Glenn Beck and Black History Friday.

[BamaFanNKy]

I love this stuff. Good look back on history.

[Southron]

I like his black founders talk but I despise his opinions on the War of Northern Aggression.

[Old Ducker]

According to Wiki, Beck's assertion that free states could not join the Confederacy is wrong:


A proposal to prohibit free states from joining the Confederate States of America was narrowly defeated, largely due to the efforts of moderates such as Alexander Stephens. Stephens believed that economics might persuade free states with strong economic ties to the South to join the Confederacy.

[BamaFanNKy]

According to Wiki, Beck's assertion that free states could not join the Confederacy is wrong:

Don't trust wiki. I believe he was correct.

[freshjiva]

Wow, this is indeed a solid show by Beck. Lots of things I never knew about black Americans in US history.

I'm telling you, Beck is not a bad guy. I know he has shown to be a backstabber to us in the past, but he's moving along.

I approach Beck like Ron Paul approaches foreign policy: interventionism and alliances leads to isolationism because we CREATE the divides. Same thing with Beck: if we automatically label him as a snake and a neocon, we will never win him over to our side. We create the divide rather than being open to people willing to listen to the ideas of liberty.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I despise his opinions on the War of Northern Aggression.

The war may not have been all about slavery for the North, but it sure seems like it was for the South.

From the Confederate Constitution:


Article I

Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Article IV
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.


(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Sec. 3.
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

[Southron]

The war may not have been all about slavery for the North, but it sure seems like it was for the South.

From the Confederate Constitution:



Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

The problem is that he views the war as just.

I have enjoyed the founding Fridays though.

I don't normally tune in but I will on Fridays.

[ravedown]

beck is so damn transparent...he's using the "black heroes in history" case to prove that the secular textbooks are intentionally and subversively racist and the libs have been promoting anti-american rhetoric through the public schools blah blah blah...remember, its all about god with beck- if he was honest he'd just say, we need god and creationism in our textbooks and swing the pendulum back to other extreme cause the libs are inherently evil and are brainwashing your kids to hate god and country. keep preaching dude.

[Acala]

The war may not have been all about slavery for the North, but it sure seems like it was for the South.

From the Confederate Constitution:



Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

Take another look at the Confederate Constitution - the part about tariffs.

The question "what was the Civil War about?' must be answered differently for different people. Lincoln's motivation for provoking the war was different than the Southern Firebrand's motivation for urging the attack on Fort Sumter was different than the motivation for the Northern soldier who actually took the field was different than the Southern soldier who actually took the field etc.

Most Northern soldiers couldn't have cared less about slavery, as was true of most Northern citizens and of most politicians and of Lincoln. Clearly, there was an element in the South that wanted to preserve slavery, but the average soldier didn't have slaves at risk and would not have gone to war for that issue.

As with most wars, soldiers take the field as a result of fear, anger, pride, greed, hatred, or some combination. Northerners really weren't much interested in joining up until the Confederates were goaded into firing on Fort Sumter. And Southerners were not much interested in signing up until Lincoln pledged to invade the South and subdue them. So for the average soldier it was a matter of pride and vengeance for a perceived wrong. And the perceived wrongs were calculated by politicians to do exactly what they did - stimulate public sentiments conducive to war.

In the North, the real driver behind those who promoted the war was economic advantage through tariffs and the politics of largess through public improvements. In the South it was a combination of opposition to the tariffs that favored northern industry and damaged southern agriculture, a wish to keep slavery, an opposition to public improvements, and a belief that the Federal government was usurping unconstitutional powers (this was Robert E. Lee's view, for example).

In other words, it was complicated. But no legitimate historian will say with a straight face that the Civil War was just about slavery.

After all, there were slave states on the Union side, and prominent Confederates who considered slavery an abomination (again including Robert E. Lee).

[tjeffersonsghost]

In other words, it was complicated. But no legitimate historian will say with a straight face that the Civil War was just about slavery.



Ill say it with a straight face. Yea the civil war was about states rights, that is the states right to own slaves. Dont take my word for it. Read the Declaration of Causes of Secession yourself. It spells out pretty clearly slavery is the issue...

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

[sofia]

I'm telling you, Beck is not a bad guy. I know he has shown to be a backstabber to us in the past, but he's moving along.

.

I'm tellin you, Tiger Woods isn't a bad husband. I know he's banged a lot of other women in the past, but he's done many good things for his wife.

[sofia]

Here's one for you Beck apologists.

Beck KNOWS that 9-11 was an inside job.....yet goes out of his way to brutally attack 911 truthers.

How do you all feel about Beck being a KNOWING accomplice after-the-fact to mass murder???

[catdd]

But the South didn't want to secede over slavery and they definitely didn't want war.
Southern Legislators knew damn well that the only sure way to preserve the institution of slavery was to remain in the Union and simply refuse to ratify any proposed constitutional-amendment to emancipate the slaves.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Here's one for you Beck apologists.

Beck KNOWS that 9-11 was an inside job.....yet goes out of his way to brutally attack 911 truthers.

How do you all feel about Beck being a KNOWING accomplice after-the-fact to mass murder???

Beck was against global warming before he was for it

Beck was for liberty candidates till he wasnt (Paul, Medina)

Beck hated our healthcare system till he loved it

Beck is a snake oil salesman. He will say whatever to get ratings. He has no principal or values except the almighty dollar.

[tjeffersonsghost]

But the South didn't want to secede over it and they definitely didn't want war.
Southern Legislators knew damn well that the only sure way to preserve the institution of slavery was to remain in the Union and simply refuse to ratify any proposed constitutional-amendment to emancipate the slaves.

Umm yes the south did want to secede. Remember they started the war by attacking Fort Sumter.

Abraham Lincoln actually told the south in his first innaguration if they dont secede he would grant permanent ability for the south to own slaves. (Which is why I cant figure out why everyone thinks Lincoln is some slave freeing saint)

The south didnt want Lincoln's proposal because they knew in the long run as new states joined they had to be free states (which was part of the bargain) and the south would of been smothered and slavery would have been ended anyways via the legislative process.

[catdd]

The South gave Mag Anderson every opportunity to surrender the fort which he refused, but they weren't fired upon until Davis was informed that the US Navy was in route to fortify Sumter which was a direct act of war against the South.
Jefferson Davis sent peace commissioners to Washington to negotiate a treaty with the Lincoln administration prior to the attack and Lincoln refused to meet with them; and he refused to permit Secretary of State Seward to meet with them.

[Southron]

What about the right of secession?

Did Iraq have the right to be a sovereign state? Does North Carolina?

[tjeffersonsghost]

What about the right of secession?

Did Iraq have the right to be a sovereign state? Does North Carolina?

Im not arguing against the right to secede. Just know that just like any other decision there are consequences. We seceded from the British Empire and as a consequence they sent thousands of troops over here to keep us in the Empire. Same happened in the south when they chose secession and the rest is history.

Our states do have a right to secede but just like marriage, secession doesnt usually end nicely.

[Southron]

Im not arguing against the right to secede. Just know that just like any other decision there are consequences. We seceded from the British Empire and as a consequence they sent thousands of troops over here to keep us in the Empire. Same happened in the south when they chose secession and the rest is history.

Our states do have a right to secede but just like marriage, secession doesnt usually end nicely.

Well said. And I agree.

[Cutlerzzz]

The war may not have been all about slavery for the North, but it sure seems like it was for the South.

From the Confederate Constitution:



Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

Lincoln tried to get the Union to pass an Amendment to protect to slavery too...

[jmdrake]

After all, there were slave states on the Union side, and prominent Confederates who considered slavery an abomination (again including Robert E. Lee).

So why when Lee's father-in-law's will say that all the Arlington slaves should be freed in 5 years did Lee petition the court to keep them in slavery indefinitely?

http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Lee_Robert_Edward_ca_1806-1870
1858 - As executor of his father-in-law's estate, Robert E. Lee files an appeal with the Supreme Court of Virginia to keep slaves in bondage "indefinitely" that were to be freed within five years. Slaves at Arlington rebel, accosting Lee and running away in large numbers.

Maybe he simply felt he was "doing his duty" as executor, but still.

From the same page:

As Custis's executor, Lee found himself confronted with the political reality of slavery. He disliked the institution—more for its inefficiency than from moral repugnance—yet defended it throughout his life. Custis, however, had liberated his slaves in a messy will that stipulated that they be released within five years. Lee interpreted this to mean that the slaves could be held for the entire period. The slaves, believing they were already free, accosted Lee and escaped in large numbers. Lee responded by hiring out many Arlington slaves, breaking up families that had been together for decades. He then filed legal petitions to keep them enslaved indefinitely. Only when the courts ruled against him did Lee finally free the slaves.

I do know that Lee desegregated a church after the civil war though.

[jmdrake]

Lincoln tried to get the Union to pass an Amendment to protect to slavery too...

That's not quite the full story. Lincoln agree with an amendment proposed by someone else which he knew had no way of being ratified in order to try to keep states from seceding. And Lincoln attempted to buy the slaves of the border states after the civil war started in order to set them free, but the deal was rejected.