__________
“Aunt Hannah punished the scholars with the pudding-stick.”
Lucy Larcom
__________
.jpg) |
Romance in the style of 1831. |
“None but madmen would run the hazard.”
May 20: On this date, George W. Myers, the printer of the Gambier Observer, an Ohio newspaper, offers a copy of an argument first put forward, I believe, in generally the same form, in 1814.
We quote at length from the words of Noah Worcester:
We
regard with horror the custom of the ancient heathens in offering their
children a sacrifice to idols. We are shocked with the customs of the Hindoos
in prostrating themselves before the car of an idol to be crushed to death; in
burning women alive on the funeral piles of their husbands; in casting their
children, a monthly sacrifice, into the Ganges to be drowned. We read with
astonishment of the sacrifices made in Papal crusades, and in Mahometan
and Hindoo pilgrimages. But that which is fashionable and popular in any
country is esteemed right and honorable, whatever may be its nature in the
views of men better informed.
But while we look back, with a
mixture of wonder, indignation and pity, on many of the customs of former ages,
are we careful to inquire whether some customs which we deem honorable are not
the effects of popular delusion? Is it not a fact that one of the most horrid
customs of savage men is now popular in every nation in Christendom? What
custom of the most barbarous nations is more repugnant to the feelings of
piety, humanity and justice, than that of deciding controversies between
nations by the edge of the sword, by powder and ball, or the point of the
bayonet? What other savage custom has occasioned half the desolation and misery
to the human race? …
A war between two nations is
generally produced by the influence of a small number of ambitious and
unprincipled individuals; while the greater part of the nation has no hand in
the business until war is proclaimed.
A vast majority of every
civilized nation have an aversion to war; such an aversion that it requires
much effort and management, to work up their passions so far, that they are
willing personally to engage in such hazardous and bloody conflicts. The more
any people are civilized and christianized, the greater is their aversion to
war, and the more powerful exertions are necessary to excite what is called the
war spirit. Were it not for the influence of a few ambitious or revengeful men,
an offensive war could not be undertaken with any prospect of success, except
when the mass of the people are either uncivilized or slaves. If, then, as
great exertions should be made to excite a just abhorrence of war, as have
often been made to excite a war spirit, we may be very certain that rulers would
find little encouragement to engage in any war, which is not strictly
defensive. And as soon as offensive wars shall cease, defensive wars will of
course be unknown. …
To sacrifice human beings to
false notions of national honor, or to the ambition or avarice of rulers, is no
better than to offer them to Moloch, or any other heathen deity. As soon as the
eyes of the people can be opened to see that war is the effect of delusion, it
will then become as unpopular as any other heathenish mode of human sacrifice. …
“Duelling [sic] is indeed a
horrible practice; but war is as much more horrible as it is more desolating
and ruinous. As to the principles on which war is practiced, it has no
advantage of duelling. It is in fact national duelling, attended generally with
this dishonorable circumstance, that those who give and accept the challenge,
call together a multitude of seconds, and then have not the magnanimity, first
to risk their own lives, but they involve their seconds in a bloody contest,
while they themselves stand remote from danger, as spectators, or at most as
directors of the awful combat.
… [I]t will be pleaded,
that no substitute for war can be devised, which will insure to a nation a
redress of wrongs. In reply, we may ask, is it common for a nation to obtain a
redress of wrongs by war? As to redress, do not the wars of nations resemble
boxing at a tavern, when both the combatants receive a terrible bruising, then
drink a mug of flip together, and make peace; each, however, bearing for a long
time the marks of his folly and madness? A redress of wrongs by war is so
uncommon, that unless revenge is redress, and multiplied injuries satisfaction,
we should suppose that none but madmen would run the hazard.
Among the evil effects of war, a
wanton undervaluing of human life ought to be mentioned. This effect may appear
in various forms. When a war is declared for the redress of some wrong, in
regard to property, if nothing but property be taken into consideration, the
result is not commonly better, than spending five hundred dollars in a law-suit
to recover a debt of ten. But when we come to estimate human lives against
dollars and cents, how are we confounded! “All that a man hath will he give for
his life.” Yet, by the custom of war, men are so deluded, that a ruler may give
fifty or a hundred thousand lives, when only a trifling amount of property is
in question, and when the probabilities are as ten to one against him, that
even that small amount will not be secured by the contest. It must, however,
again be remarked, that war-makers do not usually give their own lives, but the
lives of others. How often has a war been declared with a prospect that not
less than 50,000 lives must be sacrificed; and while the chief agent in making
the war would not have given his own life, to secure to his nation every thing
that he claimed from the other? And are rulers to be upheld in thus gambling
away the lives of others, while they are careful to secure their own! If people
in general could obtain just views of this species of gambling, rulers would
not make offensive wars with impunity. How little do they consider the misery
and wretchedness which they bring on those for whom they should exercise the
kindness and care of a father! … War is in truth the most dreadful species of
gambling. Rulers are the gamblers. The lives and property of their subjects are
the things they put to hazard in the game; and he that is most successful in
doing mischief, is considered as the best gamester. …
Is it not then time for
Christians to learn not to attach glory to guilt, or to praise actions which
God will condemn? That Alexander [the Great] possessed talents worthy of
admiration, will be admitted. But when such talents are prostituted to the vile
purpose of military fame, by spreading destruction and misery through the
world, a character is formed, which should be branded with everlasting infamy.
And nothing, perhaps, short of
commission of such atrocious deeds, can more endanger the welfare of community,
than the applause given to successful military desperadoes. Murder and robbery
are not the less criminal for being perpetrated by a king, or a mighty warrior.
Nor will the applause of deluded mortals secure such monsters from the
vengeance of heaven.
Dr. Prideaux states, that in
fifty battles fought by Caesar, he slew one million, one hundred and ninety-two
thousand of his enemies. If to this number we add the loss of troops on his own
side, and the slaughter of women and children on both sides, we shall probably
have a total of two millions of human beings, sacrificed to the ambition of one
man.
If we assign an equal number to
Alexander, and the same to Napoleon, which we probably may do with justice,
then to three military characters, we may ascribe the untimely death of six
millions of the human family: a number equal to the whole population of the
United States, in the year 1800. Is it not then reasonable to believe that a
greater number of human beings have been slain by the murderous custom of war,
than the whole amount of the present population in the world? To what heathen
deity was there ever offered such a multitude of human sacrifices, as have been
offered to human ambition?
In a century from this time, the
nations of Christendom may consider human sacrifices made by war, in the same
light they now view the ancient sacrifices to Moloch; or in the light of wanton
and deliberate murder. …
The following things will
perhaps be generally admitted; that the Christian religion has abolished the
practice of enslaving captives, and in several respects mitigated the evils of
war, by introducing milder usages; that if the temper of our Saviour should
universally prevail among men, wars must cease to the ends of the earth; that
the scriptures give reason to hope such a time of peace will result from the
influence of the Christian religion.
If these views and expectations
are well founded, does it not follow of course, that the spirit and custom of
war is directly opposed to the principles and spirit of the gospel; that in
proportion as the gospel has its proper effect on the minds of men, an aversion
to war must be excited; and that it is the duty of every Christian to do all in
his power to bring the custom into disrepute, and to effect its abolition?
Let us now imagine we hear a
soldier among these fighting Christians saying the Lord’s prayer. “Our Father,”
says he: O, hardened wretch! can you call him Father, when you are just going
to cut your brother's throat? “Hallowed be thy name:” how can the name of God
be more impiously unhallowed than by mutual bloody murder among you, his sons? “Thy
kingdom come:” do you pray for the coming of his kingdom, while you are
endeavoring to establish an earthly despotism by the spilling of the blood of
God’s sons and subjects? “Thy will
be done on earth as it is in heaven:” His will in heaven is for peace, but you
are now meditating war. Dare you say to your Father in heaven, “Give us this
day our daily bread,” when you are going the next moment to burn your brother’s
cornfields; and had rather lose the benefit of them yourself, than suffer him
to enjoy them unmolested? With what face can you say, “Forgive us our
trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,” when so far from
forgiving your own brother, you are going, with all the haste you can, to
murder him in cold blood, for an alleged trespass, which after all is but
imaginary? Do you presume to deprecate danger of “temptation,” who, not without
great danger to yourself, are doing all you can to force your brother into
danger? Do you deserve to be delivered from evil, that is, from the evil being
to whose impulse you submit yourself, and by whose spirit you are guided in
contriving the greatest possible evil to your brother?
May not wars usually be traced
to one or more of the following causes: – the ambition of princes or
governments, instigating them to increase their dominions, and bring other
nations under their sway; jealousy at the prosperity and increasing influence
of another nation; a love of military glory; a desire of retaliation or revenge
for some real or imaginary affront; the anticipation of injury from another
power?
If our Creator be the God of
Peace; our Redeemer the Prince of Peace; our Sanctifier the Spirit of Peace;
and if our guide to heaven be the Gospel of Peace; is it not the imperious duty
of all who profess to love God, to be the Sons of Peace?
*
July 4: Former President James Monroe passes away. (Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson pass away on the same day in 1826.)
John Quincy Adams, Ammon says, appreciated what Mr. Monroe had done. “He saw in Monroe’s public service a lifetime dedicated to strengthening the nation and establishing it securely on republican principles.” (24/572)
*
LUCY LARCOM’S TALE, A New England Girlhood, tells of her life growing up in the 1830s. McMaster recommends it.
Like many books out of copyright, it is available online through the Gutenberg Project.
It might bear reading. I note this passage, where Larcom (she was born in 1824, and went on to become a teacher herself) describes attending school at the home of “Aunt Hannah.” Children of all ages are enrolled, so long as they can walk and talk and learn their letters.
Aunt Hannah used her
kitchen or her sitting room for a schoolroom, as best suited her convenience.
We were delighted observers of her culinary operations and other employments.
If a baby’s head nodded, a little bed was made for it on a soft “comforter” in
the corner, where it had its nap out undisturbed. But this did not often
happen; there were so many interesting things going on that we seldom became
sleepy.
Aunt Hannah was very kind
and motherly, but she kept us in fear of her ferule, which indicated to us a
possibility of smarting palms. This ferule was shaped much like the stick with
which she stirred her hasty pudding for dinner, – I thought it was the same, –
and I found myself caught in a whirlwind of family laughter by reporting at home
that “Aunt Hannah punished the scholars with the pudding-stick.”
There was one colored boy
in school, who did not sit on a bench, like the rest, but on a block of wood
that looked like a backlog turned endwise. Aunt Hannah often called him a
“blockhead,” and I supposed it was because he sat on that block. Sometimes, in
his absence, a boy was made to sit in his place for punishment, for being a
“blockhead” too, as I imagined. I hoped I should never be put there. Stupid
little girls received a different treatment, – an occasional rap on the head
with the teacher’s thimble; accompanied with a half-whispered, impatient
ejaculation, which sounded very much like “Numskull!” I think this was a rare
occurrence, however, for she was a good-natured, much-enduring woman.
NOTE TO TEACHERS: I wonder what students today would say about this
kind of schooling. And what was that unfortunate young African American boy
sitting on the block thinking?
Larcom’s father died when she was young, leaving her mother to raise eight children by herself. The family moved to Lowell, Massachusetts and her mother started taking in boarders, girls working in the mills of the town. Lucy went to a real grammar school for the first time.
She explains,
For the first time in our lives,
my little sister and I became pupils in a grammar school for both girls and
boys, taught by a man. I was put with her into the sixth class, but was sent
the very next day into the first. I did not belong in either, but somewhere
between. And I was very uncomfortable in my promotion, for though the reading
and spelling and grammar and geography were perfectly easy, I had never studied
any thing but mental arithmetic, and did not know how to “do a sum.” We had to
show, when called up to recite, a slateful of sums, “done” and “proved.” No
explanations were ever asked of us.
The girl who sat next to me
saw my distress, and offered to do my sums for me. I accepted her proposal,
feeling, however, that I was a miserable cheat. But I was afraid of the master,
who was tall and gaunt, and used to stalk across the schoolroom, right over the
desk-tops, to find out if there was any mischief going on. Once, having caught
a boy annoying a seat-mate with a pin, he punished the offender by pursuing him
around the schoolroom, sticking a pin into his shoulder whenever he could
overtake him. And he had a fearful leather strap, which was sometimes used even
upon the shrinking palm of a little girl. If he should find out that I was a
pretender and deceiver, as I knew that I was, I could not guess what might
happen to me. He never did, however. I was left unmolested in the ignorance
which I deserved. But I never liked the girl who did my sums, and I fancied she
had a decided contempt for me.
There was a friendly looking boy always sitting at the master's desk; they called him “the monitor.” It was his place to assist scholars who were in trouble about their lessons, but I was too bashful to speak to him, or to ask assistance of anybody. I think that nobody learned much under that regime, and the whole school system was soon after entirely reorganized.
*
Nat Turner’s Revolt.
August: On the topic of slavery, and on race in general, Doulgas Southall Freeman is hopeless. (I believe one modern critic has said he mentions Lee’s horse Traveler more often than slavery.
In describing Nat Turner’s Revolt, we have the following:
The force was able to cover sixty miles
in twenty-four hours. It found, most fortunately, that the rising had been put
down and that the Negroes had been scattered. Nearly sixty white people,
however, had been slain. As a staff officer, Lee did not go to Southampton, but
he was profoundly concerned over the outburst, and believed, on the basis of
what he heard, that only the Negroes’ misunderstanding of the date of the
rising prevented “much mischief.”
The temper of some of the Negroes in
tidewater Virginia was considered so menacing that five additional companies of
artillery were brought to Fort Monroe and put on duty. This gave the fort a garrison
of 680 men, no small part of the army of the United States. (22/29)
*
Slavery:
“A positive good.”
JOHN C. CALHOUN reacts angrily to developments in Virginia and the dangers he now sees:
“It is, indeed, high time for the
people of the South to be roused to a sense of impending calamities — on an
early and full knowledge of which their safety depends,” Calhoun wrote in an
1831 report to the South Carolina Legislature. “It is time that they should see
and feel that . . . they are in a permanent and hopeless minority on the great
and vital connected questions.”
Slavery, he insists, is “a positive good,” that “forms the most solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and stable institutions.”
*
Finley
believed in “Christian perfectionism,” arguing that it was possible for a
believer to be free of sin in this lifetime.
No comments:
Post a Comment