Thanks to Emily for sharing.Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Why was it so difficult to stop the international trade of slaves?
The trans-Atlantic slave trade plays a key role in the development of the history of this nation, and the history of the world. The film Amazing Grace depicts this segment of history with great relevance and intense passion. After viewing this depiction, I've mustered up a few reasons as to why I think the abolition of slave trade took as long as it did.
The reasons that are typically sited as prolonging the abolition are important to note. First off, the economic drive is a significant factor. Slavery was essentially the backbone to the original U.S. economy. The economic and social structure that existed allowed for money to be made while leisure was had. People understood that if slavery was abolished, so too would be the abolishment of high class living for many. As regrettable as this may seem, it is an inevitable fact that we like to be comfortable in the way we live, and slavery gave comfort to people who may not have otherwise been so.
The economically sound debate also argued that if Britain were to reject further participation in the slave trade, France would surely step in to reap existing benefits. Essentially, if they weren't the ones committing injustice, somebody would, and why should they miss out on the prize? It just made sense.
Another controversial rationale was religion. As we have examined in class, there are many people who have found ways to interpret the Bible as supporting slavery. Slaves existed in the Bible and there are justifications for upholding this tradition. On the same token, it was a fashionable notion to believe that Christians were far superior to any other sector of people. And that as Christians they were the only religion truly worthy of being called human beings. This extreme view augmented the perception of Blacks as an innately inferior race.
As human beings we are creatures of habit. We are prone to mimicking, following, and adopting what surrounds us. It is no surprise that the tradition of slavery was certainly a delay in the abolition of it. The very fact that children grew up with slaves enabled them to become desensitized to its tragedy and encouraged them of its regularity. Many people thought it would be unfair for them to abolish slavery after so many generations had the privilege of being its beneficiary. Oh the irony...
One factor that I thought of as I watched Amazing Grace was the truth that sometimes the people who have the will may not always have the way. Wilberforce certainly had the will to abolish the slave trade, and fortunately he had the way paved for him as a highly respected man in the political sphere. However, this combination is often hard to come by. I was reminded of the film/novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. This story is based in WWII Nazi Germany and is about a young family, led by the father, a Commandant to Hitler. The wife in this story, however, is anti-Nazi and strongly opposes the efforts of her husband. She had the will to change injustice. Unfortunately, as the wife of a commander, and a woman in a predominantly patriarchal society, the way for her to influence was not paved so clearly. Likewise, there was opposition to the slave trade in the day of its existence, but the opportunity for that opposition to combat evil prolonged the abolition.
My final argument for why the abolition of the slave trade took as long as it did comes back to the beginnings of our studies in this class, three words: protracted political debate. There is no denying that protraction was a significant and recurrent characteristic of our founding fathers. Although the founding fathers were not necessarily the direct abolitionists, the trend remains. It is in the process of coming to unanimous decisions, it is in the belief that there is power in the people and thus democracies subside, it is in the practice of discussion and debate, of convincing and proving. Here we wait patiently, yes. But here we find decisions. Here we make changes. Here we abolish. It is here that is protracted political debate.
Due to tradition, economic advantages, opportunity (or the lack thereof), religious misconceptions, and protracted political debate the abolition of the slave trade took a while to come to pass. However, let us not forget that the total abolition of slavery has yet to be completed. We are still fighting the battle of slavery, not in the same way as years passed, but still so very alive.
The reasons that are typically sited as prolonging the abolition are important to note. First off, the economic drive is a significant factor. Slavery was essentially the backbone to the original U.S. economy. The economic and social structure that existed allowed for money to be made while leisure was had. People understood that if slavery was abolished, so too would be the abolishment of high class living for many. As regrettable as this may seem, it is an inevitable fact that we like to be comfortable in the way we live, and slavery gave comfort to people who may not have otherwise been so.
The economically sound debate also argued that if Britain were to reject further participation in the slave trade, France would surely step in to reap existing benefits. Essentially, if they weren't the ones committing injustice, somebody would, and why should they miss out on the prize? It just made sense.
Another controversial rationale was religion. As we have examined in class, there are many people who have found ways to interpret the Bible as supporting slavery. Slaves existed in the Bible and there are justifications for upholding this tradition. On the same token, it was a fashionable notion to believe that Christians were far superior to any other sector of people. And that as Christians they were the only religion truly worthy of being called human beings. This extreme view augmented the perception of Blacks as an innately inferior race.
As human beings we are creatures of habit. We are prone to mimicking, following, and adopting what surrounds us. It is no surprise that the tradition of slavery was certainly a delay in the abolition of it. The very fact that children grew up with slaves enabled them to become desensitized to its tragedy and encouraged them of its regularity. Many people thought it would be unfair for them to abolish slavery after so many generations had the privilege of being its beneficiary. Oh the irony...
One factor that I thought of as I watched Amazing Grace was the truth that sometimes the people who have the will may not always have the way. Wilberforce certainly had the will to abolish the slave trade, and fortunately he had the way paved for him as a highly respected man in the political sphere. However, this combination is often hard to come by. I was reminded of the film/novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. This story is based in WWII Nazi Germany and is about a young family, led by the father, a Commandant to Hitler. The wife in this story, however, is anti-Nazi and strongly opposes the efforts of her husband. She had the will to change injustice. Unfortunately, as the wife of a commander, and a woman in a predominantly patriarchal society, the way for her to influence was not paved so clearly. Likewise, there was opposition to the slave trade in the day of its existence, but the opportunity for that opposition to combat evil prolonged the abolition.
My final argument for why the abolition of the slave trade took as long as it did comes back to the beginnings of our studies in this class, three words: protracted political debate. There is no denying that protraction was a significant and recurrent characteristic of our founding fathers. Although the founding fathers were not necessarily the direct abolitionists, the trend remains. It is in the process of coming to unanimous decisions, it is in the belief that there is power in the people and thus democracies subside, it is in the practice of discussion and debate, of convincing and proving. Here we wait patiently, yes. But here we find decisions. Here we make changes. Here we abolish. It is here that is protracted political debate.
Due to tradition, economic advantages, opportunity (or the lack thereof), religious misconceptions, and protracted political debate the abolition of the slave trade took a while to come to pass. However, let us not forget that the total abolition of slavery has yet to be completed. We are still fighting the battle of slavery, not in the same way as years passed, but still so very alive.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address
"Fellow-Countrymen: AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came. One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Problem with the Partisan
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. President here. As we discussed earlier in class, the two parties are meant to benefit our nation as a whole, not bring us down and cause contention.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Response 9
While pondering how I should approach the question "Why do you think it took so long before women decided to organize a concentrated effort to receive equal rights," I had to wonder how we quantify "so long," and in relation to what?
As a born and raised American woman, I understand what some of the hold ups may have been in the equal rights efforts for women. Since the beginning of time there have been separate roles for people, and in many cases, distinctly separate between genders. It is a common belief that women are made to work in the home. In most cultures, women are responsible for the caring and rearing of children, maintaining the home, cooking and taking part in tasks such as cleaning, sewing, weaving, molding of pots, and things of that nature.
As women are actively engaged in fulfilling their duties, it is common for men to be involved in a different realm of tasks. An indisputable reason is the difference in our physical bodies. Men and women are built differently. We have different structures which results in different types of strengths. Men generally have a greater upper body strength in comparison to women, which is helpful in lifting and building things. Women have unique bodies that are litterally made to bear children.
Another factor is the tradition of honoring male intellect and the need for their involvement in politics, business, decision making, theory development, philosophy, etc. This is obviously a controversial and debatable assumption. However, it must be concluded in the thought process of answering this question because it is an influencial element that has also existed since the beginning of time. Since women have had roles that are defined in the home, to complement these roles, men have had roles defined outside of the home. For a home and a family unit to be organized and to function, we need both. The issue should not be about who does what, but rather how it is done. It is still common for this tradition to be upheld in many homes in this country. And it is far more common that this tradition be seen in other countries throughout the world.
The fact that this type of organization of the home still exists all over the world makes me doubt the phrase that this process did take "so long." It is true that the effort to aliven women's rights was far after the effort toward equality in men. However, it is also true that real equality for men is still flawed in this country. We have not perfected equality in many instances even still. And the fact the women's rights was not too slow to follow the genesis of this country negates the opinion that it took "so long."
I cannot agree with this phrase because I know of the gender inequality and disparity that exists throughout the world. We are lucky to have as much freedom as we do. We are fortunate to have the rights that we do. We are a rare case, us American women, to have the endless opportunities availabel to us that are. It is both a blessing and a curse, because we are indeed blessed to be this fortunate, but it also makes us think we deserve so much more. And, we do. We all do. But we need not forget that we are a rare case, that we are a unique sect of the female population having all of this freedom, opportunity and choice available to us. We should not be blinded by the time it took for us to get this way into thinking that undermines the blessings we have. In fact it should instill us with a greater desire to fight for these same rights for all of the other women in this world who have far less opportunity and ability to make choices about their lives.
As a born and raised American woman, I understand what some of the hold ups may have been in the equal rights efforts for women. Since the beginning of time there have been separate roles for people, and in many cases, distinctly separate between genders. It is a common belief that women are made to work in the home. In most cultures, women are responsible for the caring and rearing of children, maintaining the home, cooking and taking part in tasks such as cleaning, sewing, weaving, molding of pots, and things of that nature.
As women are actively engaged in fulfilling their duties, it is common for men to be involved in a different realm of tasks. An indisputable reason is the difference in our physical bodies. Men and women are built differently. We have different structures which results in different types of strengths. Men generally have a greater upper body strength in comparison to women, which is helpful in lifting and building things. Women have unique bodies that are litterally made to bear children.
Another factor is the tradition of honoring male intellect and the need for their involvement in politics, business, decision making, theory development, philosophy, etc. This is obviously a controversial and debatable assumption. However, it must be concluded in the thought process of answering this question because it is an influencial element that has also existed since the beginning of time. Since women have had roles that are defined in the home, to complement these roles, men have had roles defined outside of the home. For a home and a family unit to be organized and to function, we need both. The issue should not be about who does what, but rather how it is done. It is still common for this tradition to be upheld in many homes in this country. And it is far more common that this tradition be seen in other countries throughout the world.
The fact that this type of organization of the home still exists all over the world makes me doubt the phrase that this process did take "so long." It is true that the effort to aliven women's rights was far after the effort toward equality in men. However, it is also true that real equality for men is still flawed in this country. We have not perfected equality in many instances even still. And the fact the women's rights was not too slow to follow the genesis of this country negates the opinion that it took "so long."
I cannot agree with this phrase because I know of the gender inequality and disparity that exists throughout the world. We are lucky to have as much freedom as we do. We are fortunate to have the rights that we do. We are a rare case, us American women, to have the endless opportunities availabel to us that are. It is both a blessing and a curse, because we are indeed blessed to be this fortunate, but it also makes us think we deserve so much more. And, we do. We all do. But we need not forget that we are a rare case, that we are a unique sect of the female population having all of this freedom, opportunity and choice available to us. We should not be blinded by the time it took for us to get this way into thinking that undermines the blessings we have. In fact it should instill us with a greater desire to fight for these same rights for all of the other women in this world who have far less opportunity and ability to make choices about their lives.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Response 8
My response to Amistad:
I am no movie critic, but if I were, this movie would get a five star badge from me. I thought it was absolutely fantastic. This movie forced me to think about how many of the unjust acts that are part of our history are due to the fact that we are, in many ways, ignorant people. In order to win the case and free the slaves, Baldwin had to prove that they did indeed sail from Africa. To me, this is an example of how our ignorance is detrimental. There needed to be proof of where these slaves were from in order to grant them the unalienable rights that every human being is entitled to. Instead of authorizing the punishment of those who captured this ship and were actively involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade, they opted to try to charge the Africans with murder for protecting their rights and their lives. A significant turning point in the movie involved a conversation between John Quincy Adams and Mr. Theodore Joadson:
In essence, this was in fact the issue, there was no love and respect for these slaves. Oftentimes the simple fact of learning about people and acquiring understanding of their desires, their needs, their ambitions, their story, is the answer and the solution.
I am no movie critic, but if I were, this movie would get a five star badge from me. I thought it was absolutely fantastic. This movie forced me to think about how many of the unjust acts that are part of our history are due to the fact that we are, in many ways, ignorant people. In order to win the case and free the slaves, Baldwin had to prove that they did indeed sail from Africa. To me, this is an example of how our ignorance is detrimental. There needed to be proof of where these slaves were from in order to grant them the unalienable rights that every human being is entitled to. Instead of authorizing the punishment of those who captured this ship and were actively involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade, they opted to try to charge the Africans with murder for protecting their rights and their lives. A significant turning point in the movie involved a conversation between John Quincy Adams and Mr. Theodore Joadson:
Adams: “When I was an attorney a long time ago, I learned by trial and error, that whoever tells the best story wins. I offer that scrap of wisdom free of charge.”
Adams: “What is their story?”
Joadson: “Why, they are from West Africa.”
Adams: “No, what is their story? Mr. Joadson, you are from where originally?”
Joadson: “Why, Georgia, sir.”
Adams: “Georgia?”
Joadson: “Yes, sir.”
Adams: “Is that pretty much what you are, your story? No. You’re an ex-slave who has devoted his life to the abolition of slavery and overcoming great obstacles and hardships along the way, I imagine. That’s your story. Isn’t it? Hah. You and this young, so-called lawyer have proven you know what they are. They are Africans. Congratulations! What you don’t know, and as far as I can tell, haven’t bothered in the least to discover, is who they are. Right?”
This scene of the movie reminded me of the quote by Mary Lou Kownacki: "There isn't anyone you couldn't love once you've heard their story."
In essence, this was in fact the issue, there was no love and respect for these slaves. Oftentimes the simple fact of learning about people and acquiring understanding of their desires, their needs, their ambitions, their story, is the answer and the solution.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
La Amistad
Shackles don't define me,
That lion was just a stepping stone,
I'm not a big man just a lucky one,
Give us, us free.
That lion was just a stepping stone,
I'm not a big man just a lucky one,
Give us, us free.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Response 7
“The third charge against the House of Representative sis that it will be taken from that class of citizens which will have least sympathy with the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at an ambitious sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of the few. Of all the objections which have been framed against the federal Constitution, this is perhaps the most extraordinary. Whilst the objection itself is leveled against a pretended oligarchy, the principle of it strikes at the very root of republican government.”
This is drawn from James Madison’s Federalist paper No. 57: The alleged tendency of the new plan to elevate the few at the expense of the many considered in connection with representation. Although slavery is not included in Madison’s paper and was probably disregarded as being related to this issue, I find it to be intriguingly relevant.
As we have discussed on more than one occasion in class, slavery was an essential contribution to the foundation of this nation. Slavery provided Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and others the resources they needed in order to form a new government and found a country. Slavery provided the Founding Fathers with money. Due to slavery, the Founding Fathers were able to refrain from work and still have production for income. They were not required to harvest their own crops; they had slaves to do that job. The Founding Fathers escaped the need to sell their produce; they had slaves to do it for them. The money that was gained through this process was able to contribute to extensive libraries, which were rare and exquisite in that day. Few people had access to leather bound books, let alone shelves full of them. But for Thomas Jefferson, this was his lifestyle.
Another resource provided to them, time. Since the Founding Fathers bypassed the obligation to work, they had ample time at hand for leisure activities. These activities, for most, included hours and hours of reading each day. The Founding Fathers were able to study forms of government from antiquity. They had the opportunity to feast on books about governments in order to critcize the best and the worst. This ability was essential to the success of the foundation, for it allowed a protracted political debate, it enabled the education of existing options, it facilitated the governmental foundation.
//
As Dr. H so eloquently summarizes it, "The system they ended up destroying was the system that allowed them to destroy it."
This is drawn from James Madison’s Federalist paper No. 57: The alleged tendency of the new plan to elevate the few at the expense of the many considered in connection with representation. Although slavery is not included in Madison’s paper and was probably disregarded as being related to this issue, I find it to be intriguingly relevant.
As we have discussed on more than one occasion in class, slavery was an essential contribution to the foundation of this nation. Slavery provided Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and others the resources they needed in order to form a new government and found a country. Slavery provided the Founding Fathers with money. Due to slavery, the Founding Fathers were able to refrain from work and still have production for income. They were not required to harvest their own crops; they had slaves to do that job. The Founding Fathers escaped the need to sell their produce; they had slaves to do it for them. The money that was gained through this process was able to contribute to extensive libraries, which were rare and exquisite in that day. Few people had access to leather bound books, let alone shelves full of them. But for Thomas Jefferson, this was his lifestyle.
Another resource provided to them, time. Since the Founding Fathers bypassed the obligation to work, they had ample time at hand for leisure activities. These activities, for most, included hours and hours of reading each day. The Founding Fathers were able to study forms of government from antiquity. They had the opportunity to feast on books about governments in order to critcize the best and the worst. This ability was essential to the success of the foundation, for it allowed a protracted political debate, it enabled the education of existing options, it facilitated the governmental foundation.
//
As Dr. H so eloquently summarizes it, "The system they ended up destroying was the system that allowed them to destroy it."
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Response 6
"I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?" -Benjamin Franklin
I love this thought provoking question from Mr. Benjamin Franklin. It is intriguing to imagine the faith that existed in the hearts of the Founding Fathers. It was interesting to see in the movie, "A More Perfect Union," the prayers of George Washington and the great concern with his relationship with God.
I think it is important that we recognize the power of God's hand in the establishment and the fall of an empire. It is important to remember His role in the writing of history. I think for many this is a neglected truth.
After viewing this movie I was impressed with the portrayal of the humility of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. At times Franklin was well aware of his abilities, but he was sure to rely on the guidance of the Lord. He had the faith that it was He who had been the deliverer thus far and would continue to do so. Washington was humble about his abilities and was willing to admit failure and short coming. He was the first to run to his knees when reminded of the Divine help that was needed in the formation of this government.
The mere fact that this quote from Franklin came from an address at the Constitutional Convention solely on prayer says a lot about the priorities and wisdom of these men. We could use a greater deal of this in our system today.
I love this thought provoking question from Mr. Benjamin Franklin. It is intriguing to imagine the faith that existed in the hearts of the Founding Fathers. It was interesting to see in the movie, "A More Perfect Union," the prayers of George Washington and the great concern with his relationship with God.
I think it is important that we recognize the power of God's hand in the establishment and the fall of an empire. It is important to remember His role in the writing of history. I think for many this is a neglected truth.
After viewing this movie I was impressed with the portrayal of the humility of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. At times Franklin was well aware of his abilities, but he was sure to rely on the guidance of the Lord. He had the faith that it was He who had been the deliverer thus far and would continue to do so. Washington was humble about his abilities and was willing to admit failure and short coming. He was the first to run to his knees when reminded of the Divine help that was needed in the formation of this government.
The mere fact that this quote from Franklin came from an address at the Constitutional Convention solely on prayer says a lot about the priorities and wisdom of these men. We could use a greater deal of this in our system today.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Response 5
The fundamental questions that the Founding Fathers wrestled with before they even began writing the Constitution included the ideal v. the real government; sovereignty; freedom; and human nature. At the basis of the Constitution is this fundamental principle: government. The Founding Fathers knew there needed to be government, there needed to be a law. They understood the human predicament that there is a cyclic nature involving competing groups, tyranny, revolution, and anarchy. They knew that of the two, tyranny and anarchy, there is no better option. They had a sound understanding that both tyranny and anarchy are potential consequences under the rule of mortal beings. They even knew that up until that point in history, there had not been a government which had outlasted either tyranny, or anarchy. Every government before the foundation of this nation had fallen, had failed, had succumbed to the seemingly inevitable result of an overthrow of a tyrant by a revolution. The Founding Fathers knew that neither tyranny nor anarchy is desirable. What they did not know was the solution to this extremism. They wrestled with options for balancing the predicament that had existed since antiquity.
The four options that may have been considered were these: Monarchy, Classical Republicanism, Libertarianism, and Liberalism. Of these four, no official and conscious choice was made. Each one presented various options and viewpoints that contributed to the answers of their questions and concerns, but no single option had all of the answers. Up until this point, there had been no society to maximize on the intersection of government, freedom and human nature.
The essential elements that contributed to the formation were structure, participation, law, custom & tradition, moral sense and leadership. The Founding Fathers knew there needed to be structure to the government, they knew of the necessity for a self sustaining system that could balance and maintain its power. They also understood that the participation of citizens was an essential element to the formation. People need to feel a sense of belonging; we need ownership over that which we must preserve. The Founding Fathers saw the need to incorporate experiences from England in order to have success. These men were looking for a common notion of right versus wrong and needed people with a vision. These elements contributed to the foundation of the United States of America. Above all else, the Founding Fathers knew they were creating a new government; something completely original with no formula to apply. If they were to replicate another government that had already existed they would also be replicating the same consequences. The purpose of creating a government, not simply establishing one, was to tackle the problem of government once and for all.
It’s a remarkable blessing that the Founding Fathers were able to see far beyond their lifetime with great concern. They knew the creating of a new government would need the flexibility and possibility to adapt. They had the far-sighted mind frame to build a government that would be sustainable. Not because it would be ideal but because it would accept human nature as a key component in its success, the fact that it’s fallible, that it has its vices and that it will never be a utopia.
The four options that may have been considered were these: Monarchy, Classical Republicanism, Libertarianism, and Liberalism. Of these four, no official and conscious choice was made. Each one presented various options and viewpoints that contributed to the answers of their questions and concerns, but no single option had all of the answers. Up until this point, there had been no society to maximize on the intersection of government, freedom and human nature.
The essential elements that contributed to the formation were structure, participation, law, custom & tradition, moral sense and leadership. The Founding Fathers knew there needed to be structure to the government, they knew of the necessity for a self sustaining system that could balance and maintain its power. They also understood that the participation of citizens was an essential element to the formation. People need to feel a sense of belonging; we need ownership over that which we must preserve. The Founding Fathers saw the need to incorporate experiences from England in order to have success. These men were looking for a common notion of right versus wrong and needed people with a vision. These elements contributed to the foundation of the United States of America. Above all else, the Founding Fathers knew they were creating a new government; something completely original with no formula to apply. If they were to replicate another government that had already existed they would also be replicating the same consequences. The purpose of creating a government, not simply establishing one, was to tackle the problem of government once and for all.
It’s a remarkable blessing that the Founding Fathers were able to see far beyond their lifetime with great concern. They knew the creating of a new government would need the flexibility and possibility to adapt. They had the far-sighted mind frame to build a government that would be sustainable. Not because it would be ideal but because it would accept human nature as a key component in its success, the fact that it’s fallible, that it has its vices and that it will never be a utopia.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Response 3
One of the pieces of art that had a great effect on me was Christopher Young's Man of Sorrows. I was deeply touched by the message of the painting through its contradictions and paradoxes. In this work, Young has depicted Jesus Christ through the shape of a window frame, as if we are catching a glimpse of His trial and His sacrifice. In the painting, Christ has on His crown of thorns and is currently bearing the cross. These are the plain, obvious, and objective facts of the piece. Through further examination we see there are deeper meanings and truths to its message. Christ is holding the cross, but although it appears to be heavy and difficult to bear, he carries it with ease. And although the depiction signifies that Christ has yet to complete His sacrifice, His pensive face seems to be contemplating anything but the coming moments He will endure. A third contradiction is the overall sense of idealism. The body of Christ is very chiseled and almost model-like. The painting creates the feeling that this is as ideal as this situation could possibly be, and the illusion that this reality was in fact an ideal occurrence.
After scrutinizing the facts and physical features of Young’s painting, I came to find the intent of this piece. At first, I thought the contradictions were simply a result of his perspective, of which I could not agree. But I quickly realized that this was purely his way of conveying a message. The message is that our Savior was, in essence, a living paradox. His teachings are seemingly contradictory from the surface and His life was the ultimate ironic act. He lost His life so that we might keep our own. He gave His entire life to us and to The Father, so that we might complete ours individually. He taught that if we take His yolk upon us, we may be light. He preached to all the earth that if we lose ourselves, we will find ourselves. His counterintuitive nature is consistent through His teachings and His life. His insights are a result of His unique perspective and greater understanding of truth. The beauty in all of these paradoxes is, as Dr. H. put it, “the tension of a paradox yields a resolution.”
This message of Christopher Young’s painting highlights the truth of our Savior’s life, mission, sacrifice and death.
After scrutinizing the facts and physical features of Young’s painting, I came to find the intent of this piece. At first, I thought the contradictions were simply a result of his perspective, of which I could not agree. But I quickly realized that this was purely his way of conveying a message. The message is that our Savior was, in essence, a living paradox. His teachings are seemingly contradictory from the surface and His life was the ultimate ironic act. He lost His life so that we might keep our own. He gave His entire life to us and to The Father, so that we might complete ours individually. He taught that if we take His yolk upon us, we may be light. He preached to all the earth that if we lose ourselves, we will find ourselves. His counterintuitive nature is consistent through His teachings and His life. His insights are a result of His unique perspective and greater understanding of truth. The beauty in all of these paradoxes is, as Dr. H. put it, “the tension of a paradox yields a resolution.”
This message of Christopher Young’s painting highlights the truth of our Savior’s life, mission, sacrifice and death.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Response 2
Martin Diamond’s title, “The Revolution of Sober Expectations,” delivers the message of how sobriety and serenity not only enhanced, but facilitated the foundation of the American Revolution. Diamond’s claim that the Declaration was essentially only a “half revolution,” and that the completion came eleven years later, supports the notion that sobriety was indeed an essential characteristic of the Founding Fathers.
Sober expectations could in other words be referred to as realistic expectations or as I like to think of it, patient expectations. Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to have a healthy perspective of things to come. They understood that to expect a utopian society, a flawless government, perfect equality for all, or even the development and establishment of a government to blossom sooner than 1787 (after 1776 independence) were beyond plausible and far too irrational. They held the belief that civil liberty was an attainable goal. While there are some who prefer the absolute “reign of virtue,” “unlimited equality in all respects,” or mass fraternity and others who result in a classless society, or the “transformation of the human condition itself,” our Founding Fathers remained level headed and sober. They opted for a slightly vaguer and abstract goal, the principle of civil liberty. For some, this may be viewed as a cop-out. Mockery may accuse a leader whose main goal is “civil liberty” as one with a measly standard. But consistent with protracted political debates, time tells us otherwise. “Moderate civil liberty is a possible dream; utopian equality and fraternity are impossible dreams…the political pursuit of impossible dreams leads to terror and tyranny in the vain effort to actualize what cannot be.”
Our Founding Fathers could have set their sights higher and sought out perfection, but they understood human nature well enough to know that could only result in collapse. They knew that the future citizens of this country would be consistently flawed. They understood that inevitable truth and accepted it. Not only did they accept this fact but resolved to use it to the advantage of every American. An example of this sober expectation is the election system. Use politicians’ egos to our advantage by allotting a short time period in office. This short length of time will remind them that they will have to run again shortly and will once again need the approval of their constituency.
Diamond also suggests that sober expectations were closely linked with the first establishment of self-evident truths. Self-evident truths provide evidence for themselves by people living them. The evidence of these truths is not an immediate evidence, but a protracted one. The expectation of this evidence was realistic, patient, sober.
Specifically, the truth that all men are created equal is examined by Diamond with sobriety. “…men are created equal but only with respect to the equal possession of certain unalienable rights…what we are equally is equally free.” The expectation was never that there would be no distinctions among classes and gender, no differences among races, sexual orientation, or religion, the expectation was that every individual included in these groups would have an equal opportunity to be free. Free to choose the life they want to live, and free to live the life they’ve chosen. What a wise and sober expectation.
Sober expectations could in other words be referred to as realistic expectations or as I like to think of it, patient expectations. Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to have a healthy perspective of things to come. They understood that to expect a utopian society, a flawless government, perfect equality for all, or even the development and establishment of a government to blossom sooner than 1787 (after 1776 independence) were beyond plausible and far too irrational. They held the belief that civil liberty was an attainable goal. While there are some who prefer the absolute “reign of virtue,” “unlimited equality in all respects,” or mass fraternity and others who result in a classless society, or the “transformation of the human condition itself,” our Founding Fathers remained level headed and sober. They opted for a slightly vaguer and abstract goal, the principle of civil liberty. For some, this may be viewed as a cop-out. Mockery may accuse a leader whose main goal is “civil liberty” as one with a measly standard. But consistent with protracted political debates, time tells us otherwise. “Moderate civil liberty is a possible dream; utopian equality and fraternity are impossible dreams…the political pursuit of impossible dreams leads to terror and tyranny in the vain effort to actualize what cannot be.”
Our Founding Fathers could have set their sights higher and sought out perfection, but they understood human nature well enough to know that could only result in collapse. They knew that the future citizens of this country would be consistently flawed. They understood that inevitable truth and accepted it. Not only did they accept this fact but resolved to use it to the advantage of every American. An example of this sober expectation is the election system. Use politicians’ egos to our advantage by allotting a short time period in office. This short length of time will remind them that they will have to run again shortly and will once again need the approval of their constituency.
Diamond also suggests that sober expectations were closely linked with the first establishment of self-evident truths. Self-evident truths provide evidence for themselves by people living them. The evidence of these truths is not an immediate evidence, but a protracted one. The expectation of this evidence was realistic, patient, sober.
Specifically, the truth that all men are created equal is examined by Diamond with sobriety. “…men are created equal but only with respect to the equal possession of certain unalienable rights…what we are equally is equally free.” The expectation was never that there would be no distinctions among classes and gender, no differences among races, sexual orientation, or religion, the expectation was that every individual included in these groups would have an equal opportunity to be free. Free to choose the life they want to live, and free to live the life they’ve chosen. What a wise and sober expectation.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Response 1
The Declaration of Independence:
I must admit, this may be the first time in my life that I am taking a Historical and U.S. Government based class that I am genuinely excited about. In the past I have excluded history from being at the top of my academic preference list. Until the past year or so I thought politics and law were for everyone else besides me. An ignorant belief? Definitely. But, and I am afraid to say, a common one as well.
For how often we sing and hear the song "Proud to be an American," I am skeptical that the majority of Americans deeply feel what we sing. Living in a country that has been established for over two centuries, it appears to be easy, and far too ordinary to forget the founding of this nation, its power, its majesty and how invaluable it is to us all.
Our discussion last class on the Declaration of Independence was eye opening for me. I've always had a dear appreciation for our founding fathers, for their far-sightedness, for the liberty they indirectly blessed me with and for the chance I have to live in a country that allows me to believe and worship as I choose, because of their revolt. However, for me, the tribute that I owe them was made surer, the debt I will never be able to repay was intensified, and the precious gift they gave this world was magnified by examining the Declaration. A clearer understanding of what the Declaration of Independence is truly all about, the terms on which it was founded, and the act of dozens of men risking their life for goodness and truth inspires me to be a better patriot.
After our discussion, I realized I tend to focus more on the flaws and failures of our current American Government and Society rather than the beauty on which it originated. Dissecting the Declaration impressed upon me the strength that comes not from cynicism, but from optimism; not from criticism, but from action; not from forgetting, but from honoring.
As Dr. H professed, our Founding Fathers signed their name and as they signed their name, "they signed their death warrant." They signed their name, "they signed their families death warrant." They signed their name, "they signed their names as traitors" forever.
I want to not only mean the words, when I say them, but also live the words that have never been more true for me, that I am genuinely and sincerely "Proud to be an American."
I must admit, this may be the first time in my life that I am taking a Historical and U.S. Government based class that I am genuinely excited about. In the past I have excluded history from being at the top of my academic preference list. Until the past year or so I thought politics and law were for everyone else besides me. An ignorant belief? Definitely. But, and I am afraid to say, a common one as well.
For how often we sing and hear the song "Proud to be an American," I am skeptical that the majority of Americans deeply feel what we sing. Living in a country that has been established for over two centuries, it appears to be easy, and far too ordinary to forget the founding of this nation, its power, its majesty and how invaluable it is to us all.
Our discussion last class on the Declaration of Independence was eye opening for me. I've always had a dear appreciation for our founding fathers, for their far-sightedness, for the liberty they indirectly blessed me with and for the chance I have to live in a country that allows me to believe and worship as I choose, because of their revolt. However, for me, the tribute that I owe them was made surer, the debt I will never be able to repay was intensified, and the precious gift they gave this world was magnified by examining the Declaration. A clearer understanding of what the Declaration of Independence is truly all about, the terms on which it was founded, and the act of dozens of men risking their life for goodness and truth inspires me to be a better patriot.
After our discussion, I realized I tend to focus more on the flaws and failures of our current American Government and Society rather than the beauty on which it originated. Dissecting the Declaration impressed upon me the strength that comes not from cynicism, but from optimism; not from criticism, but from action; not from forgetting, but from honoring.
As Dr. H professed, our Founding Fathers signed their name and as they signed their name, "they signed their death warrant." They signed their name, "they signed their families death warrant." They signed their name, "they signed their names as traitors" forever.
I want to not only mean the words, when I say them, but also live the words that have never been more true for me, that I am genuinely and sincerely "Proud to be an American."
Just and Holy Principles, featuring George Q. Cannon
"...Now, during all these years, and subsequently, when we were being mobbed, plundered, and driven, the Latter-day Saints had an abiding faith, based upon the revelations that God had given through brother Joseph Smith, that the day would come when we should be a great people, when our virtues would be recognized, when our patriotism would be vindicated, when our loyalty to truth and to the principles of virtue and of good government, of pure republicanism would be established and the work of God with which we are connected become universal. Brother Joseph had predicted this. The Elders, the Saints, the people old and young believed it with all their hearts. The hatred of mobs, the burning of houses, the destruction of property, the expulsion from homes never weakened their confidence in the truth of these predictions, and their eventual fulfillment. That feeling had been implanted there by the Almighty; the Spirit of God had borne testimony to it in their hearts, and they never doubted it. Hated by a township, they foresaw the time when they would be hated by a county; hated by a county, they foresaw the time when they would be hated by a State; hated by a State, they foresaw the time when they would be hated by men who constituted a party who, it might be said, were the representatives of the nation; hated by a nation, they foresaw the time when they would be hated by other nations, until, as I have said, their loyalty to truth, to virtue, to good government, to good order and everything that is pure, holy and God-like, would be vindicated and established in the eyes of all men -- by the nations at large, as well as their fellow-citizens." (pp. 38-39)
"...We do not want liberty for ourselves alone; we desire every man to have it; liberty for Ingersoll, and all who believe as he does; liberty for the followers of Mohammed and all who believe in the Koran; liberty for Beecher and for those of his way of thinking; and even Talmage who has talked so badly about us, we would have him enjoy liberty; yes, and permit him to say what he pleases about us, to take what view he pleases of our belief and practices and to tell everybody what he thinks about them...All sects and all people should have this liberty, that is, liberty of conscience, liberty of speech and liberty of the press, as long as it does not degenerate into license, and interfere with the rights of others. We claim this for ourselves; we contend for it, and we shall contend for it until it is gained." (p. 41)
"...We do not want liberty for ourselves alone; we desire every man to have it; liberty for Ingersoll, and all who believe as he does; liberty for the followers of Mohammed and all who believe in the Koran; liberty for Beecher and for those of his way of thinking; and even Talmage who has talked so badly about us, we would have him enjoy liberty; yes, and permit him to say what he pleases about us, to take what view he pleases of our belief and practices and to tell everybody what he thinks about them...All sects and all people should have this liberty, that is, liberty of conscience, liberty of speech and liberty of the press, as long as it does not degenerate into license, and interfere with the rights of others. We claim this for ourselves; we contend for it, and we shall contend for it until it is gained." (p. 41)
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Just and Holy Principles, featuring John Taylor
"...No man, no government has the right, at the instigation of traitors, to destroy innocent men, women, and children. God never gave them such a right, and the people never gave it to hem, and they never had it." (p. 29)
"...We expect to see the nations waste, crumble, and decay. We expect to see a universal chaos of religious and political sentiment, and an uncertainty much more serious than anything that exists at the present time. We look forward to the time; and try to help it on, when God will assert his own right with regard to the government of the earth; when, as in religious matters so in political matters, he will enlighten the minds of those that bear rule, he will teach the kings wisdom and instruct the senators by the Spirit of eternal truth; when to him 'every knee shall bow and ever tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ.' Then 'shall the earth be full of knowledge like as the waters cover the sea.' Then shall the mists of darkness be swept away by the light of eternal truth. Then will the intelligence of Heaven beam forth on the human mind, and by it they will comprehend everything that is great, and good, and glorious.
In the meantime, it is for us to plod along the course God has dictated, yielding obedience to his divine laws, and be co-workers with him in establishing righteousness on the earth; and with feelings of charity towards all mankind, let our motto always be, 'Peace on earth and good will to men.'"
"...We expect to see the nations waste, crumble, and decay. We expect to see a universal chaos of religious and political sentiment, and an uncertainty much more serious than anything that exists at the present time. We look forward to the time; and try to help it on, when God will assert his own right with regard to the government of the earth; when, as in religious matters so in political matters, he will enlighten the minds of those that bear rule, he will teach the kings wisdom and instruct the senators by the Spirit of eternal truth; when to him 'every knee shall bow and ever tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ.' Then 'shall the earth be full of knowledge like as the waters cover the sea.' Then shall the mists of darkness be swept away by the light of eternal truth. Then will the intelligence of Heaven beam forth on the human mind, and by it they will comprehend everything that is great, and good, and glorious.
In the meantime, it is for us to plod along the course God has dictated, yielding obedience to his divine laws, and be co-workers with him in establishing righteousness on the earth; and with feelings of charity towards all mankind, let our motto always be, 'Peace on earth and good will to men.'"
Just and Holy Principles, featuring Orson Pratt
"The Almighty in some degree controls among mankind, as far as they will let Him. He controls the destinies of the nations, so far as they will permit Him; yet He does not control them so far as to destroy the agency of the human family, consequently, they, through their own corrupt notions, have departed from the great principles of government given by the Lord to man in the beginning. Mankind have felt a disposition to seek after some kind of government from the one established by the Almighty; and hence, they have all rebelled against His government, and they have introduced creeds and systems of their own manufacturing." (p.20)
"'Did the Lord have a hand in the organization of the United States government?' asks the enquirer. Yes, the Lord had a hand in framing its Constitution. Why did not the Lord, at that time, introduce a perfect government -- a theocracy? It was simply because the people were not prepared for it -- they were too corrupt; and although they had more integrity, more virtue, more honesty, and more sympathy and feeling for that which is just and upright and good, than any other portion of the inhabitants of the earth, and probably more than a great many now have, yet they were far from being prepared for the government of God, which is a government of union.
They were far from that, consequently the Lord inspired them to introduce a government that He knew would be just suited to their capacity, and hence it was that, consequently the Lord inspired them to introduce a government that He knew would be just suited to their capacity, and hence it was that He inspired Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and others to introduce those measures which they did, and to carry them out, and they were such as were just suited to the conditions and circumstances of the people; hence the government of the United States we, as a people, venerate and defend.
Why do we do this? We do it because God had His hand in the organization of it; His hand in the organization of it; He controlled it so far as He could do so without interfering with the agency of man...will the government of the United States continue for ever? No, it is not sufficiently perfect; and, notwithstanding it has been sanctioned by the Lord at a time when it was suited to the circumstances of the people, yet the day will come...when the United States government, and all others, will be uprooted, and the kingdoms of this world will be united in one, and the kingdom of our God will govern the whole earth, and bear universal sway; and no power beneath the heavens can prevent this taking place, if the Bible be true, and we know it to be true." (pp.21-22)
"'Did the Lord have a hand in the organization of the United States government?' asks the enquirer. Yes, the Lord had a hand in framing its Constitution. Why did not the Lord, at that time, introduce a perfect government -- a theocracy? It was simply because the people were not prepared for it -- they were too corrupt; and although they had more integrity, more virtue, more honesty, and more sympathy and feeling for that which is just and upright and good, than any other portion of the inhabitants of the earth, and probably more than a great many now have, yet they were far from being prepared for the government of God, which is a government of union.
They were far from that, consequently the Lord inspired them to introduce a government that He knew would be just suited to their capacity, and hence it was that, consequently the Lord inspired them to introduce a government that He knew would be just suited to their capacity, and hence it was that He inspired Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and others to introduce those measures which they did, and to carry them out, and they were such as were just suited to the conditions and circumstances of the people; hence the government of the United States we, as a people, venerate and defend.
Why do we do this? We do it because God had His hand in the organization of it; His hand in the organization of it; He controlled it so far as He could do so without interfering with the agency of man...will the government of the United States continue for ever? No, it is not sufficiently perfect; and, notwithstanding it has been sanctioned by the Lord at a time when it was suited to the circumstances of the people, yet the day will come...when the United States government, and all others, will be uprooted, and the kingdoms of this world will be united in one, and the kingdom of our God will govern the whole earth, and bear universal sway; and no power beneath the heavens can prevent this taking place, if the Bible be true, and we know it to be true." (pp.21-22)
Friday, January 15, 2010
Just and Holy Principles, featuring Brigham Young
Fact about Brother Brigham: His family relations on both sides were among the staunchest supporters of freedom in the American colonies.
"The question, What is a true Republican government?, is easily answered. It is a government or institution that is perfect -- perfect in its laws and ordinances, having for its object the perfection of mankind in righteousness. This is true Democracy. But Democracy as it is now is another thing. True Democracy or Republicanism, if it were rightly understood, ought to be the Government of the United States. They might have had that government long ago; but as it was said by my predecessor in the stand, "Whom the Lord would destroy, he makes mad;" consequently, he must take away the wisdom of that man, or of that people. No man or people possessing wisdom will give vent to wrath, for that is calculated to weaken, to destroy, to blot out of existence.
"When the Supreme Ruler of the universe wishes to destroy a nation, he takes away their wisdom in the first place, and they become insensible to their own interests, and they are filled with wrath; they give way to their anger, and thus lay the foundation of their own destruction. To him who seeks to save, he gives wisdom, which enables any people, nation, or individual to lay the foundation for strength, increase, and power. When we look abroad upon the nations, we can see this truth verified; and when we look at home in our own nation, it is no less verified. We see that wisdom is actually departing from the lawgiver, and the knowledge and the discretion the judge possessed years ago have vanished. We discern that the very policy adopted by the nations to fortify them in strength is calculated to sap their foundations. The axe is laid at the root of the tree, and all nations are filling up the cup of their guilt.
"Suppose I were speaking to the assembled millions of the inhabitants of the United States, what counsel or advice could be given to them that they might regain what they have lost? Can any temporal means be adopted to save them from the vortex of ruin into which they are fast approaching -- a doom which they never can avert without sincere repentance? Yes, there is seemingly a human policy, if adopted, that would snatch them from destruction. What is it? Let the people rise en masse to lay the foundation of a whilesome, independent, free Democratic (as the people call it) Republican government -- a government which, if carried out, will be perfect in itself.
"Let the people see to it that they get righteous men to be their leaders, who will labour with their hands and administer to their own necessities, sit in judgment, legislate, and govern in righteousness; and officers that are filled with peace; and see to it that every man that goes forth among the people as a traveling officer is full of the fear of the Lord, and would rather do right as a sacrifice than do wrong for a reward.
"What would be the result, if this course was adopted by the people of the United States? It would destroy the golden prospects of those who were seeking for gain alone, and men would be sought for, in the nation, State, or Territory, who were for the people, and would seek earnestly for their welfare, benefit, and salvation. We want men to rule the nation who care more for and love better the nation's welfare than gold and silver, fame, or popularity." (pp. 14-15)
"...If the Government knew what the wants of the people were, they would take away the salaries of political demagogues, and stop their running and their stump preaching, from one end of the land to the other, to make proselytes to their cause. This would have a tendency to put an end to party names, to party jealousies, and to party conflicts for ever. And the people should concentrate their feelings, their influence, and their faith, to select the best man they can find to be their President, if he has nothing more to eat than potatoes and salt -- a man who will not aspire to become greater than the people who appoint him, but be contented to live as they live, be clothed as they are clothed, and in every good thing be one with them." (p. 16)
"The General Constitution of our country is good, and a wholesome government could be framed upon it, for it was dictated by the invisible operations of the Almighty; he moved upon Columbus to launch forth upon the trackless deep to discover the American Continent; he moved upon the signers of the Declaration of Independence; and he moved upon Washington to fight and conquer, in the same way as he moved upon ancient and modern Prophets, each being inspired to accomplish the particular work he was called to perform in the times, seasons, and dispensations of the Almighty. God's purpose, in raising up these men and inspiring them with daring sufficeint to surmount every opposing power, was to prepare the way for the formation of a true Republican government. They laid its foundation; but when others came to build upon it, they reared a superstructure far short of their privileges, if they had walked uprightly as they should have done.
"What shall be done? Let the people, the whole American people, rise up and say they will have these abuses regulated, and no loner suffer political demagogues to gamble away their money, but turn them out of office to attend their own business. Let the people make a whip if not of good tough raw hide, of small cords at least, and walk into the temple of the nation, and cleanse it thoroughly out, and put in men who will legislate for their good, instead of gambling away their money and trifling with the sacred interests of the nation which have been entrusted to their keeping...Can the Constitution be altered? It can; and when we get a President that answers our wishes to occupy the executive chair, there let him sit to the day of his death, and pray that he may live as long as Methuselah; and, whenever we have good officers, strive to retain them, and to fill up vacancies with good men, until there are none who would let the nation sink for a can of oysters and a lewd woman...The progress of revolution is quite considerable in every government of the world. But is the revolution for the constitutional rights of the people in progress? No; it is on the retrograde. I know how they can be brought back to the people, and the Government be redeemed and become one of the most powerful and best on the earth. It was instituted in the beginning by the Almighty. He operated upon the hearts of the Revolutionary Fathers to rebel against the English King and his Parliament, as he does upon me to preach "Mormonism." Both are inspired by him; but the work unto which they are called is dissimilar. The one was inspired to fight, and the other to preach the peaceable things of the kingdom of God. He operated upon that pusillanimous king to excite the colonists to rebellion; and he is still operating with this nation, and taking away their wisdom, until by-and-by they will get mad and rush to certain destruction.
"Will the Constitution be destroyed? No: it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, 'The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.' It will be so." (pp. 17-18)
"The question, What is a true Republican government?, is easily answered. It is a government or institution that is perfect -- perfect in its laws and ordinances, having for its object the perfection of mankind in righteousness. This is true Democracy. But Democracy as it is now is another thing. True Democracy or Republicanism, if it were rightly understood, ought to be the Government of the United States. They might have had that government long ago; but as it was said by my predecessor in the stand, "Whom the Lord would destroy, he makes mad;" consequently, he must take away the wisdom of that man, or of that people. No man or people possessing wisdom will give vent to wrath, for that is calculated to weaken, to destroy, to blot out of existence.
"When the Supreme Ruler of the universe wishes to destroy a nation, he takes away their wisdom in the first place, and they become insensible to their own interests, and they are filled with wrath; they give way to their anger, and thus lay the foundation of their own destruction. To him who seeks to save, he gives wisdom, which enables any people, nation, or individual to lay the foundation for strength, increase, and power. When we look abroad upon the nations, we can see this truth verified; and when we look at home in our own nation, it is no less verified. We see that wisdom is actually departing from the lawgiver, and the knowledge and the discretion the judge possessed years ago have vanished. We discern that the very policy adopted by the nations to fortify them in strength is calculated to sap their foundations. The axe is laid at the root of the tree, and all nations are filling up the cup of their guilt.
"Suppose I were speaking to the assembled millions of the inhabitants of the United States, what counsel or advice could be given to them that they might regain what they have lost? Can any temporal means be adopted to save them from the vortex of ruin into which they are fast approaching -- a doom which they never can avert without sincere repentance? Yes, there is seemingly a human policy, if adopted, that would snatch them from destruction. What is it? Let the people rise en masse to lay the foundation of a whilesome, independent, free Democratic (as the people call it) Republican government -- a government which, if carried out, will be perfect in itself.
"Let the people see to it that they get righteous men to be their leaders, who will labour with their hands and administer to their own necessities, sit in judgment, legislate, and govern in righteousness; and officers that are filled with peace; and see to it that every man that goes forth among the people as a traveling officer is full of the fear of the Lord, and would rather do right as a sacrifice than do wrong for a reward.
"What would be the result, if this course was adopted by the people of the United States? It would destroy the golden prospects of those who were seeking for gain alone, and men would be sought for, in the nation, State, or Territory, who were for the people, and would seek earnestly for their welfare, benefit, and salvation. We want men to rule the nation who care more for and love better the nation's welfare than gold and silver, fame, or popularity." (pp. 14-15)
"...If the Government knew what the wants of the people were, they would take away the salaries of political demagogues, and stop their running and their stump preaching, from one end of the land to the other, to make proselytes to their cause. This would have a tendency to put an end to party names, to party jealousies, and to party conflicts for ever. And the people should concentrate their feelings, their influence, and their faith, to select the best man they can find to be their President, if he has nothing more to eat than potatoes and salt -- a man who will not aspire to become greater than the people who appoint him, but be contented to live as they live, be clothed as they are clothed, and in every good thing be one with them." (p. 16)
"The General Constitution of our country is good, and a wholesome government could be framed upon it, for it was dictated by the invisible operations of the Almighty; he moved upon Columbus to launch forth upon the trackless deep to discover the American Continent; he moved upon the signers of the Declaration of Independence; and he moved upon Washington to fight and conquer, in the same way as he moved upon ancient and modern Prophets, each being inspired to accomplish the particular work he was called to perform in the times, seasons, and dispensations of the Almighty. God's purpose, in raising up these men and inspiring them with daring sufficeint to surmount every opposing power, was to prepare the way for the formation of a true Republican government. They laid its foundation; but when others came to build upon it, they reared a superstructure far short of their privileges, if they had walked uprightly as they should have done.
"What shall be done? Let the people, the whole American people, rise up and say they will have these abuses regulated, and no loner suffer political demagogues to gamble away their money, but turn them out of office to attend their own business. Let the people make a whip if not of good tough raw hide, of small cords at least, and walk into the temple of the nation, and cleanse it thoroughly out, and put in men who will legislate for their good, instead of gambling away their money and trifling with the sacred interests of the nation which have been entrusted to their keeping...Can the Constitution be altered? It can; and when we get a President that answers our wishes to occupy the executive chair, there let him sit to the day of his death, and pray that he may live as long as Methuselah; and, whenever we have good officers, strive to retain them, and to fill up vacancies with good men, until there are none who would let the nation sink for a can of oysters and a lewd woman...The progress of revolution is quite considerable in every government of the world. But is the revolution for the constitutional rights of the people in progress? No; it is on the retrograde. I know how they can be brought back to the people, and the Government be redeemed and become one of the most powerful and best on the earth. It was instituted in the beginning by the Almighty. He operated upon the hearts of the Revolutionary Fathers to rebel against the English King and his Parliament, as he does upon me to preach "Mormonism." Both are inspired by him; but the work unto which they are called is dissimilar. The one was inspired to fight, and the other to preach the peaceable things of the kingdom of God. He operated upon that pusillanimous king to excite the colonists to rebellion; and he is still operating with this nation, and taking away their wisdom, until by-and-by they will get mad and rush to certain destruction.
"Will the Constitution be destroyed? No: it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, 'The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.' It will be so." (pp. 17-18)
Thursday, January 14, 2010
This is not a novel concept, but one full of power. Last semester I was privileged to take Survey of World Religions from Alonzo Gaskill (which I would highly recommend), where my eyes were opened to the idea that when it comes to religion, and human nature in general, we are a lot more alike than we are different. And we are considerably more alike than we give ourselves credit for. The beliefs that we hold vary in dimension, characteristics and all sorts of things, but we all have the same desires and needs and religion is what fulfills that. Brother Gaskill presented us with the idea that, "We are so good at being Mormons. We aren't always good at being Christians." I have thought long and hard about this idea, and am ashamed to admit it (a sign in itself), but I think he's so very right. I want to be a better Christian, not the perfect "Mormon." I want people to know that I believe in Christ because I make them feel better, feel happy, feel loved. I don't want people to be afraid that I will call them out for not wearing a white shirt to Sacrament meeting. In my mind, I think this is the idea Joseph Smith was essentially conveying. The idea that I need not judge others by our own standard, especially when they are of another faith, custom, culture, or tradition. I need not judge or criticize those of my faith nor compare myself to them. I need to be more like Jesus Christ. I need to be a better Christian, because I am.
Just and Holy Principles, featuring Joseph Smith
I'm only ten pages into this quick read, but wanted to highlight some things that struck me. This is all included in the Joseph Smith chapter:
"We ought always to be aware of those prejudices which sometimes so strangely present themselves, and are so congenial to human nature, against our friends, neighbors, and brethren of the world, who choose to differ from us in opinion and in matters of faith. Our religion is between us and our God. Their religion is between them and their God." (p. 4)
"I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth. In my feelings I am always ready to die for the protection of the weak and oppressed in their just rights. The only fault I find with the Constitution is, it is not broad enough to cover the whole ground.
"Although it provides that all men shall enjoy religious freedom, yet it does not provide the manner by which that freedom can be preserved, nor for the punishment of Government officers who refuse to protect the people in their religious rights, or punish those mobs, states, or communities who interfere with the rights of the people on account of their religion. Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. It has but this one fault. Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of popular fury." (p. 5)
"I am troubled by the condition of this land which declares the equal rights of man but allows the enslavement of millions and the unjust punishment of others. The officers of this noble nation should seek to ameliorate the condition of all, black or white, bond or free. The preamble to the Constitution means what it says without reference to color or condition." (p. 5)
"My cogitations, like Daniel's, have for a long time troubled me, when I viewed the condition of men throughout the world, and more especially in this boasted realm, where the Declaration of Independence 'holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' but at the same time some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours; and hundreds of our own kindred for an infraction, or supposed infraction, of some over-wise statute, have to be incarcerated in dungeon gloom, or penitentiaries, while the duellist, the debaucee, and the defaulter for millions, and criminals, take the uppermost rooms at feasts, or, like the bird of passage, find a more congenial clime by flight.
"The wisdom which ought to characterize the freest, wisest, and most noble nation of the nineteenth century, should, like the sun in his meridian splendor, warm every object beneath its rays; and the main efforts of her officers, who are nothing more nor less than the servants of the people, ought to be directed to ameliorate the condition of all, black or white, bond or free; for the best of books says, 'God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.'"
"...I am astounded at the silly moves of persons and parties to foment discord in order to ride into power on the current of popular excitement; nor am I less surprised at the stretches of power or restrictions of right which too often appear as acts of legislators to pave the way to some favorite political scheme as destitute of intrinsic merit as a wolf's heart is of the milk of human kindness..." (pp. 6-7)
"We ought always to be aware of those prejudices which sometimes so strangely present themselves, and are so congenial to human nature, against our friends, neighbors, and brethren of the world, who choose to differ from us in opinion and in matters of faith. Our religion is between us and our God. Their religion is between them and their God." (p. 4)
"I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth. In my feelings I am always ready to die for the protection of the weak and oppressed in their just rights. The only fault I find with the Constitution is, it is not broad enough to cover the whole ground.
"Although it provides that all men shall enjoy religious freedom, yet it does not provide the manner by which that freedom can be preserved, nor for the punishment of Government officers who refuse to protect the people in their religious rights, or punish those mobs, states, or communities who interfere with the rights of the people on account of their religion. Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. It has but this one fault. Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of popular fury." (p. 5)
"I am troubled by the condition of this land which declares the equal rights of man but allows the enslavement of millions and the unjust punishment of others. The officers of this noble nation should seek to ameliorate the condition of all, black or white, bond or free. The preamble to the Constitution means what it says without reference to color or condition." (p. 5)
"My cogitations, like Daniel's, have for a long time troubled me, when I viewed the condition of men throughout the world, and more especially in this boasted realm, where the Declaration of Independence 'holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' but at the same time some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours; and hundreds of our own kindred for an infraction, or supposed infraction, of some over-wise statute, have to be incarcerated in dungeon gloom, or penitentiaries, while the duellist, the debaucee, and the defaulter for millions, and criminals, take the uppermost rooms at feasts, or, like the bird of passage, find a more congenial clime by flight.
"The wisdom which ought to characterize the freest, wisest, and most noble nation of the nineteenth century, should, like the sun in his meridian splendor, warm every object beneath its rays; and the main efforts of her officers, who are nothing more nor less than the servants of the people, ought to be directed to ameliorate the condition of all, black or white, bond or free; for the best of books says, 'God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.'"
"...I am astounded at the silly moves of persons and parties to foment discord in order to ride into power on the current of popular excitement; nor am I less surprised at the stretches of power or restrictions of right which too often appear as acts of legislators to pave the way to some favorite political scheme as destitute of intrinsic merit as a wolf's heart is of the milk of human kindness..." (pp. 6-7)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)