Posted on 06/25/2010 4:31:27 PM PDT by central_va
Open Message to Mr. Beck (self proclaimed historian). Tonight on your TV show you said that you read the Confederate Constitution and I paraphrase "it had slavery written all over it, all about slavery blah blah blah". You are incorrect sir, I did a word search on the document and the word slavery appears "one" time. Everyone can try it for themselves at the link provided below.
Can never trust a Yankee, even a goofy entertaining one.
marron,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful response @ 132! I have read much of American history, including Jim Crow, that curls my hair.
No Lincoln wasn’t perfect, nor was the Union, much less the Confederacy. No person or entity is ever perfect. The issues I take are with those who choose to ignore aspects of America’s collective history, which don’t promote the myth that only the South was bad and solely guilty for everything that happened. Individuals were indeed virtuous, and those not so virtuous, on both sides of that conflict. Political parties are a different story!
We do need to stop letting the dumocrats get away with rewriting their history. We must figure out a way to put the reality of it all front and center.
As far as this thread, I don’t watch tv. However, my daughter and my better half do. They give me Beck reports, on a regular basis, b/c I always liked Beck when I did watch tv:) The impression both of them have is that Beck is painting the South as pretty rotten. It blew my mind when my daughter relayed to me that he stated that slavery in the North was better/different than in the South. They tell me he even adopts a typical, derogatory, southern stereotype, including voice and mannerisms, when he is referring to those he finds dumb or ignorant. This particular habit of his I witnessed in shows he did last year. I don’t appreciate any of it. I admire the work he does, but again, I take issue with those who present a one-sided view of our history and see fit to denigrate the South. From what my family is telling me, Beck is going down the road of perpetuating a version of our history that I know to be innacurate/incomplete.
I am not one that has ever denied the connection between slavery and the Confederacy. Nor do I close my eyes to the fact of slavery that was still existant in the Union. I have no problem with Beck discussing slavery and the Confederacy/South, but believe it helps no one if the whole of our history isn’t relayed.
I don’t agree with why some states chose to secede, but do believe they had the right to do so. There’s a paradox: I don’t defend slavery but do defend states rights! I also recognize the states which seceded due to Lincoln’s order for troops and those which seceded for refusing to assist in coercing other seceded states back into the Union.
I’m also thankful you mentioned the abolishionists, I’m one that sees all the groups who were trying to end slavery as abolishionists. That thought brings me to a historical tidbit I think you might appreciate, please see below:
The Manumission Intelligence & The Emancipator
LOCATION: West Main St., Jonesborough, TN, 37659
The Manumission Intelligence & The Emancipator were the nation’s oldest publications dedicate to the abolition of slavery. Publication began in 1819.
Pretty cool, huh? Some of the earliest groups against slavery were actually in the South. I don’t know how that fact got buried over the years.
I can’t disagree with the abolisionists purpose, but I do believe the radical tactics that were employed, starting in the early 1830’s, demolished the possibility of the South releasing her slaves. The best of intentions often lead to unintended consequences.
And so it goes.
I sincerely appreciate the conversation and goodwill.
Sunshine
BINGO...I just watched the referenced statement at 215 am on the replay...beck didnt even SAY what the OP claims at all...he said slavery was the THEME..not states rights...as you couldnt JOIN the confederacy without being a slave state...nor remain in it if you made slavery illegal..so much for “states rights”...
Dave Barton agrees...then they go to break...after the break they move on to other topics...
Back on now..
Lincoln did not condone slavery however, he did not believe in equality of the races. (Sunshine)
Neither did anyone else at the time. (rockrr)
Perspective and context. (rockrr)
I agree it is perspective and context. I failed to make my perspective and context in the above statement clear. I should have excerpted the following from drew's post:
They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Sunshine
“I have no problem with Beck discussing slavery and the Confederacy/South, but believe it helps no one if the whole of our history isn’t relayed.”
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=92
Check it out....it’s in black and white (pun intended) why the south went to war...quoted in their own words..and fully referenced and footnoted...
I watched it this afternoon and didn’t really recall the alleged statement at all. I’ll have to watch my DVR copy again. It was a good show and worth watching regardless of this argument. I am about sick to death of everybody’s revisionist history which seems to rely heavily on simply erasing big chunks of it.
The funny thing about revisionists...they even feel the need to revise what happend just hours ago...
It’s the segment leading up to the 15 minute mark...where glenn talks about trying to find a copy of the confederate constitution...and getting to see the original..
Here’s the link to the wall builders references:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=92
I almost made a remark about that. Even when something is video taped and available on the internet, made a few hours past, someone will try to make false claims about what was said or what happened. Amazing!
I'm not arguing what the Confederate Constitution states, my point is how much is left out of this type of history lesson. I am not one that has ever denied the connection of slavery and the Confederacy. But, there is much of this period in history which is often left out. Have Beck and his guest mentioned slavery, which was still in existance, in the Union states? Have they mentioned the states which didn't secede due to slavery? These are only two points I'll make tonight. It's getting very late for me!
Incomplete versions of history are what I take issue with. Incomplete versions are inherently innacurate due to what is left out.
“Have Beck and his guest mentioned slavery, which was still in existance, in the Union states? Have they mentioned the states which didn’t secede due to slavery? These are only two points I’ll make tonight. It’s getting very late for me!”
Beck only has an hour...minus commcerial breaks....and this is just the second show on the black founders...
Colonial Slavery is has drummed into out heads....colonial black freemen have been purged...
The point is to cover new ground...to open eyes...
Hell...how many people know that at least a quarter of the colonial army were black soldiers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_Revolutionary_War
And they both fully disclosed there was racism, etc.....not like it’s a big secret or anything...
I'd watch who you call a troll, ever read your own crap?
Ok, now I'm totally confused. If he's covering the founders and colonial times, where does the Confederate Constitution come in? There is a gap of roughly 100 years there. Can ya help me out?
I was aware that a large number of colonial soldiers were black. However, I was not aware that it was at least a quarter of the army. Thanks for the info.
>>Article I, Section IX. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.<<
>>Article IV, Section III. The Confederate States may acquire new territory, and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States lying without the limits of the several States, and may permit them, at such times and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government, and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.<<
Reading the CSA Constitution, I find these two parts are the only ones that mention slavery and all its combinations. Meanwhile, the US Constitution uses euphemisms regarding slavery: Article 1, Section 1 (”other persons”); Article 1, Section 9 (”importation of persons) and Article 4, Section 2 (”persons held for service or labor).
The CSA Constitution and the US Constitution seem to be pretty close to agreement. And don’t forget the SCOTUS upheld slavery (infamous Dred Scott decision).
There is no moral high ground for either side. The degree of participation in slavery does not negate the fact of participation. Often overlooked are the states which chose to secede due to Lincoln's order for troops and refusal to participate in coercion, by force, to return already seceded states back into the Union. There is also the individual aspect of this, which is also often overlooked; the individuals, on both sides, who wanted no part of any war, but were helpless to stop manipulation by politicians.
Apparently some people think 'The South' is a noble cause worth defending. I equate the lot of those proponents with barnyard animals, except that the animals are more intelligent and noble. Look around this thread and see the modern face of the slaveholder and the armchair rebel. What children! They are not men, they are not worthy of anything but scorn and derision. Cowards and reprobates relive battles their weakling ancestors couldn't justify or win in the moment.
I respect your opinion in the above statement however, my opinion differs from yours. Aspects of my Southern heritage are ugly and, you are correct, slavery is indefensible. However, slavery is not the total of that heritage. To me, America's history of slavery is just that, America's history not solely a Southern legacy. I see no modern face of slaveholders on this thread. I see no defense of slavery on this thread. I see no sentiments expressed on this thread which are worthy of scorn and derision, much less men worthy of the same derogatory comments. Individuals expressing their views and opinions do not make them cowards nor reprobates. If the veterans, in the link below, could come together 50 years after the war with no such opinion of one another, who are we to judge? I don't believe any of these men viewed each other as weaklings nor in need of justification of their service.
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/100625-johnson-columnsamerica.html
This nonsense about 'states rights' is nothing but a fig leaf for white supremacy.
I do not see any indication of white supremacy in any statement on this thread. As ugly as the truth is, states rights included slavery in those days. Those were different times.
Bigots need to be called out and stamped out wherever they rear their heads. Let them wipe sarcastic tears from their eyes as they reveal themselves to be nothing but racist trolls.
big·ot Function: noun Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot Date: 1660 : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. (Merriam-Webster)
Reviewing the definition of a bigot, I don't fit the definition of a bigot. I don't see anyone defending their Southern heritage, on this thread, that fits the definition either.
I say this is a fact: if Sherman had been allowed to finish his work we wouldn't today have to endure the grotesque suggestions found elsewhere on this thread-- because such ideas would be rightfully and unequivocally extinct. Would that that were the case the world would be a better place.
If I understand your point with this comment, Sherman's march would have had to begin in states west of Georgia and would have taken him to points north of the mason-dixon line. If I have misunderstood your point, well, things don't always compute like they should for me! At times it's kinda hard to tell intent absent the vocal inflection. But, we do the best we can with written (in our case typed) communication.
As I've stated, I respect your opinions, but mine differ. As a general rule, I don't discuss this topic from an emotional POV. I find it hinders communication instead of facilitating it.
Please don't be surprised if the link I included doesn't work. I can't figure out why these links don't work for me!
Nope, link didn’t work again!
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/100625-johnson-columnsamerica.html
BigReb,
I failed to tip my hat to you for the article you posted yesterday, saluting our 234th birthday, which I used on this thread. Thanks for a great read, I enjoyed it!
I have had reservations about beck on several issues...
I couldn’t believe it when I saw this tv show and he said these things—worse even Barton seemed to agree with him...
WTF!
I don't deny for one second that the Union allowed it. The point I'm making is that the republican party made the move to end it.
I don't deny for one second that the Union allowed it. The point I'm making is that the republican party made the move to end it.
I don't deny for one second that the Union allowed it. The point I'm making is that the republican party made the move to end it.
I've read quite enough of yours.
Take your delusional revisionist history over to DU, they're quite welcoming over there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.