Bachmann: Founding fathers ‘worked tirelessly’ to end slavery

I think it is very interesting that people on the "right" side of the aisle continually try to downplay slavery, and try to rewrite history as this "representative" has done, make excuses, and basically just lie about it.

Then in the next breath scream "But I swear Im not racist!"

reply to post by aching_knuckles


www.youtube.com...



It didn't matter the color of your skin to our founding fathers? Huh? what an idiot!

Perhaps Ms Bachmann needs to take a walk in places that I'll bet she has never been.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Then in the next breath scream "But I swear Im not racist!"

Everyone is racist, so why do people always say this line?

Originally posted by tsawyer2
I've visited London too several times and liked it alot! Sure are alot of cameras all over the place though.

I am not talking about cameras, you need to read my other posts, and i do not want to go off topic.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Great post Slayer.......you know what else i love?

That the liberals on the thread have totally IGNORED tyour post to continue their bash fest.....

Never let facts stand in your way of a good character assassination.

Originally posted by whaaa

It didn't matter the color of your skin to our founding fathers? Huh? what an idiot!

Perhaps Ms Bachmann needs to take a walk in places that I'll bet she has never been.

edit on 26-1-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)

Well, to be fair, 3/5s of the color of your skin didnt matter lol

there trying to gain some more black voters, politics manipulating people and changing history for their own gains has been around since before the idea of politicians

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Great post Slayer.......you know what else i love?

That the liberals on the thread have totally IGNORED tyour post to continue their bash fest.....

Never let facts stand in your way of a good character assassination.

edit on 26-1-2011 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

Im not sure what you mean. Some of the Founders wanted it, some didnt.

Unfortunately, this "representative" decided to make sweeping statements about ALL the fathers in an effort to rile up a conservative base.

The exact opposite of what slayer was showing.

from what I understand the whole 3/5th issue was more about granting less power to southern states than northern.
So mebbe they WERE against slavery.

Originally posted by glome

Originally posted by beezzer
Well, now we know who shouldn't have three martinis at lunch.

Pure political speak. And I'm sure she'll be called to the carpet on it. But I'm not giving up support of her just because of one thing that she said. Heck, maybe she believes it. Will wait for more of it as the day moves on.

Pray tell me, how many things does she havfe to say before you give up your support on her? Or do you just plan on not looking very far.

This woman's grasp on practically every issue comes across as moribund, intellectually speaking.

I'm wondering why it is that as soon as ANY conservative woman comes to the forefront, that liberals viciously pounce on her? What is Bachman to all of you, the new Palin? How soon before you start dissecting her family like many of you did Palin's, as well?

The other question is that after observing liberals in action this way over and over, why many women still consider themselves liberal? Masochism, maybe?

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


I honestly didn't think it much supported the facts relevant to Bachman's comments.

Whatever the Founding Fathers may have thought or philosophized about, Washington didn't free his slaves until his death and even then some passed onto his wife and descendants, slavery wasn't abolished in Washington D.C. until 1863, blacks didn't have equal rights until 1964 and homosexuals are still fighting that battle.

So, when a potential 2012 Presidential candidate makes nonsensical statements about a hugely important and divisive issue in our history, it should at least be expected that people will have a reaction to that, no matter how much some may want to parse words, back-peddle or beg the issue.

reply to post by kosmicjack


Unfortunately, I have to agree. Thought it was a statement that would only polarize. Why not stick to the issues and focus on the problems we have now? To theorize on founding father intent only distracts.

And this is coming from a Tea Party member.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
The historical record does show that the colonies were like the later Northern and Southern states of the Civil War era history, divided on the issue. Yes, The founding fathers themselves were divided about slavery. Yes, Some did work tirelessly on the issues. Basically, On the whole however they left the issue for future generations to deal with and solve. They were after all trying to create a Union and the issue of slavery would have torn it apart right from the start.

Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush in 1774 founded America's first antislavery society. John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. Many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).

While others favored slavery, Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery.

John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams (July 11, 1767-February 23, 1848) spent most of his youth and adult life in public service to the United States, as senator, diplomat, secretary of state, president, and congressman. He made his greatest contribution to his country after his presidency, while serving in the United States House of Representatives as a staunch opponent of slavery and expansionist war.

American Anti-Slavery and Civil Rights Timeline

1775

* Founding of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (PAS), the world's first antislavery society and the first Quaker anti-slavery society. Benjamin Franklin becomes Honorary President of the Society in 1787.
* Thomas Paine speaks out against slavery and joins the PAS with Benjamin Rush.

I could post more but if it's just a matter of attacking her and her politics then whats the point?
Enjoy falling all over yourselves with lack of historical context.

It is possible with enough research to find evidence to support the fact that some individuals having to do with this nations founding were anti-slavery. It is also much easier to find many, many instances where they were not. Considering the Virginia delegation was so fundamental in the founding of the Union and that they wrote most of the founding documents you have to take their intentions and the work they left behind as the most pervasive argument for the way the country felt at the time.

The problem is that Michelle Bachman has conflated issues to the point where her telescoped vision of history is false and purposefully revisionary.

Your facts may have merit, your argument does not.

Originally posted by glome
the tea party is nothing more than a very effective marketing campaign launched by the republicans to rile up their base and give them amnesia to the fact that they led the country into a disastrous free fall after 8 years of Bush.

Considering the real Tea Party starting during the Bush administration, I'd say that is false.

A good idea got hijacked by the Republicans and is now part of the Red Vs. Blue "debate". And now they divide us even more because people would want to say I am a Republican just because I believe in the original Tea Party's ideals. I'm as much as a Republican as Ron Paul is.



Addition - And why would she even bring this up? Duh. I don't know/care what the context is, when you're trying to come off as legit, it is best to just leave this out of it. I just don't know what she could have gained from this. This group is the reason Obama is probably gonna get a second term. Nothing we can do about it - the secretly racist idiots or the smooth talking puppet, who would you choose?

Originally posted by glome
It is possible with enough research to find evidence to support the fact that some individuals having to do with this nations founding were anti-slavery. It is also much easier to find many, many instances where they were not.

That took only 2 minutes with a Google search. I posted both sides by the way: for and against.

Considering the Virginia delegation was so fundamental in the founding of the Union and that they wrote most of the founding documents you have to take their intentions and the work they left behind as the most pervasive argument for the way the country felt at the time.

James Madison, Virginian:

Although a slaveholder all his life, he was active during his later years in the American Colonization Society, whose mission was the resettlement of slaves in Africa. Madison died at the age of eighty-five in 1836, survived by his wife and stepson.

George Washington, Virginian:

Washington enjoyed only a few years of retirement at Mount Vernon. Even then, demonstrating his continued willingness to make sacrifices for his country in 1798 when the nation was on the verge of war with France he agreed to command the army, though his services were not ultimately required. He died at the age of 67 in 1799. In his will, he emancipated his slaves.

George Wythe, Virginian:

Reflecting lifelong aversion to slavery, Wythe emancipated his slaves in his will. His grave is in the yard of St. John's Episcopal Church in Richmond.

Your facts may have merit, your argument does not.

Well you're half right.

reply to post by SLAYER69


again, you can frame it anyway you want. When you die and free your slaves, ala washington, does not qualify for "working tirelessly to end slavery".

it's not a murky point.

Originally posted by glome
again, you can frame it anyway you want. When you die and free your slaves, ala washington, does not qualify for "working tirelessly to end slavery".

it's not a murky point.

Thanks for your opinion.
Many feel differently is all.

This is important because it demonstrates the mentality of the Tea Party. That mentality revolves around their inner self-deception and lying and distorting things to meet their delusions.

Originally posted by inforeal
This is important because it demonstrates the mentality of the Tea Party. That mentality revolves around their inner self-deception and lying and distorting things to meet their delusions.

Apologies to slayer69, but ...

Thanks for your opinion.
Many feel differently is all.

Originally posted by inforeal
This is important because it demonstrates the mentality of the Tea Party. That mentality revolves around their inner self-deception and lying and distorting things to meet their delusions.

You just described ALL political parties.

Divide and conquer.