“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."
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)