Bachmann: Founding fathers ‘worked tirelessly’ to end slavery

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but this gross mischaracterisation of history and fact must be refudiated. [sic]

Fact-checking Michele Bachmann: What good is it?

The Minnesota congresswoman wielded the frightening words -- "billion" and "trillion" -- that turn "tea partyers" red in the face. She stood in front of charts showing dramatic increases in something or under the Obama presidency, stage props that have proved effective for fellow tea party mogul Glenn Beck.

SOURCE

Regarding her use of the histogram: (bar chart)
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
~Aaron Levenstein

Interesting that I heard Meghan McCain call Ms.Bachmann the "poor man's Sarah Palin". Three decades ago the GOP was able to gather up the angry working class white vote by appealing to a backlash against the Democratic Party "best and brightest", the ivory tower liberals who started a war (fought by the poor man), who were seen as "elitists" (along with anger over a nation seeming to be not concerned with "white peoples rights").

The new GOP members would never be seen as true members of the "country club power structure" of the party. Witness Rove's labeling Christian "fundies" as "kooks", and now this disdainful admission by one of the GOP power member's daughter that Bachmann's followers are the poor men.

It is this "poor man" that gave their votes to put in charge the GOP power structure that owed their allegiance not to a country but to corporations. What was good for the poor man was not good for the wealthy and their means of obtaining and controlling wealth.

Class warfare? You betcha!

Laziness and ignorance isn't a class thing, but I get the drift...the elite think so.

american..._almanac.tripod.com/ffslave.htm

american..._almanac.tripod.com/ffslave.htm

www.christiananswers.net...

www.wallbuilders.com...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


At the same time, these FFs (founding fathers) were slave owners:

wiki.answers.com...

Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington and Madison.


en.wikipedia.org...

Jefferson owned several plantations and hundreds of slaves during his lifetime. He relied partially on slavery for his wealth

So I have to say.... PUH-LEEEEEEZE....

As a self described info-vore, I have researched this topic (slavery in American history) extensively. I would like to share with you all what I consider to be THE DEFINITIVE resource regarding slavery in America. It is lengthly, erudite and objective. All information is footnoted / sourced. If you are genuinely interested in cutting through the subterfuge, I highly recommend it. It is broken down into 3 critical eras and it is doubtful to absorb it all in one reading:

www.innercity.org...

Here are a few excerpts to whet your appetite. The facts are both chilling and shocking.

THE SLAVE IMPORTATION PROCESS:

Two days before embarkation, the head of every male and female is neatly shaved; and, if the cargo belongs to several owners, each man's brand is impressed on the body of his irrespective Negro. This operation is performed with pieces of silver wire, or small irons fashioned into the merchant's initials, heated just hot enough to blister without burning the skin.

At sundown, the process of stowing the slaves for the night is begun. The second mate and boatswain descend into the hold, whip in hand, and range the slaves in their regular places; those on the right side of the vessel facing forward, and lying in each other's lap, while those on the left are similarly stowed with their faces towards the stern. In this way each negro lies on his right side, which is considered preferable for the action of the heart. In allotting places, particular attention is paid to size, the taller being selected for the greatest breadth of the vessel, while the shorter and younger are lodged near the bows.

When the vessels arrive at their destined port, the Negroes are again exposed naked to the eyes of all that flock together, and the examination of their purchasers. Then they are separated to the plantations of their several masters, to see each other no more. Here you may see mothers hanging over their daughters, bedewing their naked breasts with tears, and daughters clinging to their parents, till the whipper soon obliges them to part.

OUR FIRST PRESIDENT:

1752
After the death of his half-brother, George Washington purchased his sister-in-laws share in the Mount Vernon estate including 18 slaves. The ledgers and account books which he kept show that he bought slaves whenever possible to replenish the original 18. In the account books of Washington, the entries show that in 1754 he bought two make and a female; in 1756, two males, two females and a child, etc. In 1759, the year in which he was married, his wife Martha, brought him thirty –nine "dower-Negroes." He kept separate records of these Negroes all his life and mentions them as a separate unit in his will.

By the time of Washington's death, (in 1799) more than 300 (314 given by Mt. Vernon) slaves resided at Mount Vernon. Besides the field hands, there were blacksmiths, carpenters, shoemakers, brickmakers, and spinners.Though in death Washington willed that his slaves would be freed upon the death of Martha. The will provided that a special fund, be set up for the support of the aged and infirm. No evidence was found that the executors set up a trust fund as specified in the will.

MISC:

1787 
The Constitutional Convention adopts a "three-fifths rule" as a compromise to settle differences between Northern and Southern states over the counting of slaves for purposes of representation and taxation. Slaves are to be counted as three-fifths of a free man for both purposes. Constitution is approved, extending slavery for 20 years.
Slavery was a fundamental issue in the debates surrounding the creation of the constitution. It was not only an economic issue but also one involving the political compromises and fundamental political powers.

BTW, racists tend to refer to those of us who bring the abuses of our past to light as suffering from a fictious condition they call "white shame." I emphatically refute such label.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has gone on a three-day Bachmann-bashing binge over a speech she gave in Iowa last weekend. In the speech, Rep. Bachmann pointed out that the scourge of slavery was a horrible chapter in our country’s history, but we should give credit to our forebears who worked tirelessly to eradicate slavery. As an example, she offered up John Quincy Adams and his relentless efforts on behalf of the abolitionist movement. Here is an excerpt from her speech and Mr. Matthews’ obnoxious assault on her and his guest:


Matthews, like a rabid dog with a bone, has twisted Rep. Bachmann’s statement and attempted to make it appear as though she is denying that slavery ever happened, or suggesting that Rep. Bachmann thinks our forefathers eradicated slavery. Get the difference? Adams, Franklin and Jefferson are forefathers, Lincoln, Grant and the politicians of the mid-eighteenth century are forebears. Since Mr. Matthews has had many days to reflect on the actual text of Ms. Bachmann’s speech we can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he is merely mistaken. No, at this point the only conclusion to reach is Mr. Matthews is lying.

The MSNBC apologists might take this statement from Bachmann as proof that she thinks slavery was abolished by the forefathers prior to the Civil War:

“The very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.”

Matthews thinks that this is “Balloon Head” talk and some sort of dangerous, revisionist history. He has called Rep. Bachmann ignorant for making the statement. Unfortunately for Mr. Matthews, and the NBC News brand, history is actually on Rep. Bachmann’s side.

Thanks to the efforts of many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence:

Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.

And here are some quotes from our forefathers showing their positions on slavery:

“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
—George Washington

“[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.”
—John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. President. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), vol IX pp. 92-93. In a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.

“[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil.”
—Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York and London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898), Vol. II, pg. 231.

“As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they …[c]urse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery].”
—John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution and Governor of Pennsylvania. Charles J. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1898) p. 324.

“That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part.”
—John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York and London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891), Vol. III, pp. 168-169. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.

“Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts… by agreeing to this duty.”
—Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress and Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence With the Most Distinguised Men in America and Europe (Philadelphia: H.C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, pp. 17-19. The first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses.

“[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.”
—Luther Martin, Constitutional Convention Delegate. James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. III, pg. 211.

“Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity… It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.”
—Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four… (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. “To the Citizens of the United States.”

“Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law… The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all.”
—James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court Justice. James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Robert Green McCloskey, editor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. II, pg. 605.

“It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others… and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force.”
—John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), p. 81, “Lectures on Moral Philosophy.”

The man who was so thoroughly humiliated by Rep. Bachmann on election night, 2010 when she taunted him by saying that he didn’t “feel that thrill up your leg” is so obsessed and enraged at the congresswoman that he feels the need to lie about what she said and then bully any politician who appears on his show to defend her.

Enough Mr. Matthews. Stop lying, or have the courage to have someone on your show who can properly call you out on the horrendous journalistic malpractice you are engaging in.

bigjournalism.com...

I think this says it all, mods, sorry for the long quote, but I thought with the issues at hand, it merited it.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Jean and I have both posted multiple facts and links to many of the 1776 Founding Fathers stance and you come up with [ Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) ] from damn near 80 years later and people star you?

reply to post by SLAYER69


Sorry. What is the Statute of Limitations on Civil Rights again?

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

en.wikipedia.org...

I never thought you of all people would have Star Envy.

Please see my most recent post here.

Originally posted by beezzer
And here are some quotes from our forefathers showing their positions on slavery:

“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” —George Washington

Hmmmmmm. As the adage goes, actions speak louder than words:

By the time of Washington's death, (in 1799) more than 300 (314 given by Mt. Vernon) slaves resided at Mount Vernon. Besides the field hands, there were blacksmiths, carpenters, shoemakers, brickmakers, and spinners.Though in death Washington willed that his slaves would be freed upon the death of Martha. The will provided that a special fund, be set up for the support of the aged and infirm. No evidence was found that the executors set up a trust fund as specified in the will.

www.innercity.org...

Hypocrite from the Greek words meaning "play-actor"

Modern definition=a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

reply to post by kinda kurious


Cherry-pick much? Go on, pick another quote and another. Applying a 21st century mind-set to 18th century actions are easy. And rather lazy. Shame, shame.

I can't even believe I am going to do this.....

K.K. awesome work and responses. Dam fine work.

And yes, I even starred-multiple post.

Very impressive.

K, I done.

Can't believe this thread is still going

This link should have ended it tbh, as she only achieved 2 half truths out of her last 17 appearances....all the rest she said were blatant lies!!

Only dumb people fall for her pretty face and honey-soaked wanna-be patriotism!!

Originally posted by desert
Interesting that I heard Meghan McCain call Ms.Bachmann the "poor man's Sarah Palin". Three decades ago the GOP was able to gather up the angry working class white vote by appealing to a backlash against the Democratic Party "best and brightest", the ivory tower liberals who started a war (fought by the poor man), who were seen as "elitists" (along with anger over a nation seeming to be not concerned with "white peoples rights").

The new GOP members would never be seen as true members of the "country club power structure" of the party. Witness Rove's labeling Christian "fundies" as "kooks", and now this disdainful admission by one of the GOP power member's daughter that Bachmann's followers are the poor men.

It is this "poor man" that gave their votes to put in charge the GOP power structure that owed their allegiance not to a country but to corporations. What was good for the poor man was not good for the wealthy and their means of obtaining and controlling wealth.

Class warfare? You betcha!

That's just what I was talking about when I said the GOP has been taken over by neocons. It seems to have worked fairly well, as all those left of center are now identifying them as one and the same, when in fact they are not. That is EXACTLY why so many of the GOP membership has broken ties and drifted away. It's not the party it was years ago, it only carries the name.

McCain a "power member"? In this brave new world, I guess it's seen that way, especially by those bent on fighting that new GOP dragon. McCain wouldn't begin to qualify as a Republican under the old party. Neither would Romney. Yet, if you'll recall, those two were the front runners in the last election cycle , picked and promoted by the GOP "power structure" - meaning those goddamn neocons. Meanwhile, the one who would have qualified under the old party, like Huckabee and Thompson, got shoved to the back of the bus, none too gently.

Folks who have known me all my life can't quite grasp why turned on the GOP, and walked away without looking back. Most simply put, it's just not the GOP any more, it's more like DNC Lite. From the looks of things, I'm not the only one who sees it that way. Recovering Republicans have deserted in droves over the last few years, I was just a front runner in that stampede.

Now, at this stage in the election cycle, I watch to see who catches the most crap from Democrats, Progressives, etc. THAT person is the one they perceive to be the most dangerous to their agenda. The same notion works in reverse, of course. Just watching who the right lionizes shows who THEY think is most dangerous to THEIR agenda. What I'm finding amusing at this point is that several are being trashed by BOTH the GOP and the DNC.

That tells me that those two agendas are not as different as folks would have me believe.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Now, at this stage in the election cycle, I watch to see who catches the most crap from Democrats, Progressives, etc. THAT person is the one they perceive to be the most dangerous to their agenda.

Truthfully, I believe that the Democrats don't have an agenda anymore. The right wing maybe has a nasty, humanity-hating and cannibalistic agenda, but it's an agenda nevertheless. But the dems... I've come to see them as patsies. If they indeed were closet socialist (which they aren't) maybe they would command some respect.

One thing that turns me down with the right wing are personalities like Bachmann, Palin and Beck, I mean I feel like I've been already committed to a lunatic asylum every time I overhear the cr@p they say.

reply to post by buddhasystem


The GOP is a fully owned subsidiary of corporate America (only big business though), the Dems are fight like a wet paper bag (Obama), and the TP has been taken over by liars/bigots/racists (Bachmann, Rand, Beck, Palin, etc.).

Mhhhhhh, who to vote for

A 2 (or 3) party system is beyond retarded. The world isn't black or white, there's tons of shades of gray. But the parties in the US make it seem as if you're either a greedy corporate fat cat, a racist bible-humping redneck, or a communist version of the kid everyone bullied around in high school.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Sorry. What is the Statute of Limitations on Civil Rights again?

First you'd have to start with acknowledging that many of the founding fathers freed their slaves and families well over 80 years previously.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Cherry-pick much? Go on, pick another quote and another. Applying a 21st century mind-set to 18th century actions are easy. And rather lazy. Shame, shame.

Scuse me? I'm lazy? You cut and paste the contents of AN ENTIRE article you lifted and call me lazy? I strive to always provide facts to back my opinions rather than you who provide other opinions to back your own opinions. There is a huge difference as I glean my facts from diverse array of sources rather than your right leaning blogs. Andrew Breitbart? Give me a flipping break.

Please call me anything, but I'm most certainly not lazy. :shk:

reply to post by kinda kurious


*sigh*
Cherry pick much? Applying a 21st century mind-set to an 18th century situation is rather lazy. You need to take that extra step and think in terms of the situation at that time.
C'mon, take my hand, puddin', I'll walk you through it.

reply to post by beezzer


Unfortunately that always gets lost in the finger pointing.