“Frankly, I am not in favor of slavery, though I do think that the abolitionists are too harsh in their criticism of the South. It’s plain to see that Africans are human. They have eyes and ears, arms and legs; they sweat, bleed, and procreate. Regarding their capacity for civilized behavior, and for language in general, I have my doubts—honest doubts. But if you press me, I will have to say—despite the ebony glaze of their skin, and the strange texture of their hair; despite that air of insouciance they have about them—that these slaves must actually be human, though they may not necessarily be akin to us in every way.
And that’s where I’m a little conflicted concerning this issue. I mean, I’m a Northerner. What do I know about the rigors of running a plantation? Cotton, to me, is not some cultural icon. It’s a crop, a commodity. But to the Southerner, you understand, it’s got heritage.
So I can see how a Southern merchant, or your man in the street in Richmond might look at a Negro, and see, not a person, but a bale of cotton. It’s an economic imperative, as far as Southern folks are concerned; not a question of morality at all. It’s their land—their way of life—their right to choose!
Are slaves human beings? That’s up to the masters to decide. It’s their private business, and none of mine. Nobody is forcing me to own slaves, and I’m not about to tell anyone to free his.
I’m pro-choice about this. And that’s okay.”
________________
Is it?
The letter above could have been written in 1857, north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Change a few words, however, and you may likely find it in Planned Parenthood’s clinic in Aurora, Illinois. The document describes the situation in the North prior to the Civil War. Many people then had reservations about slavery, but in order not to unsettle the Union, they rationalized their qualms away. If an act—murder, rape, genocide—is evil, then it must be opposed at all cost. But slavery had become so entrenched that what should have been an abhorrent plague became a fashionable institution, and then at last a rebel cry.
The abolitionists had convictions about slavery, and acted upon them. Those of their compatriots who merely had “reservations” about it did nothing. These were the “moderates” of their day, assuaging their conscience by telling themselves that, privately, they could not stomach the dirty business, but that, as a matter of policy, it was not up to them to judge others. This moral ambivalence, whenever it shows up, is unfathomable and infuriating. If slavery is wrong, then the only thing to do is eliminate it. Political negotiation over an absolute horror, be it Nazism, or terrorism, is futile. But moderates, then as now, like to put manicured finger to dimpled chin, and declaim, “Hmm. Let’s find a way out of this conundrum.”
There is no way out, except through a bloodbath, or, if we’re lucky, a Supreme Court decision. Liberals know this. Their counterparts in the nineteenth century declared slaves to be sub-human, and therefore undeserving of legal protection. The only way to dissuade those liberals, as Lincoln found out, was to crush their skulls in battle.
Goodness knows I have no love for liberals, but for this—their mulish defense of the indefensible—I grudgingly give them respect. Liberals today insist that, up until a baby’s head is emerging into the light, abortion is perfectly acceptable. Why? The unborn baby is simply not human. Killing it is no more grim than clipping one’s fingernails. No need, in either case, to wash the hands afterwards of guilt. This I can understand. Liberals have an argument, and they’re sticking to it. It’s a narrow argument, since they also believe, for purposes of federal law, that a bald eagle’s egg is the same as a bald eagle. Nonetheless, the logic of their reasoning is there, implacable and palpable, lending itself readily to refutation.
Moderates’ views are not as easily grasped, being absurd, and morally ethereal. They undulate in the wind, like the leaves of weeping willows. They wink in and out of our perception, like starlight. How in heaven’s name can you think that slavery is wrong, and still trust that others may find some use for it? How, if abortion is murder, can you let a woman and her doctor commit murder?
Roe v. Wade, let’s be honest, was an exercise in judicial legerdemain, paying lip service to obstetric science, even as it played dumb before natural philosophy. Yes, opined the court’s majority, abortion is reprehensible, but it isn’t as vile as depriving a woman of her “privacy.” We’ll allow it during the first two trimesters. And we will sanction it even in the third, if the mother’s life or health is endangered. Of course, by “health,” we mean her slightest emotions, as well. If the mother is a minor, do not notify her parents. But she may inform a black-robed stranger. If she cannot pay for the procedure, then others must. If the baby survives, let it starve while we deliberate.
No, slavery is wrong. And the slaughter of innocents is totally not okay.
No comments:
Post a Comment