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.
“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?”
Forget it...you just want to argue...you’re are acting like glen personally attacked you when he’s talking about blck history being erased by progressives and southern DEMOCRATS.
His main theme is that if more blacks had a better view of history besides slavery and oppression they might get off the democrat plantation of the mind..
Thanks for the context from the Cornerstone Speech. Very illuminating. Nothing like the words of the people themselves, to illustrate the truth of what was going on in their minds.
Barton? lol
I watched it TWICE...the Op is twisting what Beck said because he’s personally offended...and thus he leaps to the defense of the south.....a few on this thread are doing just that..defending the south...as if glenn personally attacked them...
Except that in article 1, section 9 of the confederate constitution it explicitly protects slave imports which the real Constitution does. And in article 4, section 3 it requires all states and territories to allow slavery, regardless of the wishes of the people living there. In the old Union, slavery had been a state issue. In the confederacy the central government mandated its legality. So no, there is no agreement between the confederate constitution and the real Constitution. Not even close.
And don’t forget the SCOTUS upheld slavery (infamous Dred Scott decision).
In the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney upheld the expansion of slavery and stripped the Congress of the powers granted it in Article IV, Section 3 "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States..." Chief Justice Taney also stripped all blacks, both free and slave, of their U.S. citizenship.
There can be no doubt that had the rebellion not intervened, the Dred Scott decision would have been challenged on any number of points. But the most likely one is the fact that once Chief Justice Taney said that as a slave Scott had no right to take the case to the Supreme Court then the matter should have been dismissed right there. And all of Taney's other meanderings about slavery in the territories formed an obiter dictum and therefore were not binding. And don’t forget the SCOTUS upheld slavery (infamous Dred Scott decision).
The only slave Grant ever owned he purchased in order to manumit him.
In a column dated January 26th, 2000, Dr. Walter F. Williams, the renowned libertarian/conservative economist (and black by popular demand) noted the following:
“General Ulysses Grant’s slaves had to await the Thirteenth Amendment for freedom. When asked why he didn’t free his slaves earlier, General Grant said, “Good help is so hard to come by these days.””
They weren’t his slaves.
I watched it only once, that was enough for me—beck clearly went out of his way to paint the Southern Staes as racist and lincoln’s war against southern Americans as having nothing to do with “states rights”, shaking is head in feigned disbelief...
I have grown used to his attacks on other “Patriots” regarding their stands on certain issues he either personally dislikes and/or his masters at faux will not allow him.
To me, this attitude negates the good he achieves in other areas.
Oh, and Sherman? He never owned slaves at all.
__________________________
“Sherman had adopted the southern attitude toward slavery: it was part of the natural order. He had a slave in both Mobile and Charleston, and he strongly defended the institution in letters home, on one occasion using Fort Moultrie’s sorrow over the death of Braxton Bragg’s retainer to demonstrate ‘the strong attachment between master and slave.’” [John F. Marszalek, _Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order,_ pp. 45-46]
You, Sir, are wrong.
bump
They weren’t his slaves.
And you say this based on — ??
Everything up north is better, don't you know!
Beck, like every other yankee, is a sick joke.
But jeff davis, that Cruel Bastard, SOB & Radical Democrat certainly did...right?
Regarding slavery? Absolutely not!
Regarding States Rights and secession? Absolutely YES!
Incidentally — if we stereotype and overgeneralize:
“Like every other Yankee, a sick joke” OR
“radical Democrat” as though Democrats of the 1800’s are like Democrats of today... (or Republicans for that matter)
and we are making WAY too many assumptions!
Chris Christie, for instance, is a “Yankee” I can LIKE — ALOT! And as far as a Democrat there’s — Um, um, well....Zell! Zell Miller! Yeah! :-)
Be careful with the blanket statements. They serve no good purpose and alienate some who COULD be allies and possibly friends...
Dr. Walter Williams is a mediocre economist and a complete hack as an historian, as demonstrated by this completely false statement of his. His claim is impossible. Grant was a resident of Illinois at the outbreak of the rebellion and slavery was illegal there. Grant's in-laws were residents of Missouri, which amended its state constitution to end slavery in January 1865. So Grant didn't live anywhere where slavery was legal. And that was irrelevant anyway because according to Missouri records the Dent family manumitted all its slaves early in 1863.
When Williams claims that Grant owned slaves as late as December 1865, he is either deliberately lying or showing that he is incapable of adequately researching his statements before making them.
You are obviously as poor an historian as your hero Walter Williams is. William Sherman never owned a single slave in his life. And even if he did, neither Grant nor he could have owned them as late as when the 14th Amendment was passed because the 13th Amendment made it illegal.
There is some evidence that suggests that Sherman rented a slave as a body servant while at Ft. Moultrie, but there is no evidence that he ever owned slaves.
Regarding owning slaves - he absolutely did.
As always, lotsa remarks about “Yankees” this threadand many others....
Just what do we mean by....”Yankee”???
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/gunny-g-damn-yankees-arent-what-you-may-think-they-were/
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.