical communities over many years. I believe our nation is facing a
crisis in our collective faith experience.
A CRISIS
OF FAITH THEN AND NOW
Scripture describes that liberty vs. enslavement is fundamental to our faith.
Our faith
expresses our liberty from a previous
life when we were enslaved to
destructive behaviors. (Galatians 5:1)
Our faith connects us to God in a fashion that creates liberty in all our relationships to love
one another and not be enslaved by
bitter envy and jealousy. (2 Corinthians 3:17)
Our faith gives us an understanding of boundaries that
provide liberty to live life to its
fullest and not be enslaved by
destructive habits. (John 8:32)
Our faith liberates us
to serve others and not be enslaved by
our desires. (Galatians 5:13)
Understanding the significance of the relationship between
liberty and enslavement in our faith experience is fundamental to living a
faith that is relevant to both our past and our present. This understanding
connects us to the history of our nation so that we can better identify with
the torment of a people constrained to live without the freedoms afforded so
many others in the nation. This understanding connects us to the present in an
ability to relate to people of the same faith who do not have the same
perspectives on the social issues of the day. Once we can see social issues
from a perspective different from ours, our faith frees us from judging others
for having a different perspective. Our faith enables us to see other
perspectives not as being wrong, but as being different. Recognizing a faith
different from my own neither invalidates my faith nor does it validate the
other. It simply means we see things differently. Let’s leave the judging up to
God, who is better equipped for the job.
This understanding of the relationship between liberty vs enslavement is critical to
the political posturing that embraces our country today. As a people of faith,
we must realize we are not going to convince anyone that our faith position on
social issues is correct by attacking them and restricting their liberties.
Taking one’s liberty away is requiring them to comply with a conviction that
they do not have. This forced compliance will do nothing to convince them
otherwise. It will only enhance the desire to live free as they once did before
their liberty was taken away.
The solution to our problem of the day will not be
attained by annexing the political territories of our nation and binding them
to a rule of law that is perceived as enslavement. All that does is create
civil unrest which will eventually lead to anarchy and civil war. Our history
speaks of that experience. The experts who study civil war throughout history
agree.
Most
Americans cannot imagine another civil war in their country. They assume our
democracy is too resilient, too robust to devolve into conflict. Or they assume
that our country is too wealthy and advanced to turn on itself. Or they assume
that any rebellion would quickly be stamped out by our powerful government,
giving the rebels no chance. They see the Whitmer kidnapping plot, or even the
storming of the U.S. Capitol, as isolated incidents, the frustrated acts of a
small group of violent extremists. But this is because they don’t know how
civil wars start.[11]
[1] “The ugly reason ‘The Star-Spangled
Banner’ didn’t become our national anthem for a century” by Gillian Brockwell, The Washington Post, October 18, 2020.
[2] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, The
Star-Spangled Banner; 36 U.S. Code 301- National anthem
[3] “The ugly reason ‘The Star-Spangled
Banner’ didn’t become our national anthem for a century” by Gillian Brockwell,
The Washington Post, October 18, 2020.
[4] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, USA Today, Nov. 16, 2019.
[5] https://www.history.com/topics/slavery/missouri-compromise; History.com, June 27,
2023.
[6]On Juneteenth
by Annette Gordon-Reed; P. 24; Liveright
Publishing Company, 2021.
[7] "Northwest
Ordinance of 1787." by Robert
McNamara ThoughtCo, Feb. 17, 2021, downloaded from
https:thoughtco.com/northwest-ordinance-of-1787-4177006.
[8] “Poll: Black Americans more upbeat but
fear worsening racism” by Tim Craig, Emily Guskin, and Scott Clement; Washington Post, Sunday, June 18, 2023.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] How
Civil Wars Start by Barbara F. Walter; P. xviii, Crown; 2022.
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
To purchase copies of this book at 25% discount,
use code FF25 at MSI Press webstore.
Want to buy this book and not have to pay for it?
Ask your local library to purchase and shelve it.
VISIT OUR WEBSITE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ALL OUR AUTHORS AND TITLES.
(recent releases, sales/discounts, awards, reviews, Amazon top 100 list, author advice, and more -- stay up to date)Check out recent issues.
Interested in publishing with MSI Press LLC?
Check out information on how to submit a proposal.
We help writers become award-winning published authors. One writer at a time. We are a family, not a factory. Do you have a future with us?Turned away by other publishers because you are a first-time author and/or do not have a strong platform yet? If you have a strong manuscript, San Juan Books, our hybrid publishing division, may be able to help.
Planning on self-publishing and don't know where to start? Our author au pair services will mentor you through the process.
Interested in receiving a free copy of this or any MSI Press LLC book in exchange for reviewing a current or forthcoming MSI Press LLC book? Contact editor@msipress.com.
Want an author-signed copy of this book? Purchase the book at 25% discount (use coupon code FF25) and concurrently send a written request to orders@msipress.com.Julia Aziz, signing her book, Lessons of Labor, at an event at Book People in Austin, Texas.
Want to communicate with one of our authors? You can! Find their contact information on our Authors' Pages.Steven Greenebaum, author of award-winning books, An Afternoon's Discussion and One Family: Indivisible, talking to a reader at Barnes & Noble in Gilroy, California.MSI Press is ranked among the top publishers in California.
Check out our rankings -- and more -- HERE.
Comments
Post a Comment