Michele Bachmann claims the founding fathers ended slavery

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
37
#1
This actually explains a lot about the fantasy world that some people are living in... and why your suspicions should be raised when you see school boards (texas) removing references to slavery in history books.

This lady might be the only person in America dumber than Sarah Palin.

The founding fathers punted on slavery... and they compromised over and over and over until the majority of them died and we had a war. Period. That's what happened. There is no debate.

Forget birth certificates... if you don't know THIS... you shouldn't be allowed to run for president... or be in congress... or serve in any public post :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg8kDG94kb8&feature=player_embedded#!

[video=youtube;eg8kDG94kb8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg8kDG94kb8&feature=player_embedded#![/video]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ezekiel

Forum Sage
Apr 29, 2006
9,408
66
48
37
#6
[QUOTE="unicron7, post: 5412649]Apparently the Civil War was fought for nothing. :snicker It had all been settled a hundred years earlier.

herp de derp.[/QUOTE]

The Civil War wasn't fought to "free the slaves". This is another revisionist propaganda piece. Bachmann is most certainly wrong but so are the majority of people. The Civil War was really about the northern states' socioeconomic and sociopolitical aggression against the southern states.
 

Vulgotha

Power Member
Jan 6, 2007
15,776
148
0
29
#7
Civil War was about States Rights. The States believed they had the right to secede (constitutionally) because Lincoln got elected and he was anti-slavery. They feared that he would attempt to outlaw slavery and introduce more non slave states which would demolish their economy.

In the original draft of our constitution slavery was outlawed. But a few states would have nothing to do with it for sheer economic reasons and so therefore it was marked out. But the founding fathers did hope that someday this issue would be addressed and appropriately dealt with.. Or atleast some of them did.

While I do favor States rights over Federal Government, the civil war was murky to me. The Constitution is incredibly vague on the proper method of secession and the on the grounds for which it is justified. Contemporary analysis of the document leads many to believe that for a secession to come about, properly, legally, all the States must be in agreement that the state(s) in question may leave. A convention is held, basically.

In this light Lincoln's actions were entirely justified and within his authority. Well, except for the suspensions of Habeas Corpus....
 
Last edited:

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
37
#8
[QUOTE="Vulgotha, post: 5412691]Civil War was about States Rights. The States believed they had the right to secede (constitutionally) because Lincoln got elected and he was anti-slavery. They feared that he would attempt to outlaw slavery and introduce more non slave states which would demolish their economy.

In the original draft of our constitution slavery was outlawed. But a few states would have nothing to do with it for sheer economic reasons and so therefore it was marked out. But the founding fathers did hope that someday this issue would be addressed and appropriately dealt with.. Or atleast some of them did.[/QUOTE]

yes. the state's right to have slaves. :lol:

and "a few" states... I should point out there weren't many states back in 1787...
I'd have to go back and look but 1/3 of the states were pro-slavery???

And the majority of the founding fathers owned slaves.

My point is- let's not paint them as saints.
 
Last edited:

Ezekiel

Forum Sage
Apr 29, 2006
9,408
66
48
37
#9
While states' rights did play a major role, actual economic and political realities played a much more significant role. Massive tariffs on goods imported from southern states such as cotton and tobacco were two major contributing factors. It's worthy to note that foreign central banks played a not so insignificant role either and that an industrialized north was just not having it. "Freed slaves" was just one of many things to come as a result of the Civil War.
 

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
37
#10
[QUOTE="Morganator, post: 5412698]While states' rights did play a major role, actual economic and political realities played a much more significant role. Massive tariffs on goods imported from southern states such as cotton and tobacco were two major contributing factors. It's worthy to note that foreign central banks played a not so insignificant role either and that an industrialized north was just not having it. "Freed slaves" was just one of many things to come as a result of the Civil War.[/QUOTE]

I concur. But if you're african-american you could give a **** about tariffs! :lol:
 
Oct 23, 2007
4,885
43
0
39
#11
I did read that some of the founding fathers were indeed against slavery and did fight to end slavery, but obviously not every single one of the founders were anti slavery and likely not even most of them, but I don't think MB was that specific was she?
 

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
37
#12
[QUOTE="weskurtz81, post: 5412746]I did read that some of the founding fathers were indeed against slavery and did fight to end slavery, but obviously not every single one of the founders were anti slavery and likely not even most of them, but I don't think MB was that specific was she?[/QUOTE]

She actually specifically references John Quincy Adams... who was not a founding father.

the vid is posted.
 

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
37
#14
[QUOTE="Vulgotha, post: 5412781]I think saying the Civil War was "About slavery" is just a gross oversimplification.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't say gross.

I don't know why ending centuries of rape, murder, and genocide needs to be downplayed...
 
Oct 23, 2007
4,885
43
0
39
#15
[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 5412774]She actually specifically references John Quincy Adams... who was not a founding father.

the vid is posted.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I saw that part, but she never called J. Q. Adams a founding father, she called him a forebear, which is nothing more than an ancestor. And, before that, she generally referred to founding fathers that were against slavery, which isn't false.

Now, I think she was being a little to forgiving, but that doesn't make it right to make things up that she didn't say.

[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 5412790]I wouldn't say gross.

I don't know why ending centuries of rape, murder, and genocide needs to be downplayed...[/QUOTE]


No one is downplaying anything from what I can tell, they are simply talking about facts, and they will remain facts regardless of how you feel about them.
 
Last edited:

Vulgotha

Power Member
Jan 6, 2007
15,776
148
0
29
#16
[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 5412790]I wouldn't say gross.

I don't know why ending centuries of rape, murder, and genocide needs to be downplayed...[/QUOTE]

I think people just play it up. Having a bad thing end does NOT mean that it was suddenly what that war was about, and we should rewrite history so its sole emphasis is on that particular facet.

I'm not downplaying anything.


Edit:

Slavery was crucial to Southern Economy. It's just how it was able to thrive, but the North (which was industrializing) was vastly more profitable so laws regarding economy\taxes and the like greatly favored them. In addition to this intense economic rivalry, Northerners thought the South to be backwards and many (abolitionists) wanted the slaves to be freed.

Much of the north went along with it- not just because it was the "moral thing" but because it would put them in a superior economical position over the Southern States. We saw that happen with the carpet baggers post war (North came in and basically milked them for all they were worth).

Northern interests dominated the political landscape, not the South's, and this lead to bitterness, infighting and the spark that lit up the powder keg was Lincoln getting the office.
 
Last edited:

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
37
#17
In anycase... this thread is about a stupid lady... we can discuss the civil war elsewhere

Her Tea Party rebuttal was cute too.
Surprised by the decision to go with powerpoint charts given her following's disdain for teleprompters...

[QUOTE="weskurtz81, post: 5412792]



No one is downplaying anything from what I can tell, they are simply talking about facts, and they will remain facts regardless of how you feel about them.[/QUOTE]

I believe I already acknowledged that other factors played a role leading up to the civil war.

Slavery was a significant factor and that is a fact- no matter how you (or anyone else) might feel about it.


Please use the edit or multi-quote option instead of double posting. -Ixion
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oct 23, 2007
4,885
43
0
39
#18
[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 5412805]In anycase... this thread is about a stupid lady... we can discuss the civil war elsewhere[/QUOTE]

So, what in that video makes her stupid? She didn't call JQA a founding father, she called him a forebearer, and some of the founding fathers WERE opposed to slavery.

I think she was obviously spinning something there though, it DID matter where people came from and what the social status was, but those road blocks did NOT prevent people from succeeding in America, there were immigrants from all over the world that had a tough start in America but managed to make it big. So, I see she IS spinning our history to a point, but what she was saying wasn't a lie.

-Some of the founders WERE against slavery
-She didn't call JQA a founding father, she referred to him as a forebearer, which by definition.... he is
-And what she said about immigrants wasn't a complete fabrication either, but it did have a nice helping of spin....

So, explain to me how that makes her stupid?

[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 0]I believe I already acknowledged that other factors played a role leading up to the civil war.[/QUOTE]

And then you said other people are downplaying slavery? So, where are you going with this?

[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 0]Slavery was a significant factor and that is a fact- no matter how you (or anyone else) might feel about it.[/QUOTE]

I don't feel anyway about it, history is history, I just find it funny that you feel the need to "play up" slavery and others are "down playing" it as a cause of the civil war.

Actually, here's how I feel about it, it was wrong and it ended.

Edit: Also, whenever you bring this topic up, because you have before, you never seem to mention that not ALL of the founding fathers supported slavery, you really seem to focus on one side of that coin.
 
Last edited:

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
37
#19
[QUOTE="weskurtz81, post: 5412809]
I think she was obviously spinning something there though, it DID matter where people came from and what the social status was, but those road blocks did NOT prevent people from succeeding in America, there were immigrants from all over the world that had a tough start in America but managed to make it big. So, I see she IS spinning our history to a point, but what she was saying wasn't a lie.

-Some of the founders WERE against slavery
-She didn't call JQA a founding father, she referred to him as a forebearer, which by definition.... he is
-And what she said about immigrants wasn't a complete fabrication either, but it did have a nice helping of spin....

So, explain to me how that makes her stupid?[/QUOTE]

really? African-Americans weren't blocked from succeeding? The Irish got along just fine and didn't have to wait for a politician to organize them into a voting block before they made any headway?

you call it spin- I'll call it blatant ignorance.

-yes some were anti-slavery... most were pro.
She's trying to paint them as saints... could do no wrong... its a falsity.

Edit: Also, whenever you bring this topic up, because you have before, you never seem to mention that not ALL of the founding fathers supported slavery, you really seem to focus on one side of that coin.
My OP clearly identifies their inability to come to an agreement on the issue of slavery... and the continued caving that followed until we had a war... soooooo by implication I am acknowledging that some were anti-slavery...

"The founding fathers punted on slavery... and they compromised over and over and over until the majority of them died and we had a war. Period. That's what happened. There is no debate.?


Please use the edit or multi-quote option instead of double posting. -Ixion
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ixion

Ultimate Veteran
Nov 29, 2005
20,455
209
0
30
New York
#20
DayWalker, I've had to merge and note a gazillion of your double posts, and I've contacted you multiple times regarding this. I really don't want to report you over this, so please just use the edit button. This is starting to annoy me.
 

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
37
#21
Please use the edit or multi-quote option instead of double posting. -Ixion
I'd like to... but unless there's an easier way to respond to multiple posts after the fact... its easier (or less complicated) to do things my way.... tips appreciated.

Now which one of these ****ers keeps reporting me? Everytime I do it in one of these threads you come a running :lol:
 
Oct 23, 2007
4,885
43
0
39
#25
[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 5412820]really? African-Americans weren't blocked from succeeding? The Irish got along just fine and didn't have to wait for a politician to organize them into a voting block before they made any headway?

you call it spin- I'll call it blatant ignorance.

-yes some were anti-slavery... most were pro.
She's trying to paint them as saints... could do no wrong... its a falsity.[/QUOTE]

Sure, African's had it pretty bad for quite some time, so did the Irish and Asians when they got here, but not like the African's IMO. Anyway, I clearly said that there were "road blocks", some bigger than others, but hard work (after freedom) did pave the way to success, even for African American's.

[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 0]My OP clearly identifies their inability to come to an agreement on the issue of slavery... and the continued caving that followed until we had a war... soooooo by implication I am acknowledging that some were anti-slavery...

"The founding fathers punted on slavery... and they compromised over and over and over until the majority of them died and we had a war. Period. That's what happened. There is no debate.?[/QUOTE]

I guess I must have been confused, I have only ever heard to talk about those that owned slaves before this thread, never those that were against slavery.

I see what you are saying though, and I agree to a certain extent, especially when she said the color of your skin didn't matter (I didn't really pay attention to that first part when I watched the video before, the conversation in here was focused on slave ownership). Anyway, she's wrong when she says everyone was treated the same and the color of your skin didn't matter.... I can say that's stupid, not ignorant. On the rest of the stuff though, I don't see where she did anything other than spin it for her little speech.

[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 5412833]I'd like to... but unless there's an easier way to respond to multiple posts after the fact... its easier (or less complicated) to do things my way.... tips appreciated.

Now which one of these ****ers keeps reporting me? Everytime I do it in one of these threads you come a running
[/QUOTE]

I don't report them either, but I am puzzled WHY you keep doing it.... OVER AND OVER, after you are repeatedly told to stop!

Here's what I do, I open the post I need to add in a new tab and copy it into the one I just made.... that's what I did here. It's pretty easy IMO.

Edit: I bet I know who does it though, and since it's not me or Vulg....
 
Last edited:

Ixion

Ultimate Veteran
Nov 29, 2005
20,455
209
0
30
New York
#26
[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 5412833]I'd like to... but unless there's an easier way to respond to multiple posts after the fact... its easier (or less complicated) to do things my way.... tips appreciated.

Now which one of these ****ers keeps reporting me? Everytime I do it in one of these threads you come a running :lol:[/QUOTE]

No one reported you. It's against the rules and I was reading the thread. Don't do it again.

I posted in here as a last resort, since you don't respond to my PMs. Now please get back on-topic.
 

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
37
#27
[QUOTE="Ixion, post: 5412848]No one reported you. It's against the rules and I was reading the thread. Don't do it again.

I posted in here as a last resort, since you don't respond to my PMs. Now please get back on-topic.[/QUOTE]

I have one PM from you back in november...

Like I said- if there is a simple way to respond to multiple/revised posts from multiple posters... I am all ears and you may reach me via PM.

Take a deep breath. you fixed it. everyone will be ok. It's not like I am posting porn.
 

Ixion

Ultimate Veteran
Nov 29, 2005
20,455
209
0
30
New York
#28
[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 5412857]I have one PM from you back in november...

Like I said- if there is a simple way to respond to multiple/revised posts from multiple posters... I am all ears and you may reach me via PM.

Take a deep breath. you fixed it. everyone will be ok. It's not like I am posting porn.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter what you think is easy or not. It's against the rules and you're making me clean up after you. I've also provided notes in many of the merged posts.

Anyway, I'm glad we had this discussion. Carry on.
 

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
37
#30
*deep sigh* followed by exaggerated :roll: and moving on...


[QUOTE="unicron7, post: 5412862]Are people in here seriously suggesting that slavery was not a major contribution to the events leading up to the civil war??? LOL I am not posting in this thread any longer. I think people argue just to argue. Oh, and yes, this lady is an idiot.[/QUOTE]


yeah- it kinda seems that way...