Crandall Printing Press

The Crandall Printing Museum turned out to be a much cooler experience than I ever would have imagined. For one, the tour guides, all older gentlemen, were very entertaining. They competed amongst themselves for our attention, clearly had a pecking order, and were lonely men seeking to share their enthusiasm for printing. The two main presenters started working in print shops when they were 14-years-old. They had a passion for the craft, especially due to the incredible impact that it had on the world.

The museum was broken up into three main parts: the Guttenberg exhibit, the American Revolution exhibit, and the Book of Mormon Exhibit. To those of the Mormon faith, particularly Americans of the Mormon faith, these three parts represent three of the greatest turning points for the world. With the invention of the printing press, Guttenberg brought the West of the intellectual Dark Ages. With the American Revolution and the printing of such works as Common Sense, The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution, men were freed from the grasps of the political dark ages. Finally, with the printing of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ, mankind was brought out spiritual dark ages.

I found this tour to be very enlightening. It was fabulous to see how the development of the printing press came about, and how it evolved as time progressed. This experience strengthened my testimony of the restored Gospel, the miraculous founding to the United States, and humanism in general. 

Why were women so late?

In answer to the question “Why do you think it took so long before women decided to organize a concerted effort to receive rights?” my first response would be, “I have no idea. I wasn’t there, I don’t know much about the day to day life of people who were, and I’m not even a woman.” One way I could approach this question is to place all of the blame on men—at least I am a man and might be able to understand their position a bit more than the other genders (I said understand, not sympathize with or agree with).

According to my understanding, men were, and in many cases, still are of the opinion that women’s role is predominately in the home. Indeed, it appears that Mother Nature herself, or the less animate Biology, would agree. Anyway, if men were of that opinion, it makes sense that they would have opposed any changes to the status quo. If a woman, for example, sought to exercise more power out of what her husband had delegated her, she might even be subjugated more.

Reflecting on the last paragraph, I feel that it doesn’t say much.

Another reason that might have contributed to the fact that women in general waiting a long time to organize a concerted effort to receive equal rights is that the women who went around in circles of high influence were bound my propriety and tradition. Many women, simpler women, might have exhibited the characteristics of a more liberated individual. Say, it is likely that some rural women participated in the same activities as their husbands or the men around them—similar types of work, similar responsibilities. These women, however, and also the men of such status, for that matter, were not really in position to organize groups of people to elicit change.

Women who were affiliated with political leaders, organizers, and those associated with money and education, were bound by tradition. After years of education, many women were essentially trained in the art of being fragile and tender, weak and submissive. While their male counterparts were being to taught to manage money, people, and in some cases, nations, the women were learning to remain oppressed.

The social norms revolving around individuals of money also taught a woman to know her place. She was taught that politics were too much for her feeble mind, and that weightier matters should be left in the hands of the men.  If she were to reject such notions outright, she would risk being ostracized from her public sphere.

Such were some of the obstacles that stood on the way of women organizing themselves to fight for equal rights. I wish now, however, to return the original question: “Why do you think it took so long before women decided to organize a concentrated effort to receive equal rights?” I have to ask myself in considering this question if in fact it did take them “so long.” It might all be relative, but compared to other nations and cultures, women of the United States were early in their fight for equal rights. Why did it take so long for women of other nations to do so? And why did the women of the United States do it so early compared to others?

If we consider the fact that it was only recently that the Liberty and Freedom of American standards were established in the world, and that women in the world were for the great part not treated with equality anywhere in the world prior to the 19^th Century, it is not surprising that it happened when it did. Men in general were not equally much prior to the time when women began to organize themselves lobby for equal treatment. Indeed, equality was not known amongst men by any means at the time of the Seneca falls convention, and hundreds of years later, it would still be a stretch to say that men enjoy equality. I do not feel that the women’s movement for equal rights began late; I feel that relative to the fight for equality for man generally, they were very prompt.

Amistad, the movie

The movie Amistad presents a powerful representation of the Americanized institution of slavery, and at the same time, it exposes a great number of faults that have plagued this great nation. Before briefly exploring those issues, I wish to say that I believe that America truly is the greatest nation ever established. Pointing out flaws and weaknesses are not intended break America down, but to build it up.

            First off, the hypocrisy that was evidenced through the enslavement of one people by another, especially when the latter seeks to spread freedom to its people and even the world, showed how blind people can be, and how detrimental wicked traditions can be. John C. Calhoun, during the dinner scene, and also from other sources where he has been quoted, was a prime example of the blindness that a person or people can willfully adopt in order to do what they believe benefits them.

            Also, the weakness of the president and the challenges that he presented to the Amistad case showed how connected the various branches of government are. This is problematic as the purpose of this separation of powers is to avoid corruption and abuse. Luckily, the time was right and John Quincy Adams joined up for the cause of the Amistad.

            I loved this movie and was every inspired by it. 

Federalist 57

At the outset of this article, James Madison explains what the principle responsibilities of a political constitution are. He says:

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society, and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.

Those are indeed very important aims of a constitution. A government, as we have come to understand it in the United States, is a system instituted for directing the affairs of a nation, keeping the protection and well being of the citizens of that nation at heart. So far, we have only been able to come up with governments that are run by people. Maybe as technology gets better, we will be able to design a completely new form of government, but so far, we are still dependent on human beings to run the affairs of this system. So, if men are to be the principle movers and shakers within this system, I think that Madison was correct in saying that one of the main purposes of the Constitution is to ensure that those men and women involved in the running of the government are virtuous, honest, and sincere citizens, and also that they stay that way at least for the duration of their tenure in office.            

            One way to ensure this is by allowing the people to elect those who represent them. The idea of a representative government is not new, but it was not in all cases that the people elected the representing officials. Actually, in the United States, such was not the case due to the fact that a majority of the populace was disenfranchised for many years following the inception of the U. S. government. However, having the people elect those who will represent them, and having them do so often, is one way that we can assure that elected officials are the types of people we want in office.            

We place so much power in the hands of elected officials, and making sure that they are going to fulfill their duties with the best interest of the people in mind is not necessarily easy. The terms of senators is six years long—that is no short time. One could do a great deal of damage while in office in that time, even in one year, if they are not monitored and checks and balances are not put into place to protect.

            Madison places a great deal of trust in the fact that elected officials are chosen by the people. He thinks that this will ensure that the officials will stay virtuous and good while in office. He claims that they will feel a sense of gratitude to their constituents, that they will be driven by their own ambition to get reelected, and that they will be forced to consider this often due to the frequency of elections.

            I myself am not entirely convinced that these measures are sufficient. We have, with hundreds of years of experience, seen that elected officials can and often do act in their own self-interest, which oftentimes goes against what is best for their constituents.

            However, even with numerous examples showing that our system of electing representatives has been insufficient in assuring the best actions of the government, I did learn a great deal about the system of government that we do have through reading this article. Before, I was convinced that the number of terms that elected officials can serve should be limited, as is the case with president, but I am not now not entirely sure that would help in keeping them virtuous while in office.