Bauchmann Thinks Founding Fathers Ended Slavery

cawacko

Well-known member
Since we have a lot of history buffs here figured this article could start up a good discussion. I'll post it as the writer for the SF Chronicle did. You can get the link for her speech at the site.


Tea Party GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann thinks founding fathers ended slavery

Is there a history tutor in the house? 'Cause Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-MN, needs one bad. The Tea Party fave said that "the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States....Men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

True, J.Q. Adams didn't rest before slavery ended...he died. Or maybe he was just taking a dirt nap.

As for a few other points from the rest of Bachmann's Bizarro U.S. History Class, Thomas Jefferson -- who wrote that all men are created equal -- owned slaves. And perhaps did more than own them. George "Father of the Country" Washington owned human property, too.

Oh, yeah, and that Constitution that Bachmann waves around, it established that a slave counted as 3/5ths of a human being. The provision was inserted into the document as a political compromise -- except it compromised human dignity.

Where did Michele make her comments: Before an anti-tax group in Iowa. Yup, she's testing the presidential waters.

Here is Michele...in her own words. And CNN's Anderson Cooper schooling her afterwards.


Sal Russo -- the Tea Party Express czar -- just put on his sacrificial lamb hat and went on "Hardball" to defend the indefensible. Ouch. Double-ouch. We almost turned away -- and not in the way we usually do. Hey, Sal: Bachmann owes you lunch for taking one for the team here. Maybe a week of lunches.

Forget watching the State of the Union: We're watching Bachmann's rebuttal via the Tea Party Express here. Republicans -- perhaps even more so after this debacle -- are saying this is NOT the official GOP response. That's being done by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=81734&tsp=1
 
Bachmann is clearly confused by the debate concerning how much the Founders laid the groundwork to end slavery. For example, all of the Northern states abolished it except Deleware, and Franklin headed opposition within the 1st Congress. The 3/5 Clause was a cave-in to the South requesting 1 whole be counted, but it backfired and got Jefferson elected in 1800. Either way, the 3/5 clause was such an obvious farce that it reminded everyone that one side of the argument lacked some very fundamental character.

Next up, the Constitution allowed for the slave trade to be abolished. Washington set an example, as he often did in many facets of his life, by willing his slaves their freedom. Jefferson clearly underestimated the stupidity of his Southern constituents, because he simply assumed things would gradually go in the direction of freedom without much trouble.

And so on...
 
I'm open to cutting her some slack on this one. I think it's doubtful that she doesn't know when slavery ended & who spearheaded the effort. Pretty sure she just mis-spoke here...
 
Her grasp of history is on the thin side.....

She'd do better to visit all 57 states and learn about the nation.....or visit the Naval Academy and talk to some Corpse-men .......
 
Lovin' how bravo has to cling to a gaffe that is now over 2 years old.

The Bush years must have been brutal for him...
 
Lovin' how bravo has to cling to a gaffe that is now over 2 years old.

The Bush years must have been brutal for him...
Bush the gaffer in chiel, wasn't he....

Like you, I give these guys plenty of slack on the gaffes...even Obama....but they are fun.....the pressure and stress of public speaking, interviews, and news hounds trying for a "gotcha" must take their toll....
I only post them as reminders to the asses that insist on using the innocent gaffes for political points....ya gotta fight fire with fire, right boy?

If you'd get over your love affair with Yurt, you might be a good guy to have a serious talk with someday...might....:palm:
 
she's a half whitt that will provide more comedy than the ditz who wrote tax cuts on her hand as a remider.
That said, outside of the comedy I care how she votes. Gimme a gaph machine that votes down spending and increases personal freedom. All day
 
Last edited:
One of the largest revivals in modern media and political spin is the constant revision of history. Russia and China have nothing on us. Bachmann is part of a right wing conservative effort to make history in their image. If you don't like the real history revise it, or ignore it, or condemn it. Consider the demonization of Howard Zinn because of his honest history, or the recent republican reading of the constitution, excluding the parts they didn't like. Consider Iraq and 911 or WMDs, or Reagan's miserable economic deficits and final S&L collapse, or Cheney's constant lies, or Freedom Medals for failures, or the deification of Joe McCarthy, or the conversion of fascism, or the republicans - after doing nothing for two years - taking credit now for the economy improving. "We cannot predict the future, but the past is changing before our very eyes." Soviet radio reporting on the Politburo’s deliberations. People just don't know or have time to fact check. And the ideologues, especially on the right, just believe and follow. If you repeat nonsense over and over again people believe.

And it has been going on for a long time.

"Walker's concerns were soon overcome, as an orderly world was restored and the "political defeat" of the democrats "was total and irreversible," Christopher Hill observes. By 1695 censorship could be abandoned, "not on the radicals' libertarian principles, but because censorship was no longer necessary," for "the opinion-formers" now "censored themselves" and "nothing got into print which frightened the men of property." In the same year, John Locke wrote that "day-labourers and tradesmen, the spinsters and dairymaids" must be told what to believe. "The greatest part cannot know and therefore they must believe."" Noam Chomsky http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/Necessary_Illusions.html


[ame="http://www.amazon.com/What-Orwell-Didnt-Know-Propaganda/dp/1586485601/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296061401&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: What Orwell Didn't Know: Propaganda and the New Face of American Politics (9781586485603): Andras Szanto, Orville Schell: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5180zEag5kL.@@AMEPARAM@@5180zEag5kL[/ame]
 
The 3/5ths clause was arrogant bigotry-nothing more nothing less. It was an idea born in the minds of northerners who knew that slavery was not noble, but who were more than willing to turn a blind eye. The greater goal for them was to subvert the southern vote. In other words, they like their southern counter-parts viewed the black man as property to be used, in this instance not just as a slave, but as political fodder.

The only true sympathizer for the plight of the slave, apart from the slave himself, was the abolitionist- Those determined few who knew the practice of slavery was a moral outrage; a blight on our nation’s humanity! The willingness on their part to risk life and property to not only find the runaway slave safe harbor, but to keep the fight public and vocal-to force as were, the light of morality onto the conscience of men who could bring about change- Yet, we also know that mixed into this decision to end slavery by men of power, there existed still the mark of sinful mans motives to bring about these changes were marred by political gain.
 
We're talking about gaffes.

one left a scar on bravo's brain, Bachmann's stupidity was not a gaffe. get it? didn't think so.
 
One of the largest revivals in modern media and political spin is the constant revision of history. Russia and China have nothing on us. Bachmann is part of a right wing conservative effort to make history in their image. If you don't like the real history revise it, or ignore it, or condemn it. Consider the demonization of Howard Zinn because of his honest history, or the recent republican reading of the constitution, excluding the parts they didn't like. Consider Iraq and 911 or WMDs, or Reagan's miserable economic deficits and final S&L collapse, or Cheney's constant lies, or Freedom Medals for failures, or the deification of Joe McCarthy, or the conversion of fascism, or the republicans - after doing nothing for two years - taking credit now for the economy improving. "We cannot predict the future, but the past is changing before our very eyes." Soviet radio reporting on the Politburo’s deliberations. People just don't know or have time to fact check. And the ideologues, especially on the right, just believe and follow. If you repeat nonsense over and over again people believe.

And it has been going on for a long time.

"Walker's concerns were soon overcome, as an orderly world was restored and the "political defeat" of the democrats "was total and irreversible," Christopher Hill observes. By 1695 censorship could be abandoned, "not on the radicals' libertarian principles, but because censorship was no longer necessary," for "the opinion-formers" now "censored themselves" and "nothing got into print which frightened the men of property." In the same year, John Locke wrote that "day-labourers and tradesmen, the spinsters and dairymaids" must be told what to believe. "The greatest part cannot know and therefore they must believe."" Noam Chomsky
Outstanding! You've re-written and mis-charactized so much history in that post, with outlandish bullshit, its laughable to attempt to correct you....you've gone from being 65% liberal hack, to 120% Democratic hack....
but, no matter, I was entertained while reading it....

And Norm Chomsky ?...Is that far-left socialist/communist (little c) still your hero.....???
The nut job that accused the United States of "using its awesome resources of violence and devastation to impose its passionately held ideology and its approved form of social organization on large areas of the world"......wow....now thats historical revision at its best....why didn't he just use the term "freedom" ..thats what we normally call it.....

but you're coming along nicely....is your brainwashing self administered or are you getting professional help from some 60's drug saturated college prof. with a personality disorder that discontinued his psychotherapy ?

Schlesinger politely described Chomsky pretty well with this.... "He begins as a preacher to the world and ends as an intellectual crook."
 
Back
Top