Sunday, April 20, 2008

Michelle Obama thinks Americans are ignorant stereotypical people.



4-20-2008

The definition of the word "hypocrite" is a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives.
When Michelle Obama was standing on that stage looking down on the students at the University of South Carolina, I truly wonder how she couldn't make the connection that she was exactly the person she accused the students of being. What exactly is "diverse" about the church she belongs too? Surely her pastor Jeremiah Wright didn't preach sermons on diversity. According to him, America is the KKK of A. In her husband's book, Barack Obama had a hard time coming to grips with diversity, and Michelle herself in her thesis at Princeton wasn't very hot on diversity either. I forgot, I'm not suppose to mention any of these facts. I might be accussed of picking on the Obamas. If Michelle Obama is such the crusader against stereotypes, I wonder did she give Barack the same lecture she gave the students at USC when Barack made his "stereotypical" remark about people in rural America in regards to being racist, gun carrying, jesus freaks. I'm sure Michelle meant to tell Obama, but it probably slipped her mind, yeah right. This is what I'm not comprehending. Michelle Obama believes Americans "think they are justified in their own ignorance, and that it easy for Americans to hold on to their own stereotypes and misconception". Why would she except the average American citizen to vote for her husband, if she thinks so little of them to begin with? Maybe the answer is that she expect Americans will never figure out how "she really feels" about them and this country.

51 Comments:

Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Surely her pastor Jeremiah Wright didn't preach sermons on diversity. According to him, America is the KKK of A."

Tyrone,

It is funny Michelle should talk about ignorant people when her pastor takes the cake in that.

I am going to document where his claim is wrong that founding fathers planted slavery (rather than inherit and got stuck with it) in America:


http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?document=9

George Washington: "there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."


—Letter to Morris, April 12, 1786, in George Washington, A Collection, ed. W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1989), 319.



John Adams: "Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…. I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in …abhorrence."


—Letter to Evans, June 8, 1819, in Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams ed. Adrienne Koch et al. (New York: Knopf, 1946), 209-10.



Benjamin Franklin: "Slavery is …an atrocious debasement of human nature."


—"An Address to the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery" (1789), Benjamin Franklin, Writings ed. J.A. Leo Lemay (New York: Library of America, 1987), 1154.



Alexander Hamilton: "The laws of certain states …give an ownership in the service of negroes as personal property…. But being men, by the laws of God and nature, they were capable of acquiring liberty—and when the captor in war …thought fit to give them liberty, the gift was not only valid, but irrevocable."


—Philo Camillus no. 2 (1795), in Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-), 19:101-2.



James Madison: "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."


—Speech at Constitutional Convention, June 6, 1787, in Max Farrand, ed., Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937), 1:135.

12:40 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Here is proof Wright's claim about Romans and Italians in his garlic slur remark really was slurring the wrong ethnic group. IN other words, Italians did not come from Romans.

Romans were made of Latins, Sabines, and Estruscans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome

"The city of Rome grew from settlements around a ford on the river Tiber, a crossroads of traffic and trade.[5] According to archaeological evidence, the village of Rome was probably founded sometime in the 8th century BC, though it may go back as far as the 10th century BC, by members of the Latin tribe of Italy, on the top of the Palatine Hill.[9][10] The Etruscans, who had previously settled to the north in Etruria, seem to have established political control in the region by the late 7th century BC, forming the aristocratic and monarchial elite. The Etruscans apparently lost power in the area by the late 6th century BC, and at this point, the original Latin and Sabine tribes reinvented their government by creating a republic, with much greater restraints on the ability of rulers to exercise power.[11]"


Here is proof modern day Italians came from Germanic tribes that took over Italy from Romans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy

"In steady decline since 2nd century AD, the empire finally broke into two parts in 285 AD, a western and an eastern. The western part under the pressure of Goths finally dissolved leaving the Italian peninsula divided into small independent kingdoms and feuding city states for the next 14 centuries, and the eastern part as the sole heir to Roman legacy."

"Following a short recapture of the peninsula by Byzantine Emperor, Justinian at 6th cen. AD from the Ostrogoths a new wave of Germanic tribes, the Lombards, soon arrived to Italy from the north. For several centuries the armies of the Byzantines were strong enough to prevent Arabs, Holy Roman Empire, or the Papacy from establishing a unified Italian Kingdom, but at the same time too weak to fully unify the former Roman lands. Nevertheless during early Middle Ages Imperial orders such as the Carolingians, the Ottonians and Hohenstaufens managed to impose their overlordship in Italy."

12:49 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Michelle Obama believes Americans "think they are justified in their own ignorance, and that it easy for Americans to hold on to their own stereotypes and misconception"."

Me: Oh like her pastor's claim of conspiracy theories involving AIDs and drugs? Or his claim that Japan was innocent victim of America trying to force its views on it during WW2 via atomic bombs? Laughable on a grand scale. What do you think Japan would have done with Wright and the Obamas had taken over America if Japan had no respect for life of any group other than its own nationality?

Or what about her husband's claims people clinged to religion and guns because they are bitter? Heck, Hilary might be insincere, but her words are dead on why Michelle's husband was dead wrong (proving even a stopped clock is right twice a day!).

And how about her church's support for Hamas dispensing its propaganda about how wicked Israel is and how Hamas are the real victims? Laughable on grand scale, too.

WELS (my denom) rebutted that here:

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=24&cuItem_itemID=13068

Q: My question concerns the Q&A entitled "Our Attitude Toward Israel." In considering the question and your response, perhaps you could help me by answering a historical question. I was taught that after World War 2 the allies took land from the Palestinians and gave it to the emigrant Jews leaving Nazi Germany and surrounding countries so that the Jewish people would once again have their own homeland. Do I have this history wrong? How was the land taken from the Palestinians? I certainly oppose the terrorism in that region. I just would like to know how the stage was set for Modern Israel. Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A: This is a historical question not a theological question so it is really not in our area, but the summary you gave is not accurate. Until the end of World War I both the Jews and the Arabs living in Palestine were under the rule of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. As part of their battle against the Turks who were allies of Germany the British made promises of independence to both Jews and Arabs. After the war they did not keep these promises and Palestine became a British protectorate. Already between the wars there were hostilities between Arabs and Jews. Jewish nationalists also fought against British rule. Jewish refugees came in increased numbers as a result of World War II. When the British agreed to withdraw from Palestine, the UN set up an arrangement to divide the land of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. The Arabs refused to accept the agreement and began a war to destroy Israel. They were defeated and lost some of the land the UN had awarded to them. This has been the pattern also of subsequent wars. Israel's offers of compromise and co-existence have always been refused.

1:25 AM  
Anonymous Chilerkle said...

Well, I'm glad to know the Misses is involved isn't mum about her disdain for America.

Yup the more these two clowns open their mouths the more I see how vile these two truly are!

10:23 AM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

thuyen tran"It is funny Michelle should talk about ignorant people when her pastor takes the cake in that"

We all know liberals hold the patent on hypocrisy thuyen. The though of that woman becoming the first lady makes me ill to my stomach. I would settle for Theresa Heinz Kerry before Michelle Obama.

thuyen tran"I am going to document where his claim is wrong that founding fathers planted slavery (rather than inherit and got stuck with it) in America"

Blacks like Wright never want to talk about how African chefs and Muslim Arabs sold Africans to the American settlers in the first place. They also don't want to talk about the fact that blacks also owned slaves. Like I've always said, revisionist history is perfect for those who don't want to do actual research.

thuyen tran "Here is proof Wright's claim about Romans and Italians in his garlic slur remark really was slurring the wrong ethnic group. IN other words, Italians did not come from Romans"

lol, nobody ever said that Jerimah Wright was a man of great intellectual prowless thuyen tran. lol Most people just say that he's a man of great hatered pure concentrated ignorance. I agree with that 100% He should also be made to take a refresher course in ancient world history.lol

chilerkle"Well, I'm glad to know the Misses is involved isn't mum about her disdain for America."

It would be nice if the national media would play that video chilerkle, but they know what will happen. Michelle Obama clearly without a shadow of a doubt ISN'T first lady material. The more I see of her, the more I don't like her. She has the least amount of reasons to be upset or hate this country. She's nothing more then a brainwashed, insecure, spoiled, hypocritical grown up BRAT.

chilerkle"Yup the more these two clowns open their mouths the more I see how vile these two truly are!"

Yeah, but according to the supporters of Obama and Michelle,nobody is suppose to mention one word that is negative about them. Hell, the Obama cult members called up ABC News to complain because Obama was asked a hard question about his association with william ares of the weathermen underground. Barack Obama clearly attracts some of the most pathetic losers in our country. He's basically a loser magnet.

1:05 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Yeah, but according to the supporters of Obama and Michelle,nobody is suppose to mention one word that is negative about them. Hell, the Obama cult members called up ABC News to complain because Obama was asked a hard question about his association with william ares of the weathermen underground. Barack Obama clearly attracts some of the most pathetic losers in our country. He's basically a loser magnet."


By his supporters logic, then how much worse is the liberal media til ABC asked him hard questions at getting on everybody but Obama? Obama got off for a whole year til the Wright story broke!

1:15 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

George Washington: "there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."

Although Washington wrote and spoke an opposition to slavery, one must remember that Washington himself owned more than 300 slaves. (Tran, that's like you speaking out against abortion, yet having 300 abortions yourself...)

After freeing his own slaves, The Marquis De Lafayette (who was nearly executed for his abolitionist activity) tried to convince Washington to do the same, yet Washington refused.

Benjamin Franklin: "Slavery is …an atrocious debasement of human nature."

Is what he said "after" he became quite wealthy from buying and selling slaves and placing ads in his newspaper, "The Pennsylvania Gazette", for runaway slaves.

James Madison: "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."

Madison, who also owned slaves, was a savvy politician. To secure representation for his district, he crafted the 3/5th clause.

Your right-wing buddies at the Ashbrook Center seems "hell-bent" on discounting slavery and the part that "The Founding Fathers" played in the slavery/race game. Outside of William Lloyd Garrison's efforts, not one prominent politician of the time, made drastic moves to abolish slavery. After all, they had nearly 200 years to do so...

Tran, you placed a link to "The Ashbrook Center." Here's a question for you; Would you join and organization named for "The Reverend Jeremiah Wright"?

Congressman John M. Ashbrook on the floor of the House of Representatives on October 4, 1967;

"[Dr. M.L.] King has consistently worked with Communists and has helped give them a respectability they do not deserve" and "I believe he has done more for the Communist Party than any other person of this decade."

Note that Ashbrook also voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3:10 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Outside of William Lloyd Garrison's efforts, not one prominent politician of the time, made drastic moves to abolish slavery. After all, they had nearly 200 years to do so..."



Nice attempt at revisionism there.

Here is more info:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html

"In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories."

So if there was no attempt at abolishing slavery either immediately or slowly, why all those states as soon as they won independence from England banned slavery?

Why a federal law called the Northwest Ordinance banned slavery in any new territory?

Why the compromise agreement to ban the slave trade by 1807?

If the founders overall wanted to keep slavery, they would 1) not ban slavery in territories that would eventually become states, 2) they would not agree to have the slave trade eventually banned, 3) they would not vote into laws in many of their respective states to ban slavery.

And do you even know who repeatedly introduced a bill to ban slavery in Virginia?

5:59 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Madison, who also owned slaves, was a savvy politician. To secure representation for his district, he crafted the 3/5th clause."

You want it both ways. You want to claim the founders were for keeping and favoring slavery, yet you want to make him out to be a politician when he said he opposed slavery. If slavery was so favored that day, he would have no need to fool people into thinking he was anti-slavery at all!

As to the 3-5 compromise, let me give you some info. The slaveowning states, that didn't want slavery ban in the Constitutional Convention and threaten to stall the process, also wanted slaves represented fully. It was the anti-slavery founders who stood up against them, saying that if slaves were property, they could not be used to count as those who were to be represented. In other words, the founders, who opposed slavery, was calling the slaveowning states out on their hypocrisy in having slaves represented, thus boosting amount of representation for slave states.

Thus, 3/5 compromise was reached over that issue.

6:02 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Although Washington wrote and spoke an opposition to slavery, one must remember that Washington himself owned more than 300 slaves. (Tran, that's like you speaking out against abortion, yet having 300 abortions yourself...)"

Washington freed them in his will.

6:03 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Outside of William Lloyd Garrison's efforts, not one prominent politician of the time, made drastic moves to abolish slavery. After all, they had nearly 200 years to do so..."

200 years? ROFL

America declared independence in 1776. Slavery officially ended in 1865. That is less than 100 years!

And no politician before Garrison?

Again, I ask you, what about the NW Ordinance?

It was passed by Congress and signed into law by George Washington.

Let me quote it for you:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/ordinance/text.html

"Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid. "


Again, if the founders wanted to plant slavery, why passed such a law that forbid slavery into new territories? Why signed that into law as Washington did?

And yes, it passed before the Constitutional Conventional in 1787. But once Washington became president, he signed it into law, as well.

6:08 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Tran, you placed a link to "The Ashbrook Center." Here's a question for you; Would you join and organization named for "The Reverend Jeremiah Wright"?"

So if I cite correct info from someone who did something racist like 40 years ago, that means I belong to a racist club?

So let's turn that around on you. Byrd belonged to the KKK and he is one of most respected member of the Democratic party, which you belonged to (that is more you can say about me since I don't belong to Ashbrook site club or whatever). So should I say you belong to the KKK via that form of guilt by association?

Deal with the facts presented, please.

Not throw ad homs.

6:10 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

More info:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html

These people paint a false picture of the Founding Fathers and the issue of slavery. The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the Founders; slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Founders. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers.

The Revolution was a turning point in the national attitude against slavery - and it was the Founders who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British.

Benjamin Franklin explained that this separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. In fact, in the years following America's separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).

It is true, however, that not all of the Founders from the South opposed slavery. According to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery.

Nevertheless, despite the support in those states for slavery, the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil--and their support went beyond words.

For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:


“I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and... I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity... May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”

Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more.

6:14 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Is what he said "after" he became quite wealthy from buying and selling slaves and placing ads in his newspaper, "The Pennsylvania Gazette", for runaway slaves."


As always, as Tyrone pointed out to you in other threads, you don't tell the whole story.

Franklin evolved and changed in his belies, and not just on slavery.

Not only did he say he opposed slavery in words but he was also active in abolitionist movements. And he freed his own slaves, as well.

Here is the complete story:

http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_citizen_abolitionist.html

Franklin owned two slaves, George and King, who worked as personal servants, and his newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, commonly ran notices involving the sale or purchase of slaves and contracts for indentured laborers.

In addition to slaves from Africa, the colonies depended upon other forms of cheap labor. Many people of European descent paid their way to the colonies by signing letters of indenture. Indentured servants and workers were basically slaves who were legally bound to their masters for years. In many ways, indentured servants were of less worth than actual slaves, because as indentured laborers they couldn't be sold to another owner.

Like most people of his period, Franklin initially believed that African slaves and their offspring were inferior to white Europeans and that they couldn't be educated. He began to question his beliefs when he visited a school where young African children were being taught. In 1763, he wrote a letter to an English friend where he stated, "I was on the whole much pleased, and from what I then saw, have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race, than I had ever before entertained. Their apprehension seems as quick, their memory as strong, and their docility in every respect equal to that of white children."

Some scholars believe that Franklin's conversion to abolitionist beliefs was hastened by his animosity towards the British. Franklin often expressed his belief that the British meant to enslave the colonists. This may have led him to examine the enslavement of Africans who were brought from their native countries to be used as property and cattle.

The abolitionist movement in colonial America was fairly limited and considered quite radical. By the mid-1770s, a number of abolitionist organizations had begun to form.

After Franklin returned from France in 1785, he joined and eventually became president of an abolitionist group founded a decade earlier by the Pennsylvania Quakers. The group was called the Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. Franklin was convinced that not only the slave trade, but slavery itself should be eliminated. He eventually freed his own two slaves.

Franklin recognized that freed slaves could not fend for themselves without help, so he advanced the idea that slaves needed to be educated in order to become contributing members of a free society. In his position of president of the abolitionist society, Franklin wrote and published an "Address to the Public," in which he addressed the education of former slaves. The plan was to "instruct, to advise, to qualify those who have been restored to freedom, for the exercise and enjoyment of civil liberty; to promote in them habits of industry, to furnish them with employment suited to their age, sex, talents, and other circumstances. . . which we conceive will essentially promote the public good, and the happiness of these hitherto much neglected fellow-creatures."

6:19 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

And since when was Garrison a politician? And what time are talking about? Founding fathers' time? He was born after their generation!

If you are talking the period living before the Civil War, are you serious?

Why then was there a party called Liberty Party, started by former slaveowner turned evangelical Southern abolitionist James Birney? How come the slaveowning South called the Republicans "Black Republicans"?

Or what John Quincy Adams later in life when he became more abolitionist in his views? And his stance on Amistad and gag rule? Do you know what politician he inspired by his stance? Abe Lincoln!

6:25 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

And since you want to harp on one of the sites being associated with name Ashbrook, you neglect to mention that it is also associated with Claremont Institute as well, which has for years now stood up for Lincoln against those who attempt to claim the Civil War was about tariff and Lincoln's attempts at tyranny and had nothing to do with slavery.

See the Jaffa-DiLorenzo debates to see what I mean.

6:28 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

No attempts to end slavery?

Here is another nail in the coffin to your claim about founders: Thomas Jefferson. Yes, Jefferson was inconsistent in what he said and attempted to do about slavery and his private life.

But let's look at the things he did do and/or try to do at least publically in matters of law on the issue:

During his long career in public office, Jefferson attempted numerous times to abolish or limit the advance of slavery. According to a biographer, Jefferson "believed that it was the responsibility of the state and society to free all slaves."[65] In 1769, as a member of the House of Burgesses, Jefferson proposed for that body to emancipate slaves in Virginia, but he was unsuccessful.[66] In his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson condemned the British crown for sponsoring the importation of slavery to the colonies, charging that the crown "has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere." However, this language was dropped from the Declaration at the request of delegates from South Carolina and Georgia.

In 1778, the legislature passed a bill he proposed to ban further importation of slaves into Virginia; although this did not bring complete emancipation, in his words, it "stopped the increase of the evil by importation, leaving to future efforts its final eradication." In 1784, Jefferson's draft of what became the Northwest Ordinance stipulated that "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude" in any of the new states admitted to the Union from the Northwest Territory.[67] In 1807, he signed a bill abolishing the slave trade. Jefferson attacked the institution of slavery in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1784):

“ There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other.[68]

In this same work, Jefferson advanced his suspicion that black people were inferior to white people "in the endowments both of body and mind."[69] However, Jefferson did also write in this same work that a black person could have the right to live free in any country where people judge them by their nature and not as just being good for labor as well.[70] He also wrote, "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. [But] the two races...cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them."[22] According to historian Stephen Ambrose: "Jefferson, like all slaveholders and many other white members of American society, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy and, of course, as property. Jefferson, the genius of politics, could see no way for African Americans to live in society as free people."[71] His solution seems to have been for slaves to be freed then deported peacefully, failing which the same result would be imposed by war and that, in Jefferson's words, "human nature must shudder at the prospect held up [by war]. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent [the Spanish deportation or deletion] would fall far short of our case."[72]

On February 25, 1809, Jefferson repudiated his earlier view, writing in a letter to Abbé Grégoire:

“ Sir,--I have received the favor of your letter of August 17th, and with it the volume you were so kind to send me on the "Literature of Negroes." Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunity for the development of their genius were not favorable and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making toward their re-establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family. I pray you therefore to accept my thanks for the many instances you have enabled me to observe of respectable intelligence in that race of men, which cannot fail to have effect in hastening the day of their relief; and to be assured of the sentiments of high and just esteem and consideration which I tender to yourself with all sincerity.[73] ”

The downturn in land prices after 1819 pushed Jefferson further into debt. Jefferson finally emancipated his five most trusted slaves; the others were sold after his death to pay his debts.[74]

6:36 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

And let's not suppress what is also true about Washington and the situation he found himself in regards to slavery and Virginia law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery

After the war, Washington often privately expressed a dislike of the institution of slavery. In 1786, he wrote to a friend that "I never mean ... to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this Country may be abolished by slow, sure and imperceptible degrees." To another friend he wrote that "there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see some plan adopted for the abolition" of slavery. He expressed moral support for plans by his friend the Marquis de Lafayette to emancipate slaves and resettle them elsewhere, but he did not assist him in the effort.[3]

During the years when Washington was alive, the laws of Virginia did not permit any slave owner to emancipate a slave without imposing a great financial burden to himself. Thus, the only remaining means to dispose of one's slaves was to sell them, and had Washington not been opposed to this practice, he gladly would have used that means to end his ownership of all slaves. As he explained "Were it not that I am principled against selling Negroes... I would not in twelve months from this date be possessed of one as a slave."

The personal circumstances faced by Washington prove that his convictions were indeed genuine and not merely rhetorical. The excess number of slaves which he held was economically unprofitable for Mount Vernon and caused a great financial burden on him. Washington wrote "It is demonstratively clear that on this Estate (Mount Vernon) I have more working Negroes by a full [half] than can be employed to any advantage in the farming system." Washington could have sold his "surplus" slaves and immediately have realized a substantial income. As prize-winning historian James Truslow Adams correctly observed, "One good field hand was worth as much as a small city lot. By selling a single slave, Washington could have paid for two years all the taxes he so complained about." Washington himself acknowledged the profit he could make by reducing the number of his slaves, declaring "[H]alf the workers I keep on this estate would render me greater net profit than I now derive from the whole."

Despite the financial benefits he could have reaped, Washington adamantly refused to sell any slaves, saying "To sell the overplus I cannot, because I am principled against this kind of traffic in the human species. To hire them out is almost as bad because they could not be disposed of in families to any advantage, and to disperse [break up] the families I have an aversion."

This stand by Washington was remarkable for his day. Refusing to sell slaves and also refusing to break up their families differentiates Washington from the culture around him during that early era and particularly from his State legislature. Virginia law, contrary to Washington's personal policy, recognized neither slave marriages nor slave families. Not only did Washington refuse to sell slaves or to break up their families, but he also felt a responsibility to take care of the slaves he held until there was, according to his own words, a "plan adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished."

Not only did George Washington commit himself to caring for his slaves and to seeking a legal remedy by which they might be freed in his State, but he also took the leadership in doing so on the national level. The first federal racial civil rights law in America was passed on August 7, 1789 with the endorsing signature of President George Washington. That law, entitled "An Ordinance of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio," prohibited slavery in any new State interested in seeking to enter the Union. Consequently, slavery was thus prohibited in all the American territories held at the time; and it was because of this law, signed by President George Washington, that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin all prohibited slavery.

Despite the slow but steady progress made in many parts of the nation, especially in the North, the laws in Virginia were designed to discourage and prevent the emancipation of slaves. The loophole which finally allowed Washington to circumvent Virginia law was by emancipating his slaves on his death, which he did. Unfortunately, by the time of Thomas Jefferson's death, this loophole had been closed by the Virginia State Legislature, thus preventing Jefferson from doing the same.)[4]

6:39 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

"Your right-wing buddies at the Ashbrook Center seems "hell-bent" on discounting slavery and the part that "The Founding Fathers" played in the slavery/race game." (PAA)
<
<
The fact thatr chattel slavery STILL exists today in such unelightened regions as the Arab/Muslim Mideast, most of sub-Saharan Africa and huge tracs of Asia, would seem to damn today's slavers far worse than any of the 18th Century slavers, right?

Absolutely and without question, it does.

And since Hunter Pitts Odell (a luminary in the CPUSA) was a major speech writer for MLK, John Ashbrook's charge of MLK's ties to the Communist Party USA, is undeniable.

In my entire life, I've met three people who could actually make cogent and rational arguments in favor of socialism/communism. Ironically enough, two of them have since converted and become free market supporting "Right-wingers," and the third has, gracefully, expired.

I've yet run into a fourth....any person who could make the argument that "Under the right circumstances, a command economy could actually outperform a free market one."

Don't get me wrong, I know many have made that claim, very few can defend that position (three is how few to date). All that has led me to reason that those "right circumstances" exist only in fantasy land!

3:58 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

First off, what you've posted are excerpts from "opinionated" sources who who's sole purpose is to "vindicate" the founding fathers of their role in slavery. Their aim, as they have stated in the title of the site, is "Vindicating The Founders"!!

The purpose of the site is not to take a balanced, objective nor an unbiased analytical look at what occurred, the entire idea is to somehow prove that America's founding fathers were not racist.

THE FACTS ARE AS HISTORY SHOWS THEM TO BE: At the prodding of the British, America outlawed the importation of slaves in 1808. Slaves were indeed imported to the U.S. up until 1859. Yet slavery was outlawed some 40 years earlier. The importation (basically smuggling) of slaves was then considered as illegal as smuggling cocaine into the U.S. is today, yet it continued. Why you ask? The bottom line was MONEY/RICHES.

So why does Washington "need" to be vindicated? He was doing what all others (who aspired riches) did in his day. For lack of a better term, he was "addicted" to slave labor, the money and the POWER...yes the power!

Washington was no different than a "crack-addict" by today's standards. Just as the drug addict says "I know it's wrong, I'll quit one day", Washington knew as long as he was alive, he wasn't going to give up his slaves.

FACT: George Washington owned over 300 slaves at the time of his death, one of the largest holdings in America at that time.

BTW Tran, your "Ashbrook Center" buddies left out part of Washington's quote;

1786“I can only say that no man living wishes more sincerely than I do to see the abolition of (slavery)…But when slaves who are happy & content to remain with their present masters, are tampered with & seduced to leave them… it introduces more evils than it can cure."
-Hirschfield, Fritz.George Washington and Slavery.University of Missouri Press, Columbia.1997.p187-

"During the years when Washington was alive, the laws of Virginia did not permit any slave owner to emancipate a slave without imposing a great financial burden to himself."

Financial burden on himself yes, laws of Virginia was entirely different thing. He signed the Northwest Ordinance, yet, what really kept him from signing a law for "all" the territories?

These are the questions you should ask Tran. Instead you take the writings of The Ashbrook Center and "pseudo-historian" David Barton as some sort of truth. These people, like yourself and I, only have "opinions".... that's all!

Nothing you have said thus far has shown that you have attempted to come to your own conclusions.. NOTHING! It makes me wonder, what else have you just taken as "truth" without taking the time and effort to make a "self informed" opinion.

11:23 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Rev. Wright claims to be misunderstood here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080424/pl_nm/usa_politics0bama_pastor_dc

12:14 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"THE FACTS ARE AS HISTORY SHOWS THEM TO BE: At the prodding of the British, America outlawed the importation of slaves in 1808."

History shows that you are very selective. The founders COMPROMISED on when the slave trade would end. It occurred during the Constitutional Convention, when there was a heated debate on that. Nice try with claim that English pressured the US to do so in 1808. It was agreed on in 1787.

12:33 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"First off, what you've posted are excerpts from "opinionated" sources who who's sole purpose is to "vindicate" the founding fathers of their role in slavery. Their aim, as they have stated in the title of the site, is "Vindicating The Founders"!!"

I just didn't just quote that site.

I also quoted a bunch of wikipedia sites that give bios of different founding fathers. So according to you all the articles were out to vindicate them without basis or fact? Gimme a break.

So much for your claim I only quoted the vindicating the founders site.

Those are stuff I learned while getting my BA in History. Or any bio of any of the founding fathers.

Of course, you won't address basic history facts like MANY states OUTLAWED slavery AS SOON as they won their independence, in no small part dued to the abolitionist activist groups that founders like Ben Franklin, Ben Rush, etc., were involved in.

Or you want to claim that slavery got abolished in those states by itself without any of the founding members of those states doing anything to pass the law to abolish slavery?

That is what you have to argue to say founders

"The purpose of the site is not to take a balanced, objective nor an unbiased analytical look at what occurred, the entire idea is to somehow prove that America's founding fathers were not racist."

Empty claim.

Somehow you are fair and balance and objective?

No one said anything about founding fathers being racist or not racist.

Being against slavery is not the same thing as being non-racist. Lincoln wanted slavery to eventually end and he shared the racist views of those in his day, including abolitionists. Your fallacy there.

12:44 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Nothing you have said thus far has shown that you have attempted to come to your own conclusions.. NOTHING! It makes me wonder, what else have you just taken as "truth" without taking the time and effort to make a "self informed" opinion."

More empty claims. You ignore the fact most of the sites I quoted from were wiki sources, NOT vindicating the founders sources. And those things in wiki sources stated NOTHING different from all the history classes I took in high school and college (ALL of which are SECULAR and NOT pro-Christian classes btw). And you pretend the fact that a bunch of states that did abolish slavery did not occur. And you ignore the fact that compromise on slave trade was reached at the convention for Constitution in 1787, that slave trade would be banned by 1808. And then you want to make the claim I cited nothing or attempt to come to my own conclusions?

And you accuse me of not taking the time to make a self-informed opinion? ROFL

The fact I got a BA in History. The fact that I was NUMBER ONE STUDENT in my AP American History in my high school when I was in history school. Your claims would not have pass any of high school level.

Any yahoo can make claims you do how others lack understanding and then come up looking foolish doing so.

12:51 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

You made the claims about Franklin, then won't interact with the rest of the facts about his life. And I am suppose to take you seriously you know what are talking about?

Here is some more clue for you from a secular source, the US Constitution website (that rebuts your claim that the ban on slave trade occurred because Britain pressured America in 1808, rather than that the founders agreed in 1787 that it would be banned some 20 years later):

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html#slavery

The problem of slavery

There is no gentle way to put it. The enslavement of blacks in America was of great concern to the men at the convention. Some genuinely felt that the black man was as much "man" as the white man. But this was a minority view. Southern delegates had one thing in mind when it came to slavery: to keep it going to prop up the Southern economy. Indeed, many of the largest slave holders in the United States were at the Convention. Most Northern delegates did not like slavery, but that does not mean they cared for blacks either. Many felt that the larger the black populations in the South grew, the larger the threat that that population would revolt against their masters and march north to exact revenge on the people who bought the goods they had been driven to tend.

For some, slavery itself was at least tolerable, but the slave trade, the importation of new people from Africa, was deplorable. Some felt it was deplorable because trafficking in human lives is simply deplorable. Others felt it deplorable because it diminished the value of their surplus slaves in the slave market.

First we will address the capitation (counting) of slaves in the Constitution. On June 11, Roger Sherman suggested that representation be based on a count of all free men. The South wanted their slaves counted as whole persons, but that would never happen. James Wilson wanted to get the issue out of the way quickly, and asked the Convention to adopt the same standard as that in the Articles: slaves would count as three-fifths persons. This issue would rise again on July 9, when some began to realize that the South could increase their representation in the Congress by simply importing new slaves. Recall, too, that everyone expected the extreme Southern states to grow in white population as well, over the next few decades. The notion was frightening to many from the North, and Northern states banded together on July 11 to completely remove slaves from the population counts.

In the end, both side got something they wanted. Through what some have theorized was a complicated bargain between Northern and Southern delegates to the Convention and Northern and Southern representatives to the Congress, taxation and representation were tied together (the Congress comes into the story, because on July 12, the day after the compromise was reached, the Northwest Ordinance was passed, detailing the carving up of the north western wilderness of North America, and granting the South fugitive slave rules). The deal allowed the South to keep the three-fifths count for representation that had been used under the Articles for calculation of state levies, as long as they also had a three-fifths count for calculation of taxes.

As for the slave trade, for quite some time in the Convention, it was debated hotly. The states of the deep south wanted it maintained; the North and the middle south was opposed. But alliances between states kept some of the Northern states voting with the deep south, and any prohibition in new slave imports or import taxes were defeated. As the Convention progressed, though, it became clear to the South and her allies that some compromise would be needed. In exchange for a prohibition on export taxes, the South agreed to allowing the slave trade to continue for just 20 more years, and for imported slaves to be taxable. As a side note, the very day that the slave trade could constitutionally be prohibited, it was: on January 1, 1808.

12:57 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Nothing you have said thus far has shown that you have attempted to come to your own conclusions.. NOTHING! It makes me wonder, what else have you just taken as "truth" without taking the time and effort to make a "self informed" opinion."

And what you have said other than parrot then usual liberal diatribe without taking the time to look at context and make a real informed opinion other than the little snippets you provide as "facts" and not deal with actual historical sources that I, unlike, you cited?

Or are you going to claim all the wiki sources are Christian right-wingers looking to claim the founders were not racists (as if I even make that claim at all)?

1:01 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Tyrone,

Allen wants to have people believe now that every sources I cite, most of whic are wiki sources, to show his claims are either based on incomplete info or factually inaccurate, are actually according to him all biased right-winging "vindicating the founders" site as if Christian right wingers, as "proof" that I take in the kool aid from those sources.

Two little problems for him: 1) wiki sources are not run by either right wingers nor Christians in general, 2) I majored in history, and American history then was my main specialty.

1:06 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"These are the questions you should ask Tran. Instead you take the writings of The Ashbrook Center and "pseudo-historian" David Barton as some sort of truth. These people, like yourself and I, only have "opinions".... that's all!"

Show me you know what you are talking about, and I give creedance to your claim those like Barton is "pseudo-historian."

You claim Garrison was a politician (when he was a writer with his own press) and you want to mock me as lacking understanding? ROFL

You want to claim no one of politicians around the times of Garrison spoke out against slavery and you want to claim to know what you are talking about?

Look up Liberty Party in any history book.

Look up JQA in his latter part of his life and his role in ending the gag rule and his role in Amistad.

Or look up the fights North and South had over issue of fugitive slave law, where Northern states passed laws effectively nullifying the fugitive slave laws preventing runaway slaves from being returned.

1:15 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Allen,

Since you want to claim none of the founders actually were against slavery and took steps to end them (ignoring the many states that did end slavery as result of reactions against slavery in those states from evangelical abolitionist groups), and that any source that says to contrary as you claim are right winger, pseudo-historians, do you want to claim Encyclopedia Brittanica to be pseudo-historian and right-winger?

I quote you the Brittanica:

http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-219000

In addition, some delegates from Northern states sought to abolish slavery or, failing that, to make representation dependent on the size of a state's free population. At the same time, some Southern delegates threatened to abandon the convention if their demands to keep slavery and the slave trade legal and to count slaves for representation purposes were not met. Eventually the framers resolved their disputes by adopting a proposal put forward by the Connecticut delegation. The Great Compromise, as it came to be known, created a bicameral legislature with a Senate, in which all states would be equally represented, and a House of Representatives, in which representation would be apportioned on the basis of a state's free population plus three-fifths of its slave population. (The inclusion of the slave population was known separately as the three-fifths compromise.) A further compromise on slavery prohibited Congress from banning the importation of slaves until 1808 (Article I, Section 9). After all the disagreements were bridged, the new Constitution was submitted for ratification to the 13 states on September 28, 1787

1:20 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

So according to Brittanica, the founders arrived at compromise in 1787 to have slave trade banned by 1808. So who do I believe if I was not a history major and never aced easily my AP history class where I learn these facts? Allen who claimed the British got America to ban slave trade in 1808. Or Brittanica that said it occurred because of heated debates at the Constitutional Convention, that led to compromise in having 1808 as the year slave trade was to be banned?

No-brainer. I take the scholars at Brittanica.

I guess Allen will have to consider Brittanica as source to be a hotbed of Christian right-winger along the lines of Barton and so on then for what it says here (such as many founders worked at state level to end slavery in their states, compromises reached at convention involving slave trade, etc.:

http://updatecenter.britannica.com/ebk/article?articleId=437376&pid=ursd07

Nevertheless, the Founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory. Such antislavery policies, however, only went so far. The prohibition of foreign slave imports, by limiting the foreign supply, conveniently served the interests of Virginia and Maryland slaveholders, who could then sell their own surplus slaves southward and westward at higher prices. Furthermore, the ban on slavery in the Northwest tacitly legitimated the expansion of slavery in the Southwest.

Despite initial disagreements over slavery at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Founders once again demonstrated their commitment to maintaining the unity of the new United States by resolving to diffuse sectional tensions over slavery. To this end the Founders drafted a series of constitutional clauses acknowledging deep-seated regional differences over slavery while requiring all sections of the new country to make compromises as well. They granted slaveholding states the right to count three-fifths of their slave population when it came to apportioning the number of a state's representatives to Congress, thereby enhancing Southern power in the House of Representatives. But they also used this same ratio to determine the federal tax contribution required of each state, thus increasing the direct federal tax burden of slaveholding states. Georgians and South Carolinians won a moratorium until 1808 on any Congressional ban against the importation of slaves, but in the meantime individual states remained free to prohibit slave imports if they so wished. Southerners also obtained the inclusion of a fugitive slave clause (see Fugitive Slave Acts) designed to encourage the return of runaway slaves who sought refuge in free states, but the Constitution left enforcement of this clause to the cooperation of the states rather than to the coercion of Congress.

Although the Founders, consistent with their beliefs in limited government, opposed granting the new federal government significant authority over slavery, several individual Northern Founders promoted antislavery causes at the state level. Benjamin Franklin in Pennsylvania, as well as John Jay and Alexander Hamilton in New York, served as officers in their respective state antislavery societies. The prestige they lent to these organizations ultimately contributed to the gradual abolition of slavery in each of the Northern states.

Although slavery was legal in every Northern state at the beginning of the American Revolution, its economic impact was marginal. As a result, Northern Founders were freer to explore the libertarian dimensions of Revolutionary ideology. The experience of Franklin was in many ways typical of the evolving attitudes of Northern Founders toward slavery. Although enmeshed in the slave system for much of his life, Franklin eventually came to believe that slavery ought to be abolished gradually and legally. Franklin himself had owned slaves, run ads in his Pennsylvania Gazette to secure the return of fugitive slaves, and defended the honour of slaveholding revolutionaries. By 1781, however, Franklin had divested himself of slaves, and shortly thereafter he became the president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. He also went further than most of his contemporaries by signing a petition to the First Federal Congress in 1790 for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade.

Unlike their Northern counterparts, Southern Founders generally steered clear of organized antislavery activities, primarily to maintain their legitimacy among slaveholding constituents. Furthermore, while a few Northern and Southern Founders manumitted a small number of slaves, no Southern plantation-owning Founder, except George Washington, freed a sizeable body of enslaved labourers. Because his own slaves shared familial attachments with the dower slaves of his wife, Martha Custis Washington, he sought to convince her heirs to forego their inheritance rights in favour of a collective manumission so as to ensure that entire families, not just individual family members, might be freed. Washington failed to win the consent of the Custis heirs, but he nevertheless made sure, through his last will and testament, that his own slaves would enjoy the benefit of freedom.

Washington's act of manumission implied that he could envision a biracial United States where both blacks and whites might live together as free people. Jefferson, however, explicitly rejected this vision. He acknowledged that slavery violated the natural rights of slaves and that conflicts over slavery might one day lead to the dissolution of the union, but he also believed that, given alleged innate racial differences and deeply held prejudices, emancipation would inevitably degrade the character of the republic and unleash violent civil strife between blacks and whites. Jefferson thus advocated coupling emancipation with what he called “colonization,” or removal, of the black population beyond the boundaries of the United States. His proposals won considerable support in the North, where racial prejudice was on the rise, but such schemes found little support among the majority of Southern slaveholders.

When the last remaining Founders died in the 1830s, they left behind an ambiguous legacy with regard to slavery. They had succeeded in gradually abolishing slavery in the Northern states and Northwestern territories but permitted its rapid expansion in the South and Southwest. Although they eventually enacted a federal ban on the importation of foreign slaves in 1808, the enslaved population continued to expand through natural reproduction, while the growing internal domestic slave trade led to an increase in the tragic breakup of enslaved families

1:28 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"FACT: George Washington owned over 300 slaves at the time of his death, one of the largest holdings in America at that time."


And fact is also he freed them at his will and also made money from his estate to provide for those freed slaves. And before you claim that I got that from pseudo-historians and right-wingers, I got it from Alexander Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow (a historian who got his degree from Yale). And that is also stated in the wiki info on George Washington.

And fact is he also refused to sell his slaves to pay off his debts, and refuse to break up families.

Like I said tell the whole story.

You did far worse with Ben Franklin by pointing out he was a slaveowner very early in life but ignored the radical shifts in his views (not just on slavery either) later in life, and his involvement in abolitionist groups late in life. And PBS agrees with me on this. Do you dare call PBS a pseuodo-history site?

Sounds like you are the one whose objectivity and desiring to get all the info is the one lacking, not me.

1:40 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

More from Brittanica that agreed with what I said that the founders did try as far as they could to put slavery on road to extinction but in such a way as not to sabotage the Constitutional process where some of the slaveowning states might turn on the process and not anticipating things like cotton gin:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269535/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery

Slavery was incompatible with the values of the American Revolution, and all the prominent members of the Revolutionary generation acknowledged that fact. In three important areas they acted on this conviction: first, by ending the slave trade in 1808; second, by passing legislation in all the states north of the Potomac River, which put slavery on the road to ultimate extinction; and third, by prohibiting the expansion of slavery into the Northwest Territory. But in all the states south of the Potomac, where some nine-tenths of the slave population resided, they failed to act. Indeed, by insisting that slavery was a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, the Founding Fathers implicitly removed the slavery question from the national agenda. This decision had catastrophic consequences, for it permitted the enslaved population to grow in size eightfold (from 500,000 in 1775 to 4,000,000 in 1860), mostly by natural reproduction, and to spread throughout all the southern states east of the Mississippi River. And at least in retrospect, the Founders’ failure to act decisively before the slave population swelled so dramatically rendered the slavery question insoluble by any means short of civil war.

There were at least three underlying reasons for this tragic failure. First, many of the Founders mistakenly believed that slavery would die a natural death, that decisive action was unnecessary because slavery would not be able to compete successfully with the wage labour of free individuals. They did not foresee the cotton gin and the subsequent expansion of the “Cotton Kingdom.” Second, all the early efforts to place slavery on the national agenda prompted a threat of secession by the states of the Deep South (South Carolina and Georgia were the two states that actually threatened to secede, though Virginia might very well have chosen to join them if the matter came to a head), a threat especially potent during the fragile phase of the early American republic. While most of the Founders regarded slavery as a malignant cancer on the body politic, they also believed that any effort to remove it surgically would in all likelihood kill the young nation in the cradle. Finally, all conversations about abolishing slavery were haunted by the spectre of a free African American population, most especially in those states south of the Potomac where in some locations blacks actually outnumbered whites. None of the Founding Fathers found it possible to imagine a biracial American society, an idea that in point of fact did not achieve broad acceptance in the United States until the middle of the 20th century.



http://updatecenter.britannica.com/ebk/article?articleId=437376&pid=ursd07



Slavery was incompatible with the values of the American Revolution, and all the prominent members of the Revolutionary generation acknowledged that fact. In three important areas they acted on this conviction: first, by ending the slave trade in 1808; second, by passing legislation in all the states north of the Potomac River, which put slavery on the road to ultimate extinction; and third, by prohibiting the expansion of slavery into the Northwest Territory. But in all the states south of the Potomac, where some nine-tenths of the slave population resided, they failed to act. Indeed, by insisting that slavery was a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, the Founding Fathers implicitly removed the slavery question from the national agenda. This decision had catastrophic consequences, for it permitted the enslaved population to grow in size eightfold (from 500,000 in 1775 to 4,000,000 in 1860), mostly by natural reproduction, and to spread throughout all the southern states east of the Mississippi River. And at least in retrospect, the Founders’ failure to act decisively before the slave population swelled so dramatically rendered the slavery question insoluble by any means short of civil war.

There were at least three underlying reasons for this tragic failure. First, many of the Founders mistakenly believed that slavery would die a natural death, that decisive action was unnecessary because slavery would not be able to compete successfully with the wage labour of free individuals. They did not foresee the cotton gin and the subsequent expansion of the “Cotton Kingdom.” Second, all the early efforts to place slavery on the national agenda prompted a threat of secession by the states of the Deep South (South Carolina and Georgia were the two states that actually threatened to secede, though Virginia might very well have chosen to join them if the matter came to a head), a threat especially potent during the fragile phase of the early American republic. While most of the Founders regarded slavery as a malignant cancer on the body politic, they also believed that any effort to remove it surgically would in all likelihood kill the young nation in the cradle. Finally, all conversations about abolishing slavery were haunted by the spectre of a free African American population, most especially in those states south of the Potomac where in some locations blacks actually outnumbered whites. None of the Founding Fathers found it possible to imagine a biracial American society, an idea that in point of fact did not achieve broad acceptance in the United States until the middle of the 20th century.

1:49 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Tran, you certainly are long winded....(lol)

I said;"Madison, who also owned slaves, was a savvy politician. To secure representation for his district, he crafted the 3/5th clause."

Tran answered;"You want it both ways. You want to claim the founders were for keeping and favoring slavery, yet you want to make him out to be a politician when he said he opposed slavery."

I "want" what both ways???? Madison "had it" both ways!!!!! I'm against slavery, yet I "OWN" slaves?????? You can't see the hypocrisy in that???? What in the hell are you trying to say?? Please...no pretty please, explain it to me!!

Tran;"Since you want to claim none of the founders actually were against slavery and took steps to end them"

Never claimed nor sad that! Copy and paste what you think might imply; "none of the founders actually were against slavery"

Tran asks;" guess Allen will have to consider Britannica as source to be a hotbed of Christian right-winger along the lines of Barton"

No! Quite the contrary! Britannica offers an account of history from contributors from a community of experts and scholars. Although one can't claim the series and editions are totally error free, Britannica could possibly be the best choice of historic reference.

Tran asks (I think what he's saying, because I corrected/altered the "I" to "I'LL");"Show me you know what you are talking about, and "I'll" give creedance to your claim those like Barton is "pseudo-historian."

Okay! First off, Wikipedia is "not" the best source for historic reference, mainly because it allows anyone to alter the page even though they don't site appropriate sources. This also allows for "bias" entries to slip by without appropriate fact checking. Yet, for the sake of "this" argument, I'll use Barton's Wiki page to answer the "pseudo-historian" charge. Who ever made those entries on Barton's page, gave plenty of sources for their criticisms.

Selected quotes from your Britannica entries.

"None of the Founding Fathers found it possible to imagine a biracial American society, an idea that in point of fact did not achieve broad acceptance in the United States until the middle of the 20th century.
-Britannica-

"first, by ending the slave trade in 1808; second, by passing legislation in all the states north of the Potomac"

"the Founding Fathers implicitly removed the slavery question from the national agenda. This decision had catastrophic consequences, for it permitted the enslaved population to grow in size eightfold (from 500,000 in 1775 to 4,000,000 in 1860)"

8:09 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Tran, this back and forth of "other" sources idea's and quotes gets us nowhere.

Let's put all things aside with regard to our political views, and have an honest conversation. Instead of using "other" sources as a means of validating your point, lets use the words and deeds of the individuals of which we speak. Simply put, evaluate for yourself what they have said, done or wrote.

I'd like to know what differences you see in the "founding fathers"- who sought to end slavery while attempting to pull this country together to form a "more perfect union", seeking freedom for all Americans, crafting a historic constitution to form a great society...and all the while being "slave owners" themselves!

vs.

A "Rev. Wright", who gave up his student deferment, enlisted in the U.S. military, the valedictorian of his Naval training class, was a cardiopulmonary technician for President Johnsons surgery, holds several degrees- yet makes controversial statements calling the U.S. "America of KKK" and "damning" Americas involvement in the Iraq war.

The following are quotes from a prominent American. The quotes are his own words and idea's. In your opinion, are they true? Or, do you see these quotes as "anti-America"?

America is the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world today"

"America was founded on genocide, and a nation that is founded on genocide is destructive"

"It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism."

"In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now"


Before you "goolge" them, can you identify who made them? (you don't have to be honest with me, be honest with yourself!)

2:50 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Okay! First off, Wikipedia is "not" the best source for historic reference, mainly because it allows anyone to alter the page even though they don't site appropriate sources. This also allows for "bias" entries to slip by without appropriate fact checking. Yet, for the sake of "this" argument, I'll use Barton's Wiki page to answer the "pseudo-historian" charge. Who ever made those entries on Barton's page, gave plenty of sources for their criticisms."


That does not change fact that wiki is no hotbed of right-wing Christian sources you like to mention.

And you saying Barton is pseuodo-historian does not make it so.

You do like to mock people. I laugh at your remarks I only parrot certain sites that are right-wing and don't think critically for myself, when my BA is in History and that I was number one in my 11th grade class in AP American History. I know a heck of a lot more than you realize. And before you make claims like Garrison was politician, no politicians in his time stood up against slavery, and America banned the slave trade because England forced it toin 1808 check your facts there. You got it wrong on all of the above. Any textbook could have refuted you there!

3:10 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"No! Quite the contrary! Britannica offers an account of history from contributors from a community of experts and scholars. Although one can't claim the series and editions are totally error free, Britannica could possibly be the best choice of historic reference."


And it contradicts alot of your claims. You claimed the founders did nothing against slavery. Brittanica pointed out many of them did end work to end slavery in their states and did so successfully. You claimed England's pressure in 1808 was reason why America abolished slave trade. Brittanica stated that it was an agreed compromise at time of Constitutional Convention as reason why 1808 was date set for end of slave trade.

Two of your big arguments you used to claim I am uncritcal in my thinking and I parrot unobjective sources of history (as if you are a model of objectivity).

And you also ignore I did not just cite wiki since you wish to discredit that.

I also cited PBS on Ben Franklin, as well, to rebut your claims that since he was into slavery earlier in life, he could not possibly actually came out against slavery.



"Never claimed nor sad that! Copy and paste what you think might imply; "none of the founders actually were against slavery" "

Your own words: "Outside of William Lloyd Garrison's efforts, not one prominent politician of the time, made drastic moves to abolish slavery. After all, they had nearly 200 years to do so..."

So I guess you have to deny your own words that none of the founders were actually against slavery. That is your logic after all in claiming they didn't make drastic move against slavery.

Not to mention wrong, since Garrison was not politician. He didn't live in time of the founders either. And in the times he did lived in, there was controversy after controversy over the issue of slavery, so you are wrong even there.

And wrong on none of founders making drastic move against slavery, since many of them did help to end it at state level.

3:18 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Selected quotes from your Britannica entries.

"None of the Founding Fathers found it possible to imagine a biracial American society, an idea that in point of fact did not achieve broad acceptance in the United States until the middle of the 20th century.
-Britannica-"



You didn't rebut anything I said by referring to that.

Perhaps you missed this part of what I said to you earlier:

No one said anything about founding fathers being racist or not racist.

Being against slavery is not the same thing as being non-racist. Lincoln wanted slavery to eventually end and he shared the racist views of those in his day, including abolitionists. Your fallacy there.

3:21 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Allen: "the Founding Fathers implicitly removed the slavery question from the national agenda. This decision had catastrophic consequences, for it permitted the enslaved population to grow in size eightfold (from 500,000 in 1775 to 4,000,000 in 1860)"

Me: And you don't interact with rest of Brittanica articles that state: 1) the founders believed slavery would gradually die out, 2) they didn't anticipate the cotton gin that wouldmake slavery grow as big as it did in the South, 3) the founders who opposed slavery seeing that they could not get their desire to end slavery through at federal level decided to rather than risk dividing the country and any chances of ratification of the Constitution, worked at the state level.

3:25 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"I "want" what both ways???? Madison "had it" both ways!!!!! I'm against slavery, yet I "OWN" slaves?????? You can't see the hypocrisy in that???? What in the hell are you trying to say?? Please...no pretty please, explain it to me!!"


It is not the first time a patriot came out against his own personal interests for the good nation, and won't be the last in regards to issue of slavery. President Taylor himself was a huge slaveowner, yet as president took a strong anti-Southern slavery interests when he saw those forces were threatening to divide the Union over issue whether or not Cali or New Mexico territories would enter Union as free states (those territories desired to be free, not slave states). If he had not died in office, civil war would have decades before Lincoln became President.

In the case of Madison, if he had his way, he would have given up his own self-interest for what he saw as good of nation.

Yes, he was inconsistent as was Jefferson on this issue (and many other issues, given Madison was Federalist at time of Constitution ratification but later on became Jeffersonian, while Patrick Henry was anti-Federalist at time of ratification, but later on became Federalist more out of his dislike for political philosophies of the Jeffersonians, or in other words, people go back and forth in their views).

My point is that at the time of the founding, the founders had a difficult issue with slavery. It was hard (if not impossible) to outright ban it at federal level, because it might divide the nation and make ratification impossible, especially if the Southern states and even a state like New York, that still wanted slavery, refuse to ratify over that. And slavery was not only an issue that could prevent ratification.

There were other issues like desire for bill of rights.

So it is shallow to say since founders allowed slavery to go on at federal level, they didn't take drastic measures to end slavery. Many worked at state levels to do just that.

And they agreed on having slave trade end by 1808. The most diehard slavery states didn't even want the slave trade to end at it, but it was the insistence of principled founders, who hated slavery, that caused a compromise to be reached.

Those things are DRASTIC for that day and age.

How do you think Madison would be received in his HOME STATE of Virginia, that allowed slavery, when it knows he spoke against oneo of its institution?

He might be hypocrite or whatever you say.

But still pretty brave to speak out against something that would make him liable to be disliked in his home state.

3:34 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"I'd like to know what differences you see in the "founding fathers"- who sought to end slavery while attempting to pull this country together to form a "more perfect union", seeking freedom for all Americans, crafting a historic constitution to form a great society...and all the while being "slave owners" themselves!"


Many of the founding fathers were not slaveowners. Some were but as soon as revolution took place grew a conscience and freed the slaves. That is your- and Wright's- mistake. Lumped them all together.

You didn't rebut any facts I put up at all. It ia not just those right-wing sources you sought to discredit. Brittanica, wiki, and PBS also say the same thing I did- that is many founders, who were opposed to slavery, when they realized it was almost impossible feat to abolish slavery at national level all at once without breaking up Union or getting slaveowners to rebel, decided to work at states level, where in the North, it proved effective (though New York was a battle). Some like Hamilton was said to bitter that slavery was not abolished at the Constitutional Convention.

Those sources, that you can't explain away as right-wing, also said same thing I did: that the founders compromised between those who don't want slave trade banned all (mainly those from SC, NC, and Georige) and those who wanted it ban. They set date at 1808. It was agreed on in 1787. So your claim Britain put pressure on US in 1808 as reason for end of slave trade is dead wrong. It was already agreed on by founders 21 years earlier.

You are acting as if slavery issue in regards to founding is in a vaccuum.

The founders also had to deal with a hosts of other issues, all of them explosive and all of them could mean defeat of ratification hopes. Like the demands of a bill of rights. Issues over how representation would occur. And issues over the Senate and the House. Compromises had to be reached on those host of contentious issues, too, especially the Connecticut, aka Great, Compromise.

Or otherwise, the US Constitution would not have made it out of the convention and/or not ratified by enough states (9 were needed).

You are trying to make the task of slavery an issue for them to deal with, when it is alot of more complex situation than you realize or acknowledge.

12:30 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"A "Rev. Wright", who gave up his student deferment, enlisted in the U.S. military, the valedictorian of his Naval training class, was a cardiopulmonary technician for President Johnsons surgery, holds several degrees- yet makes controversial statements calling the U.S. "America of KKK" and "damning" Americas involvement in the Iraq war."


Serving in the military at one time in one's life years ago does not make one patriotic now.

For every patriotic military person, there is a Wright. Or worse, a Benedict Arnold. Or worse, yet a Timothy McVeigh.


"The following are quotes from a prominent American. The quotes are his own words and idea's. In your opinion, are they true? Or, do you see these quotes as "anti-America"?"

Red herring.

My beef with Wright has zero to do with his anti-Americanism (the beef there is more against Obama for wanting to be President yet holds to these views that can be damaging once he becomes President).

My beef with Wright deals with his slurrings of Italians, blaming Israel as terrorist state while siding Hamas, and making religious truth out to be issue of blacks vs whites (hence his complaint about whites is not limited to America but tried to appeal to Bible as well). And his many historical inaccuracies. And I don't mean just on the founders issue either. He made alot of errors.

His anti-Americanism is least of my worries.

And no, I didn't know who said what you quoted, til I googled it as King's words. I disagreed with what King said.

Again, if he was talking about black slavery, it was already there before the founders were even born. They inherited a situation many of them did not want to have in the first place.

If he was referring to genoicides against Native Americans, then let me point out that nearly all of that occurred after lifetimes of the founding fathers. Can't blame the fathers for sins of the sons. And since we speak of NW Ordinance earlier, it also degreed that the US was to honor treaties with Native Americans.

In fact, the closest Supreme Court justice to the founders at the times of Cherokees issue in President Jackson administration was John Marshall, and he took the side of the Native Americans. Jackson ignored Marshall's ruling and hence we have infamous and horrible trail of tears. And many of the Cherokees had became Christians, too. :(

He does have a better case on America in regards to aggressive militarism and violence. Guess what? There are paleo-conservatives who would dig King's statements there since they today opposed the war in Iraq or any other form of US meddling in affairs of weaker countries especially.

I am still considering that POV.

12:43 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Since you ask, King's words could come off as anti-American. But nowhere in that statement did I see him say God damned America. I see him as worried America was on the wrong path and is headed down the wrong path. King is dead wrong on claiming America was founded on genoicide. He would be right if he said long term effects of the founding, however unintended by most founders, was genoicide in regards to Native Americans and also the effects on blacks in slavery as well.

12:46 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

I also didn't see King throwing around conspiracy theories and passing them off as truth either in the quotes you give.

King preached in different time than from Wright (King preached when he was suffering and beaten for his views). King was also open to the public about his message.

Can Wright say the same? No. He ran from hard interviews. He skipped out on appearances like at TCU where he would not likely get all softball questions.

King had courage for his convictions and willing to stand by them. Even when he was wrong on some issues like socialistic aspects of his views.

And he was a hero when it comes to civil rights.

And he sure did not take side of Islamic terrorists and bash Israel simply for trying to exist.

IN fact, Wright would have been deemed antisemitic by King today.

I have seen King's speech on those who claim to be anti-zionist but not antisemitic. King went further on that then I would have went.

12:59 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

PAA:"Outside of William Lloyd Garrison's efforts, not one prominent politician of the time, made drastic moves to abolish slavery. After all, they had nearly 200 years to do so..."

That does not say, nor does it imply, that the founding fathers were "not actually against slavery"... You seem to read into my statements what you want, rather than whats said.

I'll "re-phrase" it for you. (mind you, the meaning remains the same)

The efforts of W.L. Garrison were "outside" that of the politicians. The "politicians" stated they were against slavery. Whereas Garrison led an organization, wrote and spoke out his entire life against slavery.
Garrison never owned a slave. Nor was Garrison a politician (I never said he was) Garrison was an "outsider" who never aspired to any political office.

A drastic move for that time was not "simply stating" that you were against slavery, a drastic move would have been giving up your "own" slaves and joining the abolition movement.

According to Wikipedia, James G. Birney owned slaves until he was 40 years old. According to Wikipedia Garrison split with Birney over differences such as women's rights, which Birney disagreed, and how the abolitionist campaign should be ran.

I have 2 sets/editions of encyclopedia Britannica. Although Birney is well known as an abolitionist, Britannica notes that he was a politician first and foremost.

I credit Garrison with the most "likely" sincerity due to his own writings. Garrison was the first and possibly the only abolitionist (that I know of) who was against Colonization of African-Americans to Liberia. He wrote books and articles proclaiming such a move was basically a "farce", and should not become policy.

In college I read perhaps, 200 or so excepts and articles, from the more than 1800 issues Garrison published for his newspaper, "The Liberator". It is from those articles (Garrisons own writings) that I formed my opinions.

A July 13, 1860 edition of "The Liberator" featured a speech given by H. Ford Douglas, a Virginia born fugitive slave, to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. I read the speech about 20 years ago.

I found a copy of the entire speech on this site. It's a few pages long, but read it in it's entirety.

http://www.blackpast.org/?q=1860-h-ford-douglas-i-do-not-believe-antislavery-abraham-lincoln

Politicians make laws right? They draft laws (legislation) and bring them to the assembly floor to vote on them. Elected politicians did not end slavery. Elected politicians and; "the Founding Fathers implicitly removed the slavery question from the national agenda. This decision had catastrophic consequences, for it permitted the enslaved population to grow in size eightfold (from 500,000 in 1775 to 4,000,000 in 1860)"
-the latter from "Britannica" (from your post)

5:38 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Politicians make laws right? They draft laws (legislation) and bring them to the assembly floor to vote on them. Elected politicians did not end slavery. Elected politicians and; "the Founding Fathers implicitly removed the slavery question from the national agenda. This decision had catastrophic consequences, for it permitted the enslaved population to grow in size eightfold (from 500,000 in 1775 to 4,000,000 in 1860)"

Selective quotation to try to justify your claim the elected politicians did nothing drastic.

The same source also said: "In three important areas they acted on this conviction: first, by ending the slave trade in 1808; second, by passing legislation in all the states north of the Potomac River, which put slavery on the road to ultimate extinction; and third, by prohibiting the expansion of slavery into the Northwest Territory."

Those quotes disproved your notion elected politicians back then did not do anything. They ended slavery in many states. They worked towards end of slave trade by agreeing it would be banned in 1808. And they banned slavery in NW Territory.

And you also won't deal with these quotes that showed that the founders believed slavery would gradually end and did not anticipate the rise of cotton gin that caused slavery to swell as two of reasons why they took slavery off national agenda:

"First, many of the Founders mistakenly believed that slavery would die a natural death, that decisive action was unnecessary because slavery would not be able to compete successfully with the wage labour of free individuals. They did not foresee the cotton gin and the subsequent expansion of the “Cotton Kingdom.” Second, all the early efforts to place slavery on the national agenda prompted a threat of secession by the states of the Deep South (South Carolina and Georgia were the two states that actually threatened to secede, though Virginia might very well have chosen to join them if the matter came to a head), a threat especially potent during the fragile phase of the early American republic. While most of the Founders regarded slavery as a malignant cancer on the body politic, they also believed that any effort to remove it surgically would in all likelihood kill the young nation in the cradle."

You only cite the third reason which was a racist reason to be sure. But by not also citing the other two reasons you give misleading impression that the founders did not by and large actually opposed slavery.

And by acting as if the three drastic steps they did take towards what they believed to be gradual end to slavery, as Brittanica stated, you made it out to as if Brittanica agreed with your claims based on selective quotation that the founders had no intent of seeing slavery one day end in America without bloodshed or breakup of the nation.

1:52 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

I do see the irony that you try to use Brittanica quote that the founders were racists as your proof they were not really opposed to slavery and really did not do anything about slavery that was drastic (which as I pointed out is rather misleading since the same article said they took three drastic steps towards the goal of having slavery end gradually but it backfired on them).

Garrison himself was also not exempt from racial prejudices of his day towards blacks.

By your logic, he must not have really been true abolitionist, since you used claim if one was racist back then one must not be against slavery!

1:55 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

And Allen you left out these quotes from another Brittanica article that stated the same themes, especially for Northern founding politicians (which also shows how your claim Brittanica agrees with you no politician did anything drastic is false and shows using Brittanica to justify that claim is also false as well, given they did their part to end slavery at the state level since many of them saw that states had more power than federal government to deal with the issue):

Although the Founders, consistent with their beliefs in limited government, opposed granting the new federal government significant authority over slavery, several individual Northern Founders promoted antislavery causes at the state level. Benjamin Franklin in Pennsylvania, as well as John Jay and Alexander Hamilton in New York, served as officers in their respective state antislavery societies. The prestige they lent to these organizations ultimately contributed to the gradual abolition of slavery in each of the Northern states.

Although slavery was legal in every Northern state at the beginning of the American Revolution, its economic impact was marginal. As a result, Northern Founders were freer to explore the libertarian dimensions of Revolutionary ideology. The experience of Franklin was in many ways typical of the evolving attitudes of Northern Founders toward slavery. Although enmeshed in the slave system for much of his life, Franklin eventually came to believe that slavery ought to be abolished gradually and legally. Franklin himself had owned slaves, run ads in his Pennsylvania Gazette to secure the return of fugitive slaves, and defended the honour of slaveholding revolutionaries. By 1781, however, Franklin had divested himself of slaves, and shortly thereafter he became the president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. He also went further than most of his contemporaries by signing a petition to the First Federal Congress in 1790 for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade.

1:59 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"According to Wikipedia, James G. Birney owned slaves until he was 40 years old. According to Wikipedia Garrison split with Birney over differences such as women's rights, which Birney disagreed, and how the abolitionist campaign should be ran."


That does not take away the long lasting impact of Birney and the Liberty Party. Their presence forced Northern Whigs to pay attention. And eventually allowed for formation of a party where people opposed to slavery, for different reasons (whether as abolitionists or freesoilers), can join together for common cause- the Republican Party.

If not for Liberty Party, there might not have been that Party of Lincoln. And without Lincoln's election, secession might not have occurred, or at least might not occurred til later on. And civil war would not have happened if secession had not taken place at that time.

2:03 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Btw, the "race card" is also card used by hardcore Southern apologists use to try to discredit the notion secession and civil war had to do with slavery. How so? They claimed Lincoln was racist against blacks (they were right there). Then they used that as "proof" since he was racist, he must not really be for end of slavery (they were wrong there, at least since Lincoln was for gradual end and also opposed its expansion as step towards its extinction). Then used that as basis to say that since he was not really for end of slavery, the secessionists must not have opposed him over slavery, so therefore secession was really for reasons other than slavery).

See how such argumentation goes?

You are using the same with founders. Claim founders are racists, so how can they possibly take steps against slavery?

Well, Brittanica disagreed with you there.

Not taking enough drastic steps against slavery (like having federal end to it which as Brittanica points out is too much of a risk back then, since it could break up the Union before it got started) is not same as not taking any drastic steps (which you claim about founders and rebutted by Brittanica pointing out they did take three major steps).

Founders and Lincoln alike were influenced by the racial attitudes of their times. Still, many founders, as well as Lincoln, rose above that and did what they could under the circumstances.

If they did not care as you want to claim, they would not have founded abolitionist societies.

They would not have cause slavery to be banned in their own states. Or passed ban on slavery in NW Ordinance.

They would have not have squabble over issue of slave trade, eventually compromising so that it would be banned by 1808.

2:15 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Tran says;"For every patriotic military person, there is a Wright. Or worse, a Benedict Arnold. Or worse, yet a Timothy McVeigh."

Timothy McVeigh? Benedict Arnold? Jeremiah Wright? Are you waiting for Wright to join Al Quaeda and blow up a govenment building? Damn man, you have a very vivid imagination!

Tran says;"My beef with Wright has zero to do with his anti-Americanism (the beef there is more against Obama for wanting to be President yet holds to these views that can be damaging once he becomes President)."

In 2000 I voted for Al Gore because I believed he had better domestic policies, better ideas on foriegn affairs, and more experience in national government affairs.

In 2008 you, and many other right-wingers, will go to the polls and vote "against" Rev. Wright (even though he's not on the ballot)because the candidate Wright represents will be on the ballot. Your reason for doing so is; "these views that can be damaging once he [Obama] becomes President"... Thats called "The Anybody But, Vote"! Just plain dumb...

"IN fact, Wright would have been deemed antisemitic by King today."

Typical...Every right-winger seems to know what M.L. King "said" and "thought" when he was alive, aor say and think if he were alive today! This, I can speculate as I truly believe, if King were alive today, "you" as a right-wing conservative, would view him as no more than an Al Sharton or Jesse Jackson.

Tran says;"King preached when he was suffering and beaten for his views). King was also open to the public about his message.

Can Wright say the same? No. He ran from hard interviews. He skipped out on appearances like at TCU where he would not likely get all softball questions."


Wright may have not been beaten, but has has most certainly suffered the wrath of vilification in the press.

Tran;"King was also open to the public about his message. Can Wright say the same?"

Duhhhh??? Open about his message??
You can order a tape of every single one of Wrights sermons. Go on you tube, they have plenty.

Tran;"King had courage for his convictions and willing to stand by them. Even when he was wrong on some issues like socialistic aspects of his views.

I asked were the comments "ANTI-AMERICA", are they or are they not?

1:35 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Timothy McVeigh? Benedict Arnold? Jeremiah Wright? Are you waiting for Wright to join Al Quaeda and blow up a govenment building? Damn man, you have a very vivid imagination!"

No, you do. You have a vivid imagination at how to take comments in a twisted way. You do it with Brittanica. Now you do it with mine.

I did say McVeigh is worse than Benedict Arnold and I did say Arnold is worse than Wright. Don't put words in my mouth that I see them in same level, when I don't.

My point is that it is laughable to play card since Wright served in the military that makes him patriotic today. If he can play that card as defense against those who point out his words don't match his claims of patriotism, then one can do same with anybody even the worst ones.

At best all Wright could prove was that maybe he was patriotic in the past.

But he has consulted with one of our enemies, the dictator of Libya. He and his church has supported the Hama propaganda statements, that are antisemitic in nature and that makes outlandish claims like Israel conspired to make race bombs.

If he has been anyone other former soldier, he would have been looked as a traitor, not merely anti-American. He took an oath to defend us against all enemies, domestic and foreign. Now he is saying that our enemies are somehow our innocent victims in wars going to ridiculous lengths when it comes to dealing with rogue nations that sponsor terrorism and has a history of human rights violations.


"In 2008 you, and many other right-wingers, will go to the polls and vote "against" Rev. Wright (even though he's not on the ballot)because the candidate Wright represents will be on the ballot. Your reason for doing so is; "these views that can be damaging once he [Obama] becomes President"... Thats called "The Anybody But, Vote"! Just plain dumb..."

Your typical tactic. Don't actually interact with reasons given then call dumb what you put in other people's mouth. Let me spell it slowly for you again.

It is not just conservatives who are concerned. Plenty of liberals are having a hard time swallowing this. It is calling rational thinking. If you expose your children for 20 years to the type of rhetoric Wright gives, it is reasonable to believe you share his ideology, period.



"Typical...Every right-winger seems to know what M.L. King "said" and "thought" when he was alive, aor say and think if he were alive today! This, I can speculate as I truly believe, if King were alive today, "you" as a right-wing conservative, would view him as no more than an Al Sharton or Jesse Jackson."

If you can find cases of MLK calling a rape victim a whore because she was white and falsely accusing her boyfriend let me know. If you can find cases where MLK jumps in cases of people like Bradley or the lady behind Duke lacrosse hoax. If you can find cases where MLK supports every thug under the sun to defend, let me know. Tyrone is right there: those like Sharpton supports the worst common denominator. Is that what MLK would support?

And you really believe your own tripe? If I lived in MLK's times, I would have been denied civil rights, too, since I am a MINORITY MYSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Wright may have not been beaten, but has has most certainly suffered the wrath of vilification in the press."

Boo-hoo. So has every person who makes outrageous, controversial statements even in soundbites. Imus. Lott. Robertson. Falwell. That horrible heretic Hagee. And those like Falwell took it for decades, and don't run from the press, and in time even gained some respect from the press.

Wright is at best a victim of his vulgar (see Natalie Holloway words and humping act on Bill and Monica), racist, antisemitic, Italian-slurring, etc., mouth.

"I asked were the comments "ANTI-AMERICA", are they or are they not?"

I would say so, but I don't blame King. King lived in a time where most whites were probably racist and blacks did suffered. If Wright can't see the difference between then or now, he is deluded and still living in the past and in bitterness and unforgivness- the last two being grave areas which hinders ANY ministry or calling.

As to his sermons being available, yeah, but why did he ran so long from public interviews until the last few days? And sermons available to those who go into his church's site. How many people even heard of that site before this election? And once Obama ran, why change the church's mission statement?

12:02 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home