Glenn Beck Says Race Relations Were “Moving Right On Track” Before Civil War

Sensationalism trumps journalism, Mis-education trumps education, money and ratings appears to secure anything on television today. He is espousing a dangerously, revisionist, incorrect history of America. To many his misinformation is information and that is a BIG problem.

Glenn Beck Says Race Relations Were “Moving Right On Track” Before Civil War | News One.

About The Soul Brother

An observer to the world. I have a unique view of the world and want to share it. It's all in love from the people of the "blues". Love, Knowledge, and Sharing amongst all is the first steps towards solving all the problems amongst humanity.
This entry was posted in News from the Soul Brother and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Glenn Beck Says Race Relations Were “Moving Right On Track” Before Civil War

  1. I’m not a fan of Beck, but what he said is really obvious. That’s why the Civil War began in the first place. The abolitionist (Lincoln) was elected, which demonstrated the country’s desire to end slavery. The South, not wanting to give up slavery to progress, seceded, causing the civil war. Certainly you could’ve picked a more incendiary comment than contemporary history to get angry over.

    • Thanks for visiting. Slavery didn’t become the central issue until the Emancipation Proclamation. States rights vs Federal rights and the economic & social differences between North and South also was part of the reason. Glenn Beck in his comments was suggesting that the abolitionist movement was working and after a few more decades slaver would eventually died out. Yes, the election of Lincoln and the abolitionist movement can be considered reasons for the war also, but the political goal of Lincoln was not to end slavery at the onset of the war. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation was issued 3 years into the war, and it only applied to states that had ceded, and it exempted parts of the Confederacy that was already under Northern control. Here’s the real kicker the promise of freedom was directly tied to Union victory. Fresh troops immediately was created from slaves essentially betting on the North and freedom over bondage thereby assuring a Northern victory.

  2. Thank you for your polite response. I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re trying to say, though it doesn’t appear historically accurate. What do you mean by, “Slavery didn’t become the central issue until the Emancipation Proclamation.” ???

    Slavery had long been the dominating political topic for at least 4 decades leading up to the civil war. Ever heard of a book called Uncle Tom’s cabin? How about the Missouri Compromise? Maybe the American Anti-Slavery Society? Or, perhaps John Brown’s infamous raid on Harpers Ferry? The history of abolition is a long a tumultuous one. It didn’t magically appear in the middle of the civil war.

    While you are critical of Beck’s benign contemporary opinion on abolition, you seem to have missed his actual error, where he claimed that race wasn’t “politicized” until the civil war. This is of course grossly untrue. With a fuller understanding of the history of the era, you might have caught his actual error instead of chasing phantoms down contemporary lane.

    The Republican party was founded for the single primary purpose of ending slavery. Lincoln himself was a fervent and widely outspoken critic of slavery. He campaigned on a promise of ending slavery. Familiarize yourself with the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

    After Lincoln won election on an anti-slavery platform, the southern states began seceding before he was even inaugurated. This forced Lincoln, and ultimately most of the Republicans, to change focus towards preserving the Union and putting abolition on the backburner. After all, it would be rather hard to free slaves in the South if the Union fractured.

    Let’s assume that the Southern states didn’t secede and there was no civil war, do you think that Lincoln would’ve freed the slaves? I’d say it’s a safe bet, considering that he fought a long difficult war to do so.

    I’m not sure why you think the Emancipation Proclamation was some sort of magical awakening about slavery or that it was meant to free all the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was intended just to get the ball rolling. You may not realize this, but the civil war actually caused something of a backlash against abolition in the North. Northern Democrats, called copperheads, fervently opposed Lincoln’s desires to end slavery or saw it as a distraction. Even with the limitations built into the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln faced severe criticism and resistance. It wasn’t until the 13th amendment (made official in 1965) that slavery was completely abolished.

    Don’t just take my word on this. Pick up, borrow, or buy a history book and educate yourself.

    • I have heard of each historical event you are speaking about as well as abolitionism and Uncle Tom’s Cabin. What I was attempting to allude to is the fact that it was not politically expeditious for him to issue the Emancipation Proclamation before the time he did actually did. Yes, he did run on a platform of emancipation but politically it was not expedient. Glenn Beck’s comments makes an allusion to the fact that America was moving towards ending slavery and that was not just the case, especially in the South. The slavery issue was a hot button in the US before the Civil War. However, Lincoln did not publicly pronounce slavery as a reason for the war until the Emancipation Proclamation. To put aside historical debate, Mr. Beck’s comments were insensitive and inflammatory. Those are the types of comments that deepens racial divisions and should not be tolerated in media.

  3. carl marx says:

    Slavery was the best thing that ever happened to the african negro. after his black brother in africa captured him in battle and then sold him to slave traders,the lucky slaves came to america the unlucky went to the middle east,south america.the plantation owners took care of their slaves like you would a farm animal or pet. They did not beat them all that much only when they acted up, after all a slave was’nt much good if he was all beat up!! So they were fed clothed housed and some were educated and taught religon too.If you read the slave narritives you hear how the white olks took good care of their negro africans.Slavery was not that ad and we need to stop makin a big deal out of it.

  4. inresponsetothecarlmarxbuttheadstatement says:

    Just wanted to know if you were one of the slaver owners…. because even back then “you” slave owners were not educated…seems like you inherited some of those traits!

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s