11

'This changes absolutely everything': Glenn reads rediscovered ORIGINAL draft of the Declaration of Independence

Posted by $ Olduglycarl 1 month ago to Video
58 comments | Share | Flag

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...
SOURCE URL: https://www.glennbeck.com/original-draft-of-the-declaration-of-independence?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by GaryL 4 weeks, 1 day ago
    The declaration in any form is a true testament to where we are today. Put 13 individuals in any room discussing any subject and it will be near impossible to get a unanimous consensus. More important to all of this is this question, Since when has it become acceptable to convict anyone for the sins of their fathers? Here in the USA there is not a single living slave and doubtful there is any individual alive today who was born into an enslaved family. Under a very different color we are all slaves to the government we elect and not at all far differents from the British we fought to separate this country from.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
      As Carl Becker observed in his history of The Declaration, its principles were at the time widely accepted: "[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." That is what they had to rely on that we cannot: the general principles of the Enlightenment emphasizing reason, science, individualism and political freedom.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by GaryL 4 weeks, 1 day ago
        What I do see today gives cause to some higher degree of fear. Hatred toward "Whites" by "Blacks" is being fueled by those who hope to do harm but have it done by others. Blacks, predominantly those in metro and poor areas are experiencing a higher degree of empowerment bestowed upon them by very ill informed elected and business leaders. These anti American leaders suffer from a deep hatred of Trump and all he stands for but have fostered and re directed this in the black and brown communities as a hatred of Whites. The black and brown communities are merely pawns in their game and expendable as long as the goal of destroying Trump and his base are achieved. Once they get their dirty deeds done the thought of defunding and doing away with police will be a fart in the wind and law enforcement will be back in full and even stronger numbers to put the pawns back in check.
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 4 weeks, 1 day ago
      Yes, but post modernist (anti enlightenment) have no ears to hear nor eyes to read lips of those that wish to point out the facts.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by GaryL 4 weeks, 1 day ago
        It is anything but a "small group"! Liberal, Left, Socialist, Communist Democrats and funded by some of the wealthiest pukes in this world. No one is satisfied being #2.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
      We are more than 150 years past the end of the Civil War and the enactment of the 13th and 14th Amendments. That's approximately five generations, meaning that only the grandparents of today's grandparents would have heard about it from first-hand sources. So why are the stories being brought up today? Dennis Prager today spoke to such in his fireside chat and suggested that it was because people have to invent things to be mad about when they no longer exist. People are looking for excuses to avoid taking responsibility for their own lives. Black culture has unfortunately embraced the mantra of the new slave state: dependence on the Democratic welfare state, thuggishness, and fatherlessness. Those three have destroyed a culture that until the end of WW II was on par - or better - with whites and other ethnic groups in social measures.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
        Dennis Prager's "fireside" belief that "people have to invent things to be mad about when they no longer exist" is not relevant to the topic or much of anything else. Neither are superficial observations attributed as causes, let alone racial class comparisons of what is claimed to have been "better" than "whites" and "other ethnic groups" at the end of WWII.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 1 month ago
    2 of the thirteen states voted to keep slavery in a (required) unanimous vote on whether to keep or abolish slavery.
    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".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
      Yes, because the popular theory of the time regarding blacks was that they were not people of the same type as Caucasians. John C. Calhoun was a strong proponent of this theory as were many Southerners seeking to provide a moral basis for their "peculiar institution." Another popular theory was that whites had a paternalistic responsibility to care for the less intellectual blacks and that they could best do that through servitude.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
        Alleged inferiority does not justify slavery and many of the founders knew that. Alleged inferiority was not the reason why the anti-slave trade clause was removed, which was to ensure unanimity in the break with Britain.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
          "Alleged inferiority does not justify slavery and many of the founders knew that."

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
            The clause that was removed was anti-slave trade, not alleged inferiority of blacks, which is irrelevant to the reasoning given in the anti-slave trade clause. What people at the time thought of alleged inferiority of blacks has nothing to do with their need for unanimous support for the Declaration. Many of them knew that alleged inferiority does not justify slavery. I am not "arguing with them". We all know what some common views were on the nature of blacks and do not need to be instructed.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 4 weeks, 1 day ago
    What I fear is that Glenn Beck will now have a price on his head because he has this document. During the anarchy in DC that rumors flying around at trying to get at Declaration of Independence to burn to ashes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
      The documents, i.e., different drafts, have been published in books, articles and on the web available to anyone world wide. I don't think anyone has a price on his head for having one.

      "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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 1 month ago
    OUC, this issue was the center point of the musical play and movie 1776. The play was the winner of the Tony award for best musical play in 1969.
    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.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
    Where are the video and the draft?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 1 month ago
      The video is at the Titled link, it's a count down timer. The important part starts at -5:30 mins and it's a bit different than what I get as a subscriber but includes the information. (1st video titled: The Left CAN'T BEAT the Declaration of Independence)

      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!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
        What is the url for the video? The name you gave is not displayed on the page when I open it (in two different browsers). Does it required a blaze tv subscription?

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 1 month ago
          Shouldn't need a subscription for http://glennbeck.com.
          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
            Becker's 1922 The Declaration of Independence shows the anti-slave trade clause in three different versions of The Declaration, in the last of which it is crossed out by the Congressional committee. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/be...

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 1 month ago
              Also, I think, the other point Glenn made in the video I saw was Jefferson Capitalized and underlined Men and Christianity in his draft.
              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                -- The drafts of The Declaration in Becker's 1922 book had not been just discovered, although one of them had just been noticed that year in government archives and moved to the Library of Congress.

                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]
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by PeterSmith 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                  The most interesting part is not re slavery, but the lack of any mention of religion in previous drafts, including this one.
                  The only mention of Christianity is as a pejorative.
                  Funny that Beck doesn't mention that.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                    The positive side of that is in the chapter of Becker's history, "The Natural Rights Philosophy", describing the Enlightenment philosophy of reason as the basis of Jefferson's Declaration. This was widely accepted in place of the older notions of religious miracles, mysticism and an anthropomorphized notion of a god that had previously dominated.

                    "[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.")
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                      Who is the cowardly hit and run troll who 'downvotes' documented history that conflicts with religious belief? This is supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum for rational discussion.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                    If you actually listen to the video, Beck does mention it very specifically by pointing out that Jefferson was calling into question King George's bona fides as a Christian with that use. Jefferson could only do that if he knew very well what the standard of Christianity was to begin with and that King George wasn't complying with it. That it mattered to Jefferson to such a degree that he would include that in a proposal for a public document of this import speaks heavily to Jefferson's feelings about slavery and the hypocrisy of supposed Christians of his day who supported it - and possibly even Christianity itself. Though Jefferson was not associated with the religious sects of that day is well known, but it is clear from his commented version of the Bible that he was well versed with its principles (pun intended).
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                      Do not insinuate that Peter did not "actually" watch the Beck video. For all of Beck's emphasis on Christianity he did not mention the lack of any appeal to it, or even mention of it, in the drafts other than the pejorative against the King's religion in the anti-slave trade clause that was removed.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                        Who is the cowardly troll who 'downvotes' these posts with no attempt at rebuttal? It just started here again when a forum religion promoter showed up to lecture at us.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 4 weeks, 1 day ago
    Let's not get into a down voting frenzy. Just ignore comments that russel your feathers...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
      This has nothing to do with "feathers". Someone is routinely 'downvoting' all my posts here and all of Peter Smith's posts. It started up again on this thread when Blarman showed up.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
        I was actually enjoying your first several posts with the history in them. It wasn't me who started downvoting your posts. But if you'd like me to, I can oblige you with more downvotes. I usually reserve them for people who are being complete jerks or just posting inflammatory/trolling remarks. You'll notice I didn't downvote Peter's remark despite its error-filled assertion.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
          Blarman's personal feuding and resentment of rejection of religious dogma is not an excuse for his obnoxious behavior, and he isn't the only one here who does 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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by $ blarman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
            Ah, so now you're going to engage in personal attacks and you wonder why you're receiving downvotes? Methinks thou doth protest too much...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
              Please stop smearing people. I do not engage in "personal attacks", and the routine 'downvoting' by a handful of hit and run trolls is regardless of content and prior to whatever it is that Blarman claims is the cause. Blarman should take his feuding somewhere else.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -2
                Posted by $ Dobrien 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                You should be banned like I am for telling him where to go.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 4 weeks ago
                  This is supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum for rational discussion. Feuding and personal attacks do not belong here. That is not telling anyone "where to go", i.e., Dobrien's own "Go to hell". Blarman already said he tried to get me banned for responding to his public posts.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • -3
                    Posted by $ Dobrien 4 weeks ago
                    “Blarman should take his funding somewhere else”
                    Your words.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 4 weeks ago
                      The word is "feuding", not "funding". The emotional feuding and personal attacks should be taken somewhere else -- preferably to "nowhere". Whatever else such people may do here that is appropriate is up to them. That is not telling anyone to "go to hell". The general spread of irrationality is becoming such that some don't know the difference.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 4 weeks, 1 day ago
    Just added: 4 picts of: 1, a version Beck talks about, it's the one talked about in a book by C Becker, published in 1922. 2, the fraqment found in a picture frame, (1947) thought to be part of the very first draft. 3 a transcript of that draft and 4, just for ha ha's, a right side up copy of the upside down version found in 1947.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
      There is no 1922 version of The Declaration. Which draft are you referring to and how do you know which one Beck was using? More than one draft contained the anti-slave trade clause.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
        After my response Olduglycarl edited his post from "it's the 1922 version" to "it's the one talked about in a book by C Becker, published in 1922". Beck did not say anything about the Becker history, which was first mentioned on this thread here https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 4 weeks, 1 day ago
          you pointed out an error and I fixed it...simple as that.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
            Thank you for fixing it but it should not be done without acknowledgment, making a later response unintelligible or misleading. That isn't the first time this was done on this thread.

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 4 weeks, 1 day ago
              The copies are at Mercury one (his foundation) and had not really gotten into them.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                His organization has original parchment copies?

                In his video he didn't say anything about his sources or what he has beyond the normal copies of content.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                  He has the original but yes, there are a few drafts...I called them copies. Obviously they are not copies.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                    He has "the" original? That is claimed to be in the National Archives in Washington https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-... Copies were made for distribution at the same time as the original.

                    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?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ 4 weeks ago
                      He has tons of original documents and pieces of history and so does Wallbuilders, some of which will be and have been donated to the Archives, some authorized or borrowed too.
                      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.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 4 weeks ago
                        -- I know that some wealthy conservatives, including Mark Levin, have been buying rare historical letters but you wrote that Beck has the original Declaration as well as some drafts: "He has the original but yes, there are a few drafts...I called them copies. Obviously they are not copies." Now you say he "obviously doesn't have the official Declaration of independence."

                        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.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo