The American Creation

In Joseph Ellis' book, American Creation, he writes his third chapter titled "the argument". Now as I read this chapter, I began to realize that no matter how far I read on, he seems to not directly specify which argument. Who is arguing? About what topic? Why are they arguing in the first place? Soon I realized I had answered my own question with a question. Let me elaborate:
In 1783, the War for Independence was over. James Madison and his friends George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, and Patrick Henry were all vital parts during the constitutional convention. ironically, however, none of them were fully supportive of the constitutional settlement, which was more of a painful compromise than a clean argument concerning political theory. Even since the beginning of our nation, the constitutional convention, and most of our political matters, have been nothing close to easy. the convention, later on, won out, which was what you could call our "unprecedented version" of federalism. regardless of how well it went, it was not forgotten how "messy" it was due arguing, bickering, and seeming to go nowhere. Due to our countries new political system, others thought it was something absurd. All of our uncertainty to coming to a solid agreement seems to bring us to a never- ending peace. But how do we explain that we have the most successful working system? arguing. To explain it a little more, let's compare it to our spirituality. When we look at the world and all the bad that happened, from the lives ended from hunger to the deciding candidate for a future leader, it seems to go in a circle of this never ending peace. So why wouldn't God just erase it all and make the world a perfect place? Well, he could, but when you take away one of two options, it leaves you with no options at all. We as Christians would have no say as to how we would live. We would be living as mindless robots. would you want to love something that stripped you of your options or freedom of choices? No. So, even though we as a country may seem to be going nowhere, or never agreeing with each other, it is our duty as Americans to be thankful for the freedom of arguing. Otherwise, we could have a country that has "no disagreements", but the small downside is that's something called slavery.

"But Think Of The Children!" Are Men's Morality Instinctively Sinking?

On April 14, 1912, a  haunting day in history was made the evening the Titanic sunk, killing 1,517 out of the 2,223 on board. taking hours to sink, thousands of men stayed aboard the sinking ship, in an attempt to give women and children a better chance. In 1915, a lesser known, but similar, tragedy occurred aboard the RMS Lusitania, taking 1,198 out of the 1,959 lives. However, out of those 1,198 survivors, most of them were men, unlike the survivors of the Titanic.
 Even though these two events are extremely similar, one very large aspect differentiates them: Time. On the Lusitania, the time or sinking took approximately eighteen minutes, whereas the Titanic took a few hours. The difference: the percentage of women and children surviving on the Lusitania is close to nothing compared to the Titanic. Since the Lusitania took a remarkably less amount of time to go down, there was no time for human drama leaving more to drown. on the Titanic, however, men behaved with their biggest concern being that their wives, children, and even women and children they had never met, made it to safety- sacrificing themselves. On the Lusitania, men were more likely to survive due to the man's natural strength and speed to find lifeboats, leaving women and children a slim chance to find safety and survival. Why is this? The New York Times writes that "(males between sixteen and thirty) On the Titanic enjoyed a whopping 48.3% edge; on the Lusitania, it was a smaller but still significant 10.4%." Taking in all the factors as to why this is the most crucial factor was the time it took each ship to sink. With more time the men were able to take time and put the lives of the women and children above their own, giving them their option of morality, and what society has taught us. the men on the Lusitania, having less time to weigh options, instinctively chose to save their lives before anyone else's. now I'm not saying that only men were selfish, but given the odds, they were probably more likely to get to any boat faster than the wives and children. 
Now here's what I understand: with the panic of these life and death situations, the people that had enough time to set their morals straight were doing it out of thought process (AKA good manners), but those who had less time to weigh their options chose a more "selfish and rational option", showing an "impulse dominated behavior". So to boil it down for you, the acts on the titanic gave "manners" more time to kick in. Because the act of putting someone else's needs before yours, unfortunately, is something we need to be taught. Modern feminists today are struggling to find a ground to stand on with this topic, which no doubt is understandable. Those feminists are demanding for a world like the Lusitania, but in reality, are secretly hoping for an act like the Titanic. Are they really to be angry with the men who did the socially right thing to do, even though it is casting us to our "gender roles"? is it really a bad thing for men to be taught that a woman's needs are put before himself? or must we level out the playing field of rights by saying everyone's chances need to be equal? Well, unfortunately, the outcome of this was leaving many wives and children to the waves. In the light of the Word, these "manners", "instincts" and whatever else seculars want to call it, is something we as Christians call morals. When push comes to shove, civilization depends on us choosing a world like the Titanic; without so, we would be just as doomed as those who sank.