Journal 2 "William and Ellen Craft": Travis Hearn

The final section of Running a Thousand Miles for Freedom, as expected, sees William and Ellen Craft reaching England, the end of their journey. Much of this shorter segment is taken up in legislation and quotation, mostly in reference to the Fugitive Slave Bill of 1850. At the conclusion of the tale, I firmly believe that it was written years after its events unfurled. The tone of the escape, coupled with the strong legal findings and the glut of testimonials all point to a long section of fact-finding before publication. All in all, a very informative piece, with several viewpoints offered on the important issues of American slavery. In my first journal, I questioned whether this work influenced the Emancipation Proclamation that soon followed it, and I believe that it quite probably did, if not as strongly as Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Christianity comes up many, many times throughout, in the form of slaveholders professing their Christian ways in keeping and beating slaves, in the form of abolitionists and their quest to see all men free and equal, and the slaves themselves, in propping themselves against their faith for support in troubled times and hope for the future. To each of these groups, nay, to each individual, Christianity meant something different, as it should. Christianity is a religion, a group of tenets and morals loosely held together by ancient writings, and as each translator sees the writings differently, so too does each adherent see the meaning of words through their own vision. These unique views still allow for some flexibility, or else each religion would only have one follower, but as anyone who has taken a theology course has seen, the wide umbrella of "Christianity" has seen many, many schisms over time, and the divide over slavery is but one more. Take this quote from a man of the cloth, Reverend Dr. Gardner Spring, "If by one prayer I(he) could liberate every slave in the world he would not dare offer it."(pg 94). Quite a vocal opposition to abolition, if it would take but a whisper to free all slaves. Now, counter to it, a letter from Reverend Samuel May, who should, through Christianity, have a similar moral view of slavery. "The laws of this republican and Christian land (tell it not in Moscow, nor in Constantinople) regard them only as slaves--chattels--personal property. But they nobly vindicated their title and right to freedom, two years since, by winning their way to it..."(pg. 88) And here we see a vastly different view of slaves escaping to freedom, one which calls the act "noble".

Christianity is a religion, and a religion is a set of guidelines for moral decision-making in daily life. So, to see two men of Christian authority, taking two radically different views, must make one of them wrong? But how to tell who? There is no way, for neither of them is wrong. There is a difference between faith and religion, as faith is a personal belief, perhaps ignited by religion, but religion is not local, it is the doctrines and grouping of people whose faiths are similar, or at least compatible. Both reverends were Christians, and so were all the slaveholders who tortured their slaves, and all the slaves, and everyone else who proclaimed themselves Christian. This is because they had Christian faith. No personal actions can be personally immoral, because morals are faith based, and personal faithcan be redefined at will.