'This changes absolutely everything': Glenn reads rediscovered ORIGINAL draft of the Declaration of Independence
The video is only 17 mins long and it's worth a listen. 1st video titled: The Left CAN'T BEAT the Declaration of Independence, the important part starts at: -5:30 mins)
HERE is a link to the Draft: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.001... (this is the page Glenn speaks of.)
The papers of Thomas Jefferson: https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu...
HERE is a link to the Draft: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.001... (this is the page Glenn speaks of.)
The papers of Thomas Jefferson: https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu...
The statism and collectivism in today's mixed economy is "far different" than outright slavery, but the basic collectivist, irrationalist premises are the same and the trends today are not good. In particular, racism is the crudest form of collectivism. Watching today's hysterical race mongering and violent mass "protests" from the left in general, and the snarling outright race hatred towards "whites" from some of them, it's not hard to predict what would happen if they get more power.
Lord help us if the democrats ever get back to full control of both houses and the WH but the biggest losers will be the black and brown communities. Their way will be to say thanks but now go back to your ghetto and behave.
Who would have thunk that after a long road of discovering proper rights and wrongs we'd see a de-evolution propagated by a small group) into an improper, pagan barbarian view of rights and wrongs...this is where we are at now.
It had to be unanimous in a petition to the King for independence. Because of South Carolina and Georga's vote to keep slavery while the 11 remaining states said No Slavery, is why we don't find a call to end it in the Declaration of Independence.
But we still find the phrase: "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" in the "Unanimous Declaration of Independence".
You're arguing with them, not me. Ultimately it was the desire for the perpetuation of slavery in South Carolina and Georgia which caused that clause to be omitted from the final draft of the Declaration of Independence. The moral arguments for perpetuating slavery are well documented from speeches of the time. I'm simply repeating them - not justifying them.
"Rumors flying around" has no credibility. But the nihilist leftists burn flags, not just Wendy's, so it wouldn't be surprising that if they got hold of an original parchment issue of The Declaration or Constitution they would relish burning it.
Peter's response was not an "error-filled assertion" https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post.... All of his posts are being systematically 'downvoted', regardless of content, by more than one troll.
Your words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_(f...
Edward Rutledge, the representative of South Carolina, was cast as the evil Southern slave owner who opposed Jefferson. The issue of the need to be unanimous was also covered in detail. "Portions of the dialogue and some of the song lyrics were taken directly from the letters and memoirs of the actual participants of the Second Continental Congress."
I won't be surprised when the media ban 1776 as racist. Instead of praising it, they praise Hamilton, a disgusting play deifying the great enslaver of every human being in America.
(If you watch 1776 you will also find some typical Broadway musical romantic comedy, but the real history lesson is evident.)
Thanks, I'll check out the play 1776.
Here is a link to the draft itself, (I'll include it above) You can enlarge it to read, on this site: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.001...
The above link will take you to page 3 of 4, it's the part Glenn is talking about. You may however,toggle back to the previous pages if you wish.
The key to all of this is: it had to be Unanimous!
The draft is a "rough draft" all right -- I can't read his handwriting. Is there a typed "transcript"?
I have read Carl Becker's The Declaration of Independence, which included all the known drafts, but it was first published in 1922 and last updated in 1942, years before a 1947 discovery of another draft as described by Beck. I wonder if there is really a significantly different passage. It has been well known that Jefferson's grievances against the king included the British introduction of the slave trade in America and that it was deleted by Congress. That much is described in the book.
Here it is on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheBlaze/vid...
I am listening right now and I do not have a FB account.
The writing is terrible but I was able to make out some of the paragraph on slavery.
From what I understand the draft from 47 was the only draft that mentions slavery. They deleted it because the vote to abolish was Not unanimous.
If no one else can get the video, (my wife could get it and she has no sub. to the blaze)?...then, I'll delete the link and just keep the draft, which is our documentation that our forefathers were against being forced to have slavery under the kings rule.
This has been well known for at least a century. Becker called it "famous" in 1922. It did not wait until 1947 to be discovered and even 1947 is not new.
The Declaration for separating from Britain of course had to be unanimous. That knowledge isn't new either. Congress voted for the final version on July 19, 1776 with the title The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America and that it was to be signed by every member of Congress.
But what non-unanimous vote in the Continental Congress against slavery, blocked only by South Carolina and Georgia, are you referring to? What was the Congressional resolution and what did it have to do with The Declaration?
There were several slave holders or slaves traders in, or represented in, the Continental Congress. The First Continental Congress in 1774 resolved to cease the slave trade by December 1, 1774 but that was not implemented.
Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the Congressional committee's deletion of his anti-slave trade clause in The Declaration: "The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for tho’ their people have very few slaves themselves yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."
Other accounts say that all the southern states were adamantly opposed to the anti-slave trade clause.
The anti-slave trade clause deleted to make The Declaration and separation from Britain politically feasible is not "documentation that our forefathers were against being forced to have slavery under the king's rule". To Jefferson and some supporters his anti-slavery clause was very important, but many of them were for slavery, and while the British introduced the slave trade in America, it continued to be accepted, especially on a large scale for the southern plantations and by the slave traders everywhere. The King did not force that.
Now, I don't know about the other drafts in 1922, haven't had the chance to check it out. But in the long view, the important thing is that he brought up slavery in his drafts, found in 1922 and 1947.
Glenn didn't go into why he thought the capitalization's made a difference in today's discussions.
Frankly, it makes no nevermind in the left's view of their own racism and their own guilt.
Personally, I look upon the concept of Race as going way beyond something so insignificant as skin color, regardless of how it is defined.
Parasitical Humanoids comes to mind in that regard. LMAO.
You can read the 1922 edition at https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/be... but it doesn't have the "modern" 1942 introduction.
-- In the 18th century common use of capitalization was much different than today. The little booklet (3 1/2'' x 5" with maroon cover) that Cato has been distributing for decades with The Declaration and The Constitution has modern, readable type preserving original grammar: you can see in there capitalization of words, sometimes entire words, in the middle of sentences throughout The Declaration.
Glenn Beck is not a reliable source. His video presentation was filled with goofy asides and he gave no sources for assertions he used in his commentary, which is not the 'silver bullet' he thinks it is. Understanding the political history of The Declaration is important, but does by itself "change absolutely everything" against the race mongering left. (I eventually got the facebook url for the video to work through a vpn on another computer; facebook does not like browsers it can't track.)
-- The concept "race" is more general than skin color but does not include "parasitism". The concept "racism" means "the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors." [Ayn Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rac...]
No one is born with an ingrained life-long character of "parasitism", which has nothing to do with "race" or any kind of genetic inheritance. "Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination." [Ayn Rand]
The only mention of Christianity is as a pejorative.
Funny that Beck doesn't mention that.
"[T]he strength of the Declaration was precisely that it said what everyone was thinking. Nothing could have been more futile than an attempt to justify a revolution on principles which no one had ever heard of before...
"The truth is that Locke, and the English Whigs, and Jefferson and Rousseau even more so, had lost that sense of intimate intercourse and familiar conversation with God which religious men of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries enjoyed. Since the later seventeenth century, God had been withdrawing from immediate contact with men, and had become, in proportion as he receded into the dim distance, no more than the Final Cause, or Great Contriver, or Prime Mover of the universe; and as such was conceived as exerting his power and revealing his will indirectly through his creation rather than directly by miraculous manifestation or through inspired books. In the eighteenth century as never before, ‘Nature’ had stepped in between man and God; so that there was no longer any way to know God’s will except by discovering the ‘laws’ of Nature, which would doubtless be the laws of ‘nature’s god’ as Jefferson said."
(And needless to say, there was no mention anywhere of the religious notion that "All fetuses are created equal, that their souls are endowed by God with certain inalienable rights to be born.")
Thanks for the link.
The anti-slave trade clause was in all the known drafts before it was deleted by the committee. There is no draft that is "the one talked about" by Becker, and Glenn Beck didn't say what his source was. It was not a new discovery by Beck of something not already famous.
In his video he didn't say anything about his sources or what he has beyond the normal copies of content.
Mercury One is a traditional conservative religious organization that says it engages in charity, sells trinkets and "encourages dependence on God" https://mercuryone.org/. Where does anyone claim that Beck owns original documents like The Declaration or early drafts?
He used to have a show each week called the Vault. Each week he showcased a piece of history and the stories behind them.
He obviously doesn't have the official Declaration of independence.
People, high school kids and college students go to Mercury One for a week or two in the summers to learn history and see these documents first hand.
I'm pretty sure they don't teach or encourage dependence on anything but one's self...reverence, appreciation, perhaps but that's another subject.
This started because Beck didn't give any sources for his comments in his video. He doesn't have to have the original documents, but it's what you said.
-- Beck's Mercury One advertises itself as a conservative religious organization and emphasizes itself on its own home page that it "encourages dependence on God", linked above at https://mercuryone.org/
-- David Barton with his Wallbuilders is another religious proselytizer engaging in severe historical revisionism. He notoriously had to outright retract one of his own major books, but which he apparently still sells, because it was filled with so many false claims refuted by actual historians. Barton attracted attention through his buying old documents that historians were interested in but has no credibility among historians.
Barton used to be on Glenn Beck's old Fox TV show promoting religion and his historical revisionism a lot when, on the way to the show's demise, it drifted from Beck's original expose's, such as the ones on Acorn and Van Jones, into religious promotion.
This religious activism has no intellectual credibility. Their waving around some expensive historical letters, as collectors' items, in the promotions as they pick out every occurrence of the word "god" they can find and run with it out of context is not a substitute for objectivity in history.