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)
FReepers 4CJ and Nolchan both debunked the ideal myth of Lincoln’s belief in human equality he no more actually believed in human equality and in human rights than Barack Obama, does in free market capitalism free market economy.
They did it with Lincoln’s very own words the Whigs and the early Republican party are the forefathers, of the progressive socialist and the Neo-Marxists movements from the time of they’re founding through to the early 1900’s when H. Taft and Roosevelt sowed the very seeds, that Woodrow Wilson himself would end up growing taking full root that saw the overthrow of this once great nation.
If you bash and cancel John C. Calhoun then you must do it with the founding fathers along with Lincoln too you cannot with a straight face saw they’re were men of their day while trashing Calhoun as a bigot and saying he was not.
Abolitionists also engaged in cancel culture tactics too.
Lloyd Garrison wanted to rip up and destroy the Constitution Harriet Tubman engaged in mass murder she also supported and aided John Brown’s attempts to overthrow the government.
Other abolitionists destroyed pro constitutional southern publication even the ones who were not fire eater nationalist funny the Abolitionists claimed to believe in human equality yet they supported the early segregational laws of the North that would see make its own down South after the war.
Nothing personal but I would not waste my time with these idiots
I recommend "Heirs of the Founders" by H. W. Brands for a interesting overview of Clay, Calhoun, and Webster.
So your argument is that somewhere out there there exists an "idea myth of Lincoln's belief;" and that myth has been debunked by Freepers. Did you learn to write in one of our government indoctrination centers or do you have some other excuse?
The idea that one can prove or debunk some historical figures beliefs is absurd. Lincoln and Calhoun left us writings and speeches. They made arguments. We can evaluate the argument they made. Either way the touchstone for those arguments is the Declaration of Independence. Understanding that document also take effort and is subject to argument.
Perhaps you can explain to us the evidence that Calhoun and not Lincoln was the the true advocate for our founding principles.
I’ll ask the same to you did you learn your historical application from the communistic view points of Howard Zinn?or from socialist Doris Goodwin? Or from Mr. Chips Macpherson? Shall we pull out the and rehash ole threads of old showing per bantam the very debunking of Lincoln’s greatness he was a racist bigoted lefty progressive, Clay Whig till the very day his brains were blown out.
His revisionist interpretation of the declaration was asinine he blatantly and falsely pinned the union as making the states he placed the leviathan federal state as above al there’s reason why authoritarian dudes like Bismarck and Hitler liked the him so wellhe gave them the blueprints.
I’ll see your H.W. Brands and raise you a Clyde Wilson.
LOL! Wilson? No deal.
Oh? He’s a pseudo historian but Mr. Progressive Brands is the means all to beat all? Brands has spent the better of his career trying to be the progressive version of Forrest Macdonald and very poor one at that despite the phony awards they throw his way.
Ah, but only the South had the community support to actually force out preachers and postmasters from their positions.
To my knowledge, not a single northern pro-slave postmaster was ever forced out, nor did any postmasters ever censor papers from the South.
See Richard John’s book on the USPS. The North talked cancel, but the South actually did it. For ex., in southern ports free black sailors were not allowed to disembark, a huge violation of personal freedom. There was no equivalence here. By the way, there was a great article back when historians used to actually do history analyzing Calhoun as the “Marx of the Master Class” because of his marxist ideas on property rights.
I went and looked this guy up. H.W. Brands. Here is what I found.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/09/founders-chic/302773/
Has our reverence for the (Founding) Fathers gotten out of hand? That’s what he asserts in the title.
Could you read this article and tell me what you think about it?
As I pointed out, I read their speeches.
Lincoln: all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated and were given to the world from this hall. I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.
Calhoun: We now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the declaration of our independence. For a long time it lay dormant; but in the process of time it began to germinate, and produce its poisonous fruits. It had strong hold on the mind of Mr. Jefferson, the author of that document, which caused him to take an utterly false view of the subordinate relation of the black to the white race in the South; and to hold, in consequence, that the former, though utterly unqualified to possess liberty, were as fully entitled to both liberty and equality as the latter; and that to deprive them of it was unjust and immoral. To this error, his proposition to exclude slavery from the territory northwest of the Ohio may be traced, and to that the ordinance of ’87,
Please enlighten us as to Mr. Lincoln's incorrect interpretation. Yes, and you can hold the meaningless ad hominem arguments.
I would say that the opposite needs to happen. When these guys stood up and explicitly said "The Declaration was wrong", we ought to be telling every body about this.
You know, after reading the discussion thread in its entirety it's incredible to me how successful progressive historians have been at dividing people through their mis-telling of history.
Look at how this thread has devolved into nothing more than the usual Lincoln-bashing and confederacy bashing. Lincoln was wrong on many things and the Confederates got a lot of things correct, but everybody is too dug-in to listen.
Even the original sources don't have as much power as the historians have. Think of that.
How much trouble are we really in here? How much danger is here for us? Even on Free Republic, the progressives are in control. This report was even given to us by the President. Think of that! The President gave it to us and yet, the old original positions given to us by the progressives, THAT is more important. Think of how much danger this presents. We've gotta break free from this poison and re-establish the baselines on the original facts, not the distortions the historians have promoted. They're liars! Why do we trust them?
This whole thing is a good learning exercise. If even the original sources don't matter then where does that leave us?
"Progressives are in control"??
Sure, if by "progressives" you mean the Cro-Magnons are in control of the Neanderthals, then... well... maybe that could be argued.
But I'd suggest there was a lot of interbreeding between the races and so there's still a lot of Neanderthal in all of us allegedly "progressive" Cro-Magnons.
Regardless, Free Republic is still as conservative (in the American sense of that word) as any site I can imagine.
You know "liberal" used to mean what we call conservatives today, but definitions & usages change, so yesterday's "liberals" are today's "progressives" -- "progressing" towards what?
Why towards communism, of course, the oldest of ancient tyrannies, never practiced by either Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons, but long before by ants, bees, termites & such.
{sigh}
If even the original sources don’t matter then where does that leave us?
That’s such nonsense Larry and you know it.
The North did way more than just talk from the abolitionist to the Wide-awakes they all in engaged in Antifa/BLM style cancel-culture style tactics, hell Uncle Tom’s cabin alone was trying to incite up mass murder amongst the abolitionists to genocide out the South/South land.
What original sources don't matter to whom?
In the United States, the definition of "conservative" can be boiled down to two words: Constitution and Bible, not necessarily in that order.
If we're truly conservative then original sources matter, Founders' Original Intentions matter, the Bible's original meanings matter.
And those things always matter on Free Republic, though we can often disagree on just exactly what were the original intentions.
Are you hoping to suggest something different?
Jefferson did believe that people were unequal in their abilities and talents, but he was a fervent supporter of the French Revolution, and he continually attacked the monarchical and aristocratic tendencies that he saw in the federalists. He may have expected voters to choose their betters, but he wasn't above appealing to the ordinary man's resentment of those set above themselves when it was to his advantage. The Jefferson who made so much of the ordinary yeoman farmer's ability to choose rulers was no consistent supporter of an "aristocracy of talents."
In particular, Calhoun’s observation about the non-uniformity of human groups was universally accepted in 1776, and for many years afterward.
Individuals differ in their abilities. It's not impossible that as aggregates groups differ in their capacities as well, but that doesn't affect the idea that individuals from different groups have the same basic human rights. The white men who voted to abolish slavery in their states in the post-Revolutionary years believed that Black slaves were different, but that the differences didn't justify enslaving them. Indeed, some of those who voted to abolish slavery were of African descent themselves, since the vote wasn't taken away from them yet.
I think that’s accurate in posture, but I don’t see it being the dominant operation in practice.
Thankfully when I record these old works word for word into audio that seems to be pretty well received. The power of the spoken word is simply an amazing thing.
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.