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.
They never have to. That's a big problem. Kids are not taught that democrats were running the south. They aren't taught that KKK was a product of the democrats.
However, I think that most reasonable people do not associate the attack on Ft. Sumter as a war of northern aggression. I guess the democrats will call the blitzkrieg a war of Polish aggression. Defenders of the democrats are quick to say that the war had nothing to do with slavery. Democrats say it was about states' rights...........to have slavery.
But, the democrats have every right to defend slavery and the confederacy, just as they have the right to look like fools. The democrats can refer to Lincoln as the great butcher all they want. But they will never be able to say the democrats changed the constitution to ban slavery. They will never be able to say that they fought against slavery. Just as they wanted the black man to be dependent upon somebody to live and function back then, they want the same thing now.
Your statement is insightful......slavery was an American institution not just a Southern institution. Why people want to teach history, without including all of it, tells me their intentions are as one-sided as what we hear from liberals on a host of issues!
My impression is that our region and heritage is demonized to hide reality and the WHOLE TRUTH!
How do you explain slavery in the Union states?
Sorry bout that.
Sorry bout that.
“The word slavery appears one time. The term slave does appear often, I agree.”
And you hung your hat on that?
Wait — Beck clearly used the word “Slavery.” He hung HIS hat on that.
That said, the term “slave” is used several times in several locations, usually in terms of protecting the rights of the individual States to determine whether or not slavery continued as an institution. In other words, slavery was predicated on the principle of States Rights, States Rights as a Principle was NOT created as a principle to support slavery as an insitution.
There is NO arguing that slavery was, by our standards today — and by most standards 150 years ago — an evil institution. Even Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee & “Stonewall” Jackson said the same. That’s why they did not own slaves (they released them years before), yet they served in the Confederate Army — because the war was about far more than that single institution.
But the thread that ties the Confederate Constitution together is not slavery, but States Rights. Can one then conclude that because slavery was a “moral wrong,” States Rights” and secession must also be excluded as options on some moral, ethical or political basis? I think not. Yet that is what is often argued by those who oppose the very idea of the Confederacy in the Civil War.
So, if Southerners acknowledge that slavery was a moral evil that needed to be abolished, can there be an honest discussion about the necessity of the states retaining their rights to nullification, and in dire cases secession?
Perhaps THEN we can begin to find common ground to fix the foundational issues that STILL haunt our nation over a century and a half later...
The word “slave”, “slaves”, and “slaveholding” appears another 9 times and the context is the preservation of slavery. It also mentions “negro” and “negroes” another 3 times. It’s very clear that slavery of a particular race was on the minds of those who wrote it.
But in the vote in February, the voters overwhelmingly rejected even the calling of a secession convention. When the legislature illegally took the state out of the Union, that was the last word of the people. Even assuming that the June vote was legitimate and not influenced by the presence of an occupying Confederate army, the politicians in Nashville had no right to disregard the voice of the people of Tennessee.
Father Abraham, Almighty God's chosen instrument to save the Union from the sins of slavery and successionism.
We are coming, Father Abraham, 300,000 more,
From Mississippi's winding stream and from New England's shore.
We leave our plows and workshops, our wives and children dear,
With hearts too full for utterance, with but a silent tear.
We dare not look behind us but steadfastly before.
We are coming, Father Abraham, 300,000 more!
CHORUS: We are coming, we are coming our Union to restore,
We are coming, Father Abraham, 300,000 more!
If you look across the hilltops that meet the northern sky,
Long moving lines of rising dust your vision may descry;
And now the wind, an instant, tears the cloudy veil aside,
And floats aloft our spangled flag in glory and in pride;
And bayonets in the sunlight gleam, and bands brave music pour,
We are coming, father Abr'am, three hundred thousand more!
CHORUS
If you look up all our valleys where the growing harvests shine,
You may see our sturdy farmer boys fast forming into line;
And children from their mother's knees are pulling at the weeds ,
And learning how to reap and sow against their country's needs;
And a farewell group stands weeping at every cottage door,
We are coming, Father Abr'am, three hundred thousand more!
CHORUS
You have called us, and we're coming by Richmond's bloody tide,
To lay us down for freedom's sake, our brothers' bones beside;
Or from foul treason's savage group, to wrench the murderous blade;
And in the face of foreign foes its fragments to parade.
Six hundred thousand loyal men and true have gone before,
We are coming, Father Abraham, 300,000 more!
CHORUS
I like to demonize Democrats. If you aren’t one, it shouldn’t bother you.
Democrats.
That's an easy and cowardly assertion-- you weren't a slave. Your argument is void on its face because you can prove nothing about how long slavery would or would not last. As pointed out elsewhere on this thread, slavery thrives in China, Africa, and North Korea.
The Southern states were denying blacks' constitutional rights within the borders of the United States. Surely you're not going to argue that black people should be denied their rights under the Constitution? Or will you assert that they shouldn't have been considered citizens in the first place?
The war crushed the South and its ability to wage war-- which is the purpose of war.
All of those things that you decry took place and were products of the South and Southern actions-- and they all took place in the South. The murder of Lincoln (by a Southerner) gave rise to segregation, the KKK, and reconstruction.
The South asked for and got its war (you conveniently neglect to mention that the war was underway before Lincoln set foot in the White House).
Your assertions that this would be a better country if we had allowed slavery to continue in some detached-but-righteous country ranks among the most offensive things I've ever read on FR or anywhere else for that matter.
I frankly think you're mentally ill.
You need to get out of the business of defending slavery and take your racism elsewhere. You smell like a DU troll.
We don't have to demonize them...they do it themselves!
In any case, if you watched Beck’s program about the black founding fathers you know that this thread is a bit dishonest from the beginning. It was a pretty good program, it was mostly about the black founding fathers and that has all got lost in this thread. His point is that his dreaded “progressives” which means Democrats have erased black participation in the founding of the country.
It was worth watching. If you didn’t see it, you might catch it later tonight.
600,000 died to force feed emancipation on blacks who were not ready to live on their own(Through no fault of their own) with racist whites who weren't ready to accept them. It really could have been done peacefully.
I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.
-- Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858
Democrats.
If only it were that simple. In reality it boiled down to individuals, regardless of political affiliation, in both the North and South. There were individuals who were pro-slavery, anti-slavery, and those who didn't care either way, in both North and South.
GOPyouth, my apologies for not framing my question in an appropriate manner. You are correct, the democrats have not been held accountable for their past. My point is to the fallacy of all of those in Union states being anti-slavery and all of those in Confederate sates being pro-slavery, which is not reality.
600,000 died to force feed emancipation on blacks
I won't even dignify the rest of your comment further.
You disgust me.
Well Bye bye. . Wiping a little tear from my eye.....
Southern states weren't the only states denying blacks their constitutional rights within the borders of the United States.
Now That's funny!
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.