I enjoyed viewing the movie, Amazing Grace immensely. It was very well done and I felt provided incredible insight into both the time period and the reality of what William Wilberforce and his companions were working so hard to accomplish. One thing that especially struck me was how young Wilberforce and his friend, William Pitt the Younger, were. Pitt, at age twenty-four, became the youngest individual ever to have been elected as Britain’s Prime Minister. It is often said that the old are wise. While there is a lot of truth to this statement, it is also true that there is wisdom in youth. The problem is human nature likes to reside its comfort zone. Individuals grow up accustomed to certain socially acceptable beliefs, behaviors, and ideas. Although creativity and innovation should be encouraged, it is sometimes fought against as rebellious because it deters from the norm. It is therefore sometimes necessary for young, inexperienced minds to bring about necessary changes in a society as they are as of yet uncorrupted by the stubborn “wisdom” of conformist society.
Such seems to have especially been the case with the slave trade. The slave trade was a socioeconomic tradition that had been practiced for hundreds of years. Unlike slavery in biblical and medieval times, the system had become rooted in racism due to ethnicity. It had become socially acceptable in society, and was just the norm. To question or speak out against the institution was preposterous. Most significantly, England and America had come to completely rely on the slave trade as a large part of their economy. It financially benefitted their societies too much for them to even consider eliminating the slave trade. Furthermore, white supremacy had dehumanized Africans in the minds of society, to the point where the trade not even considered by many as a question of ethics.
Looking back on history, the question becomes, why did it take so long to abolish the slave trade? The slave trade was a fundamental component of both British and American society. At the time of the American Revolution, it was felt by many slave owners that to require them to give up slavery, which they considered to be property, would be severely leading their own freedom. Because Africans were considered ethically inferior, raising the slave trade issue as a moral question proved to be very ineffective. What, then could men like William Wilberforce, do to effect change in such a stubborn society? In such a society, top priority was given to promoting economic prosperity, and little else truly mattered.
William Wilberforce was elected to the House of Commons in Britain’s Parliament at the age of only twenty-one, and incredible feat. He was extremely bright, and held very strong political and ethical opinions which he stood for. Through his journey of a political career, he dedicated two decades of his life to work tirelessly on bringing about successful abolition of the slave trade. His task may seem to have been relatively straight forward: put an end to the slave trade by persuading those in power. Because of how driven they were by the importance of the slave trade to the economy, however, persuading him to see the inhumanity of the institution proved to be impossible.
For example, in the movie I was moved by Wilberforce’s desperate attempt to awake an awareness of the inhumanity of the slave trade by forcibly showing it first-hand to members of the elite in positions of power, and their wives. They were simply enjoying their afternoon tea on a fine vessel, when Wilberforce has it arranged for an actual slave ship to pull up right next to them. He and his companions show these individuals what the slave trade really is from a moral and not just economic standpoint. The stench was unbearable, and many of these elitists were shocked. Yet, no moral argument seemed to make any difference.
Thus, the fight to abolish the slave trade was a long, grueling process that seemed at times to make progress, but became more and more of an impossible dream for men like William Wilberforce. In the end, these inspired individuals had to accomplish their goal from a political back road. They decided the way to end the slave trade would be to create laws that made the slave trade economically unprofitable. They would accomplish this by dropping the issue of slavery all together. So as not to arouse the suspicion of their opponents, Wilberforce and his colleagues had an unsuspecting member of the House of Commons introduce a bill to Parliament that made it a law to fly the British flag on all slave ships. Because of the current national conflicts with the Americans and the French, Wilberforce knew that many of these ships would be captured by enemy ships because the flag would make them easily identifiable as British ships. The enormous financial loss caused by this action made the slave trade less and less economically beneficial. Acting on what was economically best for the economy, Parliament had little choice than to accept the need to abolish the slave trade.
After so many years and years of so much effort, planning, and work, the slave trade was at last abolished. Accomplishing this task took such a long time, primarily because of the economic dependence Britain had come to place upon the slave trade. It was a way of life the members of society had grown up with, and they resisted change like the plague. As clearly portrayed in the movie, Amazing Grace, society was very economically driven. As such, a successful end could not be put to the slave trade until it was made a financially unprofitable institution. I feel that men like William Wilberforce and William Pitt were truly inspired. We owe so much to them and their dedication to what they knew to be right. They stood for freedom and equality and dedicated their lives to the cause. It is men with such vision and drive that truly change the world.
Saturday, 10 April 2010
Lincoln's Second Inaugral Address
I loved the opportunity to read and study Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address this past week. Abraham Lincoln has always been one of my greatest role models. He was not only an incredible president and leader, but also a phenomenal man. According to Philip Schaff, Lincoln was one of the rare men that actually understood what the Civil War was really about. Other historians note that through his leadership, Lincoln was trying to see what God intended, and act accordingly. I wish we always had such God-fearing men of strength and unmatched integrity to lead this great nation.
I was impressed to learn why Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address was so short. I always just used to think it was because all of his speeches were short and succinct, but that was definitely not all. In giving this speech, he felt that the nation already knew how things stood with the war. They knew the issue, and what was presently at stake, so he didn’t feel the need to use redundancy. The power of his speeches never ceases to amaze me.
From Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, I learned that there are several conclusions the revered president wanted to drive home. First was that the Civil War was God’s War. I thought it was insightful how he noted that both sides had prayed for the defeat of the other side. Brothers, enemies, were uttering the same prayers to the same God and hoping for the same results. Lincoln also established that this war was the result of the Nation’s sin; not the North or South alone. This is significant that he did not place blame on one side or the other. He truly saw the need for working together in both unity and love if this great Nation was to be rebuilt. Liberty, he said, must be re-founded based on charity and love.
I am so grateful for incredible men like Abraham Lincoln, who have led our great nation through some of its darkest hours. One of the most important things to recognize, however, is the role of religion in his life. As is especially seen through his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln acknowledged the hand of God in all things. He was a man of humility, integrity, and charity. I really feel that Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address provides us with a unique window to the past. It allows us to see and truly understand the environment, facts, and impact of our great nation’s Civil War. May we always learn from the past, live in the present, and look to the future.
I was impressed to learn why Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address was so short. I always just used to think it was because all of his speeches were short and succinct, but that was definitely not all. In giving this speech, he felt that the nation already knew how things stood with the war. They knew the issue, and what was presently at stake, so he didn’t feel the need to use redundancy. The power of his speeches never ceases to amaze me.
From Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, I learned that there are several conclusions the revered president wanted to drive home. First was that the Civil War was God’s War. I thought it was insightful how he noted that both sides had prayed for the defeat of the other side. Brothers, enemies, were uttering the same prayers to the same God and hoping for the same results. Lincoln also established that this war was the result of the Nation’s sin; not the North or South alone. This is significant that he did not place blame on one side or the other. He truly saw the need for working together in both unity and love if this great Nation was to be rebuilt. Liberty, he said, must be re-founded based on charity and love.
I am so grateful for incredible men like Abraham Lincoln, who have led our great nation through some of its darkest hours. One of the most important things to recognize, however, is the role of religion in his life. As is especially seen through his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln acknowledged the hand of God in all things. He was a man of humility, integrity, and charity. I really feel that Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address provides us with a unique window to the past. It allows us to see and truly understand the environment, facts, and impact of our great nation’s Civil War. May we always learn from the past, live in the present, and look to the future.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Joseph Smith's First Vision and the Second Great Awakening
I have been taught about Joseph Smith’s First Vision for as long as I can remember. It’s a story I’ve grown up with and know by heart. That is why I was shocked to hear during lecture of our last class period that Joseph Smith’s first recorded account of the First Vision is actually different than the one we are so familiar with, recorded in the Joseph Smith History. It is true that an individual’s account of an event changes slightly with each retelling, but how could something so important, so true, be at all different?
Learning about the Second Great Awakening helped me gain a new perspective and understanding of Joseph Smith’s First Vision. The Second Great Awakening was an immense religious fervor that swept across the young nation of the United States in the early nineteenth century. As observed by our textbook, this religious movement “stressed the right of private judgment in spiritual matters and the possibility of universal salvation through faith and good works.” The role of the individual in religion was redefined, opening a whole new realm of ideas and possibilities. Especially significant was the growing trend that ministers needn’t attend a prestigious educational institution and earn a degree to preach religion. Any individual had the right to speak and believe as they felt and to establish their own religious and moral universe.
I am in awe of the connection this has to our beliefs. Because of this trend, this time period of religious excitement provided the absolute best possible opportunity for the Restoration of the Gospel. Joseph Smith at this time resided in New York in what came to be known throughout the Second Great Awakening as the “burned-over district.” Joseph Smith was obviously affected by the movement’s emphasis on the right of private judgment in spiritual matters. He had the right to question which of all the churches he was to join.
What I found extremely interesting was his first recorded account of the First Vision. It differs from the account we read in the Joseph Smith History, because we are only told what pertains to us as a church. In addition to receiving an answer to this question, Joseph Smith received personal revelation from the Savior. In the account we are familiar with, we are told Heavenly Father introduced His son, but not told what Christ said to Joseph. That the timing of the Second Great Awakening and the First Vision coincide is definitely not a coincidence. I am so eternally grateful that Joseph Smith felt the need to discover what spiritual beliefs really were right for him and to question. This new perspective provided me with an even greater appreciation of the First Vision.
Learning about the Second Great Awakening helped me gain a new perspective and understanding of Joseph Smith’s First Vision. The Second Great Awakening was an immense religious fervor that swept across the young nation of the United States in the early nineteenth century. As observed by our textbook, this religious movement “stressed the right of private judgment in spiritual matters and the possibility of universal salvation through faith and good works.” The role of the individual in religion was redefined, opening a whole new realm of ideas and possibilities. Especially significant was the growing trend that ministers needn’t attend a prestigious educational institution and earn a degree to preach religion. Any individual had the right to speak and believe as they felt and to establish their own religious and moral universe.
I am in awe of the connection this has to our beliefs. Because of this trend, this time period of religious excitement provided the absolute best possible opportunity for the Restoration of the Gospel. Joseph Smith at this time resided in New York in what came to be known throughout the Second Great Awakening as the “burned-over district.” Joseph Smith was obviously affected by the movement’s emphasis on the right of private judgment in spiritual matters. He had the right to question which of all the churches he was to join.
What I found extremely interesting was his first recorded account of the First Vision. It differs from the account we read in the Joseph Smith History, because we are only told what pertains to us as a church. In addition to receiving an answer to this question, Joseph Smith received personal revelation from the Savior. In the account we are familiar with, we are told Heavenly Father introduced His son, but not told what Christ said to Joseph. That the timing of the Second Great Awakening and the First Vision coincide is definitely not a coincidence. I am so eternally grateful that Joseph Smith felt the need to discover what spiritual beliefs really were right for him and to question. This new perspective provided me with an even greater appreciation of the First Vision.
Saturday, 20 March 2010
Women's Rights Movement: What Took so Long?
I have often asked myself why it honestly took women so long to begin the movement toward achieving for themselves civil rights. I especially found this puzzling when I learned several years ago about the Antebellum period of the United States and the extent of social reform it brought about. Placing this desire for rights in context, however, it becomes apparent that women began in the efforts to achieve their rights because of the social expectations of the time. This desire for universal freedom also came about as a result of the influence of many others social reforms occurring at the time.
Because of incredible advances in technology in the period following the American Revolution, a certain expectation of social spheres began to develop within the domestic aspect of American society. Because less time had to be spent in working, women became increasingly confined to the home. They were expected to keep the home in order, as well as provide for the nourishment and learning of their children. The opinion that women were subordinate, even inferior to men began to arise. This emerging role for American women became known as the cult of domesticity.
Because of these defined ideals and roles of society, women had very little room to resist the domestic prison in which they increasingly found themselves. Women were expected to be agreeable, temperate, and helpful. Beginning and pursuing the course of achieving women’s suffrage was a revolution of women that emerged slowly but surely over time. As with any social reform, there always come back extremes through a broad range of opinions and ideals. The coming forth of the women’s rights movement of course led to feminists. The extremity of some of their ideals has still continued to act upon society and the way individuals are viewed even today.
Another significant factor contributing to the length of time it took for the women’s rights movement to really get rolling was all of the other social reforms taking place at the same time. Many women who would become women’s rights activists were first avid supporters and contributors of the Abolitionist movement. Much of the fervor for these social reforms came about as a result of the Second Great Awakening. It was a time of change, of revolutionary ideals where people came together in new realizations about society and the potential of their respective roles within it.
Though social reform such as the Abolitionist movement did contribute to a realization among women that they were also “slaves of society,” it may have also contributed to the delay of women’s suffrage efforts. Because slavery was such an encompassing issue during this period for the United States, it may be that the time was just not quite right for the women’s rights movement. People came to terms with the idea of redefining who was accepted as “free” individuals through a gradual process. For everything there is a season. It could be that the earlier social reforms that took place were just necessary steps on the path to the women’s rights movement.
I have always greatly admired the women who took the initiative to stand up and set forth revolutionary ideas that they felt strongly about. Women’s rights and independence was so completely against the socially acceptable norm of the time period. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and several others were phenomenal women, with unsurpassed strength and vision. As many of the other social reform groups of the time period, they fell to the “spirit of ’76.” They used the principles laid down by the divinely inspired Founding Fathers of this great nation to rethink and reform universal ideals of the rights and freedoms of the individual. Women were extremely significant contributors to social reform in the United States, and thus played a critical role in the shaping of our history, country, and the ideals upon which we are founded and stand for. I will forever be grateful for the strength, courage, and zeal of these truly amazing women.
Because of incredible advances in technology in the period following the American Revolution, a certain expectation of social spheres began to develop within the domestic aspect of American society. Because less time had to be spent in working, women became increasingly confined to the home. They were expected to keep the home in order, as well as provide for the nourishment and learning of their children. The opinion that women were subordinate, even inferior to men began to arise. This emerging role for American women became known as the cult of domesticity.
Because of these defined ideals and roles of society, women had very little room to resist the domestic prison in which they increasingly found themselves. Women were expected to be agreeable, temperate, and helpful. Beginning and pursuing the course of achieving women’s suffrage was a revolution of women that emerged slowly but surely over time. As with any social reform, there always come back extremes through a broad range of opinions and ideals. The coming forth of the women’s rights movement of course led to feminists. The extremity of some of their ideals has still continued to act upon society and the way individuals are viewed even today.
Another significant factor contributing to the length of time it took for the women’s rights movement to really get rolling was all of the other social reforms taking place at the same time. Many women who would become women’s rights activists were first avid supporters and contributors of the Abolitionist movement. Much of the fervor for these social reforms came about as a result of the Second Great Awakening. It was a time of change, of revolutionary ideals where people came together in new realizations about society and the potential of their respective roles within it.
Though social reform such as the Abolitionist movement did contribute to a realization among women that they were also “slaves of society,” it may have also contributed to the delay of women’s suffrage efforts. Because slavery was such an encompassing issue during this period for the United States, it may be that the time was just not quite right for the women’s rights movement. People came to terms with the idea of redefining who was accepted as “free” individuals through a gradual process. For everything there is a season. It could be that the earlier social reforms that took place were just necessary steps on the path to the women’s rights movement.
I have always greatly admired the women who took the initiative to stand up and set forth revolutionary ideas that they felt strongly about. Women’s rights and independence was so completely against the socially acceptable norm of the time period. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and several others were phenomenal women, with unsurpassed strength and vision. As many of the other social reform groups of the time period, they fell to the “spirit of ’76.” They used the principles laid down by the divinely inspired Founding Fathers of this great nation to rethink and reform universal ideals of the rights and freedoms of the individual. Women were extremely significant contributors to social reform in the United States, and thus played a critical role in the shaping of our history, country, and the ideals upon which we are founded and stand for. I will forever be grateful for the strength, courage, and zeal of these truly amazing women.
Friday, 12 March 2010
Armistad
I have always found the subject of slavery in America to be an incredibly sobering aspect of our history to study. It is a regrettable yet essential part of our history that can’t be ignored. Until watching the movie, Armistad, however, I had never heard of this slave uprising on a ship in the West Indies, leading to a significant Supreme Court Case.
Though it was fascinating to learn about this historical incident, I found the movie extremely valuable in its stirring portrayal of what the slave trade was really like. It’s one thing to read about it in text books, but quite another to watch actors really bring it to life. The way the Africans were chained, pushed around, whipped, and even killed, is absolutely abominable. They were treated worse than animals. It is beyond me to try and understand how anyone could consider a race of people as sub-human and treat them in such a horrific manner.
After examining one of those slave trips, like the Armistad, it is little wonder that so many Africans died on the journey to slavery. Way too many of them were cramped into very little living space, they were chained like animals, and given so very little food. If any of them showed any sign of illness or weakness, they were not given food, essentially condemning them to die. It was a barbaric scenario of survival of the fittest. I find it remarkable that so many were able to make it through the treacherous journey alive.
Africans were kidnapped from the happiness and security of their homes, often even by fellow Africans. They were ripped away from family, from their very lives to enter a living Hell of subjection to a group of people who saw themselves as superior. They were alone, frightened, and had no way of communicating to these strange, brutal barbarians. They contracted diseases and were provided with no care. The very world seemed to be against them, and it took extraordinary strength and courage to endure such pain and sufferings.
This movie opened my eyes even more to the reality of the slave trade and the conditions under which they were forced to suffer. Awareness is such an essential component of knowledge in any subject. Watching was a very sobering, yet extremely educational experience that I definitely value.
Though it was fascinating to learn about this historical incident, I found the movie extremely valuable in its stirring portrayal of what the slave trade was really like. It’s one thing to read about it in text books, but quite another to watch actors really bring it to life. The way the Africans were chained, pushed around, whipped, and even killed, is absolutely abominable. They were treated worse than animals. It is beyond me to try and understand how anyone could consider a race of people as sub-human and treat them in such a horrific manner.
After examining one of those slave trips, like the Armistad, it is little wonder that so many Africans died on the journey to slavery. Way too many of them were cramped into very little living space, they were chained like animals, and given so very little food. If any of them showed any sign of illness or weakness, they were not given food, essentially condemning them to die. It was a barbaric scenario of survival of the fittest. I find it remarkable that so many were able to make it through the treacherous journey alive.
Africans were kidnapped from the happiness and security of their homes, often even by fellow Africans. They were ripped away from family, from their very lives to enter a living Hell of subjection to a group of people who saw themselves as superior. They were alone, frightened, and had no way of communicating to these strange, brutal barbarians. They contracted diseases and were provided with no care. The very world seemed to be against them, and it took extraordinary strength and courage to endure such pain and sufferings.
This movie opened my eyes even more to the reality of the slave trade and the conditions under which they were forced to suffer. Awareness is such an essential component of knowledge in any subject. Watching was a very sobering, yet extremely educational experience that I definitely value.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Federalist Paper #51
In his Federalist Paper 51, James Madison addresses the problem of how to maintain a balance of power in developing the government for the new nation of America. The first step, he emphasizes, is to accept the human dilemma: a desire for power and natural tendency for corruption. He then suggests two primary solutions which he goes on to explain in great detail. To maintain a balance of power in a government, it is necessary to have implement a system of checks and balances, and to hold repeated elections for the respective government positions of office.
The vernacular with which Madison delivers this argument astounds me. It is incredible how much time and energy he put into researching governments as thoroughly as possible. He wanted to be absolutely sure that our government would be created as one meant to last. It would need to be a government for the people, different from any system that had yet been established in any civilization. I love his observation that “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” As this is definitely not the case, Madison then asserts that “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” Primary control in this matter results from a dependence on the people, or the consent of the governed. The secondary control then becomes auxiliary precautions.
For a successful, balanced government, power must then be divided up and distributed. In order to accomplish this arduous task, it becomes necessary to use the fact that people desire power as an advantage. To preserve liberty, there must be separate and distinct exercise of different powers of government. Having thoroughly explained his argument, Madison then proceeds in this essay to suggest a system of government divided into three branches. The executive and legislative officials of their respective branches should be appointed by election. Judicial officials must be appointed by the executive powers, with the approval of the legislative body. Security against concentration of power in one department is accomplished by giving those administering in each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist the encroachments of the others. Thus, ambition is used to counteract ambition.
Judicial officials are appointed differently than executive and legislative, primarily because peculiar qualifications are essential due to the nature of the permanent tenure of the position. The most dangerous branch of the government is considered the legislative branch. This is because they have their hands in the pockets of the citizens, so to speak. In other words, their power to levy taxes makes it necessary to exert extra control upon this governmental branch. To accomplish this, Madison suggests dividing the legislature into two distinct governing bodies. These, of course, are the House of Representatives and the Senate. Frequent elections keep these officials on their toes and necessarily loyal and subject to the people.
Through these three separate branches of government set up as a system of checks and balances, Madison summarizes that “The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” I also appreciate that he emphasizes the importance that “In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights.” In reading and understanding this paper, I was amazed and so grateful at the incredible feat the Founding Fathers accomplished in setting up the government of this great nation. It is also little wonder to me why James Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution.
The vernacular with which Madison delivers this argument astounds me. It is incredible how much time and energy he put into researching governments as thoroughly as possible. He wanted to be absolutely sure that our government would be created as one meant to last. It would need to be a government for the people, different from any system that had yet been established in any civilization. I love his observation that “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” As this is definitely not the case, Madison then asserts that “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” Primary control in this matter results from a dependence on the people, or the consent of the governed. The secondary control then becomes auxiliary precautions.
For a successful, balanced government, power must then be divided up and distributed. In order to accomplish this arduous task, it becomes necessary to use the fact that people desire power as an advantage. To preserve liberty, there must be separate and distinct exercise of different powers of government. Having thoroughly explained his argument, Madison then proceeds in this essay to suggest a system of government divided into three branches. The executive and legislative officials of their respective branches should be appointed by election. Judicial officials must be appointed by the executive powers, with the approval of the legislative body. Security against concentration of power in one department is accomplished by giving those administering in each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist the encroachments of the others. Thus, ambition is used to counteract ambition.
Judicial officials are appointed differently than executive and legislative, primarily because peculiar qualifications are essential due to the nature of the permanent tenure of the position. The most dangerous branch of the government is considered the legislative branch. This is because they have their hands in the pockets of the citizens, so to speak. In other words, their power to levy taxes makes it necessary to exert extra control upon this governmental branch. To accomplish this, Madison suggests dividing the legislature into two distinct governing bodies. These, of course, are the House of Representatives and the Senate. Frequent elections keep these officials on their toes and necessarily loyal and subject to the people.
Through these three separate branches of government set up as a system of checks and balances, Madison summarizes that “The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” I also appreciate that he emphasizes the importance that “In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights.” In reading and understanding this paper, I was amazed and so grateful at the incredible feat the Founding Fathers accomplished in setting up the government of this great nation. It is also little wonder to me why James Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution.
Saturday, 27 February 2010
A More Perfect Union
The creation of our United States Constitution was truly an incredible feat. There is no doubt in my mind that men like James Madison, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin were divinely inspired, and were preserved to come to the earth at that particular time. The innovative ideas woven into this conceived document would change the way man viewed himself as an individual forever. In watching the movie, A More Perfect Union, I was especially intrigued by the essential role compromise played in the development of our nation’s government.
As I watched the bright, stubborn James Madison fiercely struggle as he watched his ideas be debated, rejected, and altered into a form of government upon which all of the state delegates could agree, I learned a great deal. I sympathized with the frustration he felt. Human nature causes man to have difficulty in coping with criticism of his ideas, especially after putting so much effort, thought, and research in those ideas. How could the delegates expect to form a “more perfect union” if they could come to no conclusive agreement?
The wisdom of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin concerning this manner was truly inspiring to watch. They wholeheartedly supported Madison’s plan, yet they saw the importance of compromise. In Madison’s mind, his plan just needed the support of the majority. Washington and Franklin, however, understood the danger of winning by such a small margin. The states were practically equally divided on their opinion of how the government should be set up. I hadn’t realized before what a big fight the smaller states put up against the idea of a state’s population as the determinant for their representation in the legislative branch of the government.
I found Madison’s eventual acceptance of Sherman’s Compromise at the end of the movie a most intriguing insight. I saw the importance of never lowering your standards, expectations, or beliefs, but in still being teachable, even adaptable. Sometimes we get so set that our idea is the best, to the extent of pride. I loved that James Madison realized that the compromise was essential to the development of the government. Despite initial frustration and anger, he discovered that combining his ideas with the insights and experience of others would make for an even better government.
I still find it absolutely remarkable that those men were able to accomplish such an incredible feat in those sweltering weeks in Philadelphia that summer of 1787. They all came from such different backgrounds and experiences, represented different motives of the extremely diverse states, and all brought very different ideas about how a national government should be set up and run. How did they do it? I am grateful for the heated debates, the struggle, and the eventual compromise that at last led to the writing of the United States Constitution. Their arguments are a testament to the establishment and significance of liberty and freedom. The writing of the Constitution was truly divinely inspired.
As I watched the bright, stubborn James Madison fiercely struggle as he watched his ideas be debated, rejected, and altered into a form of government upon which all of the state delegates could agree, I learned a great deal. I sympathized with the frustration he felt. Human nature causes man to have difficulty in coping with criticism of his ideas, especially after putting so much effort, thought, and research in those ideas. How could the delegates expect to form a “more perfect union” if they could come to no conclusive agreement?
The wisdom of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin concerning this manner was truly inspiring to watch. They wholeheartedly supported Madison’s plan, yet they saw the importance of compromise. In Madison’s mind, his plan just needed the support of the majority. Washington and Franklin, however, understood the danger of winning by such a small margin. The states were practically equally divided on their opinion of how the government should be set up. I hadn’t realized before what a big fight the smaller states put up against the idea of a state’s population as the determinant for their representation in the legislative branch of the government.
I found Madison’s eventual acceptance of Sherman’s Compromise at the end of the movie a most intriguing insight. I saw the importance of never lowering your standards, expectations, or beliefs, but in still being teachable, even adaptable. Sometimes we get so set that our idea is the best, to the extent of pride. I loved that James Madison realized that the compromise was essential to the development of the government. Despite initial frustration and anger, he discovered that combining his ideas with the insights and experience of others would make for an even better government.
I still find it absolutely remarkable that those men were able to accomplish such an incredible feat in those sweltering weeks in Philadelphia that summer of 1787. They all came from such different backgrounds and experiences, represented different motives of the extremely diverse states, and all brought very different ideas about how a national government should be set up and run. How did they do it? I am grateful for the heated debates, the struggle, and the eventual compromise that at last led to the writing of the United States Constitution. Their arguments are a testament to the establishment and significance of liberty and freedom. The writing of the Constitution was truly divinely inspired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
