Andrew > Recent Status Updates

So far I am curious what smith would write today. He notes that worldview theology has been heavily distorted. But I wonder if the church’s move toward charismatic practices has swung too far—yes, we pray before we believe, but it’s not always clear those who are leading the prayer have fully formed, coherent and cohesive beliefs.

One fascinating aspect—South’s lack of taxes driven by slave-based agrarian economy (such a society does not need taxes) meant it was impossible to raise revenue (especially given lack of desire to pay taxes and lack of infrastructure to collect them), causing unsustainable debt levels to spiral into inflation.

Sometimes, attempts to nuance history causes us to over-rotate. Lincoln held out olive branches to the South when he was inaugurated --> Lincoln didn't care about slavery and really just cared about the union. Some leaders of the South (Lee?) fought for the South because of states' rights --> the South cared about states' rights, not about the Civil War.

Hearing the holistic story has been very helpful.

Related to the last note—the most interesting example of piercing the veil on states’-rights-as-a-defense was the Fugitive Slave Act… which Macpherson points out was the strongest intervention of the federal government against states’ rights to date, and one of the cornerstone demands of the South in the Compromise of 1850.

My biggest takeaway from reading more about the antebellum lead up to the Civil War is how funny is the modern “it was actually a defense of states’ rights” argument for the South. Macpherson makes it very clear that there is a specific right about which the South very much cared…

So far a great read.

Really interesting reading this in contrast to narratives of the American Revolution 150 years later… how did one group of Protestant constitutionalists win and the other lose? Wedgwood likely would point to the presence (or lack thereof) of strong, moral leaders of integrity and vision.

This was not what I expected (it strikes me that many who cite this maybe only read one chapter, or maybe even just an excerpt from one chapter). That said—it’s a great read, though I think some of the conclusions are based on some tenuous extrapolation. A few things I’ve enjoyed so far: (1) learning sociology applications to history, (2) thinking thru import of community, (3) distinctiveness of Christian ideas