How often, to the point of cliché, has it become to give someone your word? How eager are we to accept one at their word? Is this just an example of clinging to a language expression that has lost its meaning? “How are you today?” “What? No I don’t want you to go into it, I just want you to say, ‘fine’ and be done with it.” As with our common vernacular habits, especially in greetings, I feel that to give our word, has lost some of the potency it once held. Our word once given should be counted upon by others but too often is not and for good reason. It seems a trifle that a man will say something and do quite another. It has become quite acceptable to the point of being expected that what a person says must be taken with a proverbial grain of salt. Why is that? Take politicians for instance; during a campaign we hear amazing promises of how that person is going to fix this and that, how they will make our lives better, how with the simple act of electing them we can kiss our problems goodbye. Do you believe them? I don’t think many people put much stock in this grandstanding but we do still tolerate it. That begs the question; do we like to be lied to? Have we somehow become so conditioned to hearing a lie that we now only wish for better liars?
It has been said that the only thing we can give and yet keep with us, is our word. Our word being more than just what we say but an extension of our own selves, an inanimate expression to be regarded or to be dismissed based on its worth to those who receive it. Honor may be another way of explaining this but that word can also conjure meanings not strictly related to honesty in what we say. Upon a time the honor of a man was based upon his honesty, his words being something to count on. Along with other physical actions and precepts, a man counted his word as dearly as his life. An example of this sentiment, tying one’s words to one’s very life, can be seen in an example that nearly changed history. The account of a young Abraham Lincoln summoned to duel an adversary by the name of James Shield. The incident began while Mr. Lincoln was still in the Illinois legislature, making a name for himself as a brash and witty politician. The row was between himself and a member of the opposing political party that oddly enough had been his partner in a bipartisan effort to help save a their financially floundering state only a short time before. Despite their history of working together, notwithstanding being at odds politically, the union quickly faded when Mr. Shields became the state auditor and Mr. Lincoln began to openly rebuke and even mock the positions his old partner came to espouse. Mr. Lincoln took his mockery to public view by means of the local paper. With letters to the editor, penned by an assumed identity, Mr. Lincoln berated Mr. Shields ceaselessly and was even joined by his future wife, Marry Todd and another friend by the name of Julia Jayne. The trio made a mockery of the actions of Mr. Shields and even took to lambasting completely fictitious circumstances all made to incite the public servant to rage. It worked. Upon pressing the editor of the newspaper, Mr. Shields was given the name of Abraham Lincoln as the sole detractor. The identity of the two women was withheld and not by coincidence but that is beside the point. James Shield now had the information he desired and immediately set out to force a retraction from Mr. Lincoln for the incendiary comments he had made.
Upon receiving a letter demanding such a retraction, Mr. Lincoln pertly requested that if any apology were to be expected, a more genteel letter of request was in order. This infuriated Shields, who upon hearing the response decided to up the ante. While dueling had become a much less frequent practice of deciding victory, it nonetheless was still held as a novel way of showing decidedly who won any debate. Mr. Shield sent the formal summons, at which point Lincoln realized the severity of the situation. He had never meant to infuriate his opponent to this point. He may have believed what he said but now he questioned if were the right things to say. Was it worth his life? In that moment Abraham Lincoln realized the weight of a man’s word and from that day forward a more prudent man emerged. The man that came to be can easily be traced back to this incident, where he learned the value with which some men hold their own honor. He began the practice of writing letters never to be sent, that he might relieve his own desire to scold and yet hold in check that aggression his outpouring would have induced should they become known. As he came to be counted one of the greatest orators of all times, Abraham Lincoln took this lesson to heart and allowed it to shape his life thereafter. The duel never came to fruition by means not wholly credited to Mr. Lincoln but at least in part to his physical stature as it relates to the Calvary broad sword “the chosen weapon for the duel” and perhaps also his willingness to agree on the type of retraction to be made in which to amend the honor of one James Shield.
This lesson in the value and consequence as it relates to honor and our word has too often been forgotten in today’s time where it is acceptable if not outright celebrated to be man of eloquence rather than honest. It seems we have little regard or faith in what others say and likewise, in our own speech, a commitment to honesty is heeded only when it seem convenient. What if you were called upon to defend something you said with your life? Of course the reason that duels ceased to be, as a means to dissolve differences, had to do with the terminality of the outcome. Truth was not always vindicated, though the propensity of believing their case to be grounded by the participants was most likely a very high margin. A man willing to die for what he says is most often granted a credence that otherwise may be bereft of him. Perhaps in our dissolution of the practice we forgot to hold any thought for the restraints it so naturally incurred. Not that a return to similar bloodshed should be considered but perhaps a substitute should be found. A man may be destroyed without losing his life. Look again at the politician for example; should the idea of honor be something revered by us and then to have one grandstanding on the pulpit of the electorate body be caught saying anything but the whole and unadulterated truth, could we then show a disdain for dishonesty? Could we show them to the door? Of course and just so I don’t leave anyone out or leave any to seek understanding for the preceding statement, do NOT elect them. While their life is spared the office they sought would be taken from their grasp. This would prove an even more gigantic a leap for mankind than others I can think of. Politicians are not alone of course and perhaps even too large an example to start with. Every person and every situation is unique and there could never be written a litany to precede the correct solution except for the general notion that all should be held accountable for what they say. The means and the reaction will inevitably change with every new day and yet the idea will always be. Another glaring example I can think of where widespread dishonesty is glaringly acceptable would be the advertisement industry. This is one that really seams harmless and perhaps it is but I am reminded again of that conditioning effect that I believe is the main cause for the rampart removal of honesty in our society. Look at any fast food commercial showcasing food that would pass for a five star dining experience the sight of which entices the senses into a fever of desire. Of course when we get there and the food arrives we see nothing like what we were promised but a shrunken counterfeit as it were, of the mouthwatering indulgence we anticipated. Again this in and of itself is cause for no real alarm and many may drop this book immediately upon the nit picking of such a miniscule matter but I am not trying address any one particular company or even fast food in general. It is only an example of where we are that we all know it to be a farce and yet we are fine with it. If we are fine with being mislead about the food we eat and similarly find it quite natural to be deceived by those we send to represent us in Washington, where else have we found comfort in untruth? I charge it to be all around us.
Think for a moment, your entire life and all those whom you have come into contact with. Who among them can you count on for everything they say? Look also inwards; how many people do you think count on your word as reliable? Reflecting on this may cause distress and I won’t begin to try and lessen the severity of it but don’t let it get you down. Recognition is the first step but I have found it to be possibly the most difficult. After recognition a simple choice is then made; does it matter to me? If it does then what will you do about it? Take this moment, this day, and decide whether a commitment to honesty is worth your consideration. Once taken upon yourself, the task could easily be seen as complete and truly the benefits of taking it only so far are rewarding indeed but there is one last step that can be taken. This last step can prove dangerous and yet also the most important in making a difference in the world around you. Simply put it is the act of swinging the same measure you hold to yourself to those around you, the demand for honesty in others. Not so much as a judge but more as the prosecuting attorney. Demand that the truth be applied when dealing in debate with others. When your points of argument are spun out of context, corral them back again and show disdain for your need to do so. If your words are well reasoned and established on grounds seeded in honesty, it is completely reasonable and justified to defend them and likewise, if another’s words are found to be a concealment of anything but the truth in its entirety, condemn it without prejudice.
