Posted on 03/10/2021 7:29:34 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
In the PDF file (download here) for the 1776 Commission, a refutation of the 1619 Project, it says the following: (page 12)
Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina famously rejected the Declaration’s principle of equality as “the most dangerous of all political error” and a “self-evident lie.” He never doubted that the founders meant what they said.To this rejection, Calhoun added a new theory in which rights inhere not in every individual by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God” but in groups or races according to historical evolution.
This isn't usually what is said about leaders from the South in three categories:
To be clear, I don't mean that this is what is said from the progressives. We know that the progressives believe without any doubt that all leaders during this time period loved and worshipped the Founding. We also know (because it is proven) that progressives lie. What I waht to know is if those who are not progressives but are Civil War buffs, where are they on this? This sort of history has been erased - the idea that there was in fact a rejection of the Founding in this region during this era that is not just limited to one or two irrelevant people. There needs to be more coverage on this and the 1776 Commission report is now probably the highest profile source illustrating this. The report isn't just 5 words which says "Nuh uh, they are lying!", it actually establishes a base timeline.
The Commission's final report does not contain footnotes, so if you want to see this fully Calhoun's comment can be found in the 1848 "Oregon Bill" speech.
I bring this up because I have in the past (again here) pointed out how Lincoln spoke glowingly of the Declaration and I was trying back then to make the point about the utter depravaty of the progressives' lies. Additionally, I also posted recently about how some unknown number of slave owners felt that Marx and Hegel better represented their views. which again, illustrates lies that progressives tell. I feel the need to show all of you that Lincoln did not (so it appears) just wake up one day and speak in a void. Additionally I wouldn't be doing what I need to do if I didn't follow up on these things. In this context, Lincoln was generally defending the Declaration against those who attacked it on what was a hot button issue in his day. In the Oregon Bill speech, Calhoun does in fact attack the Declaration of Independence, that's just what it is.
One thing I do not know entirely is the timeline: Did Lincoln mention the Declaration first, which led some leaders to say that the Declaration is a lie as a vessel or vehicle to attack Lincoln?(in other words, was this meant only as a personal attack or presidential campaign politics and not really an attack on the Founding) Or did the Declaration come under assault first and Lincoln responded in kind at some later date. I can see this speech is from 1848, well before Lincoln's election. Was there a break or was this a consistent narrative for over a decade? I do not know.
I have this nasty habit of reading more than just "the quotes", and that leads me to read full documents such as the 1776 Commission Report. Nobody else talked about this that I have seen, and it's an important thing to consider.
Please read the full 1776 Commission report. (download here)
One thing I am very thankful for is that in the report, it lists progressivism prior to fascism and communism. That is both significant and more importantly accurate.
Wish I could have been a part. They put me on, then kicked me off right after the election to make room, I think, for Ned Ryun. Supposedly they gave me a more permanent spot on the Board of Education Sciences, from which Biteme couldn’t fire me, but turns out because of my curriculum, I had a financial conflict of interest & had to resign.
Anyway, there is a passage from Calhoun that most people overlook, where he said something to the effect of “We have a right to hold our slaves and to hold them in peace” meaning free fromn criticism or challenge. His was the first, that I know of, of “speech codes.”
ping... ??
Something I think I probably should have added:
This report helps re-construct the timeline in a way that progressives surely abhor. By the time we get to the progressive era in the 1900s, rejecting the Founding Fathers and rejecting the Declaration are already fairly widespread. Where did progressives get that from, or did they invent that on their own? Much of that was in the North, they didn’t get that from southerners.
I think most of the progressives invented it on their own due to their elitism, however at least in the case of known racists like Woodrow Wilson with his heritage, he would’ve most likely picked these ideas up from the people around him. Knowing how this all fits together is important going forward.
That’s very interesting.
I think you would have made a great addition to the team; I do not know of Ned Ryun. (I don’t think)
As to “hold them in peace”, I think that there is a real possibility that they probably got tired of being “harassed” (Which is probably how they viewed it) by people in the press after the Founding, as well as abolitionist activists.(both from the north)
Not to mention all of those abolitionist laws passed by members of the Founding generation in northern states. They weren’t perfect but their intent and trajectory are clear. That all had to culminate and make southern slaveholders feel isolated.
Good. Jackson should have changed the traitor Calhoun.
Hanged.
later
His father, an Olympic athlete, I think, was world record holder for the mile.
And that's my mind dump of "Ned Ryun"
I do not believe that anyone, even Thomas Jefferson, believed that the phrase “all men are created equal” meant anything other than that aristocracy based on anything other than talent was an injustice.
In particular, Calhoun’s observation about the non-uniformity of human groups was universally accepted in 1776, and for many years afterward.
In particular, Calhoun’s observation about the non-uniformity of human groups was universally accepted in 1776, and for many years afterward.
One has to have an idea as to what attributes the word equal was referring. The rest of the sentence suggests all human beings are equal in the possession of unalienable rights. This is what Lincoln argued (he mentioned or alluded to the Declaration in every speech he gave starting with the Lyceum speech in 1838), and this is what Calhoun the, proto-progressive, denied.
All I know is that as soon as someone tells me the CW was about “states rights” or anything other than slavery, I can safely ignore anything following as coming from an ignoramus and a traitor.
John C. Calhoun was the best statesman of his era.
He wasn’t a bit afraid of Jackson’s empty threats of hanging
If only he had the President of the Confederacy sigh.
Ping
Yes, absolutely, but it is interesting that Calhoun embraced a cancel culture (they banned Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and all other abolitionist works).
That’s probably true
🇺🇸😀😀🇺🇸
The similarities between the Confederates and the left are legion.
A couple thoughts:
- The primary intent of the Declaration’s “all men are created equal” was to negate divine rule
- Nevertheless, the logic requires affirmation that all men are, indeed, “created equal.”
- Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address referred to the Declaration and not to the Constitution.
- Here we have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution that both Calhoun and progressives exploited: the document was a political contract.
- As such, the Constitution can be easily construed to support or oppose any particular ideology, whereas it is, instead, an operative contract based upon specific terms derived from specific principles and not the other way around.
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.