Louisiana lawmaker labels Declaration of Independence racist in debate

SOURCE

At face value this sounds completely absurd to me. I understand the irony & the hypocrisy of America's founding fathers drafting a declaration that defines freedom for all, while simultaneously being a majority of slave owners.

However, one can also make the argument that even though many of the founding fathers were slave owners, they didn't all see it as fair. It could be said that The Declaration of Independence was one of the first demonstrations of a political compromise, and that men who disagreed with each other about how far to extend rights & liberty to its citizens actually came together to pave the way for the inevitable civil rights movements.

I recently learned that many African Americans do not celebrate the 4th of July because the independence wasn't extended to the black community at the inception of this nation. But they paved the way to create a country with a system that would eventually grant freedom to the slaves, and restore their rights as citizens.

Now all of that being said, I personally find the actions of this elected official to be ignorant and disturbing, but not surprising.

The Declaration of Independence came under attack from an unlikely quarter—a state legislator.

Louisiana lawmaker Barbara Norton (D-Shreveport), argued that America’s founding document was racist during debate on a bill requiring public school students in the state to recite the Declaration of Independence daily, Fox & Friends reported Saturday.

“For the Declaration of Independence only Caucasians (were) free,” Norton, who is black, said Wednesday during the debate on the floor of the Louisiana House of Representatives. “And for you to bring a bill to require that our children will recite the Declaration of Independence I think it’s a little bit unfair.”

Now... This statement came up in a debate setting. The caveat there is that it's entirely plausible that Barbara Norton only made this statement in the context of the debate. However, this was not a debate among schools in a legit competition. This was the argument that Barbara Norton made when lawmakers in Louisiana were trying to pass a bill making it mandatory for children in public schools to recite The Declaration of Independence.

Rep. Valarie Hodges (R-Denham Springs) shelved the bill before lawmakers could vote on the proposal, which she sponsored. The measure would have required public school students in fourth through sixth grade to recite a passage from the Declaration of Independence.

Norton and Pat Smith (D-Baton Rouge) told Hodges that children shouldn’t have to recite words written at a time when slavery was prevalent, reading the document was used to bar blacks from voting at polling places and equality wasn’t extended to all people.

And what I want to know is, just what is she trying to accomplish here? The irony in it all is that she has the ability to voice her opinion freely, a right that was granted by the document and its makers that she is trying to discredit.

By voicing her opinion she has demonstrated that the Declaration actually worked.

“Back in 1776 our forefathers who wrote the Declaration of Independence, I don’t believe they had any idea or that they thought for a moment that America would be as diverse as it is today,” Norton told KTAL-TV.

Hodges told the station Norton and the other critics of the bill were wrong.

“They really just don’t get it and to me I really feel that it’s as important as Math and English and conjugating verbs,” she said, adding that it was important to educate children to become good citizens.

She also told the station she was astonished and saddened “at the hatred that was expressed at the forefathers and this document” during the debate.

How could she be surprised when she is the one who directed the anger towards our founding fathers and the Declaration? Just what is she surprised about?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

I wonder if she knows there were free African Americans at the time who ALSO owned their cousins as slaves?

a reply to: FaunaOrFlora

My guess is, probably not.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

This explains a lot, since many lawmakers don't adhere to any founding documents.

Norton and Pat Smith (D-Baton Rouge) told Hodges that children shouldn’t have to recite words written at a time when slavery was prevalent, reading the document was used to bar blacks from voting at polling places and equality wasn’t extended to all people.

If we can't celebrate any good words that were written at a time when slavery was prevalent, then we will have nothing to say about our history.

Does anyone know if it's true that reciting lines from the Declaration was actually used to bar blacks from voting?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

RE Declaration of Independence

America's founding fathers drafting a declaration that defines freedom for all,

Mate, the Declaration Of Independence (1776) was about the 13 colonies breaking away from Great Britain.

Freedoms were discussed in the Bill of Right (1789) attaching to the Constitution (1787)

Have you read any of them???

Jeezus, and I'm not even American...

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

There is no bigotry involved in that statement above. That it wasn't inclusive at the time written, doesn't mean it isn't now. We learn from the past, we live in the now.

Many of those who signed the Declaration of Independence were indeed slave owners, and that is a black mark in the ledger of their lives...never to be forgotten.

But many of those same men knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that the institution of slavery was doomed. Less than a century later? It was. Due, in no small part, to the Dec. of Independence, and the thoughts/passions behind it. If folk can't, or won't, see that, there's not a whole lot to be done for them.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Mate.

The Declaration of Independence is what the Constitution fleshed out. Everything in it is defined in the Constitution.

I am American, and I knew this. So, too, do many another. So lighten up.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

My point is that The Declaration of Independence was an instrument that paved the way for the Constitution and for civil rights movements.

Taken from the Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

So yes, I have read them.

a reply to: seagull

But many of those same men knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that the institution of slavery was doomed. Less than a century later? It was. Due, in no small part, to the Dec. of Independence, and the thoughts/passions behind it

Surely by that premise Great Britain should have continued slavery long after The U.S. abolished it. In fact slavery was abolished in Britain in 1833, that was over 30 years before The U.S.

Therfore if the 13 Colonies had continued under British rule then slavery would have been abolished much sooner without The Decleration would it not ?

Therefore i disagree with your observation.

a reply to: alldaylong

Therefore I disagree with your observation

Good to know.

Do you have anything to say about the woman and her actions?

Can we just let the south secede... please? They need their own country.

a reply to: alldaylong

I know that Great Britain abolished slavery before the United States did.

...and that, too, served as a catalyst for slavery's ultimate demise here in the States. There was no one over riding catalyst that.

...and you are certainly welcome to disagree. I'd get really bored, really quickly, if everyone agreed with me...and I'd wonder what had gone so horribly wrong. People disagreeing is what makes me think about things. So you go right on ahead disagreeing with me.

We need new documents relevant to the modern age.

Theres going to be a time soon that we have to update our governing idea set to match technology and modern culture in a way thats more equal to what experience in todays world instead of trying to continue to use a 1776 world view to govern the modern age.

a reply to: onequestion

Theres going to be a time soon that we have to update our governing idea set to match technology and modern culture in a way thats more equal to what experience in todays world instead of trying to continue to use a 1776 world view to govern the modern age.

I have but just one question...

Who is going to be responsible for updating our governing idea?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

We have the internet so lets use it as a tool to tap into the collective conscious and engineer something using the power of the people.

2 minds work better than one.

a reply to: onequestion

But what if the Internet is hijacked by BLM?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

But what if the Internet is hijacked by BLM?

Or hijacked by a Google AI - then you'll get an interesting Constitution