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.