Skip to comments.Glenn Beck Discusses Lincoln with "Expert"
Posted on 02/15/2010 3:29:27 PM PST by central_va
Did anyone here see tonight's Glenn Beck TV show segment with the author (Lehrman?) of Lincoln at Peoria?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The south went to war not for state's rights, but to enforce the supreme court trampling on them, in the name of slavery. Sure they waved state's rights around like a flag. But they didn't practice them, and they'd kill rather than recognize the right of Illinois to free a man in Illinois.
Didn’t the Confederacy strengthen their central government more and more during the war?
Did Beck ask Lincoln if he was a 9/11 truther too?
I’ve never seen Blanche Lincoln as being in favor of states rights...
On, and the Confederacy had this little thing in its Constitution called slavery . . . three times. It stated that even if a state somehow banned slavery, it had to protect the rights of slaveholders who brought their slaves into that state. Yeah, that sounds like "states' rights" to me. (sarcasm)
Properly read in its historical context, the text does not refute JasonC whatsoever. You see, the South didn’t care what he said as President, they already knew how he felt about slavery, and what he would ultimately do. Which, btw, he did. The emancipation declaration against the slave-holding states at war with the union was, thus, something of a Southern-induced self-fulfilling prophecy.
Carl Sandburg is dead - the only Lincoln expert. However I do know that Lincoln’s hobby was ............ cats ........
You are missing an important point.
The southern states hid behind “States Rights” to protect slavery. By claiming that black Africans weren’t truly human but less than 100% human, they tried to prevent the Bill of Rights being applied to what was an economic necessity in their region.
Look if somebody wants to make The Illinois Butcher a hero, fine. Just don't try make him into some states rights Savior. That doesn't flush....
When I run out of toilet paper.
You are exactly right. We have a God given right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to liberty trumps state’s rights to deprive someone of liberty.
So on top of being a butcher he is a liar too. Some defender you are....
Lewis Lehrman’s book “Lincoln at Peoria”: http://www.lincolnatpeoria.com/
Lincoln was a supporter of the US Constitution, as were most Americans, north and south. That is why the attempted secession failed. The Southern Founding fathers all regarded secession as treasonous. The secession attempt of 1860-61 was an attempt to overthrow the USA and replace it with a slave empire extending into the Caribbean and Latin America in alliance with the most extreme regressive European elements. All Americans should thank God it failed.
‘economic necessity’ is a fiction. Those in power int he South wanted to continue the wealth building via slavery, but slavery was not an actual necessity to building wealth if the lust for same was not pushed but anticipated over a longer time period. It is akin to the current leftist crap about ‘doing the jobs Americans won’t do’.
Governor Brown of Georgia had no use for the Confederacy’s centralizing tendencies. But the CSA was not only beset by central government oppression. The Confederate regime was also characterized by many local petty tyrants who were no more than glorified thugs with pretensions. It wasn’t just black Southerners that the great Lincoln helped to liberate.
They weren't very good accountants and they didn't understand economics. They never really appreciated the full cost of owning the slaves as a productive unit of the cotton industry. And they didn't understand that the gin had rendered the slaves uneconomic.
Slavery was a dead institution within twenty years whatever happened in the war.
I would be interested in knowing the date and the context of this statement.
A little arson shortened the war, saved lives and punished the insolent and arrogant for agitating the South into rebellion.
DiLorenzo is a libertarian gadfly who has been distorting the Lincoln legacy with his feckless drivel for years. But there is no distorting the true motivation behind secession and the Confederacy. They didn’t want slavery to end. And Dilorenzo fits right in. He’s a modern day secessionist with an axe to grind and a seemingly favorable view towards slavery.
” Lincoln is NO HERO as far as I’m concerned. Deo vindice!”
Try to get a grip. The people of the South, 90% didn't own slaves, but wanted out of the Union. They fought, bled and died to try to get away from centralized federalism. This is Fact. Slavery was the excuse to get away. It could have been about tulip bulbs. It is your kind of brainwashed thinking that is allowing the Feds to destroy us now, open your brain, Question the whole thing.
Dishonest Abe alert.
Remind me to not vote for you for fire chief :)
The railroad roundhouse destroyed by the liberators from the north was in Atlanta if my memory serves me correctly.
With the firing on Fort Sumter...the opportunity for his campaign offer to the South was over.
As for being a butcher, I think you have to stop drinking that KKK KoolAid, and focus on Mint Julips.
You will feel a lot better.
Did he comment on Lincoln’s propensity to sleep with men?
I know you don't mean that. I am not giving up on you. One day your brain washed mind will come around.
“The secession attempt of 1860-61 was an attempt to overthrow the USA and replace it with a slave empire extending into the Caribbean and Latin America in alliance with the most extreme regressive European elements. All Americans should thank God it failed.”
You must have attended public schools in Iowa. Lincoln had about as much respect for the Constitution as Obama has: In a word, None. Oh, and show me where the “Southern Founding Fathers” all regarded secession as treason. Your comment that the secession attempt of 1860-61 was an attempt to overthrow the USA and replaced it with a slave empire is too ignorant to dignify with a response.
The liberators from the North were not all from the North. Many of Sherman’s most vicious soldiers were white Southerners who had good reason to hate the slavery empire. The 1st Alabama Union cavalry is only the most famous of the Southern units that helped rid their land of the Confederate plague.
Went right to the bottom of the deck. Typical Statist Yankee
Glenn Beck was basically saying he comes on the side of Lincoln calming to have heard the other side, the anti-Lincoln side. and while he talks with a guy from the Lincoln institute about Lincoln they both like get it down to a half truth.
I uses to love Lincoln and idealizes him as I was taught about him in school. But what they did not teach to me or any of the other kids in school was the true magnitude and reality of what Lincoln did. As well as of Lincoln’s own hypocrisy in the matter.
As I later learned more and more of theses other details and their implications, and I think about it. The historic truth about Lincoln leaves nothing to love.
Glenn just skirted over theses facts in utter contradiction with the previous assertions of tyranny of the Unconstitutional lawless majority now being in practice just as them and the practical incapacity of the minority(politically) to protect themselves without the right to in anyway separate themselves from the rule of that hostile and lawless majority.
Lincoln himself was a hypocrite, and he was pro-secession before becoming president, not just for entire States but for any subdivision of any State. This was as Lincoln and our own Declaration of Independence held a natural and inalienable right of the people! A right that was critical to the preservation of constitutional law, and freedom.
Lincoln and the other pro-secession because he was an abolitions that did not want to have to return escaped slaves to the south. Thats all fine and good, but he did a 180 after achieving power and thou he himself admitted again and again he could not end slavery, and had no desire to. His denial of the people of the South of their Equal right to revolutionize and separate themselves from the hostile majority of the North is in retrospect tyrannical and in utter-contraction with our foundation as a people in the Deceleration of Independents.
A document in which We as a people, in Actual defiance of actual British law, not just a theoretical abstraction of law (an abstraction which is itself contradicted by the 9th and 10th amendments) did exactly the same thing with regard to the British Empire.
An unconditional union is the chains of slavery, as there can be no practical way for the minority(politically) to protect their rights.
Lincoln knew this, and acknowledged it before becoming president when the Northern abolitionist were in the minority. Lincoln CHOOSE to ignore theses Rights when he and the other Northern abolitionist became the majority. That singular choice in my opinion is what made him wrong. All other issues are in the grand scheme of things of 2ndary importance. The ends don’t justify the means.
Very few of our people ever face theses unavoidable facts. History at least the version they tend to want to teach in schools, if any at all at this point, is written by the victors who tend to want to show themselves in the best light. But there is far more record of our history then that which they teach in schools out there for the reading.
One of the main proposes of freedom of speech and reasons for the condemning of “book burning” as it is said is to help keep rulers from trying to rewrite history, in addition to reality.
In this respect with the unprecedented access to information for everyone in the information age afforded to us by the internet, the truth will eventually come out.
Even then in that age which was very much depended upon news papers, books and memory to teach people, those who were willing. Theses who were not blinded by ideology and 50 years of political rivalry and hate could learn of and remember the truth about freedom, and our union.
Why did they not get the north to respect and protect the rights of their political enemies?
Well even that is written of out in the open in our history, if you bothered to read them.
At the time, in the North when and where theses issues of natural right of secession were brought forth in argument against Lincolns War effort, Lincoln and his supporters first claimed that the Southern vote was ridged, and when that argument proved to be clearly fictions given the Southern peoples willingness to mobilizes and fight for their rights, Lincoln then proceeded to shutdown the news papers that dare speak of it.
In short Lincoln robed the people of their right to free speech and in doing so robed them of their only chance to realizes the magnitude of the crime that they were committing on Lincoln’s behalf. A crime that continues to haunt and enslave them as much as it haunts and enslaves the people they allowed themselves to be used in conquering.
In short nobody except the power brokers of Washington D.C. won the Civil War, everyone else particularly the rights of the people lost the war.
Google “Lincoln on slavery”. regards.
The same man who closed his letter by saying, "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." As opposed to Southern leaders who believed all black men everywhere should be slaves.
Lincoln was never pro-secession. Lincoln did uphold the principles of revolution as put forth in the Declaration of Independence.
So you want a wild-eyed anti-Lincoln loony to balance Lewis Lehrman? Isn't that tilting things a little towards the foaming mouth side if things?
“The men of the north could not be forced against their sovereign rights to tolerate the hideous monstrosity of human slavery. You’d have to kill them first....”
You know absolutely nothing of the “men of the north” when it comes to the issue of slavery. The fact is, had the “men of the north” thought for one minute that the war was to free the slaves they never would have participated in the fight. Hell, even US Grant said that. You obviously never read any Lincoln, either, as he said he didn’t care a whit about slavery, and would leave it alone if that would keep the Union intact (which right there destroys any argument that the war was to free the slaves). Aside from a small handful of firebrand abolitionists, the north didn’t care one way or another about slavery; in fact, slavery was still legal in a few states outside the confederacy, including the Yankee state of Delaware.
The KKK faded away decades ago. The Left needs to find another straw man.
The closest historical figure to Lincoln that I can come up with would be Julius Caesar. There are many parallels there.
“You deserved every particle of it and worse. And you can have the like again for the asking. Now cry some more, whining little snot...”
Where are you from, boy? You sure talk some smack.
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.