A Perplexing Question

         I enjoyed reading Hopkins’ “As the Lord Lives, He Is One of Our Mother’s Children” and loved that Rev. Stevens saved Stone’s life, even after he read the poster with the $1,500 reward.  This made me think, if another person had found Stone in the river, would they have later turned Stone in for the reward?

         I think this is an interesting thing to ponder because do you think Rev. Stevens just saved Stone’s life because he was a man that served the Lord and read the Bible?  Did other factors play into his decision to let Stone live?  Did race have anything to do with it, since Stone looked white? 

         I think this is a hard question to answer and honestly, I think if another Christian man would have found Stone and then read the poster, he would have been more likely than not to turn in Stone and get the reward.  I say this because I think back on past readings, such as The Narrative of Fredrick Douglass and the instances where the Christian people are the ones that are the most hypocritical and treated African Americans the worst.  I wish I could say that I think most people would not take the reward and would have chose to save Stone’s life, but I think that many people in this time would have turned him because of the societal view that African Americans are bad.  Most people would not have gone straight to Stone like Rev. Stevens did and ask for the facts; people would have assumed the worst after finding out he was an African American and supposedly was running from the law.

         I think the end, when Stone risks his own life for Rev. Stevens and his son, displays the kind of man Stone was; one of integrity, honor, and thankfulness toward Rev. Stone for all that he had done for him.  He was willing to give up his own life for Rev. Stevens and his son.  This also leads me to question what would have happened if Stone had not been there to save Rev. Stevens and his son?   

The Aha! Moment

When reading “Learning to Read” by Frances Harper, I had an Aha moment just in the realization of what a privilege it is that I learned how to read at such a young age.  I cannot imagine starting to read at the age of 60!! Harper explains, “And said there is no use trying, Oh Chloe, you’re too late; But as I was rising sixty, I had no time to wait” (1389).  I learned to read when I was 6 years old and I do not know how I would have gotten through life without this skill.  I just remember when I was younger having to learn and complaining about having to read for school, so it is amazing that Chloe had such an inspiration to read.  Reading allowed her to have a better life, even at the age of 60.  It was worth it to learn no matter how old she was and she was determined to learn so that she would be able to read the Bible. 

I realized after reading this poem, just how many little things in life that I take for granted everyday.  I have never thought of being able to read as a privilege because I learned at school, just like everyone else, but the reality to it is that I have been blessed in so many ways.  The time period in which we live is a major factor that has influenced reading.  Literacy has come such a long way since the time when this poem was written in 1872, especially for African Americans and women. 

I learned by reading this poem just how thankful I need to be for my education.  I am receiving a great education at TCU and I cannot lose sight of that, even when school becomes overwhelming.  The fact that I am a woman, I can read, and I get to go to college would have been crazy to think of during the time period in which this poem was written, but for me it a reality.  I need to be thankful for the little things in life and never lose sight of how far we have come from the time when these things were not an option for everyone.     

The Contemporary Connection

         I can see a contemporary connection between today and the years of 1865-1914 in the aspect of education, specifically with reading.  The book states that, “following the Civil War was the surge in reading, which was encouraged by the growing number of libraries in the United States” (23).  I believe that the same is true, but in a different way today.  There has been a push for literacy and reading for a long time in schools, but the use of technology for reading has increased in today’s time.  During 1865-1914, people could walk to libraries and get books and the convenient factor was something that helped promote reading like never before.  People had easy access to books for the first time, which was revolutionary.  Now, I believe that the same is true, but it looks a lot different because of the advances in technology.  It is somewhat rare for people to go to the library and check out books in today’s time because of all the other options that are available.  For instance, with the use of the Nook, Kindle, and iPad alone, reading has increased because of the accessibility.  It is so much more accessible to people, a person can download a book in less than a minute and have it accessible.  The fact that technology is so portable and compact these days encourages people to have these devices on hand and it also encourages reading.  It is amazing how far technology has come and a blessing that technology can be used to further reading and education in this world.

         Another aspect of education that is mentioned in the book is the increasing number of women going to school and college during 1865-1914.  The same is held true today and it is especially noticeable at TCU where the girl to guy ratio my freshman year was three to one.  It is encouraging to see so many women going to college.  It seems crazy that this was not normal during that time.  This shows just how far education and women’s rights have come since the time period between 1865 and now.               

The American Dream in the midst of war

John Brown’s Last Speech given by John Brown and From A Memorial Discourse given by Henry Garnet display a unique relationship in which both men are fighting for the antislavery mission, yet they go about it in different ways.  At first I did not think that these two texts seemed to connect in any way, but after delving deeper into the speeches, I found that they share qualities of similarities and differences.  These texts both agree in the fact that slavery is wrong; however, Brown goes about bringing justice in a way directly opposite of Garnet.  The time period and the circumstances were different when each speech was given and this detail cannot go unnoticed.  Brown’s speech was given in 1859, while Garnet’s speech was given in 1865. The Civil War took place starting in 1961 until 1965; therefore, it is important to see that Brown’s speech was given before the war began and Garnet’s speech was given at the end of the war.

In relation to the American Dream, it was hard for me to see the relationship that either of these text had to it.  I found that these texts surrounded the idea of slavery and the way in which each man went about expressing their thoughts and ideas in different ways as abolitionists.  However, since we are discussing the American Dream, I found that Brown represents the idea that hard work and a willingness to fight and stand up for what you believe in is crucial in life, even if it means death.  In Brown’s fight for abolition he took an active role and tried to bring about change and this demonstrates that in America, that individuals can fight for what they believe in, even if it cost lives. The quote, “now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I say let it be done” (1358).  Brown is willing to die for his cause and this displays that he wants the American Dream to be attainable for all people in America.  Slaves should be given their rights!  Brown fights for the idea in the American Dream that all are equal, everyone has rights, and America should be a place for a better life.  He is willing to die for these ideals and he in fact does.  

While, Garnet does not go about abolition in the same form as Brown, it is obvious that they share the American Dream ideal in that all are equal and should have all the same rights as Americans. Garnet states, “when, in every respect, he shall be equal before the law, and shall be left to make his own way in the social walks of life” (1376).  He is referring to the American Dream that surrounds the idea of coming from rags and obtaining riches.  All Americans should have the chance to make his or her own way in life.  Garnet makes a plea for justice for African Americans for the right to a dream in America; these African Americans should have the right to the same American Dream as any other American and Garnet makes this clear. He asserts, “Let slavery die” so that the American Dream can be attainable for all in America (1378). 

I think that Garnet’s speech is more persuasive because he displays the fact that justice is needed and true freedom and equality is needed in America for the American Dream to be within reach for the multitudes of others in the nation that have never been given a fair change to achieve the American Dream.  His speech is more positive than Brown’s and sheds light on the fact that action has been made, but still more needs to be made. 

I believe that many in the House of Representatives that heard Garnet’s speech would have been persuaded by his wise and insightful words.  I also think other African American and Northerners would agree with his stance.  However, Brown’s harsh speech to the court I do not think had a great an impact.  He was stern and spoke in a manner that displayed that he did not do anything wrong in fighting back against slavery.  I think 19^th century readers would have had more positive response to Garnet’s speech. 

The geographic location during this time would have been of great importance.  At the height of the Civil War, the battle between the north and the south was grand.  The difference in belief was radical and especially over the issue of slavery so audience was a major issue for these men when giving their speeches.  The north represented the idea for abolition and the freedom of slaves, while the south was the opposite.  The northerns would have been the only people receptive to these men’s points of view.