Dear Glenn Beck: Confederate Constitution mentions the word slavery ONE time.

Confederate Constitution ^ | 6/25/10 | Central_VA

[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.

CS Constitution

Can never trust a Yankee, even a goofy entertaining one.

[central_va]

Nope. Slavery was evil, as are the dissemblers who try to rewrite history. Such as yourself.

Not to Lincoln, who was a racist to the n-th degree. Which, unfortunately, was a trait common to most in the 19th century. The butcher jumped on the abolitionist band wagon a bit late. The Irish he was sending to the useless slaughter weren't cutting it. No, he needed fresh meat, the black man would do just fine.

[central_va]

Wow. So George Washington was a Federalist/State-ist? Who knew?

At that time the Constitution was actually followed, so no, I won't put Washington in the state-ist camp.

[cowboyway]

Slavery was evil, as are the dissemblers who try to rewrite history.

You can thank your yankee forefathers for the slave trade and take a look in the mirror to see a revisionist asshole.

Your slip is showing, here.

Not a slip at all, stinkpen.

One of the ones that defeated your warped view of the world.

It makes total sense that a POS yankee, you in this case, would think that believing in liberty is a 'warped view'. But, such is The Coven's group mentality.

Has anyone told you that your pointy white hood looks like a dunce cap in this light?

Here we go. Why don't you just go ahead and call me a racist, stinkpen? That is one of the favorite methods of attack by you libtards. (Got your Rules for Radicals book right out there on the desk don't you.)

BTW, the last pointy white hood that I saw was being worn by some POS yankees in Michigan, idiot.

[IncPen]

You espouse a worldview whose idea of liberty necessarily celebrates the subjugation of another.

You’re a racist.

[rockrr]

And that’s showing pokie’s best side!

[Non-Sequitur]

Not to Lincoln, who was a racist to the n-th degree.

Nor to Davis or Lee who were even more racist than Lincoln was.

[Non-Sequitur]

At that time the Constitution was actually followed, so no, I won't put Washington in the state-ist camp.

Sure you would. A man who said loyalty to country should come above loyalty to state or locale? In your eyes Washington was a statist SOB.

[patriot preacher]

Chris Christie, for instance, is a “Yankee” I can LIKE — ALOT!
I can like him too, as long as he keeps his yankee ass in New Jersey.

Be careful with the blanket statements.

I’ll tell you what, you live your life your way and I’ll live my life my way. Deal?

some who COULD be allies and possibly friends...

Yankees never have and never will be our friends and allies. Regardless of the struggle, in the end they want to run the show and put the South ‘in it’s place’.

But you feel free to go on and swap spit with them if you want to.
________________

I don’t disagree with your statement that we should all “do our own thing” to the extent that what we do isn’t harmful to others — that’s called LIBERTY. You do your thing, I’ll do mine. Fine.

Chris Christie sounds pretty good as a top contender for President, as far as I can tell. We shall see. I don’t mind if he moves as far south as DC - at least not at this point. :-)

With regard to “Yankees” wanting to “run the show,” I know a sizable number of “Yankees” who would defy your description, and some who would even conclude that the South was actually RIGHT in their main causes for the Civil War. Unfortunately, it does seem to be the predominant philosophy of the majority of New Englanders in particular to insist that they know how best EVERYONE ELSE is supposed to live. Eventually they will have to be retaught a new behavior, won’t they? That is, if liberty is to survive...

Your little snide comment about “swapping spit” is insulting. I’d prefer to live at peace with all men whenever possible — but PRINCIPLES won’t always allow me to do that either. So, scoff at my preference for peace if you like — but I’ve found that the fights USUALLY don’t have any problem finding those of us who stand on our principles. The fights come looking for principled people first.

Southerners should be willing to stand with all those who share their principles — regardless of where they come from. Many have learned the rightness of their ideals of States Rights, Limited Governments, Free Enterprise and so forth, since the “Late Unpleasantness.”

[rockrr]

Amen preacher. You demonstrate that a person can disagree without being disagreeable. I can dig that.

[BnBlFlag]

I love the this paragraph of the Texas Ordinance. Take away any slavery issue and we have basically the same situation today.

“By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.”

[patriot preacher]

And as long as we keep hitching our team to the same wagon with the yankees it’s going to stay that way.

The only way to positively secure liberty for ourselves and our progeny is to bid the damnyankee coven an overdue farewell and then we can sit back and watch them collapse into the communist dictatorship that they desire.

You need to wake up, preach.
_______________________________

I assure you, I’m WIDE awake Cowboy.

The question is not IF, but WHEN.

And the NEXT question is HOW...

If the United States can remain a viable nation and the vision of the Founders and the Constitution can be restored by excising the cancer that is the Federal Government in Washington DC and all that it has become, then I am all for it! If, however, that is impossible — and I think there is a better than even chance that it will, in the end, be the case — then secession of not only the South, but other regions or States may be the only remedy left to a people that want to preserve their liberties.

That said, perhaps YOU need to wake up to the realities of what that will mean. If you think Lincoln and his Generals (particularly Sherman) were ruthless, you can’t even IMAGINE how terrible the Progressives and Marxists and their buddies the Islamofascists will be in dealing with those who would attempt to thwart their grand designs... Something to consider, Cowboy.

[central_va]

Sure you would. A man who said loyalty to country should come above loyalty to state or locale? In your eyes Washington was a statist SOB.

The proper question is, if alive today, would he make that same assertion? IMO no, hell no.

[Non-Sequitur]

The proper question is, if alive today, would he make that same assertion? IMO no, hell no.

Well you know what they say about opinions, humble or otherwise.

[central_va]

Nor to Davis or Lee who were even more racist than Lincoln was.

I don't know, maybe by a little. I missed the part in history where Lincoln ran his '60 campaign as an abolitionist. I guess I was sleeping in class that day.

[Non-Sequitur]

He is indeed some kind of historian.

The moronic kind.

[Non-Sequitur]

I don't know, maybe by a little.

In Davis and Lee you had two men who believed blacks were good for slavery and nothing else. Who believed they should be property, akin to a dog or a cow, entitled to no rights whatsoever much less anything approaching equal rights. I would say that their views differed from Lincoln's by considerably more than a little.

I missed the part in history where Lincoln ran his '60 campaign as an abolitionist.

Nobody said he did. If that makes him a vile racist in your eyes then that should dig the whole even deeper for Davis and Lee, considering their opposition to abolition of any kind.

I guess I was sleeping in class that day.

Probably out seceding.

[Idabilly]

You espouse a worldview whose idea of liberty necessarily celebrates the subjugation of another.

You’re a racist.

-------------------------------------------------

You espouse a worldview ( you world citizen...you ) whose Caesar made a mockery of the word.... Republic

You're a Lincolnite Marxist. Five stares for you

[Idabilly]

The southerners, losers to those that made America great, can’t stand facts. You are in denial. Beck was correct. The war was about slavery. The North decided to end it and the South didn’t.

So, was slavery a good thing? Was it right. Was it Christian? Did it make slaveholders rich?

If you answer these questions I think it makes Beck’s point and the reason for the war. The nation under Lincoln could not have endured apart in the most basic of human rights. Lincoln was indeed a great man. Beck makes that point. You can’t face facts.

----------------------------------------------------

As H. L. Mencken noted:

But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—"that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.

I’d say “case closed”

[IncPen]

You’re a little late to the party, hillbilly, but thanks for the compliment.

[the OlLine Rebel]

The fact that Beck is meeting at the Lincoln Mem. and tries to meld Lincoln into a latter-day “Founder” indicates immediately what side he’s on. Yet, anyway. Maybe he needs to do more research on THAT period.

What made me wince the most was them talking about “the 1st time in history the losers wrote the history”. Sure.

BTW, there IS partially damning evidence about the south out there. However, bottom line, my view is regardless of their moral inferiority or not, they had every right to secede.