Moral Low Ground

Features

In Her Latest Screwup, Michele Bachmann Claims Founding Fathers “Worked Tirelessly” to End Slavery

US Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), named the least credible American politician by the non-partisan, Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact, has once again shown how utterly ignorant she is of basic US history. Speaking at an Iowans for Tax Relief event, Bachmann ridiculously asserted that the United States was founded on racial and ethnic diversity and equality, and that the founding fathers were responsible for abolishing slavery. “Once you got here, we were all the same,” Bachmann said of early Americans. “Isn’t that remarkable?”

What’s remarkable is Michele Bachmann’s complete disconnect from reality. Discussing slavery, she said “we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.” She mentioned “men like John Quincy Adams [who]… would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.”

Leaving aside the fact that John Quincy Adams was not a founding father, most of the actual founding fathers supported slavery. They passed legislation making blacks count as three-fifths of one white person. Some of them, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. Washington, nearly toothless at age 52, hired a dentist to rip nine teeth from the mouth of one of his slaves and implant them in his own. Jefferson fathered children with one of his slaves.

It’s no wonder that Michele Bachmann is a Tea Party favorite. Her folksy ignorance plays well with the ‘guns, god and Glenn Beck’ crowd. She is, as Meghan McCain calls her, “a poor man’s Sarah Palin.” Or maybe not, since Bachmann seems to be perpetually at war with the poor, whom she loves to blame for their own situation.

It would be tempting to call her an idiot, but again, that may not be the case. Perhaps she knows exactly what she’s doing, tailoring her moronic messages to the misguided souls who elected her to Congress. Could she just be throwing poisonous red meat to her base, many of whom have the IQ of a Minnesota woodchuck? I suspect not. I bet she really believes the rabid absurdities that she utters with alarming regularity. Michele Bachmann’s imbecility is genuine. She’ll probably end up being nominated for President by her Tea Party disciples.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

9 Comments

  1. yaoi huntress earthJanuary 26, 2011 at 11:14 pmReply

    Yep, keep those air-heads coming Tea Party.

  2. BrianMarch 12, 2011 at 8:50 pmReply

    Are you stupid? Yes, they said slaves counted as 3/5, but do you know why? IT WAS TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF VOTING POWER HELD BY SLAVE OWNERS. Previously, a slave owner got ONE vote for every slave they owned, ensuring that they would never lose a referendum on slavery. Reducing it to 3/5 didn’t mean that the slaves were 3/5 human. It was a way of saying that a slave should not be able to use the slave’s vote against him.

    God you people are incredibly stupid.

    • Brett WilkinsMarch 13, 2011 at 11:29 amReplyAuthor

      All the name-calling in the world does not alter the fact that HUMAN BEINGS were counted as only 3/5 human. It does not matter why. Such a policy belies the inherent racism of those who designed it. How would YOU like to be counted as not fully human? Instead of calling people “incredibly stupid,” perhaps you should take a moment to reflect upon why you would be so obtuse as to allow the fundamentally racist injustice of counting a HUMAN being as anything but “whole” to escape you.

  3. BrianMarch 12, 2011 at 8:51 pmReply

    CORRECTION a *slave owner* should not be able to use the slave’s vote against him.

  4. RobertMarch 28, 2011 at 8:38 amReply

    where is your source for what you claimed of Washington is one question i would like answered.

    the thing you either are to ignorant to understand or are purposefully overlooking is that if they let the slave owners count each slave as a full vote the Slave owner got to place that vote not the slave. it would have given the south enough electoral power that they could have kept Slavery indefinitely and could have increased slavery in the U.S. Instead, the 3/5 clause made it impossible for the South and slave owners to keep slavery and brought about the Civil War.

    you also either do not know the full story or purposefully ignore the fact that as Washington and Jefferson grew older the both became anti slavery. Washington freed his slaves and his estate paid pensions to the older slaves for years after his death.

    Jefferson’s views on slavery were contradictory: On one hand, Jefferson was morally opposed to slavery. He felt it was evil and wrong. His original draft of the Declaration of Independence condemned it in no uncertain terms. As Governor of Virginia, he proposed legislation to abolish it. On the other hand, despite his moral opposition though, he owned a significant number of slaves and even fathered children with one of his slaves, Sally Hemmings.

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Thomas_Jefferson%27s_views_on_slavery#ixzz1HuQ2WP6A

    • Brett WilkinsMarch 28, 2011 at 10:38 amReplyAuthor

      The point which you seem to be missing is that it doesn’t matter WHY blacks were counted as 3/5 of a person or what noble intentions were behind such policy, counting someone as less than whole is inherently DEHUMANIZING. ALL humans are 100% human and ought to be counted as such. No 3/5.
      And I do not ignore Washington’s & Jefferson’s late-life anti-slavery leanings, in the context of this conversation I thought this to be irrelevant. If I were to tell you that Stalin liked and was very kind to children, does it excuse the fact that he was a mass-murderer? George Washington once yanked 9 teeth from one of his slaves so that he could make dentures for himself. Any late-life conversion is negated by such shocking deeds earlier in his life. Just one person’s opinion, though.

  5. RobertMarch 29, 2011 at 8:03 amReply

    again i asked for the source for the tooth story.. i never have heard it and often read articles from opposing sides on many issues.
    The point you seem to be missing is that had the Constitution counted slaves as a whole person at that time the south would have had the power politically to continue Slavery indefinitely. that being the case means that the framers of the Constitution were doing things to end slavery as early as 1787. What is more dehumanizing, being counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes or continuing as a slave indefinitely?

    “Not to know is bad;
    Not to wish to know is worse!”
    African Proverb

  6. Tanner BramanJuly 20, 2011 at 4:33 pmReply

    The crew of the Titanic thought that they should turn the ship away from the iceberg too! Beautiful analogy! I finally get it.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Douche Du Jour
  • GOP Congressman Robert Pittenger Says Charlotte Protesters ‘Hate White People Because They’re Successful’
  • Israel Nominates Col. Eyal Karim, Who Endorsed Rape of Non-Jews to ‘Boost Troop Morale,’ for Chief Military Rabbi
  • The Hateful 8: Anti-Gay Christian Leaders Praise Orlando Massacre
  • Koch Brother’s Youth Education Program Teaches ‘Sacrificing Lives for Profits’
  • Tracy Murphree, GOP Texas Sheriff Candidate, Threatens to Beat Transgender Women Unconscious
Archives