Skip to comments.Michele Bachmann on Slavery, Hank Johnson on Guam "capsizing"
Posted on 01/25/2011 4:59:15 PM PST by WilliamHouston
This is my first vanity ever.
I'm sitting here watching Chris Matthews jump down the throat of some poor Republican about Michele Bachmann saying that the Founders abolished slavery.
Several thoughts occur to me:
(1) From the Revolution to the death of Jefferson and Adams, slavery was abolished in almost every Northern state, and was in fact "abolished" by the Founders in the Midwestern states by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
Lincoln repeatedly cited the Northwest Ordinance as proof that the Founders invested in Congress the authority to abolish slavery in the territories.
(2) Chris Matthews claimed that slavery was abolished "during the Civil War." The Thirteenth Amendment was passed several months into the Reconstruction era.
(3) His guest Joan Walsh of Salon.com claimed that White men were excluded from voting by property restrictions until 1830.
Actually, Rhode Island and South Carolina held out on universal suffrage much longer than that. The Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island happened in 1841.
(4) I didn't see Chris Matthews preaching about the "ignorance" of Democrats when Rep. Hank Johnson, a Democrat from the Atlanta area, famously worried that the island of Guam might "capsize."
Saw it also.
He is certifiable. Hopefully Comcast will show him the door ala Keef.
Must see YouTube video! (no joke--dead serious!)
Democrat Representative Hank Johnson fears Guam may "tip over" due to overpopulation!
If vid should disappear, try this:
Chris Matthews is a fool (possible going senile), but Bachmann put her foot in her mouth. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, it was at least a misstatement.
Generally speaking it is a bad idea to defend idiocy on your team by pointing to idiocy on the other team. Basically saying “We didn’t think Guam could tip over” doesn’t excuse basic knowledge of our history.
The founders may have intended to eventually bring an end to slavery. That is quite different from saying they actually did it.
1)They gave women the right to vote.
2)They created the country and the system and laid the foundations for those who would come later and do that.
1) isn’t true. 2) is.
Yeah, the “highly educated” Hank Johnson thinks islands float like boats.
What a frikkin’ moron!
I don’t watch him, but why does Breibart post his videos? He’s on there, because he has millionaires funding the network. His ratings have been low for years. In 2003, when Phil Donahue was on MSNBC, Matthews referred to him as an anti-American. He’s an entertainer.
H R 77 signed by Thomas Jefferson March 3, 1807 prohibited the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Jefferson was a founding father, he signed the first law banning slavery within the US, so yes, Bachmann was correct.
What say you?
Maybe you should read post #9.
Maybe you should read post #9.
Don’t forget however, that Jefferson himself owned slaves, though he did provide that they be freed upon his death.
Our founding fathers were not gods, just enlightened men. As such, they were fallible. This does not diminish what they did, in fact, makes it more impressive.
Don't confuse the disturbed mindset of the lunatic left with senility. They are simply off the wall nuts.
I guess if folks are going to ping to my #9 comment, I should give y’all a link.
I agree. They fought against what was the norm at the time. No, they didn't draw a line in the sand like some think, but they did put in place a strong process that did lead to the elimination of slavery. (and to note, very few founders actually were slave owners (you could count on one hand), there were far more overt abolitionists who signed the Constitution). The history of abolition in the founding of our country is long forgotten but very interesting. I would also suggest studying an amazing man named Prince Hall and his part in our founding.
“Prohibited the importation” of something is not banning it.
If two years ago you said Thomas Jefferson banned slavery with that law I would have to ask you about all the slaves that lived in slavery after 1807.
Since it is the current political climate I’m going to chalk it up to a really strong desire to defend Bachmann.
The optics of these things just plays that way sometimes. Obama can say 57 states or have an uncle in Patton’s army who saved Auschwitz and get away with it. Palin can mention that Alaska and Russia are neighbors (and indeed visible at certain locations) but it gets cast another way.
So I don’t know if thats what this is all about but I think it matters alot more what she says in this speech tonight.
Besides she can always backpedal and say she:
2) meant to say they layed down the constitutional foundation to end slavery
3) try to expand smaller bans to outright bans
It was the beginning of a process and one piece of a large puzzle, at that, it was an important piece- consider it the first domino in a chain. The process of abolition can be traced to a root of this law.
An analogy, to have a farm, you have to plant the first seed. You don’t just say one day ‘bam, farm’ and you have one.
Several Southern colonies tried to ban slavery but the King of England and the royalist merchants in New England would not allow it.
Jefferson wanted the trade and institution banned before there was a country.
Lincoln wanted to conquer the South and gain its riches for the treasury.
Jefferson not Lincoln set in motion the freedom of slaves.
The left’s hysterical personal attacks are designed to keep us from discussing the issues.
That ship has sailed. We are onto the left’s tingles and dingles and won’t no part of their sliming of conservatives.
The Treaty of Paris created 13 new countries!
Each one of these independent states had the prerogative of continuing in place the slavery previously imposed on the inhabitants by foreign nations who claimed OWNERSHIP of everybody and everything there.
Or, they could get rid of it.
Or they could waffle.
Massachusetts followed a path of dwadling and misadventure, but ended up discovering they'd abolished slavery earlier only no one noticed: http://www.slavenorth.com/massemancip.htm
Pennsylvania abolished slavery the day the proprietor Penn took over (theoretically). Then, they reacquired it following a line of argument that said it'd never really been abolished properly. By the time of the Revolution there was a well established body of abolitionists in Pennsylvania ready to argue in court, or whenever, on behalf of slaves who wanted loose.
All the other slave-holding Northern States had a similar back and forth ~ for one thing, there was not much economic interest in slavery in the North. Plus, you add to that the decided distaste for slavery engendered in the white population by the Swedes who kidnapped people and transported them toAmerica, as well as limited indenture to pay for transport to America to farm, slavery would never be popular in Pennsylvania!
In the early period after the Treaty of Paris the folks acting in regard to the continuation of slavery were ALL FOUNDERS. They managed to get rid of it IN THE NORTH, and in most of Virginia's Western land claims.
The Virginia trick was first to have Virginia and all other states "donate" or "yield" their colonial era land claims to the federal government (under the Articles of Confederation). Then, when that vast territory was subjected to organization for settlement the next trick was to simply prohibit slavery in any new territory. This affected portions of what are now New York, Pennsylvania, and all of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and portions of Minnesota right up to the Spanish boundary.
The fellows who created the Old Northwest as Free Territory were, of course, among the Founders.
There was less success in the Souf' where slavery had economic advantage.
Leastwise, that's the way I recall it.
Now, going back to that Swedish thing ~ most people are unaware that the early settlers at the New Sweden colony in Delaware were actually put to work in what is now Maryland cutting down trees for the Swedish and British navies.
For the most part those earliest settlers were acquired through the simple expedient of kidnapping entire families of Sa'ami who ventured too far South in the winter. They'd then be transported to America, turned loose, and put to work.
The Finns usually claim these Sa'ami were Finns, but the Sa'ami know better. Numerous family journals reflect their travel from the unpaid treecutting slavery of Maryland to liberty up the Susquehanna in Pennsylvania and New York.
I think most of that slavery was ended as the Sa'ami acquired firearms. No doubt folks like to imagine this never happened but it did.
You know those ol'boys down there at Valley Forge without shoes in winter? Those are the Sa'ami in the 2nd Pennsylvania. And the guys who are out there digging George Washington across the frozen Delaware in a boat to attack the Hessians? Those guys are Sa'ami too.
George would go nowhere without his Marylanders and his Pennsylvanians. The Maryland 400 had, in fact, saved the Army and the Revolution earlier in the withdrawal from New York. This was, by that time wholly their country. Let me assure you most of those guy's Great Grandfathers weren't too clear about where they'd come from but this piece of America was theirs ~ end of the line ~ no more choices ~ and the Brits didn't have a chance.
Ultimately neither did slavery.
It's because he knows he can't have them
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.