Massive Upheaval: The Napoleanic Era in Review

I was asked to evaluate the statement "The Napoleanic era was a time of great upheaval in the world". I personally would agree with this statement. During and after the time Napoleon was in power, there was a great deal of shifting and agitation not only in the countries of Europe, but both Americas as well. In Europe there was the Congress of Vienna, where many important decisions were made involving not only how to keep the now-dormant France in check, but also about distributing the land from nations toppled or destroyed by Napoleon's conquests. This Congress redrew the map of Europe, redefining the true powers on the continent. In South America, Simon Bolivar, believing that his country should be independent like the United States, began a great conquest, eventually uniting a great deal of the continent as nation independent from the Spanish: "Gran Columbia". America, in light of the unrest in Europe, and wishing to be immune from further interference by Europeans, put forth the Monroe Doctrine, which declared that the American land was no longer open to colonization by other nations, and was owned by the American people. The shockwave that was Napoleon had created ripples across the globe, and the world was being slowly being pulled into the modern era.

North and South: The Effects of the Industrial Revolution

Today I was asked to contrast the effects of the Industrial Revolution on both the south and north. The Industrial Revolution, with it's innovation, turned the north into a manufacturing region which enabled America to be dependent on itself, and not Britain, for manufactured goods. Ease of production in multiple industries continued to increase with each new invention. In the south there were different results. The dependence mentality of the south was so deeply entrenched that the people in it simply switched from importing goods from Britain to importing goods from the north. They didn't take advantage of the opportunity to manufacture, and the south remained a majorly agricultural society. The inventions in the south all revolved around production of cotton and the like (the gin is one example), and the slavery/cotton system remained a crucial part of the southern economy. While manufacturing cities grew in the north, the old plantations sat in the south. These two very different lifestyles clashed frequently on capital hill, notably in the event known as "the missouri question", and eventually the conflict escalated into the civil war.

The Federalist Party

Today I listened to another teaching by Rev. Rushdoony regarding the federalist administrations. These were the Washington and Adams administrations, taking place over the first twelve years of our government's existence. Washington was not a federalist in one sense. He did not want the country to fall into partisan politics. For this reason he included in his cabinet both federalists and democratic-republicans. At that time, the federalists were led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, while the democratic republicans were led by Thomas Jefferson. The federalists had a very loose interpretati0n of the constitution, and they wanted to make a strong central government. They came up with the idea of implied powers in the constitution (which caused no end of trouble). What's more, unlike most Americans, they liked the British, because they wanted good trade relations with them. American foreign policy under the federalists was a position of neutrality towards all countries, a position that avoided war with Britain by all means, and a position that was unfavorable towards alien immigration (naturalization took 14 years back then). The American government started under a cloud, almost bankrupt and therefore with little credit. Alexander Hamilton, the treasurer under George Washington, saw to this problem. First, Hamilton insisted that the United States had to pay all the debts, including the state's debts. This was unnecessary, since it was not the job of the government to pay state debts, yet it gave the U.S.A. some degree of foreign respect. How were these debts to be paid? By customs and duties on imports, excise taxes on several American goods(liquour was one of these things, the tax on it led to the whiskey rebellion, as farmers hated this excessive tax), and sale of federal lands in the west. The second thing Hamilton did was to create the Second Bank of the United States. It was a very powerful bank. The constitution forbade the government and states from using anything but gold and silver (they couldn't print money). But it didn't forbid banks, so the banks began to print millions in paper. However, they couldn't make it legal tender. It could be refused. As the money circulated it depreciated in value. Hamilton knew this would happen, but he wanted to get businesses rolling, so he created the bank to provide capital for new industry. And there was an industry boom. However, because printing money was an inflationary measure, the boom didn't last long. Eventually, the Second Bank of the United States would be wiped out by Andrew Jackson. The Democratic Republicans, who were for keeping the U.S. an agricultural community, were more supported by farmers and the like that were the Federalists, and the Federalist party died soon after the election of James Monroe.

The Missouri Question

When the Missouri Territory petitioned for statehood as a slave state, the free states went into an uproar. Mississippi and Alabama had just entered the union as slave states in 1817 and 1819, bringing the number of states up to 22, 11 slave, and 11 free. Northerners were already annoyed that the cheap labor in the slave states threatened to give the southern economy an advantage, and on top of that, the three-fifths slave voting rule gave the southern states a majority in the house of representatives. If Missouri joined, it would give the south a majority in the senate as well. New York representative James Tallmadge proposed an amendment ceasing further import of slaves, and freeing all slaves when they reached 25 (if they were younger at the time of the amendment), but it was shot down quickly. Debates raged, Congress fought, and the whole country was divided. Eventually, in 1820, the state of Maine also petitioned for statehood. The solution was now apparent. Both Maine and Missouri would become states, keeping the Senate even, and a new line of latitude was established, above which slavery was not permitted. However, this conflict was simply the brooding of the storm that was to be the civil war...

Women's Education in America

Today I read a speech by Emma Hart Willard, a woman who pushed for women's education. In her speech, which was given before the New York state legislature, she said that women could better teach children (because of their nature) then men. However, she said, women were not currently fit to teach because they themselves were not educated, due to the fact that colleges would not accept women. She believed that the nation would benefit from women's education, because the current men teachers would be free to pursue other jobs, and children would be better taught. She even went so far as to say that past republics had crumbled because women had not been allowed to give society the proper "tone". She also said that because women recieved a poor education, they made bad choices (such as spending too much money on frivolous things). She blamed this on the men, who "neglected our education". She suggested that housewifery be "taught on philosophical principles" so that it would "become a higher and more interesting occupation; and ladies of fortune, like wealthy agriculturalists, might find that to regulate their business was an agreeable employment". Right. It is interesting to note that one of the early graduates of Troy Female Seminary, a school that Willard founded, was Elizabeth Stanton, a feminist.

Democracy in America, Pt. 2

I read chapter 8 from Alex de Toqueville's "Democracy In America" today. He made a very interesting point in it. In his discussion about the executive branch, he talked for a long time about the exellency of the American election system, and how it created the least amount of agitation and disorder among the American people. But he had a problem with the idea of REELECTION. He noted some pros and cons. On the one hand, if a president is good, he is reelected, thereby prolonging his administration, and improving the country. But he believed that the cost outweighed the benifit. Reelection motivates the president to exclusively seek reelection during his first term, causing him to do things he would not normally do to attain it. The government of the country in a proper way becomes a secondary interest. This is a corrupting force in our government. In the words of Toqueville himself: "...in introducing the principle of reelection, they destoyed their work in part. They granted a great power to the president and took away from him the will to make use of it." I personally would agree with this. It is unfortunate that man has to design intricate check/balance systems of government to play upon man's greed and lust for power. The "ideal government" has never been acheived, because of the fallenness of man. And, until Christ comes, it never will be...

Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, pt. 3

I read a little more about Hegel today, and, from a Christian standpoint at least, his beliefs are nothing short of ridiculous. He believed that God's main goal was to "find himself, become aware of himself, coincide with himself", and that God (a word which Hegel used interchangeably with "the Idea") had to "alienate itself in order to find itself again." When Hegel looked at history, and saw that in ancient times only one man was free: the despot. In Greece and Rome, the Republics made several men free, but there were still many slaves. Hegel believed that all men were free in the Germanic world (Hegel was German). In the same way, he believed that the "Idea" was revealed through art (a sensual and imperfect revelation), through religion (a mental and more refined revelation), and finally through philosophy, the final perfection (Hegel of course, was a philosopher). Hence, Hegel's philosophy led right back to himself, and Hegel believed that he had "recapitulated and given expression to the autobiography of the divine." This is the result when a human tries to put himself on the same level as God. Tragic...and ridiculous.

Postmillenialism in America

I listened to another history lecture by Rev. Rushdoony today. It was about Postmillenialism and the war of Independence. In 1769 a English clergyman visited the middle colonies of America. He believed that "...the empire is moving westward, and everyone is looking forward with eager and impatient expectation to that destined moment when America is to give law to the rest of the world". America was still split up into colonies, yet everyone believed that it was to be the new center of the world. Many historians note that the predominant eschatology in America was Postmillenial. This is why so many could predict that America would have a great destiny and bring hope to the world. In fact, they predicted that by 2000 America would be a utopia, with a higher population than "the great empire of China". It was believed that it was impossible to defeat the British navy in the war of independence, yet America did, with only several hundred men and a few ships. No wonder the Americans believed Providence was behind them. When they had gained their independence, they believed that their goal was to go out and conquer the earth, that they were the "new Israel" of God. They believed that their young children should be educated in schools (which were typically taught by the pastor in the area) in which they would learn biblical truth. It was unusual in America to find a man who was uneducated. Prisoners from England who were dumped into America (most of these were people who stole because they were starving, and were not hardened criminals), were either converted to Christianity or at leas brought into line. Toqueville himself found America novel. He believed that, unlike the rest of the world, America could not be compared to ancient society because it was a completely unique situation. And he was right. God blessed America in amazing ways, and while it followed Him, it flourished.

Eschatology in History

Today I listened to another history lecture by Rev. Rushdoony. His lecture was about the eschatology(or beliefs about the end of all things) of St. Augustine. For example Premillenial, Amillennial, and Postmillenial are the three main branches of eschatological thinking. The Amillenial eschatology of St. Augustine was influenced by his Manichean backround.

Manicheanism said that there was two kinds of gods, and two kinds of being. On the one hand is the good god, who is spirit, mind, life. There is also the bad god, who is matter, desire, and darkness. The world, according to Manicheanism was divided in half. This worldview was twisted, believed that "spiritual" was good (this includes Satanic spirituality) and "material" was inherently evil, and it had a bad effect on Christianity. According to Manicheanism, you were a good man if you fled the material to the world of spirits. Because St. Augustine, who was a very theologically sound man, had embraced Manicheanism for a while as a young man, he had never truly forsaken it. He believed that Christians should withdraw from the world as one body, the church. There we must wait for the end of the world. Therefore, the essence of being saved was to retreat from the world. These monastic beliefs are embraced today in many denominations. The idea of the "rapture", a retreat at the end of the world, branched off from Augustinian beliefs. The "hippies" are a result of Manicheanism. What's more, Manicheanists occasionally switch what is right and wrong, and revert to Satan worship.

Postmillenial eschatology, on the other hand, embraced a worldview of victory. "Go out and conquer" was its battlecry. People with this worldview became great scientists and inventors, as a form of "conquest". The early settlers had this eschatology, which was why they came in the first place, to turn the wilderness into paradise. Anything less, they believed, was sin. However, only a small percentage of the people on the Mayflower were actually Christians. People who prayed before meals were believed by the rest of the settlers to talk to their plate. Why then, did they have such a social order? Because those who were Christians dominated American society, and held it together. Today, there is a much larger percentage of Christians in America, yet they no longer have the same mindset, and this has affected society. If more Christians today would have a dominion mandate, our world would be a very different place.

American Society and the State

Today I listened to a history lecture by Rev. Rousas Rushdoony on Alexis de Toqueville's book "Democracy in America", and the state of American society at that time. Toqueville said in his book: "society governs itself for itself." This absence of the more "official", strong state government would have perplexed many Europeans at that time. The true government at that time was a government of society and private associations. These associations were agencies created by the people to deal any problem or conflict that appeared. Because they were created whenever a problem was seen, there were very many of them. For example, as far as religious organizations were concerned, there were seperate organizations to distribute bibles, minister to indians, build chapels, etc. This abundance of societies was ridiculed by Europeans. Yet it kept America stable. For example, Salem, a small town that was founded by a few Protestant families, doubled it's population every few years, and yet as time passed, it's character did not basically change, even with a great inflow of foreigners. How did it keep it's Puritan character? Its societies taught the immigrants. The attitude in America was to try to meet every need imaginable. Large ammounts of time and effort poured in to minister to others who needed it. Most of the immigrants (for example, the Irish during the potato famine) were Catholic, but when they came to America, large numbers became Protestant . The Red Cross was extremely successful in America because of the mindset of it's people. Eventually, as America grew, relief efforts and aid spread worldwide, and America became the rest of the world's hope. Their government was not what we think of now as government. It wasn't Washington D.C. Government was to them:
1. The self government of the Christian man.
2.The government of the family.
3.The government of the church.
4.The government of your work.
5.The government exercisized by society, those that you live among.
Then, finally, there's the state. Rev. Rushdoony pointed out that it is when society ceases to govern itself that the state takes over. What Toquevile failed to notice was that the church was responsible for the old state of society. Christians fueled the old government. The tithe funded it. Today, SOMEBODY has to foot the bill for relief and welfare, and right now it's the civil government. The State has picked up what society used to do, and politics and greed have corrupted and foiled the effort. The more that the freedom to be responsible for society is taken away, the more it is replaced with the freedom to be irresponsible (hence the booming entertainment industry), and it has destroyed America.

Slavery in America

Around the year 1800 the conditions of slavery began to change. Tobacco was less in demand, and in addition, it depleted the soil. Many in the Chesapeake area switched to wheat and livestock. But these crops, while demanding more skill, required less labor, and many slaveowners emancipated at least some of their slaves. In the lowcountry, the principal crop was rice, which demanded both skill and labor. In this area, slaves lived by the task system, where a slave was required to do a certain amount of work each day, after which he was able to spend the afternoon at his leisure. This encouraged the slaves to work quickly and efficiently. However, a new cash crop was on the rise: cotton. Until 1793 cotton was impractical to produce because of the time consuming business of picking out the seeds. But that year, the cotton gin was invented by Eli Whitney, and cotton became a very lucrative crop, with production jumping 45,000% in the following 50 years. The ensuing competition forced farms to become more productive, and quick. The task system was abandoned, slave gardens were cleared to plant more cotton, and it became more common for families to be split up for profit. In other aspects however, slave treatment itself became more humane. Living conditions improved, masters began providing food for their own slaves instead of leaving them to grow for themselves, and death rates dropped, even though runaway slaves outnumbered slaves imported into America. The resulting farms spread across the states became known as the "cotton belt". Several major slave revolts took place around this time. All of these revolts were supressed, but America began to realize they could not hold onto their slaves forever. Thomas Jefferson himself said that slaveholders were holding "a wolf by the ears". They could not hold on forever, and they could not let go."

Gibbons vs. Ogden

Today I read an excerpt from Gibbons vs. Ogden, yet another example of how different views on the meaning of the constitution can cause confusion. In the case, the New York legislature granted Aaron Ogden the exclusive right to run a steam ferry from New Jersey to New York. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat owner, had a federal license "to be employed in carrying on the coasting trade”, and set up a rival ferry, causing Ogden to sue him. The case was brought before the Supreme Court, where it was decided whether it was the federal or state government’s duty to regulate transportation. The constitution states that “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” After some talk, it was decided that navigation is included in commerce, putting it under Congress’ jurisdiction. It was also decided that the states and Congress could not both have the power to regulate navigation, and that it belonged to Congress alone. In the end, Gibbons was allowed to continue his business, and Ogden’s monopoly on steamboat travel in New York was declared void.

McCulloch vs. Maryland

Today I read about a court case known as McCulloch vs. Maryland, which decided whether the government had the power to commision national bank. In the case, of which I read part of the transcript, it was agreed that the states had agreed to have a limited government over all of them, with a certain ammount of power. The question remained, however, "how much power?" The constitution does not state that a bank is or is not outside the powers of congress, so that (as well as many other powers) must be implied. For example, although the constitution gives congress the power to "establish offices and post-roads", but it does not give them the power to punish mail thieves. This is an implied power. The idea of implied power sheds light on the phrase in the constitution which gives congress power to do that which is "necessary and proper". Because a bank would enable the government to do it's job more expediently, the court presiding over the case of McCulloch vs. Maryland ruled that it was constitutional for congress to make a national bank.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, pt. 2

Today I got yet another look into the unusual philosophy of Hegel. One of the most odd of his beliefs was about the concepts of "being" and "nothing". He believed that they were one and the same. This strange concept was explained in this way. "Nothing" has no attributes. It does not have color, taste, shape, time, place, etc. A book exists, therefore it has "being". If the book is black and square however, that does not mean that "being" is black and square. Therefore, Hegel reasoned that both "being" and "nothing" have no attributes, and therefore must be the same, even though they are direct opposites. At first this philosophy may seem like it makes sense, yet upon more thought, it could be argued that "being" is not nothing, but everything, which would make it at odds with "nothing". At any rate, this is a philosopher who, like many others, specialized in logical madness...

The Congress of Vienna

Before the war with Napoleon ended, Great Britian, Russia, Austria, and Prussia agreed to the treaty of Chaumont, in which they agreed to stand united against another French uprising, assuring peace in Europe. After the war, this "Quadruple Alliance" organized the Congress of Vienna, one of the most important international agreements ever made. Great Britain was represented by the Viscount Castlereigh, Russia by Alexander I himself, Austria by Prince Klemens von Metternich, and Prussia by Prince Karl August von Hardenberg. Eventually, France itself joined the congress, represented by Prince Talleyrand. One of the most important issues during this congress was the fate of Poland. Napoleon had turned some of what was Poland into the Dutchy of Warsaw during his reign, and now the five representatives had the important job of deciding how to partition and divide the ownerless territory. Alexander I wanted to turn the Dutchy and the Austrian and Prussian possessions of Poland into a kingdom under Russian "protection". Hardenberg agreed to this, as long as it could have the kingdom of Saxony. Metternich of Austria and Castlereagh were both opposed to the idea, believing Alexander to be attempting to slowly gain control over all of Europe. Metternich, Castlereigh, and Hardenberg came to Alexander, trying to arrange a compromise, but all failed. For months there was talk of war. Finally, Talleyrand came upon a solution. He created a "secret" alliance with Talleyrand and Metternich which was directed against Russia and Prussia. This "secret" was allowed to be leaked to Alexander, and the tsar backed down. In this way, this and many other problems involving territory were solved at this congress, restoring peace in Europe...for the time being.

Democracy in America

Recently I have been reading several chapters of Alexis de Toqueville's book, "Democracy in America". In chapters 5 and 6 of his book he makes some very interesting observations. First, in chapter 5, he notes a major difference between the administrative decentralization of America and the administrative centralization of Britain. He said: "What does it matter to me, after all, if there should be an authority always on its feet...flying ahead of my steps to turn away every danger... if this authority... is absolute master of my freedom and my life...?" He wisely noted that the more "convenient" an nation became, the more powerful and domineering the government would have to become. This was one of the reasons he much preferred the American system. Another one of the interesting things he noted was that one of the reasons that nations like ancient Egypt and others lasted so long, and why America was so successful, was not because the government held it's citizens in sway, but because the population of these nations was unified on the point of religion (not surprising). In chapter 6, Toqueville spoke about the judicial branch, where he gave another interesting thought. He gave three characteristics of a judicial power. The first, he said, was that a judge cannot make any decision unless there is a dispute. In other words, no case, no judge. He said: "When [a judge] pronounces on a law without starting from a case, he goes outside his sphere completely and enters that of the legislative power". Yet today, judges are allowed to pronounce laws constitutional or unconstitutional. This "legislation from the bench" allows judges to go outside their sphere of allowed power, and yet it is condoned in our nation. It seems that in this book, everything that Toqueville praises about our government has eroded in the last 150 years. Hmm...

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Pt. 1

It is amazing how so many philosophers have such strange ideas. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was one of these philosophers. He defied Aristotle's law of non-contradiction (something cannot be "A" and "not A" at the same time). He whole philosophy revolved around the idea of infinity, and the numerous contradictions in it (infinity meaning "everything" to Hegel). Because infinity includes everything, it IS everything, reasoned Hegel (for example, infinity includes both even and odd numbers, male and female, right and wrong, etc.). Another one of his beliefs was that because infinity has contradictions, infinity could be applied to the everyday. For example, when two political parties are opposed to each other, and one is obliterated, the remaining party (because it still contains contradictions) will separate into two parties. This will go on into... infinity! Therefore, everything was constantly improving (after all, half of the remaining contradictions in politics would be removed every time a political party vanished), but it would take forever to come to a perfect state, because the number of contradictions are infinite. One of the strangest things he believed in was the Weltgeist. Translated, the Weltgeist means "the universal mind at work in the world". Hegel believed that the universal mind was the thing that created history by "bodying forth... the entire content of itself in order to "become conscious of what itself was". Hegel himself believed that HE knew what the universal mind was, and said that the universal mind had just come to a knowledge of what itself was. He therefore believed that he was the embodyment of the universal mind. Strange. If only all these philosophers took a second (or even a first) look at the Bible for their answers...

The Louisiana Purchase

Although President Thomas Jefferson was extremely strict about being constitutional, and was against the Alien and Sedition acts, he overstepped his bounds as president more than once. Spain had unofficially given all their holdings in North America to France, and Napoleon Bonaparte, who had given up on colonies after his failed conquest of Haiti, offered the territory known as the Louisiana Purchase for $15,000,000. He made the offer to the president. However, within the constitution, it was not the duty of the executive, but of the legislative branch to decide the matter. Constitutional or not, Jefferson snatched up the deal, half-heartedly presenting it before both houses after the fact. He claimed that his actions came from necessity rather than principle. In truth, it seemed wise to do, and there are probably not many who would have not acted the same way in Jefferson's position, but we must stop and ask ourselves whether he was fulfilling his obligation to the people and the constitution under which he held office. Even though it gave America a great deal of land and opportunity to expand, it was a violation of the constitution, the document each president is bound to obey.

The Alien And Sedition Acts

At the beginning of the Adams administration, the Alien and Sedition acts were passed by Congress. These four acts (one of which, the Alien Enemies Act, is still in use today), enabled the presidents to deport any non-citizen and made it a crime to criticize the government. Although these acts may have seemed harmless (in a nation full of illegal aliens, they might even seem helpful), they were unconstitutional, limited freedom of speech, and gave the executive branch far too much power. Both Virginia and Kentucky responded, protesting that these acts were unconstitutional, and that the state governments (not the judiciary branch) should judge whether a law was constitutional or not. Even if a law is helpful in a specific situation, I still believe it should be checked against the guidelines set forth in our constitution, otherwise our freedoms given to us in this government will disintegrate. If only all our laws were in line with the constitution which we call our own.

Deism: A World of Inconsistency

As the world began to be discovered, a new worldview emerged. Deism. Because of the many natural laws that had just been discovered, deists believed that the world operated like a very large and intricate clock. This "clock" had been invented in the beginning by God, and then left. Alone. Deists believed that God was not sovereign, not providental and uncaring about human affairs. We are just "gears" in the clock, run completely by the laws of cause and effect.

At the same time as Deism was taking root, men began to rely more on their own reason to understand the world around them than ever before. Deism taught that man can know all about God and the universe by reason alone, with divine revelation being impossible and thus unreliable. Alexander Pope(a deist), unintentionally showed a flaw in deism in one of his poems. He stated that the world is like a vast piece of clockwork, but at the same time he says that we cannot discern it. How then can we know it works on its own like a clock? It is an inconsistency that can only be resolved if we truly can never know what the universe is like, or if there is another way to obtain knowledge.

In another of his poems, Pope reveals another flaw. Since God made the world as is, and God is good and just, all that happens must be just! Yet deists are very interested in ethics, which must cease to exist if all is good!

Deism, because it was so unstable, only lasted about 70 years. It was preceded by Theism and succeded by naturalism. Man had begun to fall away from God and rely on his own reason, and the result was a worldview that was inconsistent, confused and chaotic.

Kant

Immanuel Kant was a philosopher. A philosopher who had almost all the answers...almost. Today I read a bit about his beliefs and teachings. He believed that we are born knowing good and evil (moral law), that humans are meant (not are, but are meant) to be perfect, and that a perfectly just God must exist (he proclaimed it as a "postulate of his system", something necessary in order for him to exist). Kant was very close to the truth. Close, but not there. He believed that humans had to achieve perfection, not through a miracle, but through an eternity of trying, "an endless progress from the lower to higher degrees of moral perfection". He further believed that when doing good, man should not do it because of promised reward, but because of hard, cold duty. Rack up another philosopher who knew all the right things but came to very wrong conclusions. If only he had stopped trying to figure things out on his own and went to the one source where he could have found all the answers.

Liberalism

In response to the Industrial Revolution, two political ideoligies developed: Liberalism and Socialism. Liberalism emphasized individual economic and political freedom, while Socialism focused on the condition of the working classes. Today I read about liberalism.

Although liberalism today pushes for social entitlements(such as food, health care, a minimum standard of living and education), back then it only asked for political rights(freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.). It combined moral and economic arguments, saying that limited government power and control was necessary for prosperity. For nations that were ruled by others, the goal of liberalism was self-government. For nations that had no representation or constitution, a constitution was the goal. Overall, the aim was freedom under an organized government.

Although I would not support the liberal standpoint today, from what I have read of it's views back then, I would agree with it's goals. When government becomes too powerful, it becomes tyrannical, and through history it is plain what happens to a nation with a tyrannical government.

Migration

As people began to leave the countryside and enter the city, they had to transition from one world to another. Coming from wide, open, clean farms, families entered the crowded dirty city. Not only was the environment different, so was the work. While farm labor was hard, it was also varied. In the cities, the factory labor was easier, but also monotonous and boring. Men were drawn away from the home. While agricultural work was done on family property, industrial work forced workers to leave the home for the day and come home at night, separating the husband from his family. I was surprised that the author noted this, but it did make me think(yet again) about thinks that I regard as normal in a different context(one of the reasons history can be so fascinating!).

Industries Created by the Industrial Revolution

As the textile industry grew as a result of the machines produced by the Industrial Revolution, so did other industries. Coal mining was one of them. Although the water frame did its job well, it was limited in its capabilities because it had to be built near a river. The steam engine solved this problem, making it possible to set up a factory almost anywhere. There was one wrinkle in the solution however. Britain had been severely deforested over the years, and wood and charcoal were becoming too precious to use on a large scale in the textile industry. That's where coal came in. Soon the first mines were sunk, but they couldn't be dug too deep because of water. Again, the steam engine came to the rescue. A steam driven pump developed by Thomas Newcomen was able to pump the water out of the mines, giving factories access to as much coal as they needed.

Another industry affected by the rise in textile machinery was metallurgy. The new steam engines and textile machines needed iron to be produced. Britain had access to hordes of iron ore, but again, because of the lack of wood, it was impossible to smelt it on a large scale. Now that coal was being dug, the field could be developed. Henry Cort came up with the first useful method in 1784.

I personally find it amazing how "convenient" it was that one invention led to another after another, finally resulting in the industrial revolution. It just goes to show how amazing and intricate God's plan was, and is! All the right things just "fall into place" at the right time!

The Effects of the Textile Industry on Americans

We know that life of Americans was changed by the industrial revolution, but where did these inventions come from that started it all? Take the textile industry for example. The water powered spinning machine, developed by Richard Awkright, and Englishman, was copied in America, and provided many jobs for people who took the spun yarn and wove it into cloth. Tailoring, some aspects of shoemaking and other jobs became available in the States after the industrial revolution. However, a great deal of these jobs were taken by…women. For the first time, women and young girls were being taken out of the home to join the workforce. In some textile mills, young girls were hired from the countryside, worked for several years at slave wages, and after they had finished their time, never returned to the country, but married and stayed in the city, effecting a mass migration of women out of the farm and into the city. This separation of children from their parents and mothers from their families is even more pronounced today. Although children are not in factories anymore, Women are in the workforce, and children are separated from their parents in the public schools. Again, we must count the cost of convenience.

Why we Elect Liars as Leaders

In an excellent article I read today, David Kupelian, managing editor of WorldNet Daily, explored the issue of why people tend to elect liars as their leaders. He drew attention to all the liars and evil people in the various governments in the past and present. Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe, and others are examples. He moved on to America. Although founded on excellent principles, its foundations have been decaying in recent years. High taxes and unrestrained government power, things once thought wrong, are now considered acceptable. He said that power hungry people always use the same tactics. They cause disruptions, blame others, and then promise us peace if we give them unlimited power. They appeal to our anger, dissatisfaction and greed to get what they want. This system was first pioneered by Carl Marx. In America today, these things are happening, and we are becoming progressively more socialist.
The law is meant to protect our lives, liberties, and property, and we partially give up our own control over these to government so that they can protect them. The French philosopher Frederic Bastiat said that man must work to survive, but since man will naturally avoid pain, and work is painful, he will plunder when plundering is less painful than work. The law’s job is to make plundering painful. However, our government is not doing this. We have become too lazy to support ourselves, which is why prices are rising and our economy is failing.
Our taxpayer dollars are going towards corrupt politicians, politicians who are selfish liars. And the worst thing is, we NEED them to lie to us. The majority of Americans are rebelling against God, and if we aren’t following God we will need somebody to take His place. We elect liars because they keep our guilty, God-starved consciences at bay.
But how could we believe lies? Wouldn’t we see through them? Kupelian says no, because the larger the lie, the more audacity it takes to tell it with a straight face, and most of us wouldn’t expect that from our politicians. Hitler himself stated that “the broad masses of a nation…more readily fall victims to the big lie that the small lie…” Even if we don’t believe the lie outright, it can subconsciously affect us and cause us to partially believe the liar. One of the most effective of the “big lies” is to create a false crisis, for example, global warming, or fear of nuclear power, or an environmental crisis, just to name a few being declared today. These lies cause us to depend more on the liar who is creating them for protection. This is why our founders stressed that our government should be limited. We see today what the government can do. We have allowed them to do it. We can change it.

Changes in Lifestyle Brought on by the Industrial Revolution

Around 1830, the time of the industrial revolution, American life underwent a drastic change. As the Northeast factories rose, the farmer began to see the opportunity to sell perishables for money. Many began to exclusively raise livestock, and beef became New England’s most profitable ware, with dairy and poultry close behind. The southerners that did continue to grow grain continued to use the old, inefficient plows, but those in the north did not. The industrial revolution produced new cast iron plows, grain cradles, treadmill threshers and fanning mills, tools that made raising wheat easier and faster. All farmers began to grow and raise single items for money, instead of a variety. The agricultural and industrial communities became dependent on one another. The old systems of barter and cooperation between farmers now became a waste of time. Women now bought their food from stores, and felt compelled to bake and cook dishes that the average American would only have dreamed of a few years before. Living conditions improved, as farmers felt the need to paint their houses and clean their yards, and wives cleaned their houses more thoroughly and bought more expensive clothes. Farmers needed less help on the farm, and because of this, children became less useful, and more of a liability. The birth rate declined from 6.4 children per household in 1800 to only 4.9 in 1849. I especially find this interesting, as this pattern seems to be continuing today with a birth rate of less than 2.0. We enjoy luxuries today that Americans in 1849 wouldn’t have imagined, yet at what cost? Convenience isn’t everything, and we have become more dependent on the rest of society than ever before. Is it worth it?

Napoleon as a Leader

As an assigment I was asked to evaluate whether or not Napoleon Bonaparte was a great leader. I will give my thoughts here. There is no doubt that he was a great military leader and general. His successful military conquests show that. However I don't think that he was a good ruler. The countries he conquered were forced to pay great sums of money to support his campaigns, he forced them to forego British goods(which could have caused economic problems if they hadn't smuggled them), replaced their leaders with his own family members, and made them supply many men for his wars. The resentment that these countries had for him was made clear in the War of Liberation, when they all turned against him.

As a person he was prideful and rash. Because his strength was war, he intentionally provoked other countries in order to fight them. He tried to completely overthrow all of the European kingdoms, and eventually he ran out of luck. His ambition was greater than his ability, and it eventually ruined him.

In short then, although a brilliant military strategist, Napoleon Bonaparte was not a leader. He capatalized on a disorganized nation to rise to power. He tried to make this disorganized nation conquer Europe, and failed. His fame lies in his downfall.

The Empire of Napoleon, Pt. 2

In 1806 Napoleon began a project known as the continental system. Because of the long Britain-France rivalry, he decided to block all imports from Britain on the continent. However, he did not have the manpower to enforce it or the willingness of his subjected countries, who depended on British imports. Napoleon himself put the nail in the coffin of this system by importing British goods at a high tariff to raise money. In this way he suffered great economic defeat.

The peninsular war was no better, and all it gained him was the enmity of the Spanish. Finally Napoleon decided to take Russia. In 1812 he allied with Austria and Prussia against Russia, Sweden, and Great Britain. He assembled his Grand Army, planning to take Smolensk. However, he failed to engage the Russian army before he was deep into the country. The Russians kept pulling back, and Napoleon's men fell to heat, disease, and hunger. When they got to Smolensk the city was deserted, and they pushed on to Moscow. In a high-casualty battle, the Russians retreated, set fire to Moscow, and left Napoleon's army with nothing to do but retreat. As Napoleon retreated, his men fell to the harsh Russian winter. In November the Russians surrounded the army and massacred it. Only 30,000 of the 600,000 men remained.

Napoleon raised another large army by the spring, but the soldiers in it were not properly trained. In the climactic "War of Liberation", all of Napoleon's enemies and allies turned against him and defeated him. They sent him off to the island of Elba and restored the French monarchy. Although he escaped temporarily in what is known as the "hundred days", he would never come to power again. The Empire of Napoleon had ended.

The Empire of Napoleon Pt. 1

When Napoleon snatched the crown from the pope and placed it on his own head, crowning himself emperor of France, his reign had begun in earnest. He had won renown as a military general, and he would have to continue to be militant if he wanted the respect of the people. He decided to invade England. However, he was defeated at the battle of Trafalgar, showing yet again that the British were still the greatest naval force. He turned his focus to Russia, another member of the Third Coalition(an alliance between Russia, Britain, and Austria against France). In one of his most magnificent battles, Napoleon dissolved the Third Coalition by defeating the Russians at Austerlitz. He had amassed a great empire. However, unlike the revolutionaries, he acted like a conqueror more than a liberator. So much so that he alienated a great deal of his subjects. The fall of the French Emperor was coming.

Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon Bonaparte is a controversial figure in French history. While some would think of him as a man who aided the revolutionary cause, others believe that he was a despotic tyrant, in effect defeating what the revolutionaries set out to do. After the coup d'etat that brought Napoleon to power, he instantly installed himself as a "consul" with his two partners, promising to create a new constitution. The result, the Constitution of the Year VIII, gave a great deal of power to the executive branch: Napoleon, Cambaceres, and Lebrun the three consuls. The other branches of government were practically overlooked, and had very limited power. Bonaparte revised the constitution twice: in 1802, which made him consul for life, and in 1804, which made him emperor. He now had a government completely contrary to the purposes of the revolutionaries, yet the general population supported him. His system denied the concept of popular soverignty, destroyed the citizen's vote (officials were appointed, not elected), made the legislative branch progressively more powerless, and eventually suppressed free speech. This last development was serious. Newspapers became government propaganda machines. New literary works were closely scrutinized for anti-government sentiment. Police forces were created to keep the people in check. The revolution had failed.

Code Napoleon: The French Civil Code

Today I read a very interesting document, the Code Napoleon. After the anarchy and chaos of the French Revolution, there needed to be a new system of law. After all, before the revolution the only law that there was came out of the king's mouth. In 1801, Napoleon Bonaparte had taken control, and he ordered a panel of judges to create a new set of laws, laws that applied to the highest noble as well as the lowest peasant. The final product was the Code Napoleon, an extensive set of 2,281 laws arranged in three books. These three books covered the topics of People, Property, and Means of Acquiring Property, similar to the Code of Justinian. The code has several laws that bear a resemblance to the Bill of Rights and other American documents. Interestingly enough however, one of the Code's statutes strictly states that judges are to base their rulings on the written law alone, not on previous court cases and their rulings. This stands in contrast to our government system today, where precedent cases abound. In this particular matter, I would think that, as long as the laws themselves are good and clear in what they say, a no-precedent system would be an excellent idea. The laws themselves(or at least what I read of them), are somewhat strict, but overall seem a good start for a government. However, soon enough Napoleon would be singing a different tune...

The American Form Of Government

This is a great video about the five forms of government and which one our nation has adopted. It shows what our founders intended our country to be, and where it might be heading. You can watch it here.

William Carey

As part of school, some of my brothers and sisters and I are going through a book on one of the first missionaries: William Carey. He had an extremely hard life, but he was a hard worker and also studied often. Too often. The book gave his weekly schedule. A good deal of it was devoted to preaching, and all the rest was given to study and work. He did not seem to leave any time to his family. This could have contributed to the depression experienced by his wife. It seems all too easy to fall into the trap of becoming so engrossed in work and ministry that family is completely forgotten. I think that although God does want us to use our time for him, he also wants men to train and spend time with their families, the way he planned.

Another Look At The Constitution, Pt. 3

On the other end of the political spectrum was Alexander Hamilton, Treasurer under George Washington. He believed in giving full power to the government, completely stripping the individual states of any control. He believed in KEEPING the national debt, adding to it the individual state debts. This would attract wealthy financiers, making them dependent on the government. He also proposed a national bank, a carbon copy of the bank of England, which would run the finances of Hamilton's nation state. He believed that without a strong, centralized government, the revolution would be for nothing, because of the tendency for weak republics to be transient. We can see the fruits of his efforts today - a skyrocketing national debt, a plummeting economy, and a strong government, perhaps too strong...

To be Continued.

Entrepreneurship, Pt. 10

In yet another teaching, Entrepreneur Wade Myers gave his thoughts on how to raise capital without debt bondage. He gave several good reasons to try to aquire capital:

1. The aquisition of skills or training (such as in college or school).
He suggested to only pursue skills you will use over and over again in your business. That way you can be cost effective.

2. Funds to start up a business to break even.
He said that you should not focus on how much capital you have, but how much sales you will make. That way, you will avoid burning hard-earned cash.

3. An inefficent business model that requires working capital.
Mr. Myers stated that this reason is actually avoidable. If you have a business with a good cash cycle (a very desirable trait), you will be able to get payments from your customers before you deliver the product or pay the manufacturer.


He went on to mention some of the traditional methods of raising capital. Most entrepreneurs will start by borrowing small ammounts from friends and family. Then, if they need more, they go to angel investors, people who looking for good businesses to invest in where they have an expected return. Most of these invest 25,000 - 100,000 dollars each and expect 1 Million to 5 Million back. He continued on to mention more ways of getting capital, but recommended none of the above.

He said that a better way of raising money was this: narrow the focus. Since a good cash flow is desirable, he suggested creating a business where you collect money up front, outsource to reliable people for work you can't do, take the finished product, and then deliver it. He also mentioned lease management, where you run another person's business for him, gaining part of the revenue in the process.

In summary then, debt (slavery) is not desirable. As entrepreneurs we should avoid it at all costs. "The borrower is the servant to the lender." If we can help it, we should not put ourselves in this position, and instead use what God has given us at the moment to accomplish his purposes.

Another Look At The Constitution, Pt. 2

There was one man who grasped the problem confronting the new government under the constitution: James Madison. He realized that although it was ratified, the constitution was disliked by much of the population. Madison worked to destroy the myth that the federalists wanted to turn the states into one all-powerful nation state. He realized that the solution was a federal government, which gave some power to the states, some to the national government. To make the Constitution more palatable to the people, he proposed 19 amendments, 10 of which passed and became the bill of rights. This helped to calm the agitation of all the states...

To Be Continued.

Entrepreneurship, Pt. 9

Mr. Joel Salatin, an entrepreneurial farmer, gave a teaching that I listened to called: "An Entrepreneurial Family-Based Multi-Generational Vision". He told the amazing story about how he became a chicken farmer. He decided to save money, and then try to start his own farm, living off the food that came from it, and the money he earned selling his produce. He was able to continue after the year was up, and eventually, he was running a large-scale chicken business. He said that the entrepreneur's goal is to meet the unmet need. He was able to do this by only selling locally to individuals, restaraunts, etc. He recommended farming as a vocation (it was, after all, the first vocation), even though culture today thinks poorly of the average farmer. It is a lifestyle that makes the individual less dependent on the outside world, is self-sustainable, and provides for the rest of the world. Mr. Salatin said that success is measured in faithfulness and not material results. If we are faithful to God and his commands, He will bless us in ways we cannot imagine.

Another Look at The Constitution Pt. 1

Post-revolutionary America was, economically, NOT independent. Because of it's agricultural roots, the majority of Americans were farmers. Unfortunately, the small ammount of manufacturers and cities meant that most of the excess crops went overseas...to Britain. The British knew that the Americans were still dependent on them for virtually all manufactured goods. They also knew that they could continue this trade relationship, at a great profit to themselves. On top of this, the weak Articles of Confederation made the government powerless to control the thirteen states, which were constantly squabbling. The constitution was the solution. It was planned to increase government power and make the distinction between states smaller. However, the opposition to increase in government power was at an all time high. With over fifty percent of the population opposing the constitution, even after ratification, it would take a miracle to restore order...

To be continued.

Entrepreneurship, Pt. 8

Nick Logan began his teaching on "The Rebirth of Family-Friendly Entrepreneurship" with this verse: "For I the Lord do not change." Neither has his plan, or his dominion mandate. Mr. Logan said that before we can pursue this mandate and entrepreneurship, we must focus on three disciplines, disciplines which have been ignored by many American Christians as of late. The Church, family, and Christ honoring economics.

He stated that the average church today does not honor God. Inside, there is not much of a difference between the believer and non-believer. Most churches are seeker friendly, and geared to "saving" as many people as possible. The LORD'S DAY is now Sunday, a day of relaxation and fun. We need to set ourselves apart from the rest of the world. We need a reformation.

In recent years, the family unit has disintegrated. The fathers have stopped leading their families, the children are in government school, and women are part of the workforce. Our culture has attacked the family and tried to break it up. We need to understand the truth. Men are meant to be leaders of their households, and women are meant to train their children and help their husbands in taking care of the home. Culture does not like children, and consequently, neither does the average parent. They send them off to school, they kill them in the womb, they let them go off at age 18 and breathe a sigh of relief. This was not the way it was meant to be. Children are a "blessing from the Lord", and we should treat them that way.

Finally we turn to Christ-honoring economics. The average American suffers from FDH syndrome(Fat,Dumb,and Happy). As Christians, we can even finance ungodly businesses and expose ourselves to ungodly influences by where and what we buy. If we sacrifice buying products from these businesses, we can affect the economy our decisions. We should care more about our families than about our material gain.

In short then, to accomplish these goals we need leadership in the family. If we go back to the model of living that God has provided for us, we will prosper in what we do.

Entrepreneurship, Pt. 7

Today I listened to another entrepreneurial lesson by Arnold Pent. He gave a message posing the question "how do I start a company". He gave several ideas for types of businesses to get into. He said that you want a buisness that has the highest returns for the least input of time. Real estate, energy, and patents were the three businesses that generally fit the bill, he said. Residual income, say, from an oil well that is running without you having to do anything, is obviously desirable. Mr. Pent's son also spoke for a while on his personal story, in which he tried many different businesses ranging from film to beef marketing, before finally ending up in oil and gas. Yet the years he spent in other businesses were not a waste, he said, because the skills he learned in them were applicable to the business he now runs. It just goes to show how God can work through failure!

Reflections on the Revolution in France

Edmund Burke was an Irishman. An Irishman who was against the French Revolution. In his letter, "Reflections on the Revolution in France", he writes to an anonymous man in France, explaining why he does not support the violent activity taking place in France. Early on he tells this man about two certain clubs or societies that have given their support to the revolutionaries. Burke assures this man that he is a member of neither, and that both are small, insignificant organizations, trying to make a name for themselves by supporting a controversial cause. Near the end of the letter, Burke tells his friend about a sermon he heard at a meeting house by a preacher who supported Revolution. He stated that it was dangerous to a "confusion of duties" between church and state. Personally, I think that the religious/secular separation itself is dangerous, because it isolates God and his word from everyday life, making Him irrelevant to our lives and choices. However I do agree with Burke that the revolution was an abuse of the right to fight a tyrant.

Entrepreneurship, Pt. 6

Today I listened to yet another teaching by Doug Phillips, in which he exhorted all entrepreneurs to dilligently seek for others to help you in your enterprise (aka. employees). He said that not only should your employees be responsible and God-fearing people, they should also share your vision. This requires us to be leaders. Unfortunately, very few people today have the courage to lead. We need this generation to be a generation of leaders, in every aspect of, well, everything!!!

Revolutions and Rights

The French revolutionaries could spew "liberty, equality and fraternity" speeches for days on end, but besides ridding themselves of a tyranical king, what did they actually accomplish for their rights? Another book I'm reading, "The Revolutionary Era" by Charles Breunig and Matthew Levinger, explored French advances in rights for women and ethnic minorities. Prominent men as well as women argued for women's right to vote. However, the National Assembly gave no thought to this in their Constitution of 1791. Marie Gouze, a playwright, responded to this in her "Declaration of the Rights of Woman", satirizing the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" by including both men and women in it's articles. She was sent to the guillotine in 1793, charged for being "an unnatural woman". Slavery was instituted in France at the time of the Revolution, and it was especially rampant on the island of Saint-Domingue, where slaves worked the highly profitable sugar plantations. An orginization known as the Society of the Friends of Blacks demanded an end to the slave trade and abolition of slavery, but the population at large thought it would bring the economic downfall of France. In the year of 1794 however, under pressure of a revolt/invasion organized by a freed slave and aided by the Spanish, the National Convention formally abolished slavery. Unfortunately, this decree was ignored by the majority of planter in Saint-Domingue(in 1804 there would be another revolt and the island would become the republic of Haiti). Unfortunately then, it is clear that, though some reforms were made, the high speech of the revolutionaries was little more than hot air.

Declaration of the Rights of Man

Even though the events of the French revolution were quite different from those in the American revolution, their government documents have a familiar ring to them. The "Declaration of the Rights of Man" is suspiciously like the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, down to the human rights they proclaim. Articles such as "Men are born and remain free and equal..." sound a great deal like "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...". Although I would not agree with the principles behind the French Revolution myself, most of the 17 rights listed in their declaration are very basic and necessary. The concepts of "innocent till proved guilty", and "freedom of speech" are listed as well, intermingled with concepts drawn from the philosophy of Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke. Although not perfect, the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" was a good start for rebuilding society in peace after the tumult of the Revolution (although that peace was to be short lived).

Entrepreneurship, Pt. 5

In another message by Arnold Pent, entitled "Cultivating an Entrepreneurial Spirit in Your Children". He said that not only should we become entrepreneurs, but encourage our children, especially our sons, to do so also. He gave seven ways to help a boy develop this type of mindset:

1. Cultivate an atmosphere of self-discipline in your home.
2. Cultivate an atmosphere of creativity in your home(not a tv/videogame/ipod tech center).
3. Teach your children how to communicate with any age (not just with their peers).
4. Model entrepreneurship by being an entrepreneur yourself if possible.
5. Look for your son's bent and encourage him in it.
6. Cultivate an atmosphere that breeds tenacity in the face of failure(failure is a friend).
7. Consider a college education a last resort rather that a first one.

A human learns the most in his first few years, and these points can be a springboard into a life full of entrepreneurship!!!

Government by the Mob

The French revolutionaries, having overthrown and decapitated their king, had to seek a new governing body. They wanted the people to rule the nation. In a French book published at the time entitled: "What is the Third Estate?" (the lower class), the author put it so: "The nation is prior to everything. It is the source of everything. It's will is always legal; indeed it is the law itself." The leaders of the bloody revolution stirred up the people against their enemies, creating a nation-wide mob with a virtually homogeneous national will. They organized revolutionary festivals to create "patriotism and unity". The chaos of the French Revolution was multiplied by these efforts.

Entrepreneurship, Pt. 4

In the lecture I listened to today, "Building a Business From Start to Finish", speaker Wade Myers talked about how to create a business of your own. He said that, beginning with the criteria you determine, you begin to generate ideas. Then you carefully evaluate these ideas, choosing which would best suit you and best serve the customer. Then you either build or purchase the appropriate type of business, growing it, eventually to the point where it can be sold or kept as the situation dictates. He suggested that an entrepreneur should try to build instead of buying a business, picking a type of business where the competition is backwards or poorly running. These are only a few of the ideas he offered.

Here is a link to Vision Forum's site, which sells the "Entrepreneurial Bootcamp" the series I am listening to. You can purchase it here

America at the Turn of the Century

In an another chapter of "Antibellum America", part of the "History by Era" series published by Greenhaven Press, Raymond H. Robinson wrote about some of the changes in the last decade of the 18th century that America experienced. Population expanded by more than 26 percent, the four major cities, Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore continued to grow, and the arts began to flourish. Men and women like Charles Bulfinch, Charles Peale, Gilbert Stuart, Charles Brown, Susanna Rowson, Hugh Brackenridge, Benjamin Trumbull, and Robert Proud filled the new nation with archetecture, paintings, literature, newspapers and magazines. Robinson expounded on the progress America made in that decade, going into detail about the most influential artisans and printers and their work. The work that generations of people had put into the country was finally beginning to bear fruit.

Entrepreneurship, Pt. 3

In today's lecture, Arnold Pent, a veteran entrepreneur himself, spoke on the seven "nuts and bolts" of successful entrepreneurship. Giving personal stories from his life, as well as biblical examples, Mr. Pent laid out his seven ways to make you think like an entrepreneur and develop entrepreneurial vision as follows:

1. Read the Word of God and allow Him to shape you through it.
2. Get on you knees, and "wrestle with God" in prayer.
3. Failure is often your friend.
4. Be a lifetime learner, and allow your learning to be broad in many areas, and deep in a few.
5. Work, work, work.
6. Learn the power of buildup to breakthrough.
7. Set up "stones of remembrance" to remind future generations of what God has done.

American Trade

Nowadays we may think of 18th century traders as moneymaking fiends exploiting savages on distant islands, but as it turns out, this was not the case. A book I'm reading for school, "Antibellum America", is a compilation of articles and papers written by authors of the present and past. One of it's chapters, written by Frank Dalzell, addresses this issue. In his short article, he focused on the travels of a specific ship, the Jefferson, a Boston fur and china trader. In it's journeys, it travelled to the Queen Charlotte islands, where they sold not only trinkets, but parts of the ship to the natives who were there, imparting a small part if the American culture into the natives lives. The natives themselves established the rates of trade as each trader came along. They controlled the bargaining, sometimes raising the rates to unfair levels, as they knew there was plenty of ships to choose from and that the current traders would have to accept the trades or move on empty handed. The author went on to show that these island dwellers were crafty and that the myth that they were exploited is false.

The Bill Of Rights

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Although the Constitution itself was passed without a bill (a subject of heated debate before ratification) the amendments were added soon after. One of the arguments given against a bill of rights is that it gave rights to the people that were already assumed to be theirs, thereby suggesting "hidden powers" in the government system. However, these same ten rights listed are invaluable to us today. These rights include freedom of speech and of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to a speedy trial by jury, and many others. This bill of rights was a subject of great controversy in the early days of our government system, but without this bill, our liberties would be greatly challenged today.

Entrepreneurship, Pt. 2

In a message by Geoffrey Botkin that I listened to today, he stated that it was a wise idea to form a 200 year plan for you and your posterity, pointing out that we live in a world that needs reform, a world that is at a turning point. We stand at the beginning of a christian dynasty, in a world that has strayed from the truth. He stated that since the 19th century the church in general has become worldly and corrupt, that culture is enslaved to money and material gain, and that christians have followed the world. The educational system has become modified to discourage entrepreneurship and to promote being an employee to the state. Mr. Botkin said (and truly so) that we need a reformation in our country, a reformation that will only start when we repent, seek things of true value, and entreprenurially expand the kingdom of God. We need to begin a reformation in our country now.

The Age Of Revolutions

Two of the most famous (or infamous) events in the late 18th century are the American and French revolutions. However, if we look at the definition of the word "revolution" we find that it is "A complete overthrow of an established government or political system." Although this was the case in the French revolution, it was not as true of the American revolution. This is only one of the differences between the American and French revolutions. Although both shared ideas of liberty and equality, were affected by the enlightenment and tried to rebel against lawful kings, they occurred in vastly different situations. The French had been an oppressed people ever since Louis XVI. Their revolution grew out of painful oppression and suffering. On the other hand, the American "revolution" was more calm, because it came from a people who already had experience in self-government. While the French created a bloodbath that ended in a dictatorship under Napoleon, the Americans more peacefully succeeded in removing themselves from the king's power. Also the French leaders of the revolution were corrupt and power-hungry, while American leaders like Washington were godly, wise and selfless. There were other differences, but it is plain that though they were both called "revolutions" the two conflicts were complete opposites.

The Federalist Papers: No. 84

In today's study I read one of the "Federalist Papers" a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. 75 of these were published in 1787 and 1788 by the "Independent Journal" and the "New York Packet". These essays were published addressing the problems that the so-called "Anti-Federalists" had with the yet-unratified constitution. The particular essay I read, No. 84, was written by Hamilton on certain objections raised towards the constitution by the anti-federalists. The three objections he addressed were as follows:

1. The constitution had no bill of rights (however it does today).
2. That the government proposed by the constitution was too strong, and that the states and counties farther away from the capitol would not have their interests met as well as those close or in the capitol.
3. That those who owed debts to the old government under the articles of confederation would cease to owe the new government.

Hamilton addressed these three objections as follows:

1. The constitution has no bill of rights because a bill of rights was not needed. The constitution itself had specific rights spelled out, such as the upholding of the writ of habeus-corpus, the prohibition of granting any titles of nobility, and others. Also, an addition of a bill would be potentially dangerous, because if a specific right is spelled out (Hamilton used freedom of the press as an example), it is denying government power that it did not have to begin with, thereby suggesting other hidden but unknown powers. Also, if a right, like freedom of the press is not defined well enough, it simply provides loopholes in the government that can be exploited.

2.Hamilton observed (and rightly so) that the same situation was happening in each state currently on a smaller scale. He also mentioned that the constitution provided for this "problem" with it's representative system, which was instituted for the sole purpose of equally representing the people of all the states.

3. Hamilton regarded this argument as absolutely ridiculous, a creation of the press, stating that "...it is a plain dictate of commmon sense...that 'STATES NEITHER LOSE ANY OF THEIR RIGHTS NOR ARE DISCHARGED FROM ANY OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS, BY A CHANGE IN THE FORM OF THEIR CIVIL GOVERNMENT.'"

I have read three or four of these federalist essays, and have found them to be excellent defenses for one of the greatest documents in American history (if only we could defend our constitution so well today). These essays were greatly responsible for the ratification and adoption of our constitution of the more anti-federalist states.

The federalist papers are an excellent resource for finding out the logic and reasoning behind our constitution. No. 84, and all the other essays can be found here.

Entrepreneurship, pt. 1

Today my brother and I listened to a lecture on entrepreneurship by Doug Phillips. One of the things he said was that all of us are entrepreneurs at one level or another, whether we know it or not. He said that if a person has a mind full of ideas, and knows how to practically apply them, that person has the makings of a good entrepreneur. If we all have the capability of being entrepreneurs, and we are endowed with the gift of creativity (all of us are to some extent), then we should by all means use the talent that God has given us, and apply it using the resources we have (which are also given by God), and become entrepreneurs!