Why was it so difficult to stop international slave trade?

           In the modern world, slavery has come to be seen as a great evil. The notion of one man owning another and earning his daily bread, and often much more, by the sweat of that other man’s brow is abhorrent to Western mankind. However, this was not always the case. While it would be easy for us today to project in reverse our values and principles on those of the past, we must be careful to avoid this. By so doing, we would unjustly judge our forbearers and we would discredit the brave and progressive souls who stood up and fought for principles that we now hold to be self-evident.

The international slave trade was a deep and longstanding institution by the time William Wilberforce struck out to ensure its demise. For centuries, men and women of European descent had travelled down the western coast of Africa to capture black men, women, and children. From there, they would transport them all over the West, forcing them into slavery. During slavery, and along the way, they would subject them to heinous treatment, murder, rape, and other terrible experiences.

This institution became so central to the Western way of life that attempts to bring it down were met with serious resistance. One of the strongest reasons behind the perpetuation and defense of slavery in the face of opposition was its economic significance. Many of the thriving industries of the day were entirely dependent on slave labor. The textile industry, numerous major agricultural industries, and a significant portion of the shipping industry all relied on slavery.

With so much economic justification behind slavery, it is not hard to imagine that other reasons were conjured up to support the institution. Possibly, the most significant of these was racism. Many white people were eager and easily willing to accept that they were superior to Blacks. Indeed, almost all Whites at certain times in history were convinced that their race was, if not better, at least better suited for the role of leader and director of the Blacks. Not all of the racism of the day was violent or aggressive. Much of it was milder and in some ways, might have even been disguised as a sort of benevolence toward a less able group.

The variety of manifestations of racism presented those opposed to slavery with a great challenge. Firstly, those aggressively and more radically racist were formidable due to their absolutism and disregard to the welfare of Blacks beyond common property. The less radical racists, which I would guess constituted the majority of the people during the centuries of African slavery’s greatest prevalence, posed a different challenge in that they feigned goodwill concern for the Blacks. They were able to hide behind a façade, which among other things, came to be called “the white man’s burden.”

Another justification that was used in defense of slavery was religion. The Christian white population of the West viewed themselves as religious superiors to the “godless” Africans. This idea further supported racism at both ends of the spectrum. Those who claimed goodwill toward the Blacks could assert that they were taking a lost and dark people and bringing them into the light of Christianity, saving them from eternal hell. Those who did not consider Blacks to be humans drew further justification of that belief because, to them, those who did not believe in Christ were less human than those who did.

Also, as we explored more in depth in class, the Bible seemed to support slavery. Because many of God’s chosen people in the Bible had and kept slaves, adherents of slavery were able to cite the word of God as precedent for their practice. Those who did not feel the Bible supported slavery were nearly either forced to say that the Bible should not be interpreted literally, that the spirit of the Word was of greater import than the letter, or that the Bible was not true and must be abandoned. Neither of these approaches to dealing with slavery in the Bible was popular.

Aside from economics, racism, and religion, tradition combined of all of these factors and added to the support of the perpetuation of slavery. “My father had slaves, and his father before him. Why should I have none?” This type of sentiment surely encouraged many to support the institution.  Also, the traditional justification of slavery via racism, religion, and economics turned into self-fulfilling claims. For example, the idea that Blacks were intellectually inferior to Whites was stimulated by the fact that black slaves were not educated, were commonly denied the right to read, to learn mathematics, or other forms of intellectual development and exercise. That Blacks were considered to be unchristian was only perpetuated by the fact that the lives they were allowed to live were, in some instances, not conducive to the principles of Christianity. For example, the common Christian principles of monogamy and fidelity to ones family were not easy for those who family members or they themselves could be sold and transported to another area, separated from their families. How could black slaves have the same concept of family as those who were actually secure in their familial relationships? They could not.

There were undoubtedly many other reasons why the international slave trade had such a firm footing, but I feel that all of the rest (at least those I can think of) were rooted in those I have discussed. Those who opposed slavery had much to overcome before they could make even the slightest step forward. For this reason, we should continue to remember and celebrate those who sacrificed so much to bring about the end of the slavery and the trading of slaves.

Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address

          What is most magnificent to me about Lincoln’s second inaugural address is the magnanimity that he exhibits toward the South. Under his command, the entire nation was well invested in the most deadly and devastating of American wars. It would have been so easy for him to sound the trump of self-righteousness and assurance. How tempting it might have been, as a leader, to assert the rightness of their cause, and to claim that they had the sanction of God on their side. However, this is not what Lincoln did. He was humble in his declarations, claiming that he knew not entirely what was wrong and what was right. He avoided judging the South for what many would have called their many wicked deeds.

            To me, exhibiting such humility and love for the South in his position says to me that Lincoln was a true Christian, regardless of his religious convictions. He was a man who loved his neighbor as himself, who was willing to forgive, to avoid unrighteous judgment, and to extend peace to his enemies.

            For me, reading his address and considering it in the context in which it was given was a marvelous experience that taught me a great deal about Lincoln, about Christianity, and about the foundational principles upon which this great country stands. 

2nd Great Awakening

What did you learn about the Second Great Awakening that helps you appreciate or understand Joseph Smith's first vision?

With regards to the Restoration, it might be easy to isolate it from the times in which it occurred. The longer time continues, the further we get from that wonderful occurrence. The Restoration did not happen in a vacuum, however, and learning about the environment in which it did occur provided me with a better understanding of what prompted Joseph Smith to seek answers to prayer, and also helped me to see what type of climate our Heavenly Father chose for the commencement of the final dispensation.

In the Pearl of Great Price account given by Joseph Smith, he relates that he felt himself in a “tumult” of words, in a sort of religious battleground. While this has registered with me prior to learning to about the Second Great Awakening, I did not quite grasp the extent of his struggle. For me, I thought it was more akin to the situation that people of the current generation find themselves in. For example, today, there are many faiths and churches, and many of them compete with actively compete with each other. This was also the case in Joseph Smith’s time, but it was much more energetic than what we experience today. There was almost a craze, a fanatic preoccupation with religion. While many people today define himself or herself by the religion they adhere to, people also define themselves by many other meters, such as occupation, regional affiliations, hobbies, schools, music, etc. In Smith’s time, it appears, at least in certain areas, that the church to which he or she belonged determined one’s identity.

What is most interesting is that God chose to restore his Church in such a climate. In some regards, this makes sense: people were seeking to learn about religion, there was a great deal of excitement about it, and people were willing to dedicate their lives entirely to their faith. For some of the same reasons, it seems almost counterintuitive to restore the Church at this time. If a Five Guys, Smash Burger, and In and Out Burger all open up in 1 mile radius, it doesn’t seem like the best time or place to open up a start-up hamburger joint. God works in mysterious ways, I guess.