Response to second inaugural adress

I think that Lincoln's second Inaugural adress was a very great speech, and it had great Ideas for reconnciliation wiht the south after the war was won. It was also a great appeal to the religious side of people, which both southerners and northerners could understand, and it did not accuse the southerners exclusively of causing the war. The adress is very good at looking towards the future, but it seems to accept that the north and south would try to get along after the war. Perhaps it is a display of Lincoln's own good character that he believed the North and South could be so easily reconciled. I think overall the adress was good, but I bet that it bothered many of the southerners, who did not desire reconciliation.

Week 14 Blog

the second great awakening was a time of great religious upheaval, especially in New York where Joseph smith lived. In such circumstances it is easy to see that he became confused as to who or what to believe. Furthermore there was dissension even in Joseph's own family, several of his siblings and his Mother were Presbyterian, while Joseph's father and oldest brother, were not members of any organized church, despite their deep spiritual beliefs. Joseph Himself had significant Methodist leanings, at least until the first vision. It is easy to see why Joseph was confused. Less easy to see is how he arrived at the conclusion that he must ask God which curch, if any, to join. Most people in Joseph's day went to a minister, or looked in the bible themselves to find such answers. Joseph did in fact do both, and it was probably because of the "democritization" of religion, that Joseph decided to ask God directly. there were so many ministers of religion, all with their own interpretations of the Bible. Had Joseph resided in another country, he would not have had to face such a plethora of biblical interpretations. But in america, because people had easy access to the Bible, various churches had sprung up, all based on their own interpretations of the Bible. Another motivator for Joseph to ask God directly, which Church, if any, he should join, was the fact that his father, despite being a deeply religious man, did not participate in the services of an organized religion. Another thing about the first vision that understanding the second great awakening helped me understand, was its receival. One would think that amidst all this religious turmoil, ministers would be glad to recieve revelation directly from god, but I think that by the time the first vision came around the people were tired of false prophets, which the second great awakening produced, and believed that revelation came from the devil. Thus some were trying, in their point of view, to save Joseph from evil.

Amazing Grace Blog

Well I'm not quite sure how I'm supposed to write 800 words on why it took so long for the international slave trade to be ended. To me it seems to be all greed. In Amazing Grace the people trying to prevent slavery from being abolished are those who are heavily involved in it themselves, and make a great profit from it. As the film demonstrates, in the scene were Wilberforce rolls the huge scroll through parliament, there were a great many people opposed to the slave trade, but the people making the laws in parliament benifited from it, and thus were unlikely to make the slave trade illegal. the situation was the same in much of the world, the people in power benifited from slavery so much, that would not dare attack it in any way, fearing to damage their power and wealth by doing so. In some places and times they represented the majority, that is the mjority of the populace was for the slave trade, the majority supported the slave trade, but in others they were only self-serving. Even if the majority of the population had wanted to outlaw the slave trade they still needed representation in the legislature in order to manage it, and the Legislature would not do it. This is pretty simple to me. Of course there is a reason that slaves were profitable, free labor, that is. (the following has nothing to do with Amazing Grace, except that it talks about slavery, I'll get back to the movie later) I think that one of the main reasons (all based on Greed) for slavery was that there was no replacement. there was no other way to get such cheap (or free) labor. Slavery thus persisted, since there was no way to get the same output, with a comparably small input. However in the 18th century significant technological advances were made, allowing work to be done by machines rather than slaves. This was not applicable everywhere though. Agricultural based economies still required massive ammounts of slaves to function as before, and to meet the new demands for food created by the industrial revolution. This increased demand for slaves led to an increase in the slave trade, naturally people made money off of this, and didn't want to stop making it. Furthermore, the demand for slaves continued to grow, because people needed food, and factories needed raw products. Thus the slave trade became more profitable, not less as one might expect. OKay back to talking about how the movie relates to ending the international slave trade. So one of the reasons that the slave trade took such a long time to end, that I think the movie does a good job of showing, is that people didn't know how bad the slaves were treated. Or perhaps they just didn't want to know. but anyways, when they took the people by the slave ship in the movie, it seems that the people are genuinely astounded that conditions are so bad. Of course some people did know how bad the slave ships were, but most of the people who knew were part of the slave trade, and naturally did not want to endanger their occupation. But for the great many people who had no experience with the horrible conditions on slave ships, there was almost no reason to question the validity of the slave trade. Among other reasons that the slave trade was so hard to stop was the fact that there were a great many racists in the 18th and 19th centuries when slavery was in its heyday. Part of this racism was invented to create the illusion that slavery was just, and to be expected, but another, perhaps larger part of it was the result of european technological supremacy. This supremacy made the europeans think that they were better than the Africans. Europeans also believed that they had a societal supremacy too, further enhancing their sense of superiority. It would have been easy for most whites, with their percieved sense of superiority, to simply write the slaves off as inferior blacks, not worth saving, or perhaps they were meant to be slaves. Most Whites may not have known about the horrible conditions on the slave ships, but almost all of them believed that their race was superior. Under these conditions making the slave trade illegal would be almost impossible, Resistance from the Legislature was bad enough, but even without it, most people did not know or did not care about the slave trade. The slave trade was only stopped when people knew about it, people cared about it, and when there was an economicaly viable alternative to slavery. This is why it took so long for the slave trade to end, it required a society in which knowledge could be spread, and it required the first industrial revolution.

wk 12 blog

The crandall printing mueseum was a pretty cool place. I think it's quite odd that it took about 400 years for major improvements to be made to the printing press, especially considering how far other technology advanced in the same period. It also makes it much more amazing that it was developed so early though. I suppose that the reason for this was probably that there was not as much demand for printed materials, as there was for modern weapons, or new forms of transportation, or new farming technology, etc. I did really like the linotype machine though, it was really cool. I also think that it's amazing that they were able to print how much they did, it seemed to take a whole bunch of work, and I imagine that it wasn't all that profitable. Oh and that little model of the gold plates looked really cool. All in all the trip to the Crandall mueseum was worth it, even though I was really tired that day.

week 11

There are many reasons why the women's rights movement was slow in getting started. One of the major reasons was that the women, especially in the U.S, were spread out. This was because the U.S. was primarily agricultural. One should note that it was not until the first industrial revolution in america that any large organizations started to have an effect on policy, simply because they did not have enough people to organize effectively before. Organizations also formed due to the expansion of the vote, more voters meant more people who cared about issues, and more people that would try to adress them. However the majority of groups excluded women, because they felt that the women's place was at home raising children, and because women were not enfranchised, and thus should not be involved in politics outside of the home. So initially women could not organize because there were not enough of them in a given area to have a serious effect, and then they were excluded from political organizations, denyng them another chance to organize. However population density, especially in the north was increasing, as were economic oppurtunities for women, as well as oppurtunities to join societies such as benevolent societies which allowed women to meet together and work for the benifit of others. Most societies were formwed in the north, because the south remained very agricultural based, and the women were spread out that meetings were, for the most part impractical. Women's societies in the north, however, expanded increasing in size and purpose. Some women began temperance societeies, to prevent alcohol comsuption, others joined abolitionists. By joining these societies women gained expierience in organizing to accomplish a goal. Despite this the prevailing attitudes of the day were that women should remain at home, raising children to be good citizens, not campaigning for abolition, or temperance, and certainly not for their own rights. But many women had realized that they were in a state similar to that of the slaves, and began to campaign for their own rights. But this was not enough, in the U.S. the prevalent attitude was that women did not need the vote, because their husbands would vote as they would. The early societies for women's rights also lacked support because many of their members were considered abnormal, and eccentric, and because of this label other women were reluctant to join with them. I believe another reason that women were slow to organize for their own rights is that they were busy "campaigning" for other things, such as abolition, temperance, etc. While this would prove valuable later as women began to organize even more, I imagine that it was incredibly time consuming, and while women may have wished for their rights, I think they saw that it would be easier to win at abolition, and chose to devote their resources there, to help further a cause they knew was good, and which did not carry the stigmas of the women's rights movement. Of course another major obstacle to women's rights was that the majority of women were, in fact, raising children, as society believed they should be. This is undoubtedly an immense task, and very time consuming. Families were generally large, and women would therefore have many children to look after, and would be thus occupied for many years. It is likely that some women who occupied themselves raising children were hostile to those in the women's right movement, because they believed that they had not fulfilled their duties of raising and caring for their children. Hostility from other women no doubt slowed the growth of the women's rights movement. It is safe to say that in general women were slow to organize into women's rights groups because of societal ideas about the role of women. However, earlier on the concerns were more logistical, it was simply to hard to get enough like-minded women together. On a completely unrelated note, I was just walking outside the moon had a nice bright wide halo, but noone else looked up, so no one else saw it. I thought, wow what a waste, what's the point of the moon having a halo if noone looks up to see it, then I thought about how nobody reads this blog, so why do I bother writing it? please post any answers as comments, oh and if you bothered to read this, then please "bother" to look up when you go outside, the sky is much cooler than this boring old blog. (note: this was added hours after I posted this for the first time)

blog 8

Amistad was a great movie, I really liked it, but I wonder how historically accurate it is. I suspect that a great amount of the scenes involving the Africans in prison were fabricated, seeing as noone at the prison spoke... eh... whatever language the African's spoke, and thus would have no Idea what they were saying, and therefore couldn't have reported it. This is a shame because my favorite seen of the movie was the scene where the African with the Bible was talking to Cinque, about the pictures in the bible. It was cool that even he could recognize that Jesus was a great man, and without being able to read he managed to get the story pretty right. It was a good movie seen, but it's historical validity is highly circumspect. Another scene I liked a lot was the case set before the supreme court, which could be more accurately portrayed since most court cases have records. Of course, I doubt the presentation was really so dramatic. Being a history major I would like to look in to this case further, but seeing as I have school I don't have that much time. Anyways the movie was great, I just don't know how much of the story I believe.

blog #6

Well the thing that intrigued me most about "a more perfect union" was the fact that the people at the convention couldn't seem to compromise. I mean really after months of debate you think they would have realized that neither side was going to accept the full proposal of the other side. and the larger states not keeping their part of the deal with the smaller states at first, that was just retarded. I'm pretty sure there was more going on at the convention then a stupid repetitive argument. I felt like the first five minutes of the movie were just stuck on replay, until the last five minutes of the movie when the states finally did compromise. I understand the issue of proportional representation, and I agree with it, but when the large states failed to allow for a house with equal representation I was very angry (mostly because the movie was already getting boring, especially since I've seen it before). anyways since this blog doesn't have a word limit I'm going to stop repeating myself (like the movie did).

blog 5

There were many issues that the founding fathers had to wrestle with, before they finalized the constitution. They had to decide which government form to chose, how to use it, what powers to give it, what powers the states would retain, etc. These issues were complicated a lot by the recent enlightenment in Europe, with which the founding fathers were intimately familiar. There were a great amount of enlightenment proposals on how government should work. The founding fathers were familiar with Locke, who proposed natural rights, as we have seen in the declaration of independence which almost exactly quoted locke, the only variation being the change from the pursuit of property to the pursuit of happiness. Having already established that there were some universal rights, and that the purpose of government was to protect these natural and universal rights, the founding fathers were now left to choose what government system could best protect the rights of the people. There were many forms of government to choose from, and all of them had advantages and the founding fathers knew this. the first attempt at governing the united states the articles of confederation was not a good government system. The government under the articles of confederation was incredibly weak, it had no power to tax, it could not print money, it did not establish a national army, and it could not pass resolutions without unanimous vote, essentially the states were independent nations bound by an alliance. The founding fathers saw that this did not work, and thus were more inclined to have a central government with real authority, however some were inclined to go back to a monarchy, pr similar institution, because they believed that since the articles of confederation had not worked democracy could not work with all of the states. This was of course not a very popular option among the founding fathers, given their recent expierience with the abuse of power in the British monarchy. Of course democracy had it's defenders as well, however the support for general direct democracy was greatly decreased by shay's rebellion. which showed the americans just how dangerous mobs could be. The exclusion of the two extremes still left a plethora of government systems many of which were theoretical, and untried. The founding fathers chose to develop a new system of their own, one that would protect the rights of the people, but also prevent the mob rule, and anarchy that the articles of confederation allowed. Unfortuneately, as the founding fathers knew, governments tended to become corrupt. Any existing government system, even most of the theoritical ones, no matter how good it started would eventually deteriorate into anarchy or tryranny. Therefore if the founding fathers wanted to make a lasting government they would have to prevent this from happening, by allowing the government to be flexible to meet the new challenges, thus preventing anarchy. They would also have to have a system to ensure that the government could not easily become corrupted. This was what led to the system of checks and balances, which made sure that no one person had all the power in the government, and that all of the branches of government had ways to prevent the others from unrighteously excercising their authority. Furthermore the founding fathers left much of the power traditionally laying with central governments with the state governments, which could if the situation dictated, join against the central government to prevent the federal government from abusing its power. Clearly the founding fathers had a lot to think about when framing the constitution, and if I may say so, they did an excellent job with it, although it seems we disregard their laws quite a bit.

Blog number 4

The John Adams Movie was actually pretty good, I liked it, it was pretty realistic, and in general really good. However I was expecting more brilliant orration from John Adams, according to the paper we read he spoke for two hours, the movie was not even that long, and lots of it was focused elsewhere. I understand that they couldn't show a full two hours of John Adams talking, but it didn't seem like they even tried to give the impression that he spoke for two hours, at a time. The dialogue of the congress in the movie seemed to be primarily one-liners designed to insult the other members of the congress, and while it is more entertaining than long monologues, it doesn't give an accurate impression of the continental congress at all. I really think they should have had more of John Adams speaking about independence, in the congress. I think that the best scene involving the congress was when Mr. Dickinson had his long monologue before leaving the congress, intentionally allowing the Declaration of Independence to be ratified in his absence. The bad dialogue at congress is my only serious compaint though, the rest of the movie seemed excellent. The dialogue at home was pretty good, and it seemed like the characters actually cared about what was going on. The scene with the cannon going past the Adams' house was pretty good even though it was completely made up. It showed how much some of the colonists were worried about the british when Mrs. Adams grabbed her husbands gun and powder horn at the sound of an approaching army. I also liked the scene at home where the children were molding musket balls, as far as I know this is pretty accurate historically, and in the movie it showed the children's support of the revolution, and their father. The scene with the letters was just weird, but it did show Mrs. Adams love of her husband, and his love for her. I also liked the scene with the smallpox vaccination, it was pretty realistic, and seemingly accurate, it also shows what smallpox was like, and helps the audience better understand its threat to people. It also is a good intro to the scene with Adams' daughter sick, because it shows what can happen to one who becomes seriously infected with the pox. My favorite scene in the movie was the scene after the battles of Lexington and Concord, when Adams rides to the scene, and finds the battle over. It is an accurate depiction of the situation after a battle, the wounded and the dying are screaming, and so are their friends and family, it's a powerful scene and I really liked it. The scene also seems to show that Adams' place is not as a soldier, as if his lack of military service needed justification. I also like the scene shortly after the battle of bunker hill, when the wounded are carried past the Adams' house, it also shows the suffering of the soldiers, which was great, and shows that well known people were dying, not just obscure seperatists. All in all the movie was pretty well done.

Blog#3

to be Honest I don't really like art, and going to an art museum is not my idea of a fun activity. But I suppose that the types and shadows exhibit was pretty nice, although I still felt very uneasy in the art museum. I liked one of the first pieces, the scuplturey one, to me it looked a lot like the figure on the right side was throwing out some means of support to the left side figure which appeared to be falling. I guess it was really well done, but I have no idea because I don't study art. I also liked the picture of the Prodigal son, it is one of my favorite parables. It is interesting how the picture shows the father coming down the stairs to meet his son, I think it shows that Christ had to come down from heaven to help us, so I guess that makes it a good type/shadow. The clothe piece with the bread was a bit weird, but it was pretty cool looking. The picture of the glass was not very expressive to me, but it was still a very good painting. the painting of the food on the table was very interesting, it seems to show the restoritive power of the atonement. the food on one side seems rotted and and useless, while on the other side it is full of life and color. It seems to emphasize the fact that with out the atonement life is pretty meaningless, but with it life is there, and meaningful. The picture of Job seems to be a great depiction of how christ's life was. Job, sick and dying, praises the lord, while his healthy friends are praying, but telling him that he has done some wrong to become sick. Similarly christ was accused of sinning by the pharisees, who acted righteous, but were not, and in fact helped to cause christ's suffering. The picture of the mountain at the beggining of the exhibit was pretty amazing, and I have always liked mountains. Mountains symbolize temples, which are great. They are also great because they symbolize grandeur, and glory, as well as constants (although they aren't really permanent). They also show the grandeur of christs creations, and sometimes make me feel insignificant. Mountains are also great for defensive ground, which brings to my mind helaman 5:12 which is about being built upon the rock of the redeemer, who is christ, so that when the devil comes against you you can resist him.

The meaning of the title "the revolution of sober expectations" is that the american revolution was a revolution bounded by reality. The founding fathers did not hope to create a Utopian society that would exist forever. The founding fathers therefore placed limitations on their revolution, to prevent anarchy. Of course as the article states this did not develop overnight, it came in two segments, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. The declaration of Independence is most surely a sober document, it does not even propose a plan for a coloial government, which surely reflects the reality that the revolution could fail, and that even if it succeeded there was no sure way to govern it and ensure its existence. Furthermore the declaration, anticipating the intervention of other nations, clearly outlined the causes of the break with england, this would allow other nations to support the U.S.' cause with a clear conscience. The founding fathers realized the political necessity of this. The second part of the revolution came several years after the first. The first attempt at government, the articles of confederation, had failed. The government established under it lacked any real power, and thus could not stand, the founding fathers realized this, and set out to establish a new government. The debate to establish the constitution was necessary, and the founding fathers realized this too, and allowed it to continue until they had a workable document. This to shows that the revolution was one of sober expectations, the founding fathers did not expect to produce a document that would satisfy everyone and solve all their problems, they knew they would need to compromise, and thus they had one of the greatest debates of history. It is important to note that even through this great debate the founding fathers were unable to completely deal with the question of slavery, they realized this and did not try to go beyond their limits. The document they produced was also an excellent compromise. It had the bill of rights, which was what many of the states were holding out for. But it also provided for a much more powerful government. Of course the founding fathers realized that any government could become corrupt, so they provided for a series of checks and balances. This ensured that if one branch of the government became corrupt it would not be able to unjustly excercise its power, but instead be stopped by the other two. this shows that the founding fathers knew that men would become corrupt and try to seek power, having seen this in their day. it was a reflection of their knowledge of reality that they did this. They also input safeties to prevent mob rule, such as the electoral college. This shows that they were mindful of the possibility of anarchy, which was the result of the French revolution, which had nothing to prevent mob rule, nor checks and balances to prevent Napoleon from becoming emperor. Clearly the American Revolution was one bounded by reality, or in other terms one of sober expectations.

Declaration of independence

The Declaration of independence is one of the most important documents in american history. Not only does it Declare the colonies independent from England, it also enumerates the abuses of English power leading up to the break with England. The main purpose of the Declaration is clear, it was written to formally declare the colonies and England seperate countries. However, it has many other purposes, such as to validate the revolution internationally, and nationally. Of imediate importance to the continental congress was national validation. The revolutionary war had been going on for over a year by the time the Declaration was written, and undoubtedly soldiers were beggining to wonder what they were fighting for. Without the declaration the war was a waste of life and resources, but with the Declaration the soldiers had reason to fight, they now had a goal that would require fighting, independence. The declaration also went a long way to persuading fence sitters, of which there were many, by enumerating the kings offenses against the colonies. This compilation of offenses, as well as the open revolt now declared as a war of independence, would rally some to the patriots side. The declaration probably also caused some loyalists to more activly support the british, since it openly stated that the patriots intended to break with england. Whilst it did give the americans cause to fight, it also gave the english justification to fight. now instead of fighting their countrymen they were fighting a new country, that had openly declared itself to be the king's enemy.
while the validation of revolution, and its open declaration had great effects in the colonies and england, they also had tremendous international effects. Not only did it lead to revolutions elsewhere, it may have saved the aerican revolution. The validation of war made, and the declaration of independence turned the war from an internal english affair into an international issue. This would allow other nations like France and Spain to officially join on the side of the americans, an oppurtunity they did not want to miss after their defeat by the English in the seven years war.
In all the declaration had farely positive effects, and without it the U.S. would not exist, obviously.