politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Bachmann Stands By Claims That ‘Founding Fathers’ Ended Slavery
Source:
RAWSTORY
URL Source: http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2 ... ounding-fathers-ended-slavery/
Published: Jun 28, 2011
Author: Kase Wickman
Post Date: 2011-06-28 11:29:07 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 59248
Comments: 108
Rep. Michele Bachmann, who officially announced yesterday in Iowa that she is running for president, appeared on “Good Morning America” Monday, where George Stephanopoulos attempted to clarify some of her previous statements. Among them: Bachmann’s claim that “the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence worked tirelessly to end slavery.” “Now with respect, Congresswoman, that’s just not true,” Stephanopoulos said. “Many of them including Jefferson and Washington were actually slave holders and slavery didn’t end until the Civil War.” Bachmann dodged the question, answering, “Well, you know what’s marvelous is that in this country and under our Constitution, we have the ability when we recognize that something is wrong to change it. And that’s what we did in our country. We changed it. We no longer have slavery. That’s a good thing. And what our Constitution has done for our nation, is to give us the basis of freedom unparalleled in the rest of the world.” She goes on to claim that John Quincy Adams, who was a small boy during the Revolutionary War and did indeed eventually work to abolish slavery, should be counted as a “Founding Father.” Watch the visibly distraught Stephanopoulos’ interview with the tea party candidate, in which she discusses the minimum wage, Sarah Palin and her foster children. Originally aired June 28, 2011. Embedded courtesy ABC. 
Subscribe to *Tea Party On Parade*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 87.
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
(Edited)
The "Founding Fathers" were member of the 1st Continental Congress that began to define this nation as separate from England and the 2nd Continental Congress that actually declared independence. The Framers took over from them in 1786. Many of the Founders had zipola to do with the Framing...some because they were dead...but some, Patrick Henry, did so deliberately... We've gone from knowing AMerican history to politicians being defended by their supporters for promoting the most insane bastardizations of this nation's history I have ever heard...e.g. Palin stating that one reason for Revere's ride was to warn the English.
Indeed. And Palin was correct. Too bad that you wholeheartedly believe the pap the goobermint schools have been spoon-feeding you, for all eight of your years as a freshman at the local JC. As to whether the founding fathers supported slavery- something that you and Brian S(ocialist) seem to believe, I'll give you just a few quotes, to bust your bubble of rampant stupidity: "What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment and death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment . . . inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose." "We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." "The magnitude of this evil among us is so deeply felt, and so universally acknowledged; that no merit could be greater than that of devising a satisfactory remedy for it." Of course, the Constitution- and the attitudes of our founding fathers- were heavily influenced by John Locke, who wrote: Sec. 22. THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it. Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Sec. 23. This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it. Indeed, having by his fault forfeited his own life, by some act that deserves death; he, to whom he has forfeited it, may (when he has him in his power) delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service, and he does him no injury by it: for, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires. Sec. 24. This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else, but the state of war continued, between a lawful conqueror and a captive: for, if once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery ceases, as long as the compact endures: for, as has been said, no man can, by agreement, pass over to another that which he hath not in himself, a power over his own life. I confess, we find among the Jews, as well as other nations, that men did sell themselves; but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to slavery: for, it is evident, the person sold was not under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power: for the master could not have power to kill him, at any time, whom, at a certain time, he was obliged to let go free out of his service; and the master of such a servant was so far from having an arbitrary power over his life, that he could not, at pleasure, so much as maim him, but the loss of an eye, or tooth, set him free, Exod. xxi. Of course, the views of the founding fathers- aside from John Locke- were influenced by another social commentator of the era- though he died ~30 years before the Declaration of Independance: The state of slavery is in its own nature bad. It is neither useful to the master nor to the slave; not to the slave, because he can do nothing through a motive of virtue; nor to the master, because by having an unlimited authority over his slaves he insensibly accustoms himself to the want of all moral virtues, and thence becomes fierce, hasty, severe, choleric, voluptuous, and cruel where it is of the utmost importance that human nature should not be debased or dispirited, there ought to be no slavery. In democracies, where they are all upon equality; and in aristocracies, where the laws ought to use their utmost endeavors to procure as great an equality as the nature of the government will permit, slavery is contrary to the spirit of the constitution: it only contributes to give a power and luxury to the citizens which they ought not to have. I could go on, but there's really no need; the point is made.
No she wasn't. She even screwed up the spin. Revere's ride was redundant to that of William Dawes. Revere even had to borrow a horse. Now that I've given you the factual intrigue of the night of 18 April 1775 you can do the rest of the research yourself.
"Factual" may be in your limited vocabulary, but it's certainly not something you concern yourself with, in any consistent way. Palin was right. This is confirmed. You're wrong. This, too, is confirmed (on a daily basis). Now why don't you go home, kick the dog, and rue your wife leaving you. Loser.
Maybe if you had put it in bold, capitl letters and a "10" font, then I'd believe you. [snicker] Instead, I'll rely on the contemporary accounts of Prescott, Dawes, Larkin et al. Here's more fodder for you...most people today know that the British were moving in on Concord to destroy an armory where they believed that the cannons that had protected Boston Harbor and the Charles River had been moved to. But on the night of 18 April 1775, the fear of the "Sons of Liberty" and associative "Committee[s] For Safety" feared that the British were after something else. That was the purpose of Revere's "ride". What was that fear?
I can Palin-esque up history as well as she can. For example, the "Sons of Liberty" were a terrorist organization that carried out a false flag operation dressed as Indians at Boston harbor.
I find it absolutely incredible that people are not only apologizing for her but claiming that she was correct. Then I see who is doing it and it becomes not so incredible...
I saw the same thing with Bush fans (so called Bushbots) bending of reality to try and excuse Bush errors. I don't get how a party that is supposed to be a collection of independent thinkers becomes a party of idol worshippers. It is like they look for a leader to fawn over. And it is ideological over practical - what I mean is they will support an incompetent as long as the person spouts party dogma. In fact, they look at competency as a negative - because I imagine a fact based person would not accept their ideological dream world.
We see the same thing with Owe-bama fans (so called Messiah Worshipers) bending reality to try and excuse Owe-bama errors that occur daily in the 'here and now'. And when called on it, they blame...wait for it...wait for it...BUSH.
There are no replies to Comment # 87. End Trace Mode for Comment # 87.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestBachmann Stands By Claims That ‘Founding Fathers’ Ended Slavery
#64. To: war (#1)
We've gone from knowing AMerican history to politicians being defended by their supporters for promoting the most insane bastardizations of this nation's history I have ever heard...e.g. Palin stating that one reason for Revere's ride was to warn the English.
-- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Jean Nicholas Demeunier (24 January 1786) --
-— Speech by Madison at the Constitutional Convention, June 1787 --
-— Madison to Frances Wright, September 1825 -- CHAP. IV.
Of Slavery. Slavery, properly so called, is the establishment of a right which gives to one man such a power over another as renders him absolute master of his life and fortune.
--Charles de Montesqueiu, The Spirit of the Laws, XV Ch.1 1748--
#67. To: Capitalist Eric (#64)
And Palin was correct.
#72. To: war (#67)
Now that I've given you the factual
#76. To: Capitalist Eric (#72)
(Edited)
Palin was right. This is confirmed.
#79. To: war (#76)
(Edited)
#83. To: Godwinson (#79)
(Edited)
#85. To: war (#83)
I find it absolutely incredible that people are not only apologizing for her but claiming that she was correct.
#87. To: Godwinson (#85)
I saw the same thing with Bush fans (so called Bushbots) bending of reality to try and excuse Bush errors.
Replies to Comment # 87.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]