Theodore Parker: Thoughts on Labor

Thoughts on Labor
from the Dial for April, 1841.
by Theodore Parker

“God has given each man a back to he clothed, a mouth to be filled, and a pair of hands to work with.” And since wherever a mouth and a back are created a pair of hands also is provided, the inference is unavoidable, that the hands are to be used to supply the needs of the mouth and the back. Now as there is one mouth to each pair of hands, and each mouth must be filled, it follows quite naturally, that if a single pair of hands refuses to do its work, then the mouth goes hungry, or, which is worse, the work is done by other hands. In the one case, the supply failing, an inconvenience is suffered, and the man dies; in the other he eats and wears the earnest of another man’s work, and so a wrong is inflicted. The law of nature is this, “If a man will not work neither shall he eat.” Still further, God has so beautifully woven together the web of life, with its warp of Fate, and its woof of Freewill, that in addition to the result of a man’s duty, when faithfully done, there is a satisfaction and recompense in the very discharge thereof. In a rational state of things, Duty and Delight travel the same road, sometimes hand in hand. Labor has an agreeable end, in the result we gain; but the means also are agreeable, for there are pleasures in the work itself. These unexpected compensations, the gratuities and stray gifts of Heaven, are scattered abundantly in life. Thus the kindness of our friends, the love of our children is of itself worth a thousand times all the pains we take on their account. Labor, in like manner, has a reflective action, and gives the working man a blessing over and above the natural result which he looked for. The duty of labor is written on a man’s body; in the stout muscle of the arm and the delicate machinery of the hand. That it is congenial to our nature appears from the alacrity with which children apply themselves to it, and find pleasure in the work itself, without regard to its use. The young duck does not more naturally betake itself to the water, than the boy to the work which goes on around him. There is some work, which even the village sluggard and the city fop love to do, and that only can they do well. These two latter facts show that labor, in some degree, is no less a pleasure than a duty, and prove, that man is not by nature a lazy animal who is forced by Hunger to dig and spin.

Yet there are some who count labor a curse and a punishment. They regard the necessity of work, as the greatest evil brought on us by the “Fall;” as a curse that will cling to our last sand. Many submit to this yoke, and toil, and save, in hope to leave their posterity out of the reach of this primitive curse!

Others, still more foolish, regard it as a disgrace. Young men,–the children of honest parents, who, living by their manly and toil-hardened hands, bear up the burthen of the world on their shoulders, and eat with thankful hearts their daily bread, won in the sweat of their face,–are ashamed of their fathers’ occupation, and forsaking the plough, the chisel, or the forge, seek a livelihood in what is sometimes named a more respectable and genteel vocation; that is, in a calling which demands less of the hands, than their fathers’ hardy craft, and quite often less of the head likewise; for that imbecility, which drives men to those callings has its seat mostly in a higher region than the hands. Affianced damsels beg their lovers to discover (or invent) some ancestor in buckram who did not work. The Sophomore in a small college is ashamed of his father who wears a blue frock, and his dusty brother who toils with the saw and the axe. These men, after they have wiped off the dirt and the soot of their early life, sometimes become arrant coxcombs, and standing like the heads of Hermes without hands, having only a mouth, make faces at such as continue to serve the state by plain handiwork. Some one relates an anecdote, which illustrates quite plainly this foolish desire of young men to live without work. It happened in one of our large towns, that a Shopkeeper and a Blacksmith, both living in the same street, advertised for an apprentice on the same day. In a given time fifty beardless youngsters applied to the Haberdasher, and not one to the Smith. But that story has a terrible moral, namely, that forty-and-nine out of the fifty were disappointed at the outset.

It were to be wished that this notion of labor being disgraceful was confined to vain young men, and giddy maidens of idle habits and weak heads, for then it would be looked upon as one of the diseases of early life, which we know must come, and rejoice when our young friends have happily passed through it, knowing it is one of “the ills that flesh is heir to,” but is not very grievous, and comes but once in the lifetime. This aversion to labor, this notion that it is a curse and a disgrace, this selfish desire to escape from the general and natural lot of man, is the sacramental sin of “the better class” in our great cities. The children of the poor pray to be rid of work; and what son of a rich man learns a trade or tills the soil with his own hands? Many men look on the ability to be idle as the most desirable and honorable ability. They glory in being the Mouth that consumes, not the Hand that works. Yet one would suppose a man of useless hands and idle head, in the midst of God’s world, where each thing works for all; in the midst of the toil and sweat of the human race, must needs make an apology for his sloth, and would ask pardon for violating the common law, and withdrawing his neck from the general yoke of humanity. Still more does he need an apology, if he is active only in getting into his hands the result of others’ work. But it is not so. The man who is rich enough to be idle values himself on his leisure; and what is worse, others value him for it. Active men must make a shamefaced excuse for being busy, and working men for their toil, as if business and toil were not the Duty of all and the support of the world. In certain countries men are divided horizontally into two classes, the men who work and the men who RULE, and the latter despise the employment of the former as mean and degrading. It is the slave’s duty to plough, said a Heathen poet, and a freeman’s business to enjoy at leisure the fruit of that ploughing. This same foolish notion finds favor with many here. It is a remnant of those barbarous times, when all labor was performed by serfs and bondsmen, and exemption from toil was the exclusive sign of the freeborn. But this notion, that labor is disgraceful, conflicts as sharply with our political institutions, as it does with common sense, and the law God has writ on man. An old author, centuries before Christ, was so far enlightened on this point, as to see the true dignity of manual work, and to say, “God is well pleased with honest works he suffers the laboring man, who ploughs the earth by night and day, to call his life most noble. If he is good and true, he offers continual sacrifice to God, and is not so lustrous in his dress as in his heart.”

Manual labor is a blessing and a dignity. But to state the case on its least favorable issue, admit it were both a disgrace and a curse, would a true man desire to escape it for himself, and leave the curse to full on other men? Certainly not. The generous soldier fronts death, and charges in the cannon’s mouth; it is the coward who lingers behind. If labor were hateful, as the proud would have us believe, then they who bear its burthens, and feed and clothe the human race, and fetch and carry for them, should be honored as those have always been, who defend society in war. If it be glorious, as the world fancies, to repel a human foe, how much more is he to be honored who stands up when Want comes upon us, like an armed man, and puts him to route. One would fancy the world was mad, when it bowed in reverence to those who by superior cunning possessed themselves of the earnings of others, while it made wide the mouth and drew out the tongue at such as do the world’s work. “Without these,” said an ancient, “cannot a city be inhabited, but they shall not be sought for in public council, nor sit high in the congregation;” and those “few men and women who are misnamed the World, in their wisdom have confirmed the saying. Thus they honor those who sit in idleness and ease; they extol such as defend a state with arms, or those who collect in their hands the result of Asiatic or American industry; but pass by with contempt the men who rear corn and cattle, and weave and spin, and fish and build for the whole human race. Yet if the state of labor were so hard and disgraceful as some fancy, the sluggard in fine raiment and that trim figure–which, like the lilies in the Scripture, neither toils nor spins, and is yet clothed in more glory than Solomon–would both bow down before Colliers and Farmers, and bless them as the benefactors of the race. Christianity has gone still farther, and makes a man’s greatness consist in the amount of service he renders to the world. Certainly he is the most honorable who by his head or his hand does the greatest and best work for his race. The noblest soul the world ever saw appeared not in the ranks of the indolent; but “took on him the form of a servant,” and when he washed his disciples’ feet, meant something not very
generally understood perhaps in the nineteenth century.

Now manual labor, though an unavoidable duty; though designed as a blessing, and naturally both a pleasure and a dignity, is often abused, till, by its terrible excess, it becomes really a punishment and a curse. It is only a proper amount of work that is a blessing. Too much of it wears out the body before its time; cripples the mind, debases the soul; blunts the senses, and chills the affections. It makes a man a spinning jenny, or a ploughing machine, and not ” a being of a large discourse, that looks before and after,” He ceases to be a man, and becomes a thing.

In a rational and natural state of society,–that is, one in which every man went forward towards the true end he was designed to reach; towards perfection in the use of all his senses; towards perfection in wisdom, virtue, affection, and religion,–labor would never interfere with the culture of what was best in each man. His daily business would be a school to aid in developing the whole man, body and soul, because he would then do what nature fitted him to do. Then his business would be really his calling. The diversity of gifts is quite equal to the diversity of work to be done. There is some one thing which each man can do with pleasure, and better than any other man; because he was born to do it. Then all men would labor, each at his proper vocation, and an excellent farmer would not be spoiled to make a poor lawyer, a blundering physician, or a preacher, who puts the world asleep. Then a small body of men would I not be pampered in indolence, to grow up into gouty worthlessness, and die of inertia; nor would the large part of men be worn down as now by excessive toil before half their life is spent. They would not be so severely tasked as to have no time to read, think, and converse. When he walked abroad, the laboring man would not be forced to catch mere transient glimpses of the flowers by the way side, or the stars over his head, as the dogs, it is said, drink the waters of the Nile, running while they drink, afraid the crocodiles should seize them if they stop. When he looked from his window at the landscape. Distress need not stare at him from every bush. He would then have leisure to cultivate his mind and heart no less than to do the world’s work.

In labor, as in all things beside, moderation is the law. If a man transgresses and becomes intemperate in his work, and does nothing but toil with the hand, he must suffer. We educate and improve only the faculties we employ, and cultivate most what we use the oftenest. But if some men are placed in such circumstances that they can use only their hands, who is to be blamed if they are ignorant, vicious, and, in a measure, without God ? Certainly not they. Now it is a fact, notorious as the sun at noon-day, that such are the circumstances of many men. As society advances in refinement, more labor is needed to supply its demands; for houses, food, apparel, and other things must be refined and luxurious. It requires more work, therefore, to fill the mouth and clothe the back, than in simpler times. To aggravate the difficulty, some escape from their share of this labor, by superior intelligence, shrewdness, and cunning; others by fraud and lies, or by inheriting the result of these qualities in their ancestors. So their share of the common burden, thus increased, must be borne by other hands, which are laden already with more than enough. Still farther, this class of mouths, forgetting how hard it is to work, and not having their desires for the result of labor checked by the sweat necessary to satisfy them, but living vicariously by other men’s hands, refuse to be content with the simple gratification of their natural appetites. So Caprice takes the place of Nature, and must also be satisfied. Natural wants are few; but to artificial desires there is no end. When each man must pay the natural price, and so earn what he gets, the hands stop the mouth, and the soreness of the toil corrects the excess of desire, and if it do not, none has cause of complaint, for the man’s desire is allayed by his own work. Thus if Absalom wishes for sweet cakes, the trouble of providing them checks his extravagant, or unnatural appetite. But when the Mouth and Hand are on different bodies, and Absalom can coax his sister, or bribe his friend, or compel his slave to furnish him dainties, the natural restraint is taken from appetite, and it runs to excess. Fancy must be appeased; peevishness must be quieted; and so a world of work is needed to bear the burdens which those men bind, and lay on men’s shoulders, but will not move with one of their fingers. The class of Mouths thus commits a sin, which the class of Hands must expiate.

Thus, by the treachery of one part of society, in avoiding their share of the work; by their tyranny in increasing the burden of the world; an evil is produced quite unknown in a simpler state of life, and a man of but common capacities not born to wealth, in order to insure a subsistence for himself and his family, must work with his hands so large a part of his time, that nothing is left for intellectual, moral, aesthetic, and religious improvement. He cannot look at the world; talk with his wife; read his Bible, nor pray to God, but Poverty knocks at the door, and hurries him to his work. He is rude in mind before he begins his work, and his work does not refine him. Men have attempted long enough to wink this matter out of sight, but it will not be put down. It may be worse in other countries, but it is bad enough in New England, as all men know who have made the experiment. There must be a great sin somewhere in that state of society, which allows one man to waste day and night in sluggishness or riot, consuming the bread of whole families, while from others, equally well-gifted and faithful, it demands twelve, or sixteen, or even eighteen hours of hard work out of the twenty-four, and then leaves the man so weary and worn, that he is capable of nothing but sleep,–sleep that is broken by no dream. Still worse is it when this life of work begins so early, that the man has no fund of acquired knowledge on which to draw for mental support in his hours of toil. To this man the blessed night is for nothing but work and sleep, and the Sabbath day simply what Moses commanded, a day of bodily rest for Man, as for his Ox and his Ass. Man was sent into this world to use his best faculties in the best way, and thus reach the high end of a man. How can he do this while so large a part of his time is spent in unmitigated work? Truly he cannot. Hence we see, that while, in all other departments of nature, each animal lives up to the measure of his organization, and with very rare exceptions becomes perfect after his kind, the greater part of men are debased and belittled; shortened of half their days, and half their excellence, so that you are surprised to find a man well educated whose whole life is hard work. Thus what is the exception in nature, through our perversity becomes the rule with man. Every Black-bird is a black-bird just as God designs; but how many men are only bodies? If a man is placed in such circumstances, that he can use only his hands, they only become broad and strong. If no pains be taken to obtain dominion over the flesh, the man loses his birthright, and dies a victim to the sin of society. No doubt there are men, born under the worst of circumstances, who have redeemed themselves from them, and obtained an excellence of intellectual growth, which is worthy of wonder; but these are exceptions to the general rule ; men gifted at birth with a power almost superhuman. It is not from exceptions we are to frame the law. Now to put forward the worst possible aspect of the case. Suppose that the present work of the world can only be performed at this sacrifice, which is the best, that the work should be done, as now, and seven-tenths of men and women should, as the unavoidable result of their toil, be cursed with extremity of labor, and ignorance, and rudeness, and unmanly life, or that less of this work be done, and, for the sake of a wide-spread and generous culture, we sleep less softly, dine on humbler food, dwell simpler houses, and wear leather, like George Fox? There is no doubt what answer Common Sense, Reason, and Christianity would give to this question; for wisdom, virtue, and manhood, are as much better than sumptuous dinners, fine apparel, and splendid houses, as the Soul is better than the Senses. But as yet we are slaves. The senses overlay the soul. We serve brass, and mahogany, and beef, and porter. The class of Mouths oppresses the class of Hands, for the strongest and most cunning of the latter are continually pressing into the ranks of the former, and while they increase the demand for work, leave their own share of it to be done by others. Men and women of humble prospects in life, while building the connubial nest that is to shelter them and their children, prove plainly enough their thraldom to the senses, when such an outlay of upholstery and joiners’ work is demanded, and so little is required that appeals to Reason, Imagination, and Faith. Yet when the mind demands little besides time, why prepare so pompously for the senses, that she cannot have this, but must be cheated of her due? One might fancy he heard the stones cry out of the wall, in many a house, and say to the foolish people who tenant the dwelling,– “O, ye fools, is it from the work of the joiner, and the craft of those who are cunning in stucco and paint, and are skillful to weave and to spin, and work in marble and mortar, that ye expect satisfaction and rest for your souls, while ye make no provision for what is noblest and immortal within you? But ye also have your reward!” The present state of things, in respect to this matter, has no such excellencies that it should not be changed. It is no law of God, that when Sin gets a following in the world it should hold on forever, nor can Folly keep its dominion over society simply by right of “adverse possession.” It were better the body went bare and hungry, rather than the soul should starve. Certainly the Life is more than the meat, though it would not weigh so much in the butcher’s scales.

There are remedies at hand. It is true a certain amount of labor must be performed, in order that society be fed and clothed, warmed and comforted, relieved when sick, and buried when dead. If this is wisely distributed; if each performs his just portion; the burden is slight, and crushes no one. Here, as elsewhere, the closer we keep to nature, the safer we are. It is not under the burdens of Nature that society groans; but the work of Caprice, of Ostentation, of contemptible Vanity, of Luxury, which is never satisfied–these oppress the world. If these latter are given up, and each performs what is due from him, and strives to diminish the general burden and not add to it, then no man is oppressed; there is time enough for each man to cultivate what is noblest in him, and be all that his nature allows. It is doubtless right that one man should use the service of another; but only when both parties are benefited by the relation. The Smith may use the service of the Collier, the Grocer, and the Grazier, for he does them a service in return. He who heals the body deserves a compensation at the hands of whomsoever he serves. If the Painter, the Preacher, the Statesman, is doing a great work for mankind, he has a right to their service in return. His fellow-man may do for him what otherwise he ought to do for himself. Thus is he repaid, and is at liberty to devote the undivided energy of his genius to the work. But on what ground an idle man, who does nothing for society, or an active man, whose work is wholly selfish, can use the services of others, and call them to feed and comfort him, who repays no equivalent in kind, it yet remains for Reason to discover. The only equivalent for service is a service in return. If Hercules is stronger, Solomon wiser, and Job richer than the rest of men, it is not that they may demand more of their fellows, but may do more for them. “We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak,” says a good man. In respect, however, to the matter of personal service, this seems to be the rule; that no one, whatever be his station, wants, attainments, or riches, has any right to receive from another any service which degrades the servant in his own eyes, or the eyes of the public, or in the eyes of him who receives the service. It is surely unmanly to receive a favor which you would not give. If it debases David to do a menial service for Ahud, then it debases Ahud just as much to do the same to David. The difference between King and Slave vanishes when both are examined from the height of their common humanity, just as the difference between the west and north-west side of a hair on the surface of the Earth is inconsiderable to an eye that looks down from the Sun, and takes in the whole system, though it might appear stupendous to the motes that swim uncounted in a drop of dew. But no work, useful or ornamental to human life, needs be debasing. It is the lasting disgrace of society, that the most useful employments are called “low.” There is implied in this very term, the tacit confession, on the part of the employer, that he has wronged and subjugated the person who serves him; for when these same actions are performed by the mother for her child, or the son for his father, and are done for love and not money, they are counted not as low, but rather ennobling.

The Law of nature is, that work and the enjoyment of that work go together. Thus God has given each animal the power of self-help, and all necessary organs. The same Robin builds the nest and lives in it. Each Lion has claws and teeth, and kills his own meat. Every Beaver has prudence and plastic skill, and so builds for himself. In those classes of animals where there is a division of labor, one brings the wax, another builds the comb, and a third collects the honey, but each one is at work. The drones are expelled when they work no more. Even the Ruler of the colony is the most active member of the state, and really the mother of the whole people. She is only “happy as a king,” because she does the most work. Hence she has a divine right to her eminent station. She never eats the bread of sin. She is Queen of the Workers. Here each labors for the good of all, and not solely for his own benefit. Still less is any one an injury to the others. In nature those animals that cannot work, are provided for by Love. Thus the young Lion is fed by the Parent, and the old Stork by its children. Were a full-grown Lion so foolish that he would not hunt, the result is plain, he must starve. Now this is a foreshadowing of man’s estate. God has given ten fingers for every two lips. Each is to use the ability he has for himself and for others. Who, that is able, will not return to society, with his head or his hand, an equivalent for what it received? Only the Sluggard and the Robber. These two, the Drones and Pirates of Society, represent a large class. It is the plain duty of each, so far as he is able, to render an equivalent for what he receives, and thus to work for the good of all; but each in his own way; Dorcas the seamstress at her craft, and Moses and Paul at theirs. If one cannot work through weakness, or infancy, or age, or sickness,–Love works for him, and he too is fed. If one will not work, though he can–the law of nature should have its effect. He ought to starve. If one insist simply upon getting into his hands the earnings of others, and adding nothing to the common stock,–he is a robber, and should properly meet with the contempt and the stout resistance of society. There is in the whole world but a certain amount of value, out of which each one is to have a subsistence while here; for we are all but life-tenants of the Earth, which we hold in common. We brought nothing into it; we carry nothing out of it. No man, therefore, has a natural right to any more than he earns or can use. He who adds anything to the common stock and inheritance of the next age, though it be but a sheaf of wheat, or cocoon of silk, he has produced, a napkin, or a brown loaf he has made, is a benefactor to his race, so far as that goes. But he who gets into his hands, by force, cunning, or deceit, more than he earns, does thereby force his fellow mortal to accept less than his true share. So far as that goes, he is a curse to mankind.

There are three ways of getting wealth. First, by seizing with violence what is already in existence, and appropriating it to yourself. This is the method of the old Romans; of Robbers and Pirates, from Sciron to Captain Kidd. Second, by getting possession of goods in the way of traffic, or by some similar process. Here the agent is Cunning, and not Force; the instrument is a gold coin, and not an iron sword, as in the former case. This method is called Trade, as the other is named Robbery. But in both cases wealth is acquired by one party and lost by the other. In the first case there is a loss of positive value; in the latter there is no increase. The world gains nothing new by either. The third method is the application of labor and skill to the earth, or the productions of nature. Here is a positive increase of value. We have a dozen potatoes for the one that was planted, or an elegant dress instead of an handful of wool and flax. Such as try the two former ways consume much, but produce nothing. Of these the Roman says, “fruges consumere nati,”–they are horn to eat up the corn. Yet in all ages they have been set in high places. The world dishonors its workmen; stones its prophets; crucifies its Saviour, but bows down its neck before wealth, however won, and shouts till the welkin rings again. Long live Violence and Fraud.

The world has always been partial to its oppressors. Many men fancy themselves an ornament to the world, whose presence in it is a disgrace and a burden to the ground they stand on. The man who does nothing for the race, but sits at his ease, and fares daintily, because wealth has fallen into his hands, is a burden to the world. He may be a polished gentleman, a scholar, the master of elegant accomplishments, but so long as he takes no pains to work for man, with his head or his hands, what claim has he to respect, or even a subsistence? The rough-handed woman, who, with a salt-fish and a basket of vegetables, provides substantial food for a dozen working men, and washes their apparel, and makes them comfortable and happy, is a blessing to the land, though she have no education, while this fop with his culture and wealth is a curse. She does her duty so far as she sees it, and so deserves the thanks of man. But every oyster or berry that fop has eaten, has performed its duty belter than he. “It was made to support nature, and it has done so,” while he is but a consumer of food and
clothing. That public opinion tolerates such men is no small marvel.

The productive classes of the world are those who bless it by their work or their thought. He, who invents a machine, does no less a service than he, who toils all day with his hands. Thus the inventors of the plough, the loom, and the ship were deservedly placed among those whom society was to honor. But they also, who teach men moral and religious truth; who give them dominion over the world; instruct them to think, to live together in peace, to love one another, and pass good lives enlightened by Wisdom, charmed by Goodness, and enchanted by Religion; they who build up a loftier population, making man more manly, are the greatest benefactors of the world. They speak to the deepest wants of the soul, and give men the water of life and the true bread from Heaven. They are loaded with contumely in their life, and come to a violent end. But their influence passes like morning from land to land, and village and city grow glad in their light. That is a poor economy, common as it is, which overlooks these men. It is a very vulgar mind, that would rather Paul had continued a tent-maker,
and Jesus a carpenter.

Now the remedy for the hard service that is laid upon the human race consists partly in lessening the number of unproductive classes, and increasing the workers and thinkers, as well as in giving up the work of Ostentation and Folly and Sin. It has been asserted on high authority, that if all men and women capable of work would toil diligently but two hours out of the twenty-four, the work of the world would be done, and all would be as comfortably fed and clothed, as well educated and housed, and provided for in general, as they now are, even admitting they all went to sleep the other twenty-two hours of the day and night. If this were done, we should hear nothing of the sickness of sedentary and rich men. Exercise for the sake of health would be heard of no more. One class would not be crushed by hard work; nor another oppressed by indolence, and condemned, in order to resist the just vengeance nature takes on them, to consume nauseous drugs, and resort to artificial and hateful methods to preserve a life that is not worth the keeping, because it is useless and ignominious. Now men may work at the least three or four times this necessary amount each day, and yet find their labor a pastime, a dignity, and a blessing, and find likewise abundant opportunity for study, for social intercourse, and recreation. Then if a man’s calling were to think and write, he would not injure the world by even excessive devotion to his favorite pursuit, for the general burden would still be silent.

Another remedy is this, the mind does the body’s work. The head saves the hands. It invents machines, which, doing the work of many hands, will at last set free a large portion of human time from slavery to the elements. The brute forces of nature lie waiting man’s command, and ready to serve him. At the voice of Genius, the river consents to turn his wheel, and weave and spin for the antipodes. The Mine sends him iron Vassals, to toil in cold and heat. Fire and Water embrace at his bidding, and a new servant is born, which will fetch and carry at his command; will face down all the storms of the Atlantic; will forge anchors, and spin gossamer threads, and run of errands up and down the continent with men and women on his back. This last child of Science, though yet a stripling and in leading strings, is already a stout giant. The Fable of Orpheus is a true story in our times. There are four stages of progress in regard to labor, which are observable in the history of man. First, he does his own work by his hands. Adam tills the ground in the sweat of his own face, and Noah builds an ark in many years of toil. Next he forces his fellow mortal to work for him, and Canaan becomes a servant to his brother, and Job is made rich by the sweat of his great household of slaves. Then he seizes on the beasts, and the Bull and the Horse drag the plough of Castor and Pollux. At last he sets free his brother; works with his own hands; commands the beasts, and makes the brute force of the elements also toil for him. Then he has dominion over the earth, and enjoys his birthright.

Man, however, is still in bondage to the elements; and since the beastly maxim is even now prevalent, that the Strong should take care of themselves, and use the weak as their tools, though to the manifest injury of the weak, the use of machinery has hitherto been but a trifling boon in comparison with what it may be. In the village of Humdrum, its thousand able-bodied men and women, without machinery, and having no intercourse with the rest of the world, must work fourteen hours out of the twenty-four, that they may all be housed, fed, and clothed, warmed, instructed, and made happy. Some ingenious hands invent watermills, which saw, plane, thrash, grind, spin, weave, and do many other things, so that these thousand people need work but five hours in the day to obtain the result of fourteen by the old process. Here then a vast amount of time–nine hours in the day–is set free from toil. It may be spent in Study, social improvement, the pursuit of a favorite art, and leave room for amusement also. But the longest heads at Humdrum have not Christian but only selfish hearts beating in their bosoms, and sending life into the brain. So these calculators think the men of Humdrum shall work fourteen hours a day as before. “It would he dangerous,” say they, “to set free so much time. The deluded creatures would soon learn to lie and steal, and would speedily end by eating one another up. It would not be Christian to leave them to this fate. Leisure is very good for us, but would be ruinous to them.” So the wise men of Humdrum persuade their neighbors to work the old fourteen hours. More is produced than is consumed. So they send off the superfluities of the village, and in return bring back tea and porcelain, rich wines, and showy gew-gaws, and contemptible fashions that change every month. The strong-headed men grow rich; live in palaces; their daughters do not work, nor their sons dirty their hands. They fare sumptuously every day; are clothed in purple and fine linen. Meanwhile the common people of Humdrum work as long as before the machines were invented, and a little harder. They also are blest by the “improvement.” The young women have red ribbons on their bonnets, French gloves on their hands, and shawls of India on their shoulders, and “tinkling ornaments” in their ears. The young man of Humdrum is better off than his father who fought through the Revolution, for he wears a beaver hat, and a coat of English cloth, and has a Birmingham whittle, and a watch in his pocket. When he marries he will buy red curtains to his windows, and a showy mirror to hang on his wall. For these valuable considerations he parts with the nine hours a day, which machinery has saved, but has no more bread than before. For these blessings he will make his body a slave, and leave his mind all uncultivated. He is content to grow up a body– nothing but a body. So that if you look therein for his Understanding,Imagination, Reason, you will find them like three grains of wheat in three bushels of chaff. You shall seek them all day before you find them, and at last they are not worth your search. At Humdrum, Nature begins to revolt at the factitious inequality of condition, and thinks it scarce right for bread to come fastest into hands that add nothing to the general stock. So many grow restless and a few pilfer. In a ruder state crimes are few;–the result of violent passions. At Humdrum they are numerous;–the result of want, indolence, or neglected education; they are in great measure crimes against property. To remedy this new and and unnatural evil, there rises a Court-house and a Jail, which must be paid for in work; then Judges and Lawyers and Jailors are needed likewise in this artificial state, and add to the common burthen. The old Athenians sent yearly seven beautiful youths and virgins; — a tribute to the Minotaur. The wise men of Humdrum shut up in Jail a larger number; — a sacrifice to the spirit of modern cupidity; unfortunate wretches, who were the victims not the foes of society; men so weak in head or heart, that their bad character was formed for them, through circumstances far more than it was formed by them, through their own free-will. Still farther, the men who violate the law of the body, using the Mouth much and the Hand little, or in the opposite way, soon find Nature taking vengeance for the offence. Then unnatural remedies must oppose the artificial disease. In the old lime, every sickly dunce was cured “with Motherwort and Tansey,” which grew by the road-side; suited all complaints, and was administered by each mother in the village. Now Humdrum has its “medical faculty,” with their conflicting systems, homoeopathic and allopathic, but no more health than before. Thus the burden is increased to little purpose. The strong men of Humdrum have grown rich and become educated. If one of the laboring men is stronger than his fellows, he also will become rich, and educate his children. He becomes rich, not by his own work, but by using the hands of others whom his cunning overreaches. Yet he is not more avaricious than they. He has perhaps the average share of selfishness, but superior adroitness to gratify that selfishness. So he gets and saves, and takes care of himself; a part of their duty, which the strong have always known how to perform, though the more difficult part, how to take care of others, to think for them, and help them to think for themselves, they have yet to learn, at least to practise. Alas, we are still in bondage to the elements, and so long as two of the “enlightened” nations of the earth, England and America, insist on weaving the garments for all the rest of the world,–not because they would clothe the naked, but that their strong men might live in fine houses, wear gay apparel, dine on costly food, and their Mouths be served by other men’s Hands,–we must expect that seven-tenths of mankind will be degraded, and will hug their chains, and count machinery an evil. Is not the only remedy for all the evils at Humdrum in the Christian idea of wealth, and the Christian idea of work?

There is a melancholy background to the success and splendid achievements of modern society. You see it in rural villages, but more plainly in large cities, where the amount of Poverty and Wealth is summed up as in a table of statistics, and stands in two parallel columns. The wretchedness of a destitute mother contrasts sadly with a warehouse, whence she is excluded by a single pane of glass, as cold as popular charity and nearly as thin. The comfortless hutch of the poor, who works, though with shiftless hands and foolish head, is a dark back ground to the costly stable of the rich man, who does nothing for the world, but gather its treasures, and whose horses are better fed, housed, trained up, and cared for than his brother. It is a strange contrast to the church of God, that, with thick granite walls, towers up to Heaven near by. One cannot but think, in view of the suffering there is in the world, that most of it is the fault of some one; that God, who made men’s bodies, is no bankrupt, and does not pay off a penny of Satisfaction for a pound of Want, but has made enough and to spare for all his creatures, if they will use it wisely. Who does not sometimes remember that saying. Inasmuch as you have not done it unto the least of these, you have not done it unto me? The world no doubt grows better; comfort is increased from age to age. What is a luxury in one generation, scarce attainable by the wealthy, becomes at last the possession of most men. Solomon with all his wealth had no carpet on his chamber floor; no glass in his windows; no shirt to his back. But as the world goes, the increase of comforts does not fall chiefly into the hands of those who create them by their work. The mechanic cannot use the costly furniture he makes. This, however, is of small consequence; but he has not always the more valuable consideration, time to grow WISER AND BETTER IN. As society advanccs, the standard of poverty rises. A man in New England is called poor at this day, who would have been rich a hundred and fifty years ago; but as it rises, the number that falls beneath that standard becomes a greater part of the whole population. Of course the comfort of a few is purchased by the loss of the many. The world has grown rich and refined, but chiefly by the efforts of those who themselves continue poor and ignorant. So the Ass, while he carried wood and spices to the Roman bath, contributed to the happiness of the State, but was himself always dirty and overworked. It is easy to see these evils, and weep for them. It is common also to censure some one class of men–the Rich or the Educated, the Manufacturers, the Merchants, or the Politicians, for example–as if the sin rested solely with them, while it belongs to society at large. But the world yet waits for some one to heal these dreadful evils, by devising some new remedy, or applying the old. Who shall apply for us Christianity to social life?

But God orders all things wisely. Perhaps it is best that man should toil on some centuries more before the race becomes of age, and capable of receiving its birthright! Every wrong must at last be righted, and he who has borne the burden of society in this ephemeral life, and tasted none of its rewards, and he also, who has eaten its loaves and fishes and yet earned nothing, will no doubt find an equivalent at last in the scales of divine Justice. Doubtless the time will come when labor will be a pleasant pastime; when the sour sweat and tears of life shall be wiped away from many faces; when the few shall not be advanced at the expense of the many; when ten pairs of female hands shall not be deformed to nurse a single pair into preternatural delicacy, but when all men shall eat bread in the sweat of their face, and yet find leisure to cultivate what is best and divinest in their souls, to a degree we do not dream of as yet; when the strong man who wishes to be a Mouth and not a Hand, or to gain the treasures of society by violence or cunning, and not by paying their honest price, will be looked upon with the same horror we feel for pirates and robbers, and the guardians who steal the inheritance of their wards and leave them to want and die. No doubt it is a good thing that four or five men out of the thousand should find time, exemption from labor, and wealth likewise to obtain a generous education of their Head and Heart and Soul, but it is a better thing, it is alone consistent with God’s law, that the world shall be managed, so that each man shall have a chance to obtain the best education society can give him, and while he toils, to become the best and greatest his nature is capable of being, in this terrene sphere. Things never will come to their proper level so long as Thought with the Head, and Work with the Hands are considered incompatible. Never till all men follow the calling they are designed for by nature, and it becomes as common for a rich man’s son to follow a trade, as now it is happily for a poor man’s to be rich. Labor will always be unattractive and disgraceful, so long as wealth unjustly obtained is a distinction, and so long as the best cultivation of a man is thought inconsistent with the life of the farmer and the tailor. As things now are, men desert a laborious occupation for which they are fitted, and have a natural fondness, and seek bread and honor in the “learned professions,” for which they have neither ability nor taste, solely because they seek a generous education, which is thought inconsistent with a life of hard work. Thus strong heads desert the plough and the anvil, to come into a profession which they dislike, and then to find their Duty pointing one way and their Desire travelling another. Thus they attempt to live two lives at the same time, and fail of both, as he who would walk eastward and westward at the same time makes no progress.

Now the best education and the highest culture, in a rational state of society, does not seem inconsistent with a life of hard work. It is not a figure of speech, but a plain fact, that a man is educated by his trade, or daily calling. Indirectly, Labor ministers to the wise man intellectual, moral, and spiriual instruction, just as it gives him directly his daily bread. Under its legitimate influence, the frame acquires its due proportions and proper strength. To speak more particularly, the work of a farmer, for example, is a school of mental discipline. He must watch the elements; must understand the nature of the soil he tills, the character and habits of the plants he rears, the character and disposition of each animal that serves him as a living instrument. Each day makes large claims on him for knowledge, and sound judgment, fie is to apply good sense to the soil. Now these demands tend to foster the habit of observing and judging justly; to increase thought, and elevate the man. The same may be said of almost all trades. The sailor must watch the elements, and have all his knowledge and faculties at command, for his life often depends on having “the right thought at the right time.” Judgment and decision are thus called forth. The education men derive from their trade is so striking, that craftsmen can express almost any truth, be it never so deep and high, in the technical terms of the “shop.” The humblest business may thus develop the noblest power of thinking. So a trade may be to the man, in some measure, what the school and the college are to the scholar. The wise man learns more from his corn and cattle, than the stupid pedant from all the folios of the Vatican. The habit of thinking, thus acquired, is of more value than the greatest number of thoughts learned by rote, and labelled for use.

But an objection may readily be brought to this view, and it may be asked, why then are not the farmers as a class so well instructed as the class of lawyers? Certainly there may be found farmers who are most highly educated. Men of but little acquaintance with books, yet men of thought, observation, and sound judgment. Scholars are ashamed before them when they meet, and blush at the homely wisdom, the acute analysis, the depth of insight and breadth of view displayed by laborers in blue frocks. But these cases are exceptions. These men were geniuses of no mean order, and would be great under any circumstances. It must be admitted, that, as a general rule, the man who works is not so well educated as the lawyer. But the difference between them rises not so much from any difference in the two callings, as from this circumstance, that the lawyer enters his profession with a large fund of knowledge and the habits of intellectual discipline, which the farmer has not. He therefore has the advantage so long as he lives. If two young men of the same age and equal capacity were to receive the same education, till they were twenty years old, both taking proper physical exercise at the same time, and one of them should then spend three years in learning the science of the Law, the other in the science of the Farm, and then both should enter the full practice of their two callings, each having access to books if he wished for them, and educated men and women, can any one doubt that the farmer, at the age of forty, would be the better educated man of the two? The trade teaches as much as the profession, and it is as well known that almost every farmer has as much time for general reading as the lawyer, and better opportunity for thought, since he can think of what he will when at his work, while the lawyer’s work demands his thought all the time he is in it. The farmer would probably have the more thoughts; the lawyer the more elegant words. If there is any employment which degrades the man who is always engaged in it, cannot many bear the burden–each a short time–and so no one be crushed to the ground ?

Morality, likewise, is taught by a trade. The man must have dealings with his fellows. The afflicted call for his sympathy; the oppressed for his aid. Vice solicits his rebuke, and virtue claims his commendation. If he buys and sells, he is presented with opportunities to defraud. He may conceal a fault in his work, and thus deceive his employer. So an appeal is continually made to his sense of Right. If faithful, he learns justice. It is only by this exposure to temptation, that virtue can be acquired. It is in the water that men learn to swim. Still more, a man does not toil for himself alone, but for those dearest to his heart; this for his father; that for his child; and there are those who out of the small pittance of their daily earnings contribute to support the needy, print Bibles for the ignorant, and preach the Gospel to the poor. Here the meanest work becomes Heroism. The man who toils for a principle ennobles himself by the act.

Still farther, Labor has a religious use. It has been well said, “an undevout astronomer is mad.” But an undevout farmer, sailor, or mechanic, is equally mad, for the duties of each afford a school for his devotion. In respect to this influence, the farmer seems to stand on the very top of the world. The laws of nature are at work for him. For him the sun shines and the rain falls. The earth grows warm to receive his seed. The dew moistens it; the blade springs up and grows he knows not how, while all the stars come forth to keep watch over his rising corn. There is no second cause between him and the soul of all. Everything he looks on, from the earliest flowers of spring to the austere grandeurs of a winter sky at night, is the work of God’s hand. The great process of growth and decay, change and reproduction, are perpetually before him. Day and Night, Serenity and Storm visit and bless him as they move. Nature’s great works are done for no one in special; yet each man receives as much of the needed rain, and the needed heat, as if all rain and all heat were designed for his use alone. He labors, but it is not only the fruit of his labor that he eats. No; God’s exhaustless Providence works for him; works with him. His laws warm and water the fields, replenishing the earth. Thus the Husbandman, whose eye is open, walks always in the temple of God. He sees the divine goodness and wisdom in the growth of a flower or a tree; in the nice adjustment of an insect’s supplies to its demands; in the perfect contentment found everywhere in nature–for you shall search all day for a melancholy fly, yet never find one. The influence of all these things on an active and instructed mind is ennobling. The man seeks daily bread for the body, and gets the bread of life for the soul. Like his corn and his trees, his heart and mind are cultivated by his toil; for as Saul seeking his father’s stray cattle found a kingdom, as stripling David was anointed king while keeping a few sheep in the wilderness, and when sent to carry bread to his brothers in the camp slew a giant, and became monarch; so each man who with true motives, an instructed mind, and soul of tranquil devotion, goes to his daily work, however humble, may slay the giant Difficulty, and be anointed with gladness and possess the Kingdom of Heaven. In the lowliest calling he may win the loftiest result, as you may see the stars from the deepest valley as well as from the top of Chimborazo. But to realize this end the man must have some culture, and a large capital of information at the outset; and then it is at a man’s own option, whether his work shall be to him a blessing or a curse.

From Cleveland to Chiapas and Back Again

preached at the Unitarian Universalist Society of Cleveland, September 23, 2007

My message this morning is that it is possible to build a better world, a world decidedly more fair than the one we live in today. In such a world no one will go without food, without shelter, without education and each community will be able to decide how to best meet its own needs. This may sound like a utopian dream but today we have the technology to make such a dream a reality. I know that such a world is possible because I have seen the seeds of it amid the indigenous communities of Chiapas and among the communities I am a part of in the United States.

Our reading this morning comes from Subcommandante Insurgente Marcos, the primary spokesperson of the Zapatista National Army of Liberation. Marcos speaks of building such a world. He writes: “In our dreams we have seen another world, an honest world, a world decidedly more fair than the one in which we now live…This world was not a dream from the past, it was not something that came to us from our ancestors. It came from ahead, from the next step we were going to take.”

The Zapatista National Army of Liberation, usually just know as the Zapatistas or the EZLN, their initials in Spanish, are the armed part of a broader social movement for indigenous rights and autonomy. Located in Chiapas, the southern most state of Mexico, the Zapatistas have openly struggled for indigenous rights, autonomy and the possibility of a better world for the last thirteen years. Despite their name, the Zapatistas are primarily a non-violent movement. They have only taken up arms once and that was in January of 1994. Since then, despite being frequently attacked by paramilitaries and harassed by the Mexican military, federal and state police, they have not fired a shot.

The Zapatistas took up arms on January first of 1994 against the Mexican government for two reasons. The first was that January first was the day that the North American Free Trade Agreement, commonly known as NAFTA, took effect. The Zapatistas viewed NAFTA as a virtually death sentence for their rural communities. NAFTA included provisions in it that essentially outlawed the collective ownership of land, a practice of the indigenous of Mexico since before the arrival of the Spaniards. Without the collective ownership of land the Zapatistas feared that much of indigenous campesino culture would disappear.

The Zapatistas also objected to NAFTA because it placed small Mexican farmers in direct competition with the large agricultural combines of Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and the other states that make up the corn belt. Corn is the base of the Mexican diet and the Zapatistas were afraid that the small farmers from their communities would simply be unable to compete with the cheap corn from the United States that would flood the Mexican market in the wake of NAFTA.

The second reason why the Zapatistas rose up in 1994 was that at time Mexico had been governed by one party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party or PRI, for sixty five years. For all intents and purposes Mexico was not a democratic country, it was a one party dictatorship, and the PRI did not practice democracy internally. Every six years presidential elections were held. The PRI always won them and the outgoing President always nominated his successor.

Rural Mexico is, in general, an impoverished place, more than half of rural Mexicans live in poverty, that is they live on less than two dollars a day, and the indigenous communities of Chiapas were among the poorest of the poor. In some parts of the state the poverty rate exceeds eighty percent. For the Zapatistas NAFTA was the final straw. They felt it was better to die on their feet than to starve to death silently in their communities.

The Zapatista uprising lasted a scant twelve days. They were able to seize control of about one third of the state of Chiapas but by January 12th the Mexican military was poised to go into the jungle and massacre the indigenous communities that supported the Zapatistas. At that point Mexican civil society, that is to say people like you and me, staged massive protests throughout Mexico demanding that the government and the Zapatistas solve their conflict peacefully. In the face of this the Mexican military was forced to back down. That left the Zapatistas in control of a small swatch of liberated territory, an area of which they have set up about implementing their vision of a better world.

I began working in Chiapas in the summer of 2000 when I took at two week trip there with the organization Schools for Chiapas to help build a school in one of the Zapatista autonomous communities. While in Chiapas I met my friend Roxanne Ukahri Rivas and in the fall of 2001 we started an organization originally called the Chiapas Peace House Project. Now called CASA or Colectivos de Apoyo, Solidaridad y Acción, an acronym that roughly translates to collectives for solidarity and action, the Peace House was started to provide a physical space for people sympathetic to the Zapatistas to come, reflect and work with either indigenous communities or the social movements and non-governmental organizations that supported them. In the six years since we started CASA we have opened two centers, one in Chiapas and another in Oaxaca, and have hosted more than seventy long-term volunteers. Our volunteers have worked on everything from training indigenous campesinos to be human rights observers to mural painting and collective gardening projects.

In the eight summers since I started working in Chiapas I have had the privilege to watch the Zapatista movement’s vision for a new society unfold. My first trip to Chiapas was at the end of what I affectionately call “the bad old days.” 2000 was the last year that the PRI were in power. Since the cease-fire in 1994 the Mexican government has been conducting a low-intensity war against the Zapatista communities. Another way to describe low-intensity warfare is to call it civilian targeted warfare. In this counter-insurgency model the government gives arms and immunity to paramilitaries who attack indigenous communities. At the same time military and police units encircle the communities under threat. This allows the government to claim that it is not involved in the conflict, that the conflict is between different social organizations, while at the same time slowly starving the Zapatista communities of the resources that they need to thrive.

Prior to the ouster of the PRI, part of the Mexican government’s strategy was to harass, detain and deport internationals who came to Chiapas to either act as human rights observers or to offer the Zapatistas aid. I call that period the bad old days because back then if you wanted to visit the Zapatista communities you had to engage in complicated cloak and dagger operations, dodge military road blocks and generally operate under cover. If you did not it was possible that you would find yourself on a plane headed back to your home country with an order never to return to Mexico.

Today the situation in Chiapas remains largely the same. There is one important difference. The Mexican government has stopped harassing solidarity activists and human rights workers. Government officials came to the conclusion that the conflict in Chiapas and the Zapatista movement received a lot less attention if they simply ignored the presence of internationals. After the election of Vicente Fox in 2000 the deportations of internationals ceased. For us then the bad old days are those before Fox’s party, the National Action Party or PAN, took power. The Mexican government now tries to claim that really there is no conflict in Chiapas. But for the people of Chiapas the situation was not changed much. In fact it has probably gotten worse. The number of documented human rights abuses in Mexico have increased since the PAN took power.

When I went to Chiapas in 2000 I visited two Zapatista communities. The first was Oventik. An hour outside of the colonial city of San Cristobal de las Casas, Oventik is probably the most visited of the Zapatista communities. Back in 2000 it often served as a launching point for other journeys into Zapatista territory. We spent two days there speaking with Zapatistas from the community and waiting to travel to the community of Francisco Gomez.

The journey from Oventik to Francisco Gomez took eight hours. We left in the middle of the night and traveled under tarps in the back of cattle trucks. It was one of the more intense experiences of my life. We had to try and circumvent at least three military roadblocks to get to Francisco Gomez. We were stopped at the last roadblock outside of Francisco Gomez. My heart sank and I know that most of the other people I was with were worried as well. We were pretty certain that we going to get deported or, at the very least, turned back. Instead the soldiers let us through.

Years later, talking with a Mexican friend, I found out why. Apparently she and the driver had told the soldiers that they were polleros, which is a Spanish slang word for human traffickers, and that we were undocumented migrants. Given that at least half of our delegation were white gringos like myself I have no idea why the soldiers believed my friend. Regardless, we were allowed to continue our journey.

In 2000 Francisco Gomez was a tiny little community. It had a population of maybe two hundred. The only way to get to the community was via a rough dirt road that bisected the hamlet. Like Oventik, Francisco Gomez is also an important Zapatista center. Both are what are now called Carcoles, which means shell in Spanish. Carcoles act as regional seats for the Zapatista autonomous government. Each Carcole coordinates the activities of approximately two hundred communities. Today most Carcoles have their own clinics, schools, meeting centers, cooperative stores and administrative offices. When I visited Francisco Gomez in 2000 the community was just in the process of building its school. We were there, in fact, to help them build that school. We brought with us a willing volunteer force and, more importantly, enough money to buy all of the concrete that was needed.

We spent two weeks in Francisco Gomez working along side and learning about the Zapatistas. We had a chance to watch them make decisions collectively. In their communities a general assembly of, depending on the community, all men or men and women is the policy setting agent. The general assembly elects leaders to enact the policies while the general assembly decides them. These leaders can be recalled if they overstep their authority, are unpaid, and usually only serve for a very limited term.

When I was in Francisco Gomez it seemed that the Zapatista experiment in autonomy was just starting. The communities still had much to do if they were to reach their stated goal of creating a different sort of society. Their infrastructure was still fairly rudimentary. A lot has changed in the following eight years.

This summer I had the opportunity to take my family to Chiapas with me. We went to Chiapas for two reasons. The first was that the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee had contracted with me and CASA to run a human rights delegation for them. The second was that I wanted Sara and Emma to have a chance to learn about the Zapatista movement first hand.

We arrived about a week and a half before the start of the delegation to attend the Second Encounter of Zapatista Peoples with the Peoples of the World. About three thousand people from across Mexico and from around the world attended this meeting. The Zapatistas sometimes refer to their big meetings as intergalacticos because they hold that people will attend from as far away as outside the solar system. This summer’s intergalatico lasted ten days and consisted primarily of speeches by representatives of Zapatista communities and other progressive, usually rural, communities from around the world followed by a question and answer session. There were also ample opportunities for both formal and informal networking. It was an exercise in listening, achance to hear the voices of others from all across the globe. The Zapatistas want a world in which there is room for all cultures and peoples of the world. Their events usually attempt to bring somewhat disparate groups together to make common cause.

This year’s intergalatico was a opportunity for the Zapatistas to highlight the accomplishments of their movement over the last thirteen years. Discussions were held on such topics as the Zapatista government, education, health care, economic and justice systems. Representatives from some Zapatista communities also spoke about women’s rights and women’s struggles in the indigenous communities and the relationship between Zapatista communities and international solidarity activists.

During the ten days of the intergalatico the Zapatistas held meetings at the Caracoles of Oventik, Morelia and La Realidad–there are five Caracoles in total. La Realidad is in the heart of Zapatista territory and while all of the Carcoles are supposedly equal, La Realidad is clearly more equal than the others. It is larger and is the place where much of the Zapatista military leadership spends its time.

Sara, Emma, Asa and I arrived in Chiapas in time to participate in the second half of the Intergalatico. That meant that we missed the meetings in Oventik and travelled instead directly to Morelia. It was a three-hour trip in the back of old VW micro buses and pick-ups. When we were in pick-up trucks Sara and the kids got to ride in the cabin.

Travelling with a family was a very different experience for me. While there was far less of a chance of deportation than there was eight years ago, it was still challenging. Sara and I had to make certain that the kids had their needs taken care of at all times and I choose to do things differently than I would have had I been by myself. We brought a tent and went to bed early rather than staying up late to take part in the festivities–the Zapatistas love a good party and their events always feature a lot of dancing, art and, usually, a basketball tournament. I was unable to participate as much in the meetings as I had in the past.

On the other hand, bringing my family allowed for interactions on a different level than I had experienced in the past. Asa took on an almost celebrity status. He was probably the only white baby that a lot of the Zapatistas had ever seen. They were fascinated by him. Women lined up to hold him and Sara and I got to speak with them about their parenting practices. Babies, it seems, transcend all cultures.

The biggest challenge about traveling with my family was simply the travel itself. The trip from Morelia to La Realidad was not an easy one. We went as part of a caravan of intergalatico attendees. There were twenty one trucks in our caravan and each truck carried between twenty five and thirty people. For the most part the trucks were cattle trucks and most of us had to travel in the truck bed. Sara, Emma and Asa were given a seat in the cabin but there was not space for me.

The trip took fifteen hours, nineteen if you count the four hours we spent waiting in the sun for the caravan to get organized. The last eight hours of our journey were along windy dirt mountain roads long after the sun had set.

While it was a hard journey it was not all bad. We made friends with our fellow travelers and I got to learn a bunch of radical songs from across Latin America. I traded civil rights and labor movement songs for poetry and music from Mexican and Spanish social movements.

When we got to La Realidad we had the chance to learn more about the Zapatista autonomous communities. Of particular interest were the discourses on women’s rights and the Zapatista justice system. The Zapatistas have always had a good line on women’s rights. Unfortunately, it has often seemed like there was dissidence between their word and their actions. Prior to this trip I have rarely seen women in leadership positions within the communities. I believe this has been largely because of the traditional roles of women in indigenous communities.

This dynamic seems to have shifted. At the intergalatico women acted as spokespeople for their communities and were visibly part of the highest levels of the Zapatista government. It was a powerful change to witness.

The discourse on the justice system was also interesting because the communities had tried to really implement a form restorative justice. One story I heard about the justice system in La Realidad is about Coyote, a human trafficker who people from Latin America pay to help them sneak into the United States. It seems that people from La Realidad caught him in their territory. When they caught him he had a large number of migrants locked in the back of semi. He was smuggling them North so they could cross into the United States. When the Zapatistas caught them they been had been without food or water for some time. The Zapatistas gave the migrants a good talking to, fed them, and told them that it would be better if they went back to their own communities than if they tried to come to the United States. Many people die in the journey North and once they get to the United States there is no guarantee that they will find themselves in a good situation. The Zapatistas made Coyote refund the migrants their money, levied him an additional fine and sentenced him to a couple of years of community service. I am told he considered himself lucky that he was caught by the Zapatistas and not the Mexican government.

Now I realize that I am speaking very highly of the Zapatistas. It is true that I have a lot of respect for them and believe that the autonomous communities offer an important lesson to how the world might be different. I have learned through working with them that it is possible to build a different world. To have hope for a better world in this day is a powerful thing to have.

However, I do not mean to come off totally uncritical of the Zapatistas. Their role among the social movements in Chiapas and Mexico is complicated. In the last thirteen years they have both worked with and alienated many organizations I am sympathetic to and people that I am friends with. Their communities are far from perfect and they have the same human flaws as all of us. In some communities they have a long way to go before their discourse on women’s rights matches their practice. Nonetheless, their experience suggests that we can build a better, fairer world.

Sara, Emma, Asa and I returned to our new home in Cleveland Heights about two weeks before I started my ministry with you. Since then I have been trying to think about how my experiences in Chiapas apply to my work with you here. There are a couple of things that seem clear.

The most important is simply that the Zapatista dream of a better world can be a powerful inspiration. It is possible to catch glimpses of this dream now and again. The essence of Zapatismo is collective work, the practice that people work together to accomplish what they could not as individuals. I saw members from this congregation engaging in this type of mutual aid yesterday when many of you gathered to help an older member of the community scrape and paint his garage and tidy his yard so he could try to sell his home.

The second is that there are some interesting parallels between Chiapas and North Eastern Ohio. Both areas are suffering heavily due to shifts in the economy. Rural Chiapas is in crisis to due to the changes in trade that NAFTA has brought. Likewise, Northeastern Ohio is in the midst of deindustrialization as manufacturing jobs leave the area as a result of changes in technology and the availability of cheaper labor elsewhere. As a result, both areas are experiencing significant out migration as it becomes more and more difficult for some people to support themselves. Sometimes when I am out walking the dog or biking around town, I will see three or four homes for a sale on a single block. And just as Chiapas is one of the poorest parts of Mexico, Cleveland is one of the poorest areas in the United States.

Now I am not suggesting that we organize a revolution. However, I do think that the key to transforming our community is organizing and seeking new solutions to old problems. If we can find our own dreams of what is ahead perhaps together we can, one step at time, stretch to reach them. Our dreams might teach us how our society can be different and how we can build a more peaceable world, one in which there is room for many others.

May it be so. Amen and Blessed Be.

Common Sense, Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine, Common Sense (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010 [1776])

Paine’s famous pamphlet on why the colonists should rebel against the English monarchy is broken six sections: Introduction; Of the Origin and Design of Government in General. With Concise Remarks on the English Constitution; Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession; Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs; Of the Present Ability of America, with Some Miscellaneous Reflections; Appendix, with an Address to the People Called Quakers. The major purpose of the pamphlet is to argue that the appropriate time to rebel against the monarchy is now. To make his argument Paine:

1. differentiates society from government;
2. traces the imagined origin of government to show that democratic and republican forms are more natural the monarchies [here he argues that the Bible does not endorse monarchies];
3. claims that “Mankind being originally equal in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance” (10);
4. that monarchy originated by force and that hereditary succession is stupid;
5. that therefore, the colonies have the right to rebel.

He believes that now is the time to rebel because separation from England will come sooner or later. Rather than wait for later when the colonies themselves might be divided now is the right moment to rebel since they are united.

He lays out a system of republican government and claims “that in America THE LAW IS KING” (36). He also argues that taking on a national debt is essential for winning national independence writing, “No nation ought to be without a debt” (39). He thinks the debt is necessary to build a navy.

A few choice quotes:

“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason” (1).

“England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones; yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conquerer is a very honorable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original–It certainly hath no divinity in it” (16).

“Letter to Demetrias” and “On the Possibility of Not Sinning,” Pelagius

Pelagius, “Letter to Demetrias” and “On the Possibility of Not Sinning,” in B. R. Rees, The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers (Rochester, NY: The Boydell Press, 1991)

Letter to Demetrias

This letter was written by Pelagius to Demetrias, a young Christian (age 14) who has decided to take a vow of virginity. It emphasizes human agency and rationality in moral decision making. At the outset Pelagius describes his method for doing ethics, “first to demonstrate the power and quality of human nature and to show what it is capable of achieving, and then to go on to encourage the mind of my listener to consider the idea of different kinds of virtues” (36). He claims, the “best incentive for the mind consists in teaching it that it is possible to do anything which one really wants to do.”

Human beings are understood be made by God “to be free to act and not under compulsion” (37). His understanding of human nature might be summarized, “Yet we do not defend the good of nature to such an extent that we claim that it cannot do evil, since we undoubtedly declare also that it is capable of good and evil; we merely try to protect it from an unjust charge, so that we may not seem to be forced to do evil through a fault in our nature, when, in fact, we do neither good nor evil without the exercise of our will and always have the freedom to do one of the two, being always able to do either” (43).

In instructing Demetrias in how to act, he reminds her “the divine scriptures… alone enable you to understand the complete will of God” (45). Then he draws a distinction between the things that people must do to be perfect and the things that they must do simply to obey God, “having set out to win the state of blessedness which attaches itself to a special intention, see to it that you keep the general commandment also” (46). As Demetrias proceeds she is to remember both that spiritual goods are better than material ones and that she should “try even now to be the kind of person you want to be when you reach the last day.” He then briefly returns to the subject of human nature by claiming that the “first five years [of life] are the best for moral training” (50). He also divides the moral law into the positive and the negative, “it is not enough for you to refrain from evil, if you refrain from good as well: the law of God is divided into two classes of orders, and, while it forbids evil, it also enjoins good, and it prohibits neglect of itself on either count” (52). He offers a wonderfully instructive metaphor: “Life is compared to a reward, so that those who are to be given the brightness of the sun in the future shine forth here with a like splendour of righteousness and light up the blindness of unbelievers with works of holiness” (54). Then he switches to general advice, “we have enough worthless people, people seeking to make a name for themselves by making others out to be worthless” (57); “Beware of flatterers as your enemies:… they corrupt shallow souls with feigned praise and inflict their agreeable wounds on over-credulous minds;” “Moderation is best in everything and due sense of proportion is praiseworthy in all circumstances; the body has to be controlled, not broken” (59); and “Within the space of an hour one’s conduct can undergo change, and fasting, abstinence, psalmody and keeping vigil demand a conscious act of will more than constant practice” (62).

He concludes by describing the source of sin as thoughts not action, “for every deed and every word, whichever it may be, is laid out for inspection in advance and its future is decided by thoughtful consideration” (65). This means that, “The mind must be renewed by fresh growth in virtue every day, and we must measure our journey through life not be what has been completed but by remains to be done” (67).

The major reason to do all of this is to prepare for the end of the world. When it comes those who have acted rightly “will have cause for rejoicing from heaven” (70).

On the Possibility of Not Sinning

This short letter defines sin as “failure to avoid things which are forbidden, and failure to do things that are commanded.”  God has clearly commanded humanity to be free from sin and since “God would have never commanded the impossible” the possibility of living without sin must be maintained (169). Furthermore, saying that it is impossible to live without sin provides an excuse for sinner, “under the plea that it is impossible not to sin, they are given a false sense of security in sinning.” Also, “The man who labours and strives to be without any sin will humbly and submissively express his regret for the error of his ways, when he realizes that he has done what he could have avoided if he had wanted to” (168).

A Timeline of American Slavery and Abolition

This is the first of a few thematic timelines of American history I am preparing for my general exams. Two others that I plan to complete in the next week and a half are on citizenship and state building. This timeline ends in 1866. The Reconstruction era will be part of the citizenship timeline. I welcome any and all feedback and corrections that people may have to offer. This timeline is somewhat idosyncratic in that it reflects the concerns of my examiners, Lisa McGirr and John Stauffer

1502 — The first African slaves arrive in the Americas[1]. Over the next four hundred years, according to Walter Johnson, “ten to eleven million people—fifty or sixty thousand a year in the peak decades between 1700 and 1850—were packed beneath slave ship decks and sent to the New World. Indeed, up to the year 1820, five times as many Africans travelled across the Atlantic as did Europeans.” These numbers do not include the dead.[2]

1513 — The “sale of licenses for importing Negroes was a source of profit for the Spanish government.”[3]

1518 — Bartolomé de Las Casas makes a “proposal to the Spanish Crown for the replacing Indian laborers with Negroes purchased in Iberia.”[4]

1619 — The first African slaves arrive in Jamestown, Virginia.

1685 — The Code Noir is adopted in the French West Indies. It defines “Negroes… as chattels… to be baptized and instructed in the true faith” and excused from work on Sunday.[5]

1688 — Aphra Behn publishes Oroonoko; or the History of the Royal Slave. It is an early instance of the myth of noble savage and portrays Africans as corrupted by the institution of slavery.

1709 — Slavery is legally established in Canada (then under French control).[6]

1736 — Perfectionism leads the Quaker Benjamin Lay to try “to prove that antislavery was the crucial test of religious purity.”[7] Earlier Quakers, William Edmundson in 1676 and a group in Germantown, Pennslyvania in 1688 for example, had protested against slavery to little effect.[8]

1740 — The “courts in South Carolina held that color of an Indian, unlike that of a Negro, was not prima facie evidence of slavery.”[9]

1754 — John Woolman publishes Some Considerations on the Keeping of Negroes, a text which has considerable influence on convincing Quakers to become antislavery.[10]

1755 — Jean-Jacques Rousseau publishes Discours sur l’inégalité arguing, “Men were born fee and equal; the renunciation of liberty meant the renunciation of being a man.”[11] Benjamin Franklin publishes Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind. It is among the first texts to argue that slave labor is more expensive, and thus inferior to, than free labor.[12]

1756 — Slaves constitute 16% of the population of New York City[13]. The Society of Friends takes “serious steps to induce owners to provide their slaves with religious instruction.”[14]

1758 — The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends excludes slave traders from its business meetings.[15]

1761 — The London Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends “announced that slave dealers merited disownment.”[16]

1762 — The second part of John Woolman’s Some Considerations on the Keeping of Negroes is published.[17]

1770 — Abbé Raynal publishes Histoire des deux Indes, which according to David Brion Davis, is “an example of the Enlightenment’s faith in reason and nature” that formed the first source of antislavery thought[18].

1771 — The Massachusetts legislature outlaws the importation of slaves.[19]

1772 — Lord Mansfield decides in Somerset’s Case in England that slavery can only be established via positive law.[20]

1774 — John Wesley publishes Thoughts upon Slavery arguing that “since the same causes always produce similar effects, ‘the dreadful consequence of slavery is the same amongst every people.’”[21]

1776 — The Revolutionary War breaks out. Adam Smith publishes The Wealth of Nations claiming “the relations between slave and master epitomized those artificial restraints that prevented self-interest from being harnessed to the general good.”[22] John Woolman dies while on trip to Britain. Samuel Hopkins publishes A Dialogue Concerning the Slavery of the Africans, proclaiming that  it is hypocritical for whites to fight for their liberty while keeping slaves. The oppression that the colonists face from the British, he argues, is God’s punishment for having slaves.

1780 — Pennsylvania’s Act for Emancipation is passed and, according to Robert Cover, serves as “a pro type for all the gradual emancipation statutes that followed… Everyone born after July 4, 1780, was to be born free. Persons already slaves before that date would owe service for life. The children of these servants for life would inherit an obligation for service for twenty-eight years.” Tom Paine writes the preamble to the Act.[23] Massachusetts ratifies a constitution that declares “All men are born free and equal…”[24] The 1840 census is the last one that reports slaves in Pennsylvania.[25]

1781 — Quock Walker cases begin. Walker, a slave in Massachusetts, runs away and then sues his master for beating him when he is caught. As a result, either in 1781 or 1783, the state courts decide that the Massachusetts constitution forbids slavery under the “free and equal” clause.[26]

1782 — Virginia passes a Manumission Act that allows for the private manumission of slaves. The Act is modified by the Removal Act of 1806 which requires “freed Negroes to leave the state within twelve months or upon reaching their majority.”[27]

1787 — The Constitution is adopted by the original thirteen colonies. It includes several clauses that focus on slavery. Article I Section 2 states “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned… according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons… three fifths of all other Persons.” Article I Section 9 allows the prohibition of the slave trade after 1808. Article IV Section 2 includes the fugitive slave clause, “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” Some scholars interpret Article IV Section 4 which says that the federal government will protect “every State in this Union… against domestic Violence” as relating to an obligation to suppress slave rebellions.[28] Between 1787 and 1810 170,000 slaves are imported into the country. Congress passes the Northwest Ordinance which prohibits slavery in federal territory north of the Ohio River.[29]

1790 — More than 90 percent of enslaved people live in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, George and what will become Kentucky. Exports from the southern states account for almost a third of the country’s total exports.[30]

1791 — Civil war breaks out in the French colony of St. Domingue (present day Haiti) and slaves in the North Providence revolt.[31]

1792 — The Militia Act of 1792 restricts service in the army to “every free able-bodied white male citizen.”[32]

1793 — Congress passes an Act to enforce the Fugitive Slave clause. It “provided for enforcement… by way of summary process before any federal judge or state magistrate.” Abolitionists would later claim that this meant escaped slaves were entitled to trial by jury.[33] The cotton gin is invented, transforming the textile industry.

1799 — New York passes a gradual act of abolition.

1803 — With the Louisiana Purchase the United States acquires what will eventually become the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.[34]

1804 — The Republic Haiti is formed making it the first independent black nation in the Americas.[35]

1804 — New Jersey passes a gradual act of abolition.[36]

1808 — Congress outlaws the international slave trade. Over the next fifty five years approximately one million African Americans are sold within the United States, primarily from the upper to the lower South.[37]

1816 — The American Colonization Society is formed to promote the colonization of free African Americans to Africa.[38] Eventually the society will repatriate more than 12,000 freed slaves in Africa.[39] Richard Allen founds the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, the first independent African American denomination.[40]

1819 — Congress passes legislation authorizing the President to send armed ships to Africa to suppress the illegal American slave trade.[41]

1820 — The Missouri Compromise allows for the admission of Missouri as a slave state but prohibits slavery in unorganized territory north of 36º30’ latitude.[42] Maine is admitted as a free state.[43]

1821 — Missouri is admitted as a slave state.[44]

1822 — In the case of La Jeune Eugenie, a slave ship flying the French flag, the Supreme Court, with Justice Joseph Story writing the majority opinion, rules “that only when the flag of the ship permits the trade under its domestic law, can the slaver claim any status other than pirate.”[45] In South Carolina, Denmark Vesey’s planned slave rebellion is discovered.[46]

1825 — In the case of The Antelope the Supreme Court overturns its decision in La Jeune Eugenie.[47]

1827 — New York ends slavery.[48]

1830 — David Walker publishes his Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World, an early, if not the earliest, black nationalist text. Walker’s appeal convinces William Lloyd Garrison to reject colonization.[49]

1831 — William Lloyd Garrison begins publishing The Liberator on January 1. Inspired by a vision similar to Revelation, Nat Turner launches his rebellion in Southhampton County, Virginia on August 21. Nat and his supporters massacre every white that they encounter, approximately sixty people. They head for Jerusalem, the county seat, with the belief that if they can somehow reach there God will bring about an apocalyptic ending to slavery. The insurrection fails the day it is launched, Nat is captured on October 30 and executed on November 11.[50]

1832 — The nullification crisis erupts between the federal government and South Carolina over the issue of states rights. The South Carolina legislature votes to hold the federal tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null, void and having no effect in the state (planters felt that tariffs benefitted Northern manufacturers but undermined the plantation economy by making it more difficult to sell goods in Europe). In response, President Jackson threatens to march federal troops into South Carolina to collect the tariffs. South Carolina threatens to secede. The administration agrees to reduce the tariff and the crisis is averted.[51] The New England Anti-Slavery Society is formed by William Lloyd Garrison and 12 other members.

1833 — Slavery is abolished throughout the British empire.[52] The American Anti-Slavery Society is formed with 62 delegates. Lydia Maria Child publishes An Appeal in Favor of That Class of Americans Called Africans. In her book Child synthesizes the various arguments against slavery and advocates interracial marriage as a way to end racism.

1834 — George Bancroft publishes History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent. According to David Brion Davis, it is an example of the kind of “popular democracy” that formed a third source of antislavery thought by suggesting that slavery was not part of the European vision for the Americas. Bancroft wrote, “Nothing came from Europe but a free people.”[53]

1835 — Most Southern states bar abolitionist writings.[54]

1836 — State laws over slavery begin to become conflict with each other. In Massachusetts, Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw rules,  in Commonwealth v. Aves, “that the moment that the master carries his slave into a country where domestic slavery is not permitted, he becomes free.”[55]

1837 — Congress adopts Gag Rule to prohibit antislavery petitions.[56] Abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy is murdered in Alton, Illinois.[57]

1839 — In the case of the Amistad, a group of enslaved Africans rose up in mutiny and seized control of slave ship. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from the antislavery John Quincy Adams, with Justice Story writing the opinion, decides that because the Africans were illegally enslaved they had a right to mutiny. The ship had a Spanish flag. Robert Cover summarizes Adams argument: “It is because there is no law, Spanish or American that authorizes the slavery, that the Negroes are entitled to fall back on natural law even to the extent of revolution.”[58] Theodore Dwight Weld and Angelina Grimke compile American Slavery as It Is from southern newspaper clippings and first-hand accounts.[59]

1840 — The Liberty Party, the first antislavery party, is founded. Many earlier antislavery activists thought that reform could not come through political parties. Salmon Chase’s career traces the development of political antislavery. He goes on to help start both the Free Soil Party and the Republican Party. According to Eric Foner, the party platform “included attacks on slavery for impoverishing the southern states, denying southern laborers the right to an education, and regarded and dishonoring laborers generally.” Liberty Party members argue that slavery is a state, not a national, institution.[60] Auguste Comte publishes Cours de philosophy positive. According to David Brion Davis, it “rested on a rigidly prescribed series of ascending stages of history” of which slavery “became a useless vestige as society progressed.” Along with Henri Wallon, he provides an example of the “belief in the progress of Christian and scientific principles” that served the second source of antislavery thought.[61]

1842 — The case of the Creole, an American slave ship on which there was a mutiny, comes before the Supreme Court. The slaves landed in British territory seeking freedom. The antislavery lawyer William Jay argued, “When slaves are shipped on the high seas, the protection afforded by the law the creates slavery ceases.” The case is settled through international arbitration. The slaves remain free but Britain is ordered to pay $100,000 in damages.[62]

1844 — Wendell Phillips publishes The Constitution: A Proslavery Compact, the first of three works in which he argues, on behalf of the Garrisonian abolitionists, that the Constitution was “a compromise over slavery” with five proslavery provisions: the three-fifths clause; “the limitation on the power of Congress to prohibit the ‘migration or importation’ of slaves until 1808; the Fugitive Slave clause; the clause affording Congress the power to suppress insurrection; the clause insuring, upon application from a state, federal assistance in the suppression of domestic violence.” He further claims that judges cannot abrogate slavery simply because they view in conflict with natural law.[63] Congress rescinds the Gag Rule.[64]

1845 — New Jersey ratifies a new constitution with a “free and equal” clause. In two cases, State v. Post and State v. Van Buren, the State Supreme Court rules that the “free and equal” clause does not preclude slavery.[65] Texas is admitted as a slave state.[66]

1847 — Henri Wallon publishes Histoire de l’esclavage, which according to David Brion Davis, conceived of history as a kind of “historical progress resulting from the spread and influence of Christianity.” In Wallon’s view “slavery and the progress of Christianity were mutually exclusive.”[67] Frederick Douglass begins publishing The North Star.[68]

1848 — The Free Soil Party forms as a coalition of people in the Liberty Party who do not advocate immediate abolition, the Conscience (anti-slavery) Whigs and Barnburner (anti-slavery) Democrats. Their main belief is that the Constitution does not establish slavery in federal territory.[69] Connecticut ends slavery.[70]

1849 — Henry David Thoreau publishes “Civil Disobedience.”

1850 — The Fugitive Slave Act updates the 1793 Act. According to Cover, “It provided for the appointment of special federal commissioners who would hear the fugitive rendition proceedings and issue certificates of removal. The commissioner was to hear the slaveholder or his representative… the act explicitly excluded the alleged fugitive’s testimony from the proceeding.”[71] The Fugitive Slave Act is part of the Compromise of 1850 which admits California as a free state and empowers the voters of the New Mexico and Utah territories to decide the question for themselves.[72]

1851 — In the rendition of Thomas Sims Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Lemuel Shaw, who is antislavery, denies Sims a writ of habus corpus. Sims is returned to the South.[73] Herman Melville publishes Moby Dick.

1852 — Harriet Beecher Stowe publishes Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the antebellum period’s bestseller, selling 300,000 copies. Stowe concludes her novel by warning that if the country doesn’t end slavery then God will bring “the day of vengeance” and do it.[74] Frederick Douglass delivers his speech “The Meaning of the July Fourth for the Negro” in Rochester, New York on July 5.

1854 — Kansas-Nebraska Act, supported by Illinois Senator Stephen Douglass, is passed, repudiating the Compromise of 1820, it empowers settlers in Kansas and Nebraska to vote on slavery.[75] In the Act’s wake state-wide Republican parties are formed by antislavery politicians who insist that “no further political compromise with slavery was possible.” Their principal demand is no extension of slavery outside of the existing slave states.[76] Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner gives his “Freedom National; Slavery Sectional” speech in opposition to the Act.[77] The rendition of Anthony Burns outrages Boston residents. In response, Henry David Thoreau writes “Slavery in Massachusetts.” That same year he publishes Walden.[78]

1855 — The Radical Abolitionist party is formed by Frederick Douglass, Gerrit Smith, James McCune Smith, John Brown and others in Syracuse, New York. According to John Stauffer, “the party’s platform specifically affirmed violence as a way to end slavery and oppression.”[79]

1856, February — The national Republican Party is founded in Pittsburgh. It’s platform “linked slavery and polygamy as ‘twin relics of barbarism’ …endorsed Chase’s constitutional position that the federal government was bound to abolish slavery everywhere within its jurisdiction, and specifically denied the authority of either Congress or a territorial legislature to establish slavery in any territory.”[80]

1856, May 19 and 20 — Charles Sumner delivers his speech “The Crime Against Kansas” likening Senator Butler from South Carolina and Stephen Douglas to Don Quixote and Sancho Panza and claiming they are in love with “the harlot Slavery” and likening proslavery settlers in Kansas to rapists.[81]

1856, May 21 — Guerrilla fighting starts in “Bleeding Kansas” when proslavery invaders from Missouri attack the antislavery of Lawrence, Kansas.[82]

1856, May 22 — South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks, Senator Butler’s nephew, brutally canes Sumner on the Senate floor, leaving him bloody and unconscious.[83]

1856, May 24 — John Brown and his sons massacre five proslavery settlers in Pottawatomie, Kansas.[84]

1856, November 4 — Republican presidential candidate John Frémont carries eleven northern states. Democrat James Buchanan wins the election by carrying all of the Southern slave states.[85]

1857 — Dred Scott v. Sanford is decided by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roger Taney. In the case Dred Scott claims that he had been rendered free when his master had transported him onto free soil. In the decision, Taney declares that no black person could be a citizen of the United States and that “because the Constitution ‘distinctly and expressed affirmed’ the right to property in slaves, slaveholders could bring them into the federal territories.” Scott did not become free when he was transported into the free territory of Minnesota. The Missouri Compromise, repealed by the Kansas Nebraska Act, was also judged to have been unconstitutional.[86]

1859, October 16 — John Brown launches his raid on Harper’s Ferry with twenty-one men (sixteen white and five blacks) hoping that he can spark a slave revolt throughout Virginia. The raid fails. Robert E. Lee leads the marines who capture Brown and several of his conspirators. The raid was financed by Gerrit Smith and five other white abolitionists known as the “committee of six.” Brown tries to recruit Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman to participate.[87]

1859, October 30 to November 3 — Henry David Thoreau delivers “A Plea for Captain John Brown” in Concord, Boston, and Worcester, Massachusetts.[88]

1859, December 2 — John Brown is executed. He remain unrepentant to the last.[89]

1860, June 4 — Charles Sumner delivers “The Barbarism of Slavery,” his first speech in the Senate since his caning by Preston Brooks. In it he argues that slavery morally corrupts slave owners. Southern political leaders and many Northern moderates are outraged.[90]

1860, November 6 — Republican presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln wins the election with 40% of the popular vote. He doesn’t carry a single southern state.[91]

1860, December 20 — South Carolina becomes the first state to secede from the Union.[92] Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas soon follow.[93]

1861, January 29 — Kansas is admitted as a free state.[94]

1861, late February — The Confederate States of America is organized with a provisional government. According to Stephanie McCurry, “The new Confederate Constitution left no doubt that slavery was the foundation of the new republic; it was a proslavery Constitution for a proslavery state.” Further, “the provisional government crafted a document that defined slaves explicitly as property, put slaves definitively outside the boundaries of the political community, prohibited the incorporation of any new state that did not sanction slavery, and put it beyond the power of the federal government to… interfere with the legality of slave property or rights of slave holders.”[95]

1861, April 12 — South Carolina troops open fire on federal troops at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor.[96]

1861, April 17 — With federal troops moving into the South,Virginia secedes from the Union.[97] Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee follow. The slave states of Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland stay in the Union.[98]

1861, May 23 to 30 —Three slaves runaway to Fortress Monroe, seeking freedom across the Union line. General Benjamin Butler takes them in and puts them to work. President Lincoln approves Butler’s contraband policy on May 30. According to James Oakes this meant, “Union troops were not permitted to interfere with the ordinary operations of slavery in the rebellious states… But if a state declared itself in rebellion against the laws of the United States, and if any slaves in those states ‘come within your lines,’ Butler was to ‘refrain from surrendering’ such slaves to their ‘alleged masters.’ …Butler was to employ able-bodied slaves as he saw fit, keeping careful records and charging the expenses for the case of their families against the wages of the refugees.”[99]

1861, August 6 to 8 — Congress passes the First Confiscation Act. Under the terms of this act, “The slaves of disloyal masters were emancipated.” The War Department implements the act two days later, emancipation begins. Essentially, “slave voluntarily entering Union lines from the Union were emancipated.”[100] Shortly afterwards, some slaves in border states begin to flee their masters for army camps. Upon arrival in the camps the slaves would denounce their masters as secessionists and claim freedom.[101] According to James Oakes, the Act “required either district or circuit courts to determine the guilt or innocence of any rebels whose property had been seized.”[102]

1861, August 30 — General John Frémont issues a proclamation in Missouri declaring martial law, overturning civilian authority, confiscating the property of disloyal owners, and emancipating slaves of disloyal owners.[103] President Lincoln partially overturns the proclamation. His objection is that it overturns civilian rule by not following the court process outlined in the First Confiscation Act.

1862, February to June — More than ten thousand former slaves on the North Carolina Sea Islands are emancipated via the First Confiscation Act.[104] Tens of thousands more

1862, April 16 — President Lincoln signs a bill outlawing slavery in the District of Columbia.[105]

1862, July 4 — Frederick Douglass delivers his speech “The Slaveholders’ Rebellion” in Himrods Corner, New York.

1862, July 17 — Congress passes the Second Confiscation Act. According to James Oakes, “The easiest way to understand the statute is to grasp the relative simplicity of its most important goal: it would free the slaves of all disloyal masters. This would extend emancipation far beyond the scope of the First Confiscation Act, which applied only to slaves actually used in the rebellion.”[106]

1862, September 22 — President Lincoln issues a “Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.” According to James Oakes it states, that “Universal emancipation would commence in the parts of the South not occupied by the Union but still in rebellion on January 1, 1863.

1862, December 31 — President Lincoln signs a bill making the abolition of slavery a prerequisite for admission into the Union.[107] This initially applies to West Virginia.

1863, January 1 —President Lincoln issues the “Emancipation Proclamation.” According to James Oakes, it differed from earlier documents on two points: invited slaves to come within Union lines with the promise of freedom; and it lifted the ban on black enlistment in the Union army.[108]

1863, January 5 — Attorney General Edward Bates rules that “as far as citizenship was concerned, there was no distinction between blacks and whites.”[109]

1863, March 3 — Congress passes a national draft law. The repeal of 1792 Militia Act by the Militia Act of 1862 makes blacks eligible for the draft. The Union army begins to draft black soldiers.[110]

1865, April 9 — Robert Lee surrenders at Appomattox Court House. The Civil War is officially over.

1865, December 18 — The Thirteenth Amendment, outlawing slavery, is certified. Its first section reads: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”[111] Until then slavery had continued to exist in Kentucky and Delaware.[112]

1866, February 10 — Texas is readmitted to the Union and slavery is outlawed everywhere in the nation.[113]


[1] David Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1966), 8.

[2] Walter Johnson, Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 4.

[3] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 8.

[4] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 169.

[5] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 207.

[6] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 126.

[7] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 291.

[8] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 307-309.

[9] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 179.

[10] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 484.

[11] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 413.

[12] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 427.

[13] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 135.

[14] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 305.

[15] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 330.

[16] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 330.

[17] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 492.

[18] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 13.

[19] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 488.

[20] Robert Cover, Justice Accused: Antislavery and the Judicial Process (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1975), 16-17.

[21] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 383.

[22] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 434.

[23] Cover, 62-63.

[24] Cover 44.

[25] Cover 160.

[26] Cover 43-50.

[27] Cover 67.

[28] Richard Beeman, The Penguin Guide to the United States; A Fully Annotated Declaration of Independence, U. S. Constitution and Amendments, and Selections from The Federalist Papers (New York: Penguin Books, 2010), 22, 51, 53.

[29] Adam Rothman, Slave Country: American Expansion and the Origin of the Deep South (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 18-19.

[30] Rothman 3-4.

[31] David Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1975), 28.

[32] James Oakes, Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861—1865 (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2013), 360.

[33] Cover 162.

[34] Rothman 18.

[35] Rothman 21.

[36] Cover 55.

[37] Johnson 5.

[38] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 33.

[39] Paul Boyer, American History: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 49.

[40] Peter Hinks, introduction in David Walker’s Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World, ed. and introduction by Peter Hinks (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000), xx.

[41] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 34.

[42] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 35.

[43] William Lloyd Garrison and the Fight against Slavery; Selections from the Liberator, ed. and introduction William Cain (Boston: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), 187.

[44] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 35.

[45] Cover 101-105.

[46] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 35.

[47] Cover 101-105.

[48] Cover 160.

[49] Hinks n 122.

[50] The Confessions of Nat Turner and Related Documents, ed. and introduction by Kenneth Greenberg (Boston: St. Martin’s Press, 1996), 1-3.

[51] Harry Watson, Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1990), 114-128 passim.

[52] Boyer 49.

[53] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 13; George Bancroft quote in Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 23.

[54] Cain 188.

[55] Lemuel Shaw quoted in Cover, 94.

[56] Cain 189.

[57] Boyer 50.

[58] Cover 111.

[59] Boyer 50.

[60] Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 60.

[61] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 20, 13.

[62] Cover 114.

[63] Cover 153.

[64] Cain 190.

[65] Cover, 55-61.

[66] Cain 190.

[67] Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 18, 19.

[68] Cain 190.

[69] Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, 87.

[70] Cover 160.

[71] Cover 175.

[72] Boyer 48.

[73] Cover 176-177.

[74] Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom’s Cabin (New York: Bantam Class, 1980 [1852]), 446.

[75] Boyer 51.

[76] Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, 127.

[77] Oakes 32.

[78] Elizabeth Hall Witherell, “Chronology” in Henry David Thoreau Collected Essays and Poems, ed. Elizabeth Hall Witherell (New York: The Library of America, 2001), 653.

[79] John Stauffer, The Black Hearts of Men: Radical Abolitionists and the Transformation of Race (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 8.

[80] Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, 130.

[81] Charles Sumner, “The Crime Against Kansas” in The Works of Charles Sumner  Vol. 4 (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1872), 144.

[82] Boyer 52.

[83] Stauffer 20.

[84] Boyer 52.

[85] Eric Foner, The Fiery Trial; Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery (New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010), 82.

[86] Eric Foner, The Fiery Trial, 92.

[87] Stauffer 236-261 passim

[88] Witherell 655.

[89] Stauffer 260.

[90] Charles Sumner, “The Barbarism of Slavery” in The Works of Charles Sumner Vol. 5 (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1872), 1-174.

[91] Eric Foner, The Fiery Trial, 143.

[92] Stephanie McCurry, Confederate Reckoning: Power and Politics in the Civil War South (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 2010), 40.

[93] McCurry 53.

[94] Boyer 52.

[95] McCurry 78, 221.

[96] McCurry 68.

[97] McCurry 74.

[98] McCurry 53.

[99] Oakes 99-100.

[100] Oakes 138, 139.

[101] Oakes 169.

[102] Oakes 119.

[103] Oakes 157.

[104] Oakes 207.

[105] Oakes 274.

[106] Oakes 236.

[107] Oakes 299.

[108] Oakes 344.

[109] Oakes 358.

[110] Oakes 361.

[111] Beeman 75.

[112] Oakes 482.

[113] Oakes 488.

Some Notes of Gramsci

Antonio Gramsci, The Antonia Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings 1916-1935, ed. David Forgacs (New York: New York University Press, 1999)

Gramsci was an Italian Marxist who argued that Marxism was primarily a moral tradition based on the “categorical imperative… ‘Workers of the world, unite!’ The duty of organizing, the propagation of the duty to organize and associate, should therefore be what distinguishes Marxists from non-Marxists” (36). He is the source of a number of important concepts, most notably hegemony and civil society. He was very critical of “mechanistic forms of historical materialism” (Forgacs 189). He believed that while socio-economic conditions created the possibility of political change they did not produce political change in and of themselves. In order for change to occur there had to be forces that could challenge the state and the reigning hegemony. He differentiated between the structure (economic dimension of life) and superstructure (politics and culture) and believed that superstructure was not determined by structure alone. One definition he offers of superstructure is “the terrain on which determinate social groups become conscious of their own social being, their own strength, their own tasks, their own becoming” (196).

Amongst other things, Gramsci emphasized the importance of ideology as a space for struggle. He differentiated between those ideologies which were “necessary to a given structure” and those which are “arbitrary, rationalistic, ‘willed’” (199). His rejection of a purely “economist” reading of Marxism led him to emphasize, again and again, that political change required “an initiative of will” and those who would change society must “systematically and patiently” focus on developing a force which can bring about change when the right conditions emerge (209).

A few key concepts from Gramsci defined:

Civil Society: one of two “major superstructural ‘levels’…that ensemble of organisms commonly called ‘private’” as opposed to “that of ‘political society’ of the state” (306). Civil society includes trade unions and other forms of voluntary associations.

Hegemony: “leadership of a class alliance” (Forgacs 422). It includes both proletarian leadership and other leadership by other classes. It’s features include “‘cultural, moral and ideological’ leadership over allied and subordinate groups” (Forgacs 423).

Intellectuals: “Gramsci defines intellectuals… as those people who give a fundamental social group ‘homogeneity and awareness of its own function.’ Intellectuals are educators, organizers, leaders. ‘Organic’ intellectuals are those who emerge from out the group itself: for instance a worker who becomes a political activist. ‘Traditional’ intellectuals are those who have remained from earlier social formations and who may attach themselves to one or the other fundamental class…” (Forgacs 425)

Divest the Unitarian Universalist Association’s Common Endowment Fund

A couple of weeks back I wrote a post asking, “Can the UUA Divest from Fossil Fuels?” Apparently someone else has a similar idea. There’s an on-line petition circulating at the moment called “Divest the Unitarian Universalist Association’s Common Endowment Fund.” So far it only has about 700 signatures. There are roughly 150,000 adult Unitarian Universalists in the United States. If it was possible to get to 15,000 signatures before General Assembly then anyone wanting to put this issue before the Assembly would be able to claim that 10% of adult Unitarian Universalists are behind them. That, I am sure, would be very helpful in any sort of floor fight.

What does the UUMA do?

Over the last year I have been functioning as a semi-itinerant minister. While the majority of my time has been spent on my graduate studies, I have been doing fairly regular pulpit supply, preaching on average of slightly more than once a month, and officiating the occasional wedding or funeral. This experience has increased my appreciation for my professional association, the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association (UUMA). It has also strengthened my belief that the UUMA functions as a labor organization. It helps its members negotiate with congregations and other employers around working conditions and wages.

I find myself relying increasing on, and increasing grateful for, the UUMA’s Scale of Minimum Fees for Professional Services. This document has provided me with the leverage on several occasions over the last year that I needed to get paid more for my services than I might have otherwise been paid. It has also helped me get other ministers paid more for their services than they would have otherwise been paid.

Within the last couple of years the UUMA increased its fee scale. The going rate for leading one service is supposed to be $250. A lot of smaller congregation in New England seem to think that it is acceptable to pay ministers $200. I have decided that I am going to follow the UUMA scale. I do not accept any invitations to lead services that don’t pay at least $250. This has had an interesting impact. Twice within the last few months congregations have contacted me to ask me to preach and offered me $200. I have told them that I would only preach if they paid me according to scale. In both cases the contact person has then told me that they’d like me to preach but they need to go talk with the worship committee about the higher fee. And in both cases they have called me back a week or so later and told me that the committee has met and agreed to not only paying me the higher fee but to raise their preaching fee for other clergy.

I have found the fee scale similarly useful when negotiating with funeral homes. In one instance a funeral home needed me to do a service, the family specifically wanted me to do it, but the funeral home didn’t want to pay me all that much because they were paid through an insurance policy (which meant they got to keep whatever wasn’t spent on funeral expenses). I told them if they wanted me to do the service then I would only do it if I was paid according to the fee scale of my professional association. That ended the discussion quickly and resulted in me getting paid according to scale.

These experiences have reminded me that ministers are workers. When we remember this we can also remember that like other workers we have the power to withhold our labor and, by doing so, create better working conditions for ourselves and for our colleagues. The only reason why some congregations think it is acceptable to pay at a rate below scale is because some of my colleagues will accept that pay. If they stop accepting that pay then the congregations won’t be able to get away with substandard compensation. And what’s true of congregations is also, or especially, true of funeral homes and those who come to us to officiate weddings and other rites of passage.

My experiences have also increased my appreciation for the UUMA. While some of my colleagues complain about the dues rates I know that as a semi-itinerant minister they are worth every penny. The amount of additional compensation they have aided me in negotiating in the last year far exceeds what I pay annually in dues. And simply being grateful for the additional compensation doesn’t take into consideration all of the other things, like collegiality and continuing education, that the UUMA facilitates.

Can the UUA Divest from Fossil Fuels?

Last week Harvard President Drew Faust made it clear that Harvard won’t be divesting its endowment from the fossil fuel industry. Faust’s statement on divestment runs several paragraphs long but it can probably be summarized in one sentence: Harvard, and society as a whole, is too reliant on the fossil fuel industry to divest. Environmental activist and Unitarian Universalist seminarian Tim DeChristopher, who attends Harvard Divinity School, issued a rebuttal to President Faust that took her to task for remaining neutral during one of humanity’s greatest crises. DeChristopher’s statement is a reminder that President Faust’s refusal to divest doesn’t end the discussion. Environmental activists at Harvard will continue to increase the pressure on her for years to come. The anti-Apartheid divestment campaign took almost two decades to accomplish its goal. Despite the urgency of climate change, the fossil fuel divestment campaign will probably unfold over a similar timespan.

President Faust’s disappointing statement about divestment has had me thinking about divestment within Unitarian Universalism. My home congregation, First Parish in Cambridge, divested from fossil fuels last spring (we currently have a banner up reading “We divested from fossil fuels! Your turn, Harvard.”). The General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations (UUA) passed an Action of Immediate Witness (AIW) this year calling congregations to “Consider Divestment from the Fossil Fuel Industry.” While the AIW was a good first step it lacks teeth. It doesn’t require the UUA to do anything with its own funds or set any guidelines for the $150,000,000 UUA Common Endowment Fund.

I think it is time for the UUA to take a bolder step. The United Church of Christ has already divested from fossil fuels and the Massachusetts Episcopal Diocese is considering divesting. Under the current working rules of the General Assembly, I believe that at the 2014 Assembly delegates could strongly encourage, but not direct, the UUA administration to divest via a responsive resolution (in response to the UUA’s Financial Advisor’s report). The UUA Board could use the responsive resolution to set policy.

It would be a small step. The UUA doesn’t control that much money but it would be an important moral gesture. It would make it harder for people like President Faust, who run organizations with multibillion dollar endowments, to dimiss the campaign for divestment. In doing so it would help move the divestment campaign a little bit farther along.

The Pope and Peter Morales, or the UUA’s Disappointing Statement on Syria

On Friday Peter Morales, the President on my religious association, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, issued a statement on possible strikes on Syria by the United States military. This Sunday, in my home congregation, excerpts of that statement were read during the worship service. It was heartbreaking. Morales’ words echoed the Obama Administration’s line on Syria. Morales wrote, “And we assert that the U.S. government needs to exhaust all non-violent methods to bring about an end to this conflict before resorting to military intervention.” One of the chief arguments for why the U.S. military should bomb Syrian is that all non-violent options have been exhausted. U.N. Ambassador Samatha Powers made precisely this point on Friday when she said in a speech, “Some have asked, given our collective war-weariness, why we cannot use non-military tools to achieve the same end. My answer to this question is: we have exhausted the alternatives.”

Morales’s statement does nothing to counter this assertion. Nor does it challenge any of the Obama Administration’s reasons for wanting to bomb Syria. It does not question the assumption that bombing Syria will lessen the use of chemical weapons or that it will prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of “terrorists.” It does not dispute the legality or morality of the U.S. government’s long standing tradition of unilateral military action. Nor does it offer any possible non-violent or legal solutions to the crisis such as, going after the arms dealers who facilitated the manufacture of Syrian chemical weapons or pursuing the Assad regime in the International Criminal Court. Instead, Morales appears to assume that there are times when such military action can be justified. In truth, it is the weakest amongst us who suffer most when war is waged.

I can’t help but contrast Morales’s statement with Pope Francis. The Pope led a prayer vigil in Rome on Saturday, which was attended by tens of thousands of people, and has fasted for peace. He said, “violence and war are never the way to peace!” and called for “Forgiveness, dialogue, reconciliation.”

I am saddened that Pope Francis offers more moral clarity on the Syrian situation than the President of my own religious association, especially because some of the finest religious voices for nonviolence come from within it. Adin Ballou, a 19th century abolitionist, peace advocate and both Unitarian and Universalist minister offered words more than a 150 years ago that are worth hearing again today. He preached, “The end sanctifies the means, does it? It is right to do evil that good may come, is it?… Alas, for such short sighted wisdom—such self-thwarting expediency… With armies and navies, police guards and prisons at his command, he would be weak, after once allowing himself to be shorn of his moral strength. Because he would then be but an armed hypocrite, forcing others by brute power to abstain from crimes far less dangerous to human welfare than those which he was obliged to commit…”

I pray that Unitarian Universalists will listen to voices like Ballou’s, and his liberal religious contemporaries such as Henry David Thoreau and Julia Ward Howe, rather than the President of our religious association. They, and not he, offer us a moral compass in the current crisis.