Bachmann: Founding fathers ‘worked tirelessly’ to end slavery

page: 13
19
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
ON TOPIC

A compilation of a few of Bachmann's other zingers:




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


BAD FORM.

What happened to staying on topic? I thought the OP was the discussion on Bachmann's speech on the Founding fathers and slavery.

Oh, I get it, you are pulling a Howard Dean pivot maneuver-



Pivot, Clinton was the best at it.



Do not EVER answer the question! Talk about something else, change the SUBJECT! Do not EVER talk about the actual topic!

There you go.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by desert
"But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."


The word "founders" is found in her speech, and of them she said they "worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."


Were not our Founding Fathers all dead by the time "slavery was no more in the United States"?


Yep. the 4th of July 1826 is when Jefferson uttered the famous deathbed quote "Adams still lives" not knowing Adams had passed hours earlier. So on the 50th anniversary, the last of the Founding Fathers passed together and it would be another 40 years until Slavery is abolished.

""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."

John Quincy Adams was John Adams son, was 9 years old 1776...and he died in 1848...So john Quicny Adams was niether responsible for the founding documents, nor did he end slavery.

Open to real discussion if I have missed anything here?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


BAD FORM.

What happened to staying on topic? I thought the OP was the discussion on Bachmann's speech on the Founding fathers and slavery.


Yes, but KK post was about the same person and added some depth to her character (or demonstrated lack thereof).



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Notice how Bachmann, since making a complete fool of herself is staying out of the limelight. Perhaps her PR people have have had a "come to Jesus" moment and realize that she is like small children..."best seen and not heard"



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Notice how Bachmann, since making a complete fool of herself is staying out of the limelight. Perhaps her PR people have have had a "come to Jesus" moment and realize that she is like small children..."best seen and not heard"


By the way I do find her attractive. It's a shame God gave her the looks but no brain to match.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

By the way I do find her attractive. It's a shame God gave her the looks but no brain to match.


Should I look to your avatar to guage what is attractive to you


To each thier own....everyone needs someone to love them.

I have to say personally on a purely superficial basis her appearance creeps me out. She looks as if she is wearing someone elses face...and with the TP response she gave staring at the wrong camera...it REALLY gave me the creeps. Like she was possesed by Dick Armey and mindlessly repeating some script. It was very "body snatchers."

Admitedly off-topic and not relevant to her painfully ignorant statement regarding the founding fathers.
edit on 1-2-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-2-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Yeah they worked hard. And my ancestors swam over here from Africa. For the hell of it.
edit on 1-2-2011 by curiousladdy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 



it would be another 40 years until Slavery is abolished.


Wrong!

Not so fast Einstein...
Don't you mean it wouldn't be another 40 years until Slavery was abolished in the "Southern Confederate Slave States" Remember it's "These United States" Not "The United States" The confederacy gave up that designation when they became a confederacy and became it's own country with it's own currency, capital and standing army...





Open to real discussion if I have missed anything here?


Yes like the Entire pre Civil-War history of the US.

Have we forgotten that the "United States" were the free states while the Southern "Confederate State" were the slave states? So in essence the northern States had abolished slavery long before 1865



Original state-based abolition efforts

Prior to the American Revolution, all of the British North American colonies had slavery, but the Revolutionary War gave impetus to a general anti-slavery sentiment. The Northwest Territory, now known as the Midwest, was organized under the Northwest Ordinance with a prohibition on slavery in 1787. Massachusetts accepted that its 1780 Constitution effectively abolished slavery, and several other northern states adopted statutes requiring gradual emancipation. In 1804, New Jersey became the last original state to embark on the course of gradual emancipation.

edit on 1-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by maybereal11
 



it would be another 40 years until Slavery is abolished.


Wrong!

Not so fast Einstein...
Don't you mean it wouldn't be another 40 years until Slavery was abolished in the "Southern Confederate Slave States" Remember it's "These United States" Not "The United States" The confederacy gave up that designation when they became a confederacy and became it's own country with it's own currency, capital and standing army...


Which Occured in 1861 and ended in 1865....That is how long the Confederacy existed.

John Quincy Adams died in 1848..John Q. Adams was not an author of the founding docs..he was 9 years old in 1776, the last two Founding Fathers, Jefferson and Adams Sr. died 40 years before the end of the civil war.

So it is strange that you would claim that slavery was abolished in the United States by 1848....You do know that with the exception of those years (1861-1865) the southern states were part of the United States?

And that even during those years...the United States of America...the actual government...never recognized those states as an independant "Confederacy"...thus the whole Civil War thing?

I have looked at your post a few times and still can't find sense in it. Just becuase the south tried to seceed for a few years and failed, does not scroll back the clock to John Quincy Adams death in 1848??

In short...What???

First Bachman claiming the founding fathers abolished slavery...now you claiming the USA didn't include the Southern states until 1865? Seriouslly folks...read some history.
edit on 1-2-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Maybe it's the word "abolished" that is giving you problems. It means to eliminate entirely...not just states in the northern part....not just some states.

Bachmann chose that word, not I...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
SKIP ahead to 10:54
"We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal"
I guess he forgot about the Slaves...

Maybe he should be part of this discussion as well...

edit on 1-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
SKIP ahead to 10:54
"We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal"
I guess he forgot about the Slaves...


Wow Slayer...you can't be dumb....so I guess you are being intentionally obtuse?

Yes, we were founded on the "ideal" that we are all created equal.

Yes, many of the founding fathers were against slavery.

No, they weren't successful in abolishing slavery as Bachmann claimed.


There was great debate amongst the founding fathers as to what to do about slavery and in the end they thought it was too much to tackle at the time and they didn't want to start a battle with the southern states.

How can you not be aware of any of this?

Why did you opt to not respond to my last post debunking your last claim?

Not much honesty to be found here.
edit on 1-2-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Obtuse?


Isn't it obvious to YOU YET?

This entire thread and it's premise has been just one Giant attempt at character assassination.




ETA: Keep editing your above replies, It's no sweat off of my pair.
edit on 1-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Obtuse?


Isn't it obvious to YOU YET?

This entire thread and it's premise has been just one Giant attempt at character assassination.



In order for it to be a "character assissination" the subject must be a person of character to begin with.

Bachmann fails in that regard.

What has been examined is the truthfullness of her statements and when you fail to successfully defend those falsehoods, you whine that it is a personal attack.

I provided historical facts...you simply whined about how unfair it is to expect her to tell the truth or have a basic knowledge of the history that she invokes in her loud BS rhetoric.

Nothing personal with Bachmann...she is just dishonest and ignorant and peaople called her out on it.
If she can't handle people pointing out that she says stupid things then she shouldn't be shouting them with a loudspeaker in hand.

What I find amazing is how quickly you sprung to try to BS in her defense....when anyone who has had a gradeschool history class knew she was out of her head.

Blind commitment to idealogy makes folks say stupid things.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Wow and to think I get trounced and have posts removed for being Off topic. What on earth has the sitting President got to do with the rantings of Ms Bachmann?


And since everyone likes to star posts just for the heck of it, here ya go:



Originally posted by SLAYER69
ETA: Keep editing your above replies, It's no sweat off of my pair.

Hmmmm. Where have I seen that technique used before?



ON TOPIC:
Look peeps, America has a checkered past regarding slavery and the progress has been slow to right the wrongs of the past. Constitution aside, it required the Civil Rights act of 1964 (96 years after the 14th Amendment) before ANY major progress was achieved.


This act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on July 2, 1964, prohibited discrimination in public places, provided for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and made employment discrimination illegal. This document was the most sweeping civil rights legislation since Reconstruction.



Passage of the act was not easy. House opposition bottled up the bill in the House Rules Committee. In the Senate, opponents attempted to talk the bill to death in a filibuster. In early 1964, House supporters overcame the Rules Committee obstacle by threatening to send the bill to the floor without committee approval. The Senate filibuster was overcome through the floor leadership of Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the considerable support of President Lyndon Johnson, and the efforts of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois, who convinced Republicans to support the bill.


SOURCE

To turn a blind eye or attempt to minimize the atrocities of the past is to disgrace all those who fought for equality. Historical facts ain't always pretty, but they serve as a permanent record for us to understand them so we do not repeat the mistakes of the past

"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
edit on 1-2-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Answer:

The vast majority of the founding fathers owned slaves. A few later relented, fewer never owned any. Bachmann's assertion is absolutely false.



Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington and Madison. Ben Franklin owned a few but freed them and then started the Philadelphia Anti Slavery Society. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Sam Adams and Thomas Paine did not own slaves and several of them were abolitionists, a few creating a school for black freedmen in New York. Washington also freed his slaves upon his death, however, over half of Washington's slaves were dowry slaves from his wife's first marriage and could not be freed by his will. They were not freed upon his death and Martha never freed them. This was quite devastating to the over 300 slaves on the Washington plantation because it tore apart many families, as freed blacks and slaves were not allowed to live together and as more and more of them were split amongst Martha's children and grandchildren.

wiki.answers.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
Washington also freed his slaves upon his death, however, over half of Washington's slaves were dowry slaves from his wife's first marriage and could not be freed by his will. They were not freed upon his death and Martha never freed them. This was quite devastating to the over 300 slaves on the Washington plantation because it tore apart many families, as freed blacks and slaves were not allowed to live together and as more and more of them were split amongst Martha's children and grandchildren.

wiki.answers.com...

Agreed and thanks for confirming previously presented data:


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...

I gander it is safe to assume that the first US President was a devout slave owner. Noble though it may seem to some, granting slaves their freedom after one dies since one has nothing to be gained by the further exploitation of their toils seems rather self-centric in my humble opinion. :shk:



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


There you go again SLAYER, bringing FACTS to the table.




When will you learn, facts are NOT what they are looking for, emotional rhetoric is their repertoire.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


There you go again SLAYER, bringing FACTS to the table.




When will you learn, facts are NOT what they are looking for, emotional rhetoric is their repertoire.


I AM NOT A NEOCON, I JUST DEFEND THEM AND SUPPORT THEM BECAUSE THEY SOUND SO COOL




edit on 1-2-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-2-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
19
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join