On Sun, 7/18/10, Georgia Flagger – firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
From: Georgia Flagger – email@example.com
Date: Sunday, July 18, 2010
From: wildbill4dixie@ yahoo.com
To: me@glennbeck. com
CC: info@wallbuilders. com
I have reviewed the transcripts of your June 25th show on “Black Founding Fathers” and I have a few thoughts and comments for you.
Let’s start with the title of the show itself – “Black Founders.” FYI, the men who conceived, founded and in the first 50 years at least, built this country, were white men of Anglo-Celtic descent. They gave to their posterity, as well as to all of us who are not descended from their bloodlines, their language, their culture, their political philosophy and laws, and their belief in liberty. As an American of Italian descent, I am thankful for that, though secretly at least, I do wish that somewhere I could find, in the Declaration of Independence, a signature with a name like, Russo, Cabelli, or even Vallante. At the very least, I would be thrilled to no end if I could find such a name somewhere among the names of those men who built America in those first 50 years. But the reality of it is that I could look all day long and never find such a signature or such a person. I accept what is and I do not try to make up fables and fantasies to pretend that something existed which in fact did not. I am simply happy to be who I am, and happy to have inherited the fruits of the labor of those men, whether or not my ancestors came from the same shores as theirs or not. Stop trying to pander to your black audience. Their ancestors were certainly a part of this country’s history, but they did not “found” anything any more than mine did.
There is nothing “revisionist” about history as it used to be told. And the former Confederates did not re-write the History books nor did the things they wrote try to “hide the black man under the stairwell,” as you put it. They simply wrote rebuttals of books authored by northern historians. Those northern historians, in many cases, demonized the South and blamed the war on Southerners. There is nothing wrong with defending oneself, whether it is against physical attack or slander. Southerners lost the war militarily. They surrendered and gave up their dreams of independence, returned to the Union, and promised to be good citizens, a promise they have lived up to for 145 years – as demonstrated by the fact that they are usually the first to volunteer whenever America gets itself into a scrape and needs men to go get killed in some far off land. Nowhere however, in the terms of that surrender did it say that they had to sit on their thumbs and accept slander, blame and degradation without defending themselves. No one hid anything and no one revised anything.
It is people like you and David Barton who are doing the revisions. It is people like you who are distorting – by taking people who are historical footnotes and raising them to the level of iconic status, while telling the unknowing public that our problems were all caused by a bunch of bad guys. That is not history, it is fantasy, it is a lie and that lie is being told by you, Barton and others like you in order to further your own ends.
About the Confederate Constitution – I have read it several times and have even seen a photo reproduction of the original document. Nowhere does it say in the title, “The Slaveholding Confederate States of America.” To put it bluntly, “YOU LIE!” And so does Mr. Barton. I guess Obama has some company, eh?
Nor did a state have to be a slaveholding state in order to join the Confederacy. During the Confederacy’s Constitutional Convention, the proposal was made that only slave states be allowed to join. It was never adopted. Consult Marshall DeRosa’s book, “The Confederate Constitution of 1861.” Professor DeRosa is a scholar and an expert on this matter. You are not and neither is Barton. Once again, “YOU LIE!” And so does Barton.
I might also point out that while the Confederate Constitution prohibits the Confederacy’s federal government from abolishing slavery, that it does NOT prohibit individual states from doing so. Article 1, Section 9, Point Number 4 states, “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” This prohibition, along with everything else in the “Confederate Constitution,” unless otherwise specified, applies to the federal government of the Confederacy, not the state governments. Once again, so that you get it straight this time, this Constitution was not written for the governments of the individual states, as those states had their own constitutions. It was written for the Confederacy’s central government.
Next – regarding the abolition of the slave trade. Here’s a little something that you left out. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, most delegates were in agreement that the importation of slaves from Africa needed to stop. The original date for the stoppage of slave importation was initially set as January 1, 1800. It is a matter of record that General Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina, (a slave state), made the initial motion to extend that date to 1808. It is also a matter of record that Mr. Gorham, delegate from Massachusetts, (a “free” state), seconded that motion. It isn’t so surprising that Massachusetts would second such a motion, for though a “free state”, she was, like her sister states in New England, heavily involved in the international slave trade at that time. It was ships sailing from her ports that sailed to Africa, purchased slaves from Africans, and brought them to America to sell at a huge profit. It is a pity that I see nothing about this in the transcripts of your show. But why would I? It would get in the way of your storytelling.
On this same matter, I thought you might be interested to see who voted for the extension motion, and who voted against it. The final voting tally does not break down along North/South lines, and it puts a crimp in your effort to make the Southern states look like the villains in all this:
“New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina, voting in the affirmative, and New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia in the negative……..”
Next, regarding your celebration of Republican Senator Matthew Gaines of Texas – Gaines was a former slave who became a State Senator after the war during the time known as “Reconstruction,” a time in our history where most of the white people in the Southern states who had supported the Confederacy were disenfranchised, and when most of the newly freed slaves (called “freedmen,” who, for the most part, were illiterate), were given the franchise and organized politically by the Union League, an organization closely affiliated with the Republican Party. During your celebration of this “black founder,” you neglected to mention that in the years that the Republican Party controlled Texas after the “Civil War” (during Mr. Gaines’ tenure), the state’s tax rate went up 400%. As one who frequently complains about Democrats raising taxes, I thought you might find this piece of information enlightening. This was also not an isolated incident. You think someone is hiding history? In some ways you might be right, but not in the way you think. Contemporary historians usually fail to mention that, to cite some examples, Georgia’s state debt went from “0” in 1865 to 50 million dollars in 1872, that Louisiana’s 1871 legislative session cost 9 ½ times what a pre-war session cost, that in 5 years of Reconstruction, Mississippi’s tax rate went up 14-fold….. I could go on and on but I’ll stop here for the sake of brevity. And all these things happened under the watch of people like Gaines and their white radical allies who were – REPUBLICANS!
Finally, I had to laugh at your childish attempt to convince your audience that somewhere, way back when, a bunch of bad guys changed history, turned it “upside down” and caused us to “hate” one another. Actually, I stopped laughing when I realized that a large segment of your audience is stupid enough to have believed you.
It wasn’t a covert bunch of bad guys that caused Americans of different races and ethnic groups to “hate” one another. In part, this type of strife was and still is caused by fear and ignorance. Not all of it is, however. Some of it is reality based. “Diversity” is not a “blessing”, as some modern day demagogues would have us believe. Read a world history book or simply pick up a newspaper, read them with open eyes and an open mind and you will quickly see that “diverse” societies are the ones which are most often fraught with conflict. Human history is in large part, a history of sometimes violent competition and strife between groups of people who are different from one another in some way, racially, ethnically, religiously, tribally, philosophically, politically, or other. This strife, sadly, is part of the human condition and there is no quick fix for it – especially not by telling your audience that you magically uncovered the reason or the solution for it. Your contentions are as both childish and false, not to mention misleading. If you or even those who perpetrate the lie that “diversity is a strength” really wanted to make this diverse society of ours work, you wouldn’t start off by telling lies – you’d start by admitting the truth, namely, that making a diverse society work is a difficult task at best, and then moving from there. You wouldn’t be promoting easy answers because you would realize that there are no easy answers. Telling lies and fables about American history to your unknowing audience isn’t going to “bring us together.” Bringing people together is not accomplished by creating fables and demonizing the dead, who are not here to defend themselves. It can only be done if we recognize our failings as human beings and we all try to live the words spoken by that Jewish carpenter some 2000 years ago – “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “do unto him as you would have him do unto you.”
Having had to walk, at least during some times in my life prior to retirement, through fields of bullsh**, (I’m speaking figuratively) , I find that my nose has become keenly attuned to the smell of it. Whenever I turn on any of the major networks these days, I find myself having to open the windows to air out my house. Your network and you, do not, unfortunately, provide an exception. But then again, what else should I expect from you and your handlers? The network you work for is well known for being nothing more than a shill for the Republican Party, a party which, in its early days, made itself a political force, not only by launching an illegal invasion of sovereign states, but by afterward pandering to the black man, who it claimed to be trying to help. Ever since Obama and his gang got elected, you people at Fox have been heroically portraying yourselves as defenders of the Constitution and limited government. The truth is, however, that Fox is no more interested in having a government of limited and defined powers than the King of Saudi Arabia is interested in attending Midnight Mass. It wasn’t Obama who referred to the Constitution as a “scrap of paper,” it was George Bush. It wasn’t Obama who pushed through the egregious “Patriot Act,” it was George Bush and his cronies. And other than Judge Andrew Napolitano, no one on your network seemed to have a problem with it. You people love “big government” as much as anyone, just as long as it’s the Republicans that are running it.
And as far as you yourself are concerned, you worked for the nauseatingly liberal CNN for years and now, all of sudden, you’re a hot shot on an opposing network, passing yourself off as a history teacher and a guardian of the Constitution? Wow! Sounds like a remake of “Saul on the Road to Damascus!” Did you get hit by a lightning bolt perchance? Talk about a fantasy!? Do you think I was born yesterday? Did you really think that some of us would be so blind as to be unable to see through your charade? Do you really believe that I am so blind as to be unable to see past those crocodile tears that you occasionally shed on your show? You are worse than ill-informed. You sir, are a liar, and your behavior is as transparent as a g-string on a stripper – though, not nearly as appealing.
From: Mary Stevens – firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Sun, Jul 18, 2010
It was great to read this correspondence. Thanks so much to those who compiled such informative and timely letters to Glenn Beck. However, I don’t think that I would have told Glenn he was a "liar", which Bill Vallente said many times in his letter. That’s just my opinion.
I am a fan of Glenn’s but have been disappointed lately with the content of his programs. I noted that when he refers to War Between the States he depicts the American South as the Bad Guys and the North are the Good Guys. He sees this period of our history in "black and white" terms. So, I sent a short (but to the point) email to him, pointing out the following:
* Neither did slavery begin nor did it exist only in the South
* Why is there never any reference to the African Chiefs for selling their own into slavery?
* Why does he not mention that the Southern slaves were bought and brought here by Northern States, such as Connecticut, Massachusetts in deplorable conditions on ships.
I thought about writing more and might at a later date.
Mr. Beck needs to realize that he has a large Southern fan base and he will lose them with his programs that do not tell the real story.
Mary (MJ) Stevens
PS…His email address is email@example.com. His producer’s email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
I’ve been occasionally watching Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel and think he has done an admirable job of smoking out and identifying the shockingly hardcore, radical socialists who dominate the Obama administration. He has also done a generally good job talking about the libertarian founding principles of America, how they have been lost, and our duty to regain them. But he has been absolutely abysmal when discussing the subject of Lincoln, the War to Prevent Southern Independence, and its legacy. I suspect that the reason for this disconnect with historical reality is that: 1) The Fox News Channel is essentially a propaganda arm of the neoconservative political cabal that has captured the Republican Party; 2) One of the cornerstones of neocon ideology is Lincoln idolatry and hatred of the South and Southerners. (Professor Paul Gottfried, for one, has written extensively about this.) 3) Therefore, if Glenn wants to keep his gig at Fox, he must toe the party line on Lincoln. Being otherwise libertarian – while the Democrats are in power – serves the purposes of the neocon cabal nicely.
To the neocons, Lincoln idolatry serves the purpose of helping to prop up the centralized, bureaucratic, liberty-destroying, military-industrial complex that defines their existence. As William F. Buckley, Jr., the original neocon, declared in 1952, fighting the Cold War meant that "we have got to accept Big Government for the duration," including "a totalitarian bureaucracy within our own shores" with its "large armies, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington." In case you haven’t noticed, for quite some time now the Republican Party has stood for war, war, and more war, and little else. How on earth genuine conservatives who favor limited constitutional government came to embrace Buckley as one of their leading spokesmen is a bizarre mystery.
When I debated one of the gurus of neocon Lincoln idolatry – Harry Jaffa – shortly after The Real Lincoln was published in 2002, he bellowed at one point that "9/11 proves more than ever that we need a strong central government." (In reality, it proved the failure and incapability of "the central government" to protect even its own D.C. headquarters from a few nuts armed with box cutters.) "We need big, totalitarian government to fight all the new Hitlers and potential Hitlers in the world" is the neocon mantra, in a nutshell.
To neocons, Lincoln is the poster boy of militaristic big government that runs roughshod over civil liberties while bankrupting the country with taxes and debt and murdering thousands of innocent foreigners (not that Southerners during the 1861–1865 war were foreigners; they were fellow American citizens). Doesn’t this sound like the Republican Party of today, as embodied in the recently dethroned Bush administration?
Despite his admirable performances discussing the founding fathers, socialism, progressivism, and other topics, Glenn Beck has been absolutely awful and sometimes untruthful when discussing Lincoln and his legacy. During one show he claimed to have read the actual original copy of The Confederate Constitution. I assume he made this assertion to show that he must really be quite the expert on the document. I didn’t believe him when he said this, and his next sentence proved to me that he did not read the document. The next sentence was the statement that the formal title of the document was "The Slaveholders’ Constitution . . ." Anyone can look the document up at Yale University’s online Avalon Project, which warehouses all the American founding documents, commentaries, and more, to see for yourself that Beck was wrong about this.
Beck’s next false statement was that "I read it" (the Confederate Constitution) and "it wasn’t about states’ rights, it was all about slavery." Read it yourself online. It is a virtual carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution, with a few exceptions: The Confederate president had a line-item veto; served for one six-year term; protectionist tariffs are outlawed; government subsidies for corporations are outlawed; and the "General Welfare Clause" of the U.S. Constitution was deleted.
The act of secession was the very essence of states’ rights, contrary to Beck’s proclamation, for the basic assumption was that the states were sovereign. They delegated certain defined powers to the central government for their own mutual benefit, but all other powers remained in the hands of the people and the states, as stated in the Tenth Amendment. As sovereigns, they had a right to secede for whatever reason. If a state needed the permission of others to secede, as Lincoln argued, then it was not really sovereign.
The U.S. Constitution adopted a federal, not a national system of government. That is another way of saying a states’ rights system of government. The Confederate Constitution was nearly identical.
As for slavery, the Confederate Constitution was not essentially different from the U.S. Constitution as it existed at the time. Beck was grossly deceiving when he told his audience that the Confederate Constitution protected slavery while saying not one word about how the U.S. Constitution did the exact same thing. Slavery had been protected by the U.S. Constitution since 1789. That’s seventy-two years of slavery protection under the U.S. Constitution. A Fugitive Slave Clause was written into the original U.S. Constitution, and the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act passed by Congress was never challenged constitutionally. That in fact is why the great libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner launched so many vitriolic attacks on the Lincoln administration. As a trained lawyer, he had laid out the constitutional case against slavery, but the Lincoln administration and the Republican Party wanted nothing to do with him or his peaceful route to emancipation – the same route all other countries of the world (and the Northern states) took during the nineteenth century to end slavery.
Moreover, Beck’s hero, Lincoln, orchestrated passage through the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives of the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have formally and explicitly enshrined slavery in the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting the government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. This amendment passed the Senate and the House just days before Lincoln was inaugurated. In his first inaugural address he said he believed slavery was already constitutional and then, alluding to the Corwin Amendment, said: "I have no objection to it
More recently, Beck has admirably attacked the idea of "collective salvation" that Obama himself espouses, and which is apparently as much a part of the ideology of the American Left today as militarism fueled by Lincoln idolatry is of the Right. According to the doctrine of "collective salvation," a Christian cannot be saved and go to Heaven unless one first embarks on a crusade to have government "save" the "oppressed" of society by expanding the welfare state, raising taxes, making taxation more "progressive," adopting more racial hiring quotas, and regulating and nationalizing as much of private industry as possible. It is a variant of "liberation theology" which, according to Pope John Paul, II, is essentially Marxism masquerading as Christianity.
What Beck and his wacky preacher/faux Lincoln expert do not know is that the main supporters of the Lincoln regime believed in the exact same quasi-religious ideas. Indeed, it defined their very existence. As explained by Murray Rothbard in "America’s Two Just Wars: 1775 and 1861" (in John Denson, ed., The Costs of War, Transaction Publishers, 1997, p. 128):
The North, in particular the North’s driving force, the "Yankees" – that ethnocultural group who either lived in New England or migrated from there to upstate New York, northern and eastern Ohio, northern Indiana, and northern Illinois – had been swept by a new form of Protestantism. This was a fanatical and emotional neo-Puritanism driven by a fervent "postmillennialism" which held that, as a precondition for the Second Advent of Jesus Christ, man must set up a thousand-year Kingdom of God on Earth.
To the Yankees, their "kingdom" was to be a "perfect society" cleansed of sin, the principal causes of which were slavery, alcohol, and Catholicism. Furthermore, "government is God’s major instrument of salvation," Rothbard wrote. This is why the Yankees never seriously considered ending Southern slavery how THEY had ended it in their own states – peacefully through some kind of compensated emancipation. They were not so concerned about the welfare of the poor slaves. Indeed, even Tocqueville noticed that "the problem of race," as he phrased it, was worse in the North than it was in the South. Instead, as Rothbard continues:
The Northern war against slavery partook of fanatical millennialist fervor, of a cheerful willingness to uproot institutions, to commit mayhem and mass murder, to plunder and loot and destroy, all in the name of high moral principle and the birth of a perfect world. The Yankee fanatics were veritable Pattersonian humanitarians with the guillotine: the Anabaptists, the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, of their era.
"Collective salvation," as opposed to the individualistic salvation that the Bible teaches, was what motivated the Yankees and their war on the South. This of course is exactly what Glenn Beck has been ranting and raving about recently when it is practiced by opponents of the neocon establishment – the exact same establishment that embraces the Lincolnite, Yankee millennialist fervor as one of its defining characteristics. That’s why the neocons constantly invoke Lincoln’s "all men are created equal" words from the Gettysburg Address (via Jefferson’s Declaration of Secession) to "justify" their endless military meddling in over 100 countries of the world. ALL men deserve "equal" liberty, they tell us, and it is OUR job to invade, conquer, and occupy any nation on earth where there is a lack of such liberty.
America was founded with the George Washington/Thomas Jefferson foreign policy of commercial relationships with all nations, entangling alliances with none. The neocon establishment, which is influential in both major political parties, believes in just the opposite: "entangling alliances" and endless military interventionism with as many nations as possible, all in the name of some undefinable Great Moral Cause, in the tradition of Dishonest Abe.
Of course, all of this high-handed talk about the Republican Party supposedly being "the party of great moral ideas" is also a convenient smokescreen for the economic greed that is its real motivation, and has been ever since the party first gained power. As Rothbard further explained: "On the economic level, the Republicans [in 1860] adopted the Whig program of statism and big government: protective tariffs, subsidies to big business, strong central government, large-scale public works, and cheap credit spurred by government." It hasn’t changed much since.
Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com