Posted on 03/10/2021 7:29:34 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
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.