Hearing others out

I am currently reading a book defending American History as it is, warts and all. America, The Last Best Hope by William Bennett, if you care to know. It's a good read and does not back away from the tough questions.

There are things in the book which I must admit are insightful. One example is when he talks about the Three-Fifths Compromise, designed at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. We've always been taught that the compromise demeaned black slaves in counting each as 3/5 of one person. I do not doubt it. Yet Bennett points out that it actually served as an encouragement at least in some parts of the country to free the slaves. Remember that at the time of the Constitutional Convention all States except Massachusetts still allowed slavery. So for each slave freed a state increased its power in the Congress because it effectively gained population; states which kept people in chains lost representation, or at least it remained static. While far from the best argument for emancipation it's an interesting point, one that is rarely if ever mentioned in the schools. It demonstrates that many of the Founders, at least, were actively trying to end the peculiar institution.

On another occasion he quotes Benjamin Franklin as saying that the older he gets the less he trusts his own opinions and the more interested he becomes in the opinions of others. While I would never imagine myself on the intellectual level of Dr. Franklin, and while I cannot entirely agree with him, I have sympathy for his point. The older I get the more inclined I am to consider other views. I realize that does not always show in my writings and Facebook rants. But it's there in my calm, rational moments I assure you.

To be sure, truth is objective and knowable to all who openly and honestly seek it. There is a line in the sand which we must always trust is a true and undying mark if our actions are to have any merit at all. Arguing against slavery for example only has meaning if slavery is objectively, morally wrong for all people and at all times. Yet as to exactly what people think and how they come to think it, well, I do believe we need greater charity. They may well be wrong about their opinions and stances. But maybe they came to those points of view due to events and circumstances which are themselves entirely understandable if nonetheless errant. A man may be mad at God because his wife died and thus lash out at the Almighty. He's wrong to be mad at God. But that could be merely his grief speaking and not his reason. Our charity demands we give consideration of that.

I'm about half way through the book. But if the rest offers even only a couple more insights along the way I will have to consider it a good use of my time.