Michelle Bachmann: The Founders Freed The Slaves,Not Lincoln (brainwash, independence, abuse)

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Sophiasmommy

Their were Union states that had slaves and Confederate states that did not. If slavery was a key issue, one would think that the Union would have made it illegal prior to engaging in war, would they not? Political Correctness and revisionist history are rotting the brain.

This is honestly one of the most breathtakingly blinkered comments I have ever read on CD. Have you ever read a paragraph of American history?

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Your four questions were irrelevant. I never said the Constitution was irrelevant. And it would be Michelle Bachmann claiming the Emancipation Proclamation to be irrelevant.

The emancipation proclamation was completely irrelevent. And anyone who believes otherwise is just fooling themselves.

1) The Emancipation proclamation only outlawed slavery in territories that were at war with the United States. Slavery continued within the Union itself, where four of the Union states maintained the institution(Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri).

2) The Emancipation proclamation was only in effect while the Civil War was still going on. Because it was only constitutional because of the special war powers allowed by the president during wartime.

So the emancipation proclamation did not abolish slavery in the confederacy during the war because the confederacy did not obey federal laws. And it did not abolish slavery in the old confederacy once the war ended, because it was unconstitutional. Therefore the Emancipation proclamation had zero effect at all. And was merely a threat by Lincoln, who hoped it would convince the south to rejoin the Union.

What did actually abolish slavery was the 13th amendment.

As for the founding fathers. A great many of them did work tirelessly to abolish slavery. Thomas Jefferson wanted to abolish slavery with the Articles of Confederation. His rough draft of the declaration of independence attacked the institution of slavery, and put the blame on England for bringing it to our shores. But, those anti-slavery politicians realized if they had outlawed slavery in 1776, that the southern colonies would not have assisted them in the war for independence.

Thomas Jefferson was the president who made the importation of slaves illegal. And while none of the founding fathers or framers saw slavery completely abolished in this country. Those founding fathers did push to make slavery illegal in many northern states on the path to its abolishment.

Lincoln wasn't really anything special. People act like he was some courageous and great man. And he gets credit for abolishing slavery. But Lincoln really didn't care that much about slavery. Nor should it have required a Civil War to abolish it. Practically every single country in the Western hemisphere had slavery. How many of those countries required a Civil War to abolish it? Many European countries had slavery, how many fought a war to abolish it?

Slavery would have completely died within 20 years, possibly sooner. The Civil War lasted four of those years. And the destruction of the southern states lasted for more than 100 years.

Anyone who believes that Lincoln was a great man for starting the Civil War, are just a bunch of uneducated Warmongers. It would be like supporting the Iraq War because we are going to "spread democracy to the middle-east". Or the Afghanistan war to end the Taliban's fundamental Islamic reign over the country. I would have no doubt many of you people would feel justified in starting a Civil War to abolish guns, or to abolish those evil health insurance companies, and provide European-style healthcare for all.

Had the outcome been a failure for Lincoln(which it nearly was). He would have been branded as one of the most overzealous and incompetent presidents in US history. A president who cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, all because he was on an unconstitutional crusade to force his ideology onto others who did not appreciate it.

People talk about what an evil president that George Bush was. But his goals of bringing democracy to the middle-east, ending the tyrannical rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and protecting the Israeli jews from threats from the Arabs who would love to conquer them. Are all very noble.

The difference between Lincoln and Bush is, Lincoln won and Bush failed.

Abraham Lincoln: America's Greatest War Criminal - Ron Holland

[florida.bob]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

This is honestly one of the most breathtakingly blinkered comments I have ever read on CD. Have you ever read a paragraph of American history?

My guess, a graduate of Beck University.

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by Motion

Ok...


Michele Bachmann Iowa Speech | Bachmann Founders Ended Slavery | Mediaite

This is more correct than you think. That is the reason for the so-called "three-fifths" clause, which far too many blacks incorrectly take as an insult.

It was so that the South couldn't pack the House and hold power forever, and thus make it impossible to end slavery (in a nutshell).

Read history.

[alphamale]

The phrase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence lead to the end of slavery.

You bashers don't understand the concept of the founding of America.

Slavery had to be accepted in order to form the Union.

The Founding Fathers knew that it would need to be addressed someday.

Anyone that doesn't appreciate the fact that forming of America was a great triumph of liberty and freedom doesn't deserve to be here.

As far as us all being equal when we come here is fact.

As long as you come in a legal manner.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

This is more correct than you think. That is the reason for the so-called "three-fifths" clause, which far too many blacks incorrectly take as an insult.

It was so that the South couldn't pack the House and hold power forever, and thus make it impossible to end slavery (in a nutshell).

Read history.

Rep +1

It's too inconvenient for liberal/progressives to tell the truth.

It wouldn't help their agenda.

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

This is honestly one of the most breathtakingly blinkered comments I have ever read on CD. Have you ever read a paragraph of American history?

Well technically speaking, there were several Union states that had slavery all throughout the Civil War. As for Confederate states without slavery? Not really. One of the major themes was "no confederacy without slavery". The Indian territory of Oklahoma did side with the Confederacy, but slavery did exist there, even though many tribes did not own slaves and were anti-slavery. Though during that time Oklahoma was not actually a state.

Most of Eastern Tennessee was anti-slavery, and had attempted to secede from Tennessee during the Civil War.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by GregW

Realizing that slavery is morally repugnant is the single most important result of LIBERAL thought. It is one of the primary reasons I consider myself to be a Liberal and really believe that all people are created politically equal.

Good for you to believe all people are created equal. Bad for you to imply it is a liberal thought.

Originally Posted by GregW

Emancipation is the most important business regulation ever implemented even if it did destroy much of the economic capital of the Confederacy. People must NEVER be owned and should never be coerced by society to have to work for another for survival. Wage slavery is just a milder form of ownership and just as immoral.

I agree. So lets end income tax and property tax immediately. Lets end the prohibition on marijuana. Lets end government intervention in marriage. So many more to list Greg. I hope you actually mean what you just posted.

[brien51]

Who cares what MB says or doesn't say, except for the people she represents? I could care less. She doesn't rep me. So what I may or may not write doesn't really mean a thing here.

It seems to me that some people are merely looking for targets for mockery and / or their hatred. IF you are from her district, then you have a legitimate voice in the comments, otherwise, she is not that powerful of a Congressperson, so who realy cares, except her constitutents or those looking for a target to vent upon.

Please don't take this wrong , everyone has the right to comment, but really, why bother?

[momonkey]

[quote=DC at the Ridge;17570212]What's the title of the link? Do you have comprehension problems? When she states that the Founding Fathers are responsible for the abolition of slavery, she is making the events after the Founding Fathers irrelevant to the issue of slavery.


The assertion in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" and that our rights come from God is incompatible with slavery. Those who followed through with the implementation of these principles, to include Lincoln, did so under the authority of the Constitution with inspiration from the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. You can't separate the work of the Founders from the latter implementation of American principles based on that work. I didn't see where she claimed events following the ratification of the Constitution were irrelevant to the issue of slavery.