The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Levin: Stephanopoulos Is Foolish in Lecturing Bachmann

By on 6.28.11 @ 1:38PM

Sigh.

You’d think liberals would learn.

Of course not.

George Stephanopoulos made the mistake of going after Michele Bachmann on history — and promptly proceeded to get his history foolishly wrong. Said George:

For example earlier this year you said that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence worked tirelessly to end slavery. Now with respect Congresswoman, that’s just not true.

Actually, George, it is true.

And before we get to Levin’s views, allow me.

In 1785, James Madison (as noted by his biographer, Ralph Ketcham in James Madison) took to the floor of the Virginia Assembly, where he was a delegate, and

spoke…favoring a bill Jefferson had proposed for the gradual abolition of slavery (it was rejected), and helped defeat a bill designed to outlaw the manumission of individual slaves. Of this effort a French observer wrote that Madison, “a young man (who)….astonishes…by his eloquence, his wisdom, and his genius, has had the humanity and courage (for such a proposition requires no small share of courage) to propose a general emancipation of the slaves.”

Madison was not alone in taking action on the subject. There was another Founding Father, along with Madison a co-author of The Federalist Papers. That would be Alexander Hamilton.

In Alexander Hamilton: A Life, biographer Willard Sterne Randall notes that this Founding Father helped “to found…the Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves in New York.” Randall on goes to say that:

….never forgetting the slave markets of his St. Croix childhood, Hamilton became a prime mover in the early abolitionist group. He pressured the (New York) state legislature and helped to raise money to buy and free slaves. The society’s founders…elected Hamilton chairman to draw up recommendations for “a line of conduct” for any “members who still possessed slaves.” He also established a registry for manumitted slaves, listing their names and ages, “to detect attempts to deprive such manumitted persons of their liberty.” 

There’s more with Hamilton, who also demanded (writing and signing a 1786 petition on the subject) the legislature ban the importation of slaves, calling slavery ” a commerce so repugnant to humanity.”

There is a difference between opposing something and being unable to change the practice in the day — and doing nothing. But it is just flatly false to say, as Stephanopoulos says, that the Founding Fathers did not work to end slavery. The historical record, if one looks, is crystal clear. Madison did. Hamilton did. Jefferson did. They did not succeed, they were personally flawed, some owning slaves themselves. (Wasn’t it George who wrote a book on a flawed president he knew called All Too Human?) But these Founding Fathers started the United States of America down the right historical path, personally “working” to end slavery. 

There was a reason for the Three-Fifths Compromise in the Constitution. That reason: there were delegates to the Constitutional Convention (and they would be called Founding Fathers ) who supported abolition — as well as those who opposed it. Hence — the compromise. Which was not about declaring a black man three-fifths of a person as, for example, Al Gore and many liberals erroneously say. (Where was George then?) It was about reducing the power of slavery as an institution in the new United States Congress. If, as slave owners insisted, slaves were property — then the obvious: they should not be counted as whole persons, which would increase the proportional power of the slave states in the House of Representatives, where representation was based on population size. The slave owners wanted it both ways — to treat slaves as property but count them as persons, effectively increasing the slave owning power in Congress. The abolitionist delegates said no — hence the compromise.

So Levin is quite correct here — adding another Founding Father to this list: George Mason of Virginia.

Mark Levin caught you out, George, and his details are here.

But Michele Bachmann was right. There were Founding Fathers who worked to end slavery.

Is challenging Michele Bachmann on fundamental history and getting it wrong embarrassing for somebody in the liberal media who criticizes others on the subject? Yes. Will George be concerned enough to retract and correct the record?

Uh-huh. Sure.

Which is short hand for just why millions of Americans roll their eyes at liberals. And watch Fox.

And listen to Levin.

View all comments (117) |

DRed| 6.28.11 @ 1:54PM

Bachmann: Well you know what’s marvelous is that in this country and under our constitution, we have the ability when we recognize that something is wrong to change it. And that’s what we did in our country. We changed it. We no longer have slavery. That’s a good thing. And what our Constitution has done for our nation is to give us the basis of freedom unparalleled in the rest of the world.

Stephanopoulos: I agree with that…

Bachmann: That’s what people want...they realize our government is taking away our freedom.

Stephanopoulos: But that’s not what you said. You said that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.

Bachmann: Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery….

Stephanopoulos: He wasn’t one of the Founding Fathers – he was a president, he was a Secretary of State, he was a member of Congress, you’re right he did work to end slavery decades later. But so you are standing by this comment that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery?

Bachmann: Well, John Quincy Adams most certainly was a part of the Revolutionary War era. He was a young boy but he was actively involved.

Actually, we didn't just change the constitution, Michele. We fought the bloodiest war in American history to get rid of slavery. The 3/5ths compromise was a failure.

For the rest, I'll let her words speak for themselves. Shes' great-I sincerely hope you nominate her if Sarah doesn't run.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.28.11 @ 3:29PM

DRed...

George was flat, dead, wrong... and he got caught.
Period.

DRed| 6.28.11 @ 3:55PM

What's true is that some of the founding fathers worked to end slavery, and some of them worked to perpetuate it and in the end they agreed on a compromise that didn't work. Saying 'the founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery' is revisionist nonsense. You'd think she would have learned when this exact same kerfuffle happened in January, but instead she's doubled down on her ignorance.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.28.11 @ 4:08PM

Respectfully, it is most certainly not "revisionist nonsense."

What we have here is classic Northeastern male snobbery with zip to be snobby about. And as a Northeastern male with the approved Northeastern education I have no hesitation in saying she's right.

What you are saying is like saying Frederick Douglass did nothing to fight slavery because the Civil Rights legislation of these days wasn't passed until 1964, long after he was gone. So he failed. It's nonsense. To fight for something...and lose...is not the same as not fighting. The Founding Fathers - some, not all... did fight. Alexander Hamilton, just for one, was great on the issue. The very fact of the Three-fifths compromise was the result of that fight and moved the issue off of dead center and forward to resolution.

And...we've been here before....it was the Democratic Party that became the institutional home of slavery (and more.) You won't hear that from George either.

DRed| 6.28.11 @ 4:24PM

Jeff, you've gotta stop right at 'some, not all'. That's the point. She didn't say some. She said 'the founding fathers' and then tried to justify her argument by mentioning someone who wasn't even a founding father.

The founding fathers, as a collective group, set up a government that permitted human slavery, which seems to me to be a pretty odd way to tirelessly fight against the institution. This has nothing to do with politics, or regional gender snobbery. It's just history.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.28.11 @ 4:52PM

DRed...

You are nit-picking, and the reason this is done by George etc is to portray her as dumb. Were this tactic limited to Bachmann you might get farther....but history records liberals running around saying Eisenhower was dumb, Nixon was dumb, Goldwater was dumb, Romney (George, Mitt's father) was dumb, Ford was dumb, Reagan was dumb, both Bushes, Dan Quayle...and now we're up to Bachmann - and Palin. At what point does this argument become....dumb?

There is just zero credibility here...particularly when your guys do this stuff constantly (57 states, corpsemen, leoapards changing stripes - that was Gore-etc etc etc etc etc.) This is about people with a just laughable sense of superiority, who constantly make mistakes of the same stripe or worse, and never get called on it.

If Obama were so smart...if liberalism were so smart...we wouldn't be in the situation we're in.

DRed| 6.28.11 @ 5:22PM

Characterizing John Q. Adams as a founding father could be an innocent mistake (although, again?) or it could be because Michele uses a more expansive definition of the term, or some other reason. I agree, it's not that big of a deal.

Saying that founders fought tirelessly to end slavery, however, is a gross historical misstatement. You'd think Michele would have learned about this back in January. George didn't portray her as dumb. He gave her an easy chance to prove that she's not historically ignorant, but she blew it completely. 'I wondered if you wanted to take a chance to clear up some of your past statements' is a softball. Good politicians would have crushed Stephanopolous there, either by demonstrating that they weren't wrong the first time, or by showing how they've learned something. Michele just repeated herself.

bobley| 6.28.11 @ 11:18PM

Jeffrey, come on. Let's put aside fact that "the founding fathers" are a bunch of individuals and any blanket statements about them can be countered.

What's more important here, the fact that George Stephanopolous didn't count a failed bill as "tirelessly fighting against slavery" ... or the fact that a major presidential candidate refuses to admit any kind of mistake. She even refuses to clarify her point. Whether or not she was wrong on this one (and face it, she was), she's wrong more often than anybody else running, and she refuses to clarify or adjust course.

That's pretty scary. Does that really inspire confidence in you?

M. Thompson| 7.5.11 @ 12:12PM

Why is DRed nit-picking? The post above is equally nit-picky (and selective) in attempting to back up Bachmann's statements as if they were not incorrect. George's motives are beside the point. He was right and Bachmann was wrong. It's an inaccurate portrayal of the Founding Fathers and early American history to say that they "worked tirelessly to end slavery."

TD| 6.28.11 @ 5:07PM

DRed is exactly right. Because a few of them were against it doesn't mean they all were. One other thing. Does she ever answer a question correctly??? She's all over the place.

beebop| 6.28.11 @ 5:59PM

Gee .... anything like the resident?

PokeySD| 7.1.11 @ 11:01PM

So when Obama referred to small town folk in Pennsylvania and the Midwest, "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," was he referring to ALL midwestern small-town folk, or just a few of them?

fb| 6.28.11 @ 5:18PM

Jefferson owned some 600 slaves, and didn't even free them upon his death, and you cite him as one who "worked tirelessly" to end slavery? I guess he was just incompetent, then. The gymnastics required to maintain what you are saying are not possible. You cannot be serious or honest in your defense of Bachmann here. To her credit, even she doesn't try to claim Jefferson, but simply skips to the next generation (JQA). Really, this is among the more embarrassing "defenses" of nonsense I have read in some time.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.28.11 @ 5:28PM

I am simply citing the historical record. In 1785, former Governor Jefferson of Virginia proposed that the Virginia Assembly support a bill that would gradually end slavery. The bill, supported by Delegate James Madison, failed. That's the record.

But the critics can't have it both ways. Both Jefferson and Jackson, slave owners both, are credited as the co-founders of the modern Democratic Party. A party which actively supported slavery, segregation, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan and, today, every modern racial policy known to man. The Democrats are in fact The Party of Race.

Your point inadvertantly acknowledges a very disturbing truth.

DRed| 6.28.11 @ 5:38PM

Jeff, I'll give you some credit. You're putting up a good fight. Bringing up the sorry racial history of the democratic party, Andrew Jackson, calling me an elitist, talking about other republicans-it's a good effort. I understand what you're trying to do, but your problem is that Michele Bachmann was plain wrong. You should just give it a rest. Something new will come up tomorrow.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.28.11 @ 5:54PM

DRed...

Something new comes up every five minutes! LOL!

GopTiger| 6.28.11 @ 8:09PM

I'm just curious... Was there this much media examination when President Obama stated that Emperor Hirohito surrendered to Douglas MacArthur? Did any ABC News reporters quiz the Obama about this matter?

Did anyone at ABC News ask President Obama about the comment he made in Selma- you now, the statement Obama made in a black church about how his parents got together because of the Selma-to-Montgomery March in 1965? I realize there has been a bit of controversy about his birth certificate but it clearly does state he was born in 1961, 4 years before the Selma-to-Montgomery March.

Nomadic100| 6.28.11 @ 7:58PM

Jeffrey Lord is correct. DRed is splitting hairs in order to be critical of Michele Bachmann. For whatever reason, being vindicated seems extremely important to him. Ego, I surmise.

fb| 6.28.11 @ 9:28PM

And where did those Southern White Democrats go after the Civil Rights era, Jeffrey?

fb| 6.28.11 @ 9:32PM

Also, your reply to me, you will admit, doesn't answer the problem at all, right? I mean, the historical record you cite for Jefferson doesn't come close to establishing that the lifelong owner of hundreds of slaves in fact "worked tirelessly" to end slavery--which is what you have the burden of defending. (Of course, you open your argument above by ignoring that this was what Bachmann said.) I am a conservative, and I am deeply embarrassed by members of the movement who think it's nitpicking to note that Bachmann's initial statement was indefensibly misleading as overbroad, and that (a) her defense of it today was equally bizarre, unless we are to count Founding Toddlers as representative of the Founding Fathers.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.28.11 @ 11:26PM

fb...

If you really were a conservative you would understand on the spot that all this "Bachmann is dumb" routine has nothing to do with Bachmann and everything to do with disparaging conservatives...the most prominent of whom, at any given moment, are routinely assailed for being "dumb." Witness the last 8 years when Bush 43, a Yale grad with a Harvard MBA was supposed to be dumb as a post. He was but the latest in a long line...Eisenhower, who planned and executed D-Day, had the same problem. Ditto - Reagan, Bush 41, Nixon, Ford ...yada yada yada.

You are not getting the point. And most assuredly, if the GOP nominee is, say, Romney....this very smart guy will quickly be termed "dumb". Count on it.

fb| 6.28.11 @ 11:37PM

Jeffrey, I quite agree. I also fully acknowledge that BHO's mistakes are routinely ignored. How does this justify your preposterous attempt to portray the hideous slave-owenership of Jefferson as part of his lifelong battle agaisnt slavery? Are you proud to join in the silliness of the liberals whom you deride? I think you should reject it, and be honest about Bachmann's shortcomings. That would be true service to the conservative cause, which claims to care more about reason than the left. It ought to--it defends the very concept which their policies and ideologies reject and undermine at every turn.

Then you and Levin and McCarthy decide to play Irish brawling/defend the team and churn up this nonsense. Your non-replies to my reply prove that you get this; how liberating for you and the conservative movement if you would have the courage to be honest.

Tom Coburn does. Look at his lead.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.29.11 @ 10:58AM

fb....

Respectfully, I have detailed the Dems and their race problems at length, as here.
http://spectator.org/archives/.....sing-years

fb| 6.29.11 @ 12:27PM

Respectfully, I abhor the Dems on race. That's utterly tangential to this discussion.

It's clear now that you can't really defend Jefferson as a tireless opponent of slavery. Why not just repudiate your original post as a mistake? Can't you see that would serve conservatism better than defending the indefensible indefensibly?

Jeffrey Lord| 6.29.11 @ 12:45PM

I never said Jefferson was a tireless opponet of slavery. Ever. What I said was he had in fact...in 1785...proposed ending it. That's a fact. So to imply this never happened is flat wrong.

He owned slaves - slavery in America was all about race. Hello? Jefferson was wrong. I've never defended him in that sense and to imply otherwise is silly. But he did what he did. And the point here is that Stephanopolous was just flat wrong historically.

You are hung up on the word "tirelessly"....assigning it to Jefferson, who was not "tireless" on the subject...but ignoring it with a fellow co-founder, Hamilton, who was "tireless." You can cherry pick Founding Fathers all day long, but the fact of the matter - the hard, historical record - is that there were those in that group who were "tireless" on the subject. Which George would not - will not - acknowledge.

Why? Because his real objective is to make Bachmann appear stupid. Which even Democrats in Minnesota say is not true. What's going on with Bachmann is touched on here, in of all places, the liberal Daily Beast:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....0MB8cGzyx2

And to say that race is somehow tangential to this discussion is just amazingly off the mark. Racism had everything to do with slavery - and zero to do with conservatism.

DRed| 6.29.11 @ 1:34PM

The problem is that Michele doesn't have a basic understanding of constitutional history, and seems completely unwilling to learn from her mistakes. Wouldn't it be a lot harder for George to make Michele look dumb if she knew what she was talking about? She repeated the exact same mistakes she made 6 months ago, down to the most basic error (John Quincy not being a founding father). Instead of torturing both logic and history in a vain, Orwellian effort to show that Michele was somehow actually right, shouldn't you be trying to find a candidate who knows their stuff? Michele is great with the tea party, but she's doomed with the general electorate, because if you're not ideologically prejudiced towards Michele, it looks like she's a fraud.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.29.11 @ 1:49PM

DRed...

You say -

"...shouldn't you be trying to find a candidate who knows their stuff?"

This candidate does not exist. Why? Because conservatives are always labeled dumb. As mentioned, Bush went to both Yale and Harvard, with an MBA from the latter - and he was routinely lambasted as dumb as a post. This is what you guys do all the time...so the rest of us have learned the game.

DRed| 6.29.11 @ 1:59PM

Michele very clearly doesn't know what she's talking about. It's sad, but telling, that you find that irrelevant.

If George Bush's name had been Jeff Lord he wouldn't have been let withing a mile of either of those schools. He was a northeast elitist of the highest order. You couldn't get yankee blood bluer than Bush's. I don't think he's dumb by any means, but he also exhibited no signs of intellectual curiosity, and perhaps co-incidentally turned out to be a catastrophically awful president.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.29.11 @ 2:20PM

I don't think Barack Obama has a clue what he's talking about...not one. Or we wouldn't be in this catastrophic presidency. :)

When I worked for Reagan ...he was said to be dumb. This is just standard stuff...and that's what's sad.

DRed| 6.29.11 @ 2:32PM

What's also sad is that right and wrong, facts and untruths-that doesn't matter to you either. All that matters is ideology. You are the other side of the coin. The left wing media says that every republican candidate is dumb. You say that every republican candidate is smart-no matter what they say. All that's different is the team you support.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.29.11 @ 2:58PM

Not so...I think anybody can make a verbal misstep. It happens all the time to people in politics, talk radio, television....anyone whose job requires them to talk nonstop. But the notion that because Bachmann, Reagan, Bush etc etc makes a mistake or inadequately answers X doesn't make them dumb. Ditto Obama etc. But that has become the game.

As it happens, I've talked with Michele Bachmann...at length. She was perfectly normal, clearly smart and very knowledgeable. But the game...as is widely understood...is to make her seem otherwise. Its an old game. And it doesn't accomplish a thing except make the liberals...and males in particular in this case...assuage their sense of superiority.

And by the by...if Bush got into Yale and Harvard because of his name....than clearly this applies to Teddy Kennedy, all his brothers, FDR etc etc. And the obvious question arises with Obama. Did he get into Harvard because of his race? No idea...but if getting in because of a name is bad, using race is worse. Which brings us full circle to all those Democrat presidents who owned slaves because of...race.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

fb| 6.29.11 @ 7:35PM

I can't figure out now what your point is. I don't know if Bachmann is smart or stupid. I know that Stephanopolous said is that her assertion about the Founders having worked tirelessly from the writing of the Constitution through the end of slavery was wrong.

Here's the thing. It was wrong. Astonishingly wrong, not "nit pickingly" wrong. Your defense of it is so weak as to make this obvious, so you now ignore what you took up the burden of defending. GS's assertion is in NO WAY falsified by the tidbit about Jefferson. He didn't claim no Founder's had misgivings about slavery, no even that no Founder's opposed it. He said that the wild, dramatic, strong claim about tireless efforts seen through to success by the founders was false.

It was false. I don't know if it makes Bachmann stupid, and your defense is less stupid than her reversion to Founding Toddler John Quincy Adams (who also died before slavery ended), but it's still a bad, very bad, defense. Frankly, at this point, it's not even an honest defense, because you now just ignore the statements you have the burden to defend. Here, to refresh your recollection:

"But, we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States..."

This is utterly false. I'm not "hung up" on tirelessly, tirelessly was her point. Jefferson didn't even work until his own slaves were free, and he didn't free them on his death. And you offer Jefferson up as proof that Steph was wrong--he's about the best proof that she was wrong!

Your only honorable course is to admit this. But, history shows you'll leap to non-sequiturs like "dems are bad on race" (they are terrible), and "you're nitpicking" (I'm not), or "Jefferson did propose to end slavery!" (he did). None of the moves you make comes close to showing that Stephanopolous was wrong, or that Bachmann was right.

Here's why. She was wrong. And her defense of her wrong statement was equally wrong, and equally stupid.

Does that mean she's stupid? No. Smart people say all kinds of stupid and wrong things. But one ought to wonder about her judgment in mounting this defense of her initial error, rather than trying to come her aid. Especially when your efforts to aid, while not as silly as her JQA bit, are terribly weak themselves.

fb| 6.29.11 @ 7:35PM

I can't figure out now what your point is. I don't know if Bachmann is smart or stupid. I know that Stephanopolous said is that her assertion about the Founders having worked tirelessly from the writing of the Constitution through the end of slavery was wrong.

Here's the thing. It was wrong. Astonishingly wrong, not "nit pickingly" wrong. Your defense of it is so weak as to make this obvious, so you now ignore what you took up the burden of defending. GS's assertion is in NO WAY falsified by the tidbit about Jefferson. He didn't claim no Founder's had misgivings about slavery, no even that no Founder's opposed it. He said that the wild, dramatic, strong claim about tireless efforts seen through to success by the founders was false.

It was false. I don't know if it makes Bachmann stupid, and your defense is less stupid than her reversion to Founding Toddler John Quincy Adams (who also died before slavery ended), but it's still a bad, very bad, defense. Frankly, at this point, it's not even an honest defense, because you now just ignore the statements you have the burden to defend. Here, to refresh your recollection:

"But, we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States..."

This is utterly false. I'm not "hung up" on tirelessly, tirelessly was her point. Jefferson didn't even work until his own slaves were free, and he didn't free them on his death. And you offer Jefferson up as proof that Steph was wrong--he's about the best proof that she was wrong!

Your only honorable course is to admit this. But, history shows you'll leap to non-sequiturs like "dems are bad on race" (they are terrible), and "you're nitpicking" (I'm not), or "Jefferson did propose to end slavery!" (he did). None of the moves you make comes close to showing that Stephanopolous was wrong, or that Bachmann was right.

Here's why. She was wrong. And her defense of her wrong statement was equally wrong, and equally stupid.

Does that mean she's stupid? No. Smart people say all kinds of stupid and wrong things. But one ought to wonder about her judgment in mounting this defense of her initial error, rather than trying to come her aid. Especially when your efforts to aid, while not as silly as her JQA bit, are terribly weak themselves.

Bob K.| 6.29.11 @ 12:21AM

Mr Lord,
You have been arguing with idiots. Stop wasting your time. They aren't worth the effort. They won't vote for any Republican.

fb| 6.29.11 @ 1:03AM

Excellent arguments, Bob K. You really explain how Jefferson the slave owner was actually an abolitionist--it's that I'm an idiot who doesn't support Republicans! That also explains how JQA was not a toddler but a father at the founding--I'm an idiot! The thing is, you're quite wrong. I'm an ardently pro-life conservative, I'm actually quite smart, and easily smart enough to know that Jefferson did not work tirelessly to free the slaves, and did not free any of his hundreds of slaves even upon his dying (as at least Washington, who also did not work tirelessly to free the slaves, did).

So, I guess, actually, since I'm neither an idiot nor a Democrat, you're actually not a genius, and your ad hominem argument is just that.

jppc| 6.28.11 @ 3:31PM

Gee isn't it great when so called "objective journalists" work TIRELESSLY to nick-pick everything a republican says but they let their Moooooslim Boy in Chief make mistake after mistake, gaffe, after gaffe and shhhh, nothing is said of it. Why he's a high IQ Ivy League graduate!

Bachmann was right....the Founder's tried to end slavery but realized the nation could not be created without tolerating slavery in the South. They also put in a few "ticking time bombs" in the Constitution to help bring an end to it.

Furthermore, please remember lib-tards, most every nation, every culture in the world back then had some form of slavery. In fact, some Asian, African and Mooooslim cultures still have it today.

Go Michelle! Go Sarah! The metro-sexual, urban, limp-wristed "men" can't handle you!

Oldefarte| 6.28.11 @ 7:48PM

Thank goodness she didn't say something about MOSES & THE ARK, or you liberal arts idiots would explode on her. What in Hades difference does it make in consideration of today's problems in this country. George S. [and you] attacking her over some ancient history matter, and that moron Stewert doing a Kingfish take on Cain are dispicable. No doubt your favored El Chosen One [with his Princton/Harvard worthless liberal arts education] could cite chapter and verse of who did what to whom back then, but WHO CARES and HOW IS THAT RELEVANT? He couldn't take control of a snowball stand in the middle of DC and make a profit out of it [no doubt since he'd give all the products away according to his redistribution philosophy]; and he certainly is running this country into the ground economically. Your history lesson is useless, since what's needed in a president is someone who understands business, finance and economics....NOT A HISTORY OR A LAW PROFESSOR!!!!!!!!!

Ronald Grey | 6.30.11 @ 8:12AM

Dear Sir or Madam:

It appears that we, indeed, don't know much about history.

Why is everybody - on both sides of this debate - missing the most famous example of the Founding Fathers' work to end slavery?

See 'Michele Bachmann: Est-elle faible? (Is she weak?)': http://t.co/74CIZZa

Sincerely,
Ronald Grey
http://ronaldgrey.com

Teflon93| 6.28.11 @ 2:10PM

"To be deep in history is to cease to be a liberal."

W| 6.28.11 @ 2:19PM

What do you expect from a flak who worked to cover up Clinton's bimbo eruptions. Of course, he gets rewarded with a prime job on ABC.

JohnD| 6.28.11 @ 2:25PM

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed, he said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

VP and Mensa candidate Joe Biden

Occam's Tool| 6.28.11 @ 2:49PM

Yup, Joe's always bragging about his IQ (snort).

carol| 6.28.11 @ 2:55PM

please explains 3/5th 's to the liberal world of fools
God help us and save us from ignorance

RJ| 6.28.11 @ 3:00PM

Of course there were other Founding Fathers' who opposed slavery - Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Samuel Adams to name a few.

Regarding the 3/5ths Compromise, it did not originate with the Constitution. It was established under the Articles of Confederation. Surprisingly, many of the Southern states, such as Virginia, did not insist upon it. If I remember correctly, North Carolina and Georgia were the two states which said not having it was a deal-breaker.

Just Some Guy| 6.28.11 @ 8:34PM

But conservatives are bad, and bad people are stupid, and Bachmann is conservative, so she is stupid. Though stupid people might just have disabilities or something. Scratch that. Conservative = bad = stupid = Bachmann. So if you are conservative, you are Bachmann.

I don't see why this is so difficult for you people.

Josh| 6.28.11 @ 3:04PM

While this shows that some founding fathers opposed slavery, it does not show Bachmann's understanding of that fact. Why would she reference John Quincy Adams instead of Jefferson or Hamilton?

ds80| 6.28.11 @ 3:46PM

Quick, Josh: name all of "the Founding Fathers".

Colloquially understood, it's a general term to describe the influential statesmen of the founding period of this nation.

YOU answer this question first: why do you and the liberal media insist on nitpicking and cherrypicking statements?

Bob Belvedere | 6.29.11 @ 9:11AM

The Founding Era is understood by the majority of historians to have ended either with the demise of the Federalist's in the Nineteen-teens or with the election of Andrew Jackson.

Either way, JQA was involved from a very young age in matters concerning the setting-up of this nation [at 14 he was appointed secretary to Francis Dana, our man in St. Petersburg]. One example: He served as a U.S. Senator from 1803 [age 36]-1808.

Anna Keppa| 6.28.11 @ 3:14PM

Josh, if someone asks me to support my statement that automobiles were made in America as early as 1910, and I give "Ford, for example", as my answer, am I wrong for not mentioning Olds and Reo as well?

Just what IS this game of Jeopardy being imposed on GOP candidates, but never Dems? Did ANYONE in the MSM quiz Obama or Biden about their knowledge of anything?

jppc| 6.28.11 @ 3:35PM

Excellent point Anna! Right on the mark! And as you say, this is a game of gotchya or Jeopardy as you say.

At least Bachmann and Palin don't have a history of hanging around communists, terrorists, Mooooslim radicals and assorted other malcontents, like Hussein bin Obama. Was he scrutinized over these relationships?

CalMark| 6.28.11 @ 4:28PM

Exactly.

Dems say criminally dishonest things and get away with it. Republicans are tripped up on technicalities.

And so many alleged conservatives here think that's OK, because they don't like Bachmann. Guess what, folks: they'll do it to your favorite candidate, too.

Seguin| 6.28.11 @ 9:47PM

You must have a thing for old Ransom Eli...

Paul| 6.28.11 @ 3:30PM

Georgy won't correct the record, because the "Constitution-as-a-racist-pro-slavery-document" is a liberal article of faith. It's their goto anytime anybody suggests we follow the Constitution.

tonypal| 6.28.11 @ 3:37PM

Here's a question that I'd someone to ask President Obama: Name a founding father you admire and explain why. For bonus points, answer the question without a teleprompter or the word "uh."

Kendall| 6.28.11 @ 3:59PM

Meanwhile, conservative candidates for office study and read more history than ever to prepare for the inevitable "Jeopardy" questions, becoming far more knowledgeable in the process, while leftist media and officeholders have no clue about the constitution, its ideals and goals, or the founding of the country. They're proud of their ignorance.

Read the comments at the L.A. Times when they pointed out that, yes, Sarah was actually right about Paul Revere. The hordes angrily insisted she was still wrong, despite solid history, right there in their faces, to the contrary. Stephanopoulis is no different; he's just quiet about it. He may know by now that he got it wrong, but he'll never issue a correction and admit his ignorance. Like the hordes, he loves his status among the chosen ones more than he loves the truth.

History doesn't matter to these people. Truth doesn't matter. Sooner or later, this farce of ignorance will come crashing down on them. It may take ten years, or twenty. And after it does, they'll all insist they weren't part of the mob, no sir. They knew the Sarahs and the Michelles of the world were right all along.

TexasMom2012| 6.28.11 @ 4:25PM

Unfortunately these libs in the MSM know that most viewers will believe the original statement by such reporters/commentators as George even when it is a false statement. It is to his advantage to just ignore his error and let it blow over. Same tactic Weiner tried (and failed) but many other libs survive the hunker down...

I think the arrival of Fox and other new media is the best thing to happen to this country in my lifetime. The TEA party revolution and the election of 2010 would not have happened without the electronic and new media. We have a shot in 2012 as long as we work to get the truth out in every instance.

For example, how can we allow the Dems to lie about the Ryan plan to save Medicare? Especially when the truth is the Dems, completely on their own, gutted $500 Billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare! Just who is willing to destroy and totally end Medicare to get what they want? Why it is the Dems not us!

megapotamus| 6.28.11 @ 4:25PM

These geniuses get their history from Cholmsky and Longfellow, if at all.

QA_NJ| 6.28.11 @ 4:29PM

I find it curious that people who ask for pragmatism and restraint in deposing murderous dictators and hunting terrorists can't appreciate pragmatism and restraint in those working to repeal slavery. A lot of people didn't like it but didn't konw how to end it well, and it didn't really end all that cleanly and is still being sorted out.

bobmontgomery| 6.28.11 @ 4:32PM

Proceeding to Chris Wallace- In both his on-air explanation to Bachman on why he was asking the question, and in his apology played on FNC after the fact, Wallace said "(because) it's out there".
??? Because it's out there? Exactly WHERE, 'out there' is it, Chris? At last count, in the media and political and social universe, there were 3,987,564,256,721,390.206 things 'out there'. I suppose one of them is that Michelle Bachmann is a flake, but if you're a hotshot interviewer on Sunday morning talking to a three-term Congresswoman that's the one you pick?

bobmontgomery| 6.28.11 @ 4:36PM

And back to Stephanopoulos: He went on the O'Reilly show for the express purpose of making it clear that with the entry of Michelle Bachmann into the campaign, any possible candidacy of Sarah Palin is over, finished Kaput..she is done, so you might as well get over it. y'all......said George.

Rick| 6.28.11 @ 4:44PM

George S. is an idiot! He is completely full of himself like all pseudo-intellectual liberals. He also got the question on minimum wage wrong. It is a well-known economic fact that creating an artificial salary "floor" like a minimum wage leads to a loss of jobs. But of course, this assumes that he knew economics which he obviously DOES NOT. I can't stand this condecensing weasel!

Rick| 6.28.11 @ 4:46PM

One of the problems that our people have is that they are way too decent. They always take the "high road". If it had been me, and George S. had said something so stupid I would have jumped down his throat!

Bilwick| 6.28.11 @ 5:08PM

You can tell Ms. Bachmann is pro-freedom enough to be a threat to the Hive. If Bachmann were a State-fellator like Stephy and the rest of the Hive, of course her every word wouldn't be scruitinized for every possible historical error. Today she's being criticized for apparently mis-identifying the place of John Wayne's birth. I wonder which one of the 57 states the Duke was born in?

Kevin M| 6.28.11 @ 5:13PM

Ben Franklin was an abolitionist in his later days. See this petition to Congress from the National Archives.

http://www.archives.gov/legisl...../franklin/

Mike| 6.28.11 @ 5:27PM

And, Lexington and Concord are in New Hampshire. Whether what is cited here constitutes tirelessly working to abolish slavery is highly debatable. Does Bachmann know this history? I doubt it.

The Founders were steeped in Enlightenment philosophy, but on the issue of slavery, they compromised. They did not work tirelessly for the abolition of slavery.

Warrior | 6.28.11 @ 5:43PM

So follow your leader who spoke to the 57 states, mocked us lesser beings about how he could solve oil supply issues with a tire guage, who equated govt run healthcare to the efficiencies of the Post Office, stated the Navy has corpse men, who self admitted to bowling like a Special Olympian, whose grandmother was just another typical white person (racist) and just recently told us how ATM's were putting tellers out of work.

If you really want to intellectually stimulate yourself while laughing to tears, I could put some of Biden's statements here. Of course Joe is given a complete pass by the media for being the total idiot that he is.

Mike| 6.28.11 @ 5:58PM

I could regale you with Palin quotes, but I won't.

There is a difference between a gaffe and an utterance grounded in ignorance.

You are incapable of distinguishing the difference.

Seguin| 6.28.11 @ 9:51PM

This supposition (from either side) that the "Founders" did anything as a cohesive unit with only one direction is ludicrous. Since some Founding Fathers DID work tirelessly to abolish slavery, and some didn't, it is equally incorrect to say that the Founding Fathers did not work tirelessly to abolish slavery.

Of course, when you're used to thing of a group not as a collection of individuals but as a single entity, you're bound to make a foolish statement or two.

mariner| 6.28.11 @ 5:48PM

You're missing the boat, too.

Representatives of Northern states were not abolitionists -- they simply wanted to reduce the political power of the Southern states. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too, as well. The difference is that Northern representatives didn't want to count slaves AT ALL. But for some strange reason we don't say that they didn't believe slaves were persons.

BKPeter| 6.28.11 @ 6:01PM

With all due respect, Jeffrey, I don't think you got it right. The phrase "worked tirelessly to end" means they ended it. They did not. It ended after the Civil War. You merely pointed out that some of the Founding Fathers took a stance against it.

jayef| 6.28.11 @ 6:37PM

So you wouldn't say that someone who is working to cure cancer is working tirelessly to end it? I'm not taking your point.

George S| 6.28.11 @ 6:32PM

The confusion here is the phrase "worked tirelessly" to [whatever]. To a liberal, this means saying all the right things at all the right social events but never donating any of their personal time or money.

You can argue until blue in the face, but as long as there is no historical record of the Founding Fathers sitting on their asses in a French cafe pondering on what other people should sacrifice and do to end slavery, then they didn't "work tirelessly" on the issue.

TW| 6.29.11 @ 11:41AM

Thread Winner!

jayef| 6.28.11 @ 6:35PM

I think Bachmann keeps trying to split the difference with these idiots by offering the example of someone who is both a Founding Father and who was alive and instrumental at the time it was actually ended (John Quincy Adams). She should stop trying to do that and be more precise about what she means.

Mike| 6.28.11 @ 7:05PM

Jayef,

John Quincey Adams died in 1848, so he as not alive at the time slavery ended.

PokeySD| 7.1.11 @ 11:20PM

So because he was no longer living at the time that slavery ended, does that mean that he didn't work tirelessly to end it, but died before it actually occurred? Would you say that Frederick Douglass didn't work tirelessly to end slavery because slavery didn't end in his lifetime either? What a slacker he was!

JB| 6.28.11 @ 6:37PM

Somehow I think this string of "Republicans are dumb and don't know history" accusations is begging for a poll: Ask people their party affiliation, then ask them basic American history questions, like 'Who were the combatants in the War of 1812?' 'Which state seceded from the Union first, sparking the Civil War?' 'Name five Founding Fathers?' 'Was Lincoln a Founding Father?' 'How many of the 13 colonies became states?'
The results, I would bet, would be enlightening.
So come on, Gallup/Rasmussen/etc. Let's do it.

Hahn| 6.28.11 @ 7:21PM

Hey George!
Why don't you ever ask Obama where those other six states are that he hadn't visited? You know -numbers 52,53,54 55, 56, and 57. I think one of them is called OZ which is where you must be from munchkin.

bobbymike| 6.28.11 @ 7:56PM

Why are these leftists even arguing? They hate the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and America in general.

I wish they would be honest with themselves and us about it.

Reginout Review | 6.28.11 @ 9:09PM

Reginout Review
Fix,Performance and Privacy Tools!

Milton| 6.28.11 @ 9:33PM

There are three things at play here. First, Bachman was incorrect and she should have corrected her statement by saying that there were SOME founding fathers that worked to end slavery, but, in the end, compromise was needed to create a constitution and move forward. That's 9th grade Civics. Heck, under the US Constitution, three of the first five presidents owned slaves! They certianly didn't work tirelessly to end slavery. And trying to throw JQ Adams in is a swing and a miss in my book.
She should have offered a correction, the moved on.
The second factor at play is why are politicians so reluctant to offer a correction when they make an error?
Third, though, is something more sinister. Why is it that Republicans are asked about history while Dems are not? Seriously. Is it that conservatives genreally lean on our history, traditions and insitutions? Why isn't Obama asked these questions? I don't recall Hillary or Bill answering many historical questions. Double standard?

DREd| 6.28.11 @ 10:23PM

Michele was asked about this because she gave a speech in January in which she said the founders (including John Quincy Adams) had worked tirelessly to free the slaves. Anderson Cooper called her out on it and there was a minor controversy. At least in this case, this particular republican has nobody to blame but herself for not knowing what she was talking about, and the fact that she's repeating the same basic mistakes 6 months letter certainly doesn't put her in a good light.

WL| 6.28.11 @ 10:55PM

I have watch your exchanges with Mr. Lord, and have one question.

Do you think media matters and move-on and Huffpo are arguing whether the Congressional medal of Honor winner from 10th mountain was technically dead or not??????????????

Huh Dredd or whatever your stupid name is???

How about them apples? You dumb idiot.

WL| 6.28.11 @ 10:58PM

What's the matter? Cat got your forked tongue??? People like you are worse than the establishment controled mob that is destroying this country....

Because you hamper the resistance by ankle biting whoever is trying to lead us the best they know how.

Let me know where you want to be buried, and I will make sure and spit on the plot tomorrow, just to be safe, in case you live longer than i do.

you manure wipe

DREd| 6.28.11 @ 11:13PM

Sorry, I plan on being cremated.

Obama called that soldier's father and personally apologized for his error. The soldier's father said he accepted. Obama made a factual mistake and apologized. Michele gave a widely criticized speech in January that revealed she doesn't understand basic constitutional history. Given the opportunity to correct herself, she made the exact same mistake. Can you not see the difference? If you're going to campaign as a constitutional conservative, shouldn't you be able to accurately discuss the constitution?

WL| 6.28.11 @ 11:56PM

Alrighty folks, here is a little lesson on liberals...

First...have you noticed how instead of directly addressing the "ISSUE" of whether the liberal press is debating Obama's mistake...Mr. Dredd cannot help but take the opportunity to defend Obama, HIS GUY. Yep HE'S A LIBERAL.

Second, the "if you are going to campaign as a 'constitutional conservative' should you be able to accurately discuss the Constitution?" comment... NOTICE: Doesn't this seem awfully similar to the "since they were a 'family values' candidate...how could they be so bad." argument whenever a conservative gets caught with pants down???? This is a tact of the LEFT. Use ones values against them....since perfect people are hard to find this is a limitless ammo depot.

SEE FOLKS...we must resist these types. WE must resist getting sucked into their paradigms.

Lastly...you would think this dim bulb would be concerned about the LEFT's OVERT disregard and perversion of the Constitution...BUT NO...he is concerned with whether M. Bachman is a PERFECT SCHOLAR OR NOT.

LASTLY...DO you really think Mr. Drrredd would have kept up with Michele Bachman's MISSTEPS if he was a true believing conservative.

And the crowd says NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

No. he is not one of us. He is one of the brainless masses...LIBERALS.

I will spit in the URN if you like.

WL| 6.29.11 @ 12:02AM

One more clue as to Mr. Dreddddddddds liberalism...

Notice he characterized M. Bachman's speech as "WIDELY CRITICIZED"....

This smacks of "most economists," "Consensus in the scientific community"....."main stream America" "Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman"

ALL RHETORICAL TOOLS DESIGNED TO INPIRE acceptance AS TRUTH without any solid evidence given...

A tactic of who??????????????

Yep you guessed it....

THE LEFT

TW| 6.29.11 @ 11:49AM

Not Good Enough! As someone who has lost family, friends, and some I didn't even know in combat (yes I was there) the apology should be to everyone who has ever served. We bear the unbridled burden of war. We suffer the loss as much and and not more but differently than even the family. We were there, we looked in their eyes, we faced the awful truth that one death is a needless and horrible loss. For those of us that have to carry on with the memories and sense of guilt for not being able to bring them all home alive, knowing they paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we could come home but not them. No Sir! The CINC owes us an apology too. You don't get to whitewash that one. There can be no mistake. The nation that forgets its fallen heroes, will also fall.

Your comparison is unacceptable, and by the way, your welcome for the freedom and ability to be wrong and the right to say it.

Jack Rail| 6.28.11 @ 11:23PM

Stephanopoulos is just another insufferable liberal going thru the world innocent of facts but always ready to lecture others on the many things he knows nothing about.

RWB| 6.29.11 @ 12:03AM

While this article had many interesting facts I was not aware of ( the reason for the 3/5 person for instance) by the reasoning here we could state that "the German military opposed Hitler during WW2" and claim it is accurate since a few officers tried to kill him.

WL| 6.29.11 @ 12:31AM

Actually...a more accurate question would be...

Why did the 3/5 person COMPROMISE have to be reached??????????????????????????????????????????

Forgot that word "compromise" huh????

THATS BECAUSE A GREAT FACTION DIDN"T WANT SLAVES TO COUNT AS A PERSON....

AND A GREAT FACTION DID!!!!

Hence...needing a compromise.

Slavery was the way of the world then folks.

Sorry but it was. Mistake? Yes of course it was. But the bottom line is this. The debate was raging over in England and HERE.

When deciding how just the Americans and Brits both were...just think of this.

What other people of the world cleansed itself of this great injustice... other than the brits and Americans???????????????????

fb| 6.29.11 @ 1:06AM

I think more question marks would strengthen your case. Or perhaps some account by which Jefferson's and Washington's slave ownership would be consistent with "tireless" efforts to end slavery. But that would be too much to ask, when you're not even up to including more than 300 question marks to bolster your argument (though I may have lost count).

Pelligrino| 6.29.11 @ 1:03AM

Didn't New York State's first governor John Jay (a Founding Father) abolish slavery in New York immediately upon entering the office of the governor?

Also to help understand the father, Jay, please read about his son William Jay. A supreme abolitionist!

Thomas Jefferson did free his slaves upon his death. He did indeed. And this ensured the immediate economic collapse of the familes of his two daughters and the end of Monticello. Mr. Jefferson knew this would be the outcome by freeing all of them; he did it anyway.

James Madison did likewise. This also ensured the economic failure of Montpellier (Madison's home), so Dolly Madison had to sell what she could and lived a modest life in her latter days in Northern Virginia.

There are many Founding Fathers who were against slavery and openly discussed their misgivings. They penned them too. They formed groups to work to actively end slavery. People should read more, read their actual words.

Perhaps a helpful short synopsis: http://www.christiananswers.ne.....-g003.html

fb| 6.29.11 @ 1:10AM

Jefferson freed no slaves upon his death: http://millercenter.org/academ.....iography/6

Milton| 6.29.11 @ 3:21PM

Madison did not free slaves in his will. Neither did Jefferson. In Jefferson's case, they were sold at auction upon his death (to pay debts?). Sold. not freed. Madison sold a few slaves with their permission before passing away. He also believed that freed slaves should leave the US and go west because of white prejudice.

Generally these people did not free slaves upon death. To do so would invite murder. In fact, Martha Washington freed her slaves two years after George died becasue she was convinced her slaves knew that they were to be freed upon her (Martha's) death, and she feared being killed.

But to imply that Madison and Jefferson worked tirelessly to end slavery ("Just read their words!") is certianly not true. They wrote a lot of different, sometimes contradictory words on the subject. Words meant for different audiences at different times. But, when looking at their actions, they both kept large numbers of slaves.

http://home.nas.com/lopresti/ps.htm

Hambledon| 6.30.11 @ 7:50PM

@ Pelligrino

No, John Jay did not free the slaves of New York. Governors did not have that kind of power. He, Hamilton, and other New Yorkers lobbied the NY legislature to abolish slavery. It was a gradual process.

Learn about authoritative websites. For questions about Jefferson, consult the University of Virginia website--he founded that university and of course, it's very pro-TJ--and the Library of Congress, which began with Jefferson's own library:

www.loc.gov

For Madison, check out the website put up by his home/museum in Virginia, Montpellier. It says that he did not free his slaves:

http://www.montpelier.org/expl.....adison.php

In the age of the Internet, when you don't need to have a home library, there is no excuse for promoting falsehoods about American history. You can read Madison's own letters. You can read Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia. Project Gutenberg has free downloads. The L of C has the original documents in the Founders' handwriting.

Dick Matern| 6.29.11 @ 1:18AM

George Washington manumitted all his slaves when he died, and undoubtedly hoped that USA would follow him as every slaveowner expired. He was avidly followed in his day as the model for the US citizenry in so many ways. Alas, that point didn't make the score.

fb| 6.29.11 @ 1:26AM

True, Dick. Do you think Washington worked tirelessly to end slavery, though? Do you think if you had been one of his slaves, freed upon Washington's death, you'd have thought, "gee, my owner worked tirelessly for my freedom?" I somehow think not.

David| 6.29.11 @ 3:22AM

Wow. All of this back and forth for what? Let's go back to Michelle Bachmann's actual quote in question, shall we? "But, we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States..."

Video here: http://youtu.be/hGSCF712FCA

Bachmann is, I think we can all agree, talking about the Founders and the Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution. Yes?

But, that second part of the sentence. Oh dear. It really IS a problem. Let's look at it again: ".... the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States..."

You can see the problem? It's incorrect. Because, no matter how you wish to parse it, it is not true that The Founders who wrote the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.

Yes, some tried to stop it, they did not. End of story. Period.

Why all the nonsense and "debate" when a simple sentence tells the entire story?

I wonder.

weddingdresses | 6.29.11 @ 5:29AM

True, Dick. Do you think Washington worked tirelessly to end slavery, though? Do you think if you had been one of his slaves, freed upon Washington's death, you'd have thought, "gee, my owner worked tirelessly for my freedom?" I somehow think not.

Johnny| 6.29.11 @ 6:18AM

I personally could care less about her knowledge, or lack there of, about who worked to end slavery way back then. If she will work to end the current day slavery that has taken hold of most of the middle class of today then I support her. So, I say shut up already and get on with the new revolution to resolve our current government instigated slavery system!

Rich D| 6.29.11 @ 8:29AM

Has the rise of the oceans began to slow yet?

Tim B| 6.29.11 @ 11:13AM

This is all about how Bachmann responded when asked by Stephanopolous to clarify her comments. First she deflected to the Civil War and how ending slavery was great for America. Then, she talked about John Quincy Adams and what he did to help abolish slavery. Except he was not a founding father, and he was 9 years old at the time.

It's not about her statement that she made back when, but how she answered Stephanopolous when asked about it.

david7134| 6.29.11 @ 12:31PM

Who gives a flip about slavery? It was necessary and morally right at the time and will be again in the years to come. So get off the topic.
I only want someone to get the bums out of the governmentl

Josh| 6.29.11 @ 11:46PM

Excellent trolling, sir!

Milton| 6.29.11 @ 3:04PM

Wow. I lived in Minnesota for quite a while before moving to Wisco. The rip on Bachman throughout her career is that she is flaky and unintelligent. Her comments do her no service. She should offer a correction. Offering up JQ Adams as a founding father continues to do her harm. No serious scholar would say that JQ Adams was a founding father.

A few founding fathers did work "tirelessly" to end slavery, but most did not. Many owned slaves and played both sides on the issue, abhoring the practice pubilcially while privately, with a wink and a not to the south, supporting the practice. Many were at odds with the issue, and their writings are all over the place (from Washington to Mason to Madison). Just about all of them realized that ending slavery should be GRADUAL. The ideas of our founding fathers changed over time as they became more politically aware. Ben Franklin once owned slaves, but later in life he founded an abolitionist society.
But our founding fathers certinaly did not work tirelessly to end slavery. That would be an incorrect statement.

And George Mason refused to sign the constitution, becoming a leading anti-federalist. So why is Levin mentioning him?

A man cannot work tirelessly to end slavery and still own slaves, just as one cannot work tirelessly to end child molestation while still molesting children. And if you don't think that's a fair comparrison then you might have forgotten that we are talking about SLAVERY. You know, human ownership over other humans! It's kind of a big deal. Especially to a certian segment of our population.
So, Michelle, you are a good lady with a good heart, but you made an error. Correct it and move on.

Don| 6.29.11 @ 4:28PM

Michelle Bachmann did not say "some or many of the founders were personally against slavery, and some or many proposed legislation to abolish it, but were unsuccessful. She said:

"But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States..."

As someone who has no desire to see Obama reelected, I am concerned that Bachmann (who is not stupid) seems to commit these gaffes frequently. These are especially bad because I would expect a "Tea Party favorite" to have a better grasp of the American Revolution than the average citizen. Levin does the conservative cause no good in advocating this fake defense.

This is different than Palin's Paul Revere comment, which sounded odd to many, but ultimately was shown to be accurate, despite the fact that it was an offhand comment. Bachmann's gaffe apparently was part of a prepared speech.

Milton| 6.29.11 @ 7:40PM

Thank you! Exactally! The Tea Party movement should have a higher standard. IF a 10th grade high school student said what Bachman said, then tried to explain by using Jonh Q Adams, the teacher would laugh and give em' an F.

Bachman can do better and the movement should expect better.

Ralph T. Howarth, Jr.| 7.1.11 @ 6:57PM

The fact that most of the founders worked tirelessly over the question to abolish/end slavery means that that all those for and against slavery had to work hard. Why? Because even those who were pro-slavery had to work overtime to keep the slave institution alive because the abolishionists were hot on their heels to put an end to it. So in that respect, the founding fathers indeed worked tirelessly to end slavery because by doing so they made every one work hard on the question of ending it. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787 Colonel Mason made comment that "every slave owner is born a petty tyrant." Most progressives and deconstructionists today are bent on making it out that the founders created the slave institution and slave trade. That is incorrect. They were born into it and grew up finding out that they are petty tyrants while promulgating liberty. In garnering freedom for Americans many of them wrought conviction upon their own personal lives and were moved to do something about it or else be found hypocrites.

Ralph T. Howarth, Jr.| 7.1.11 @ 7:04PM

I would like to point out also that the 3/5ths Compromise had its origins under the first US constitution known as the Articles of Confederation. When the second constitution was ratified the 3/5ths Compromise was simply carried forward from the first. The debates on such a compromise has its origins in the decision to use the 3/5ths rule as a rough estimate to determine the wealth of a state for tax purposes to the confederal government (not a federal government yet; but a confederal one where the delegates are not a sitting, elected delegates.) This was because there was no good survey of land done yet and so as a rough estimate population was used to determine the extent of land to tax. So the 3/5ths Rule began as a tax assessment tool rather than the later apportionment tool; which too was used for determining direct taxes on a state for revenue. So in either case, the 3/5ths Compromise came from the 3/5ths Rule for raising taxes for the national seat's government and slaves were not considered to be as good of an indicator of wealth by proxy of population in lieu of poor land assessment information. The 3/5ths Rule; therefore, had nothing to do with anything like sufferage or representation in the Congress, orginally.


Regardless of apportionment for tax purposes or for representation or even sufferage purposes, all free persons other than Indian tribes were counted as whole persons so freedom was encouraged that way. In addition, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 draft constitution went from blocking the federal government from imposing a ban or a tax on the importation of slaves to postponing the question of setting a ban and giving the Congress the option to impose a tax. So the final "product" constitution was a marginally tougher document on slavery that the first. Last, that same convention debated on whether or not to put the question of abolition of slavery on the present constitution; but the delegates of the free twelve states...the equivalent of twelve foreign countries under a trade federation or NATO-like treaty in today's terms...thought that the issue was that of a state matter and the question at hand was not of running state governments but that of making a stronger union of free states into a federal one. As nine states had banned the importation of slaves, one committed estoppel of the trade into a defacto ban, and two states continued the practice of what was called there an "infernal trade", it was viewed at the time that the great gains of success of anti-slavery movements would likely complete the abolition in what was an internal state matter. So in the debates of the Constitutional Convention itself is evidence that the slavery issue was already being dealt with and many held the view that it was just a matter of time before abolition was completed anyway! So why put the federal union in jeapordy of not being ratified by the states by putting abolition into the constitution itself for what is a state matter? For, had there been a ban on slavery in one form or another in the federal constitution, then some states would not ratify that compact; and the US would be relegated to subsisting on the confederate compact unable to pay the country's debts and raise an army for national defense. The US was attacked by the French navy, the Barbary pirates, British navy and mercenaries, and Britain supplied weapons to the Indian tribes to attack the US up to the War of 1812. The union was essential for survival of the country that otherwise would have succumbed to the British Crown she had fought her independence from. Abolishment of slavery would have been a deal breaker.

The British merchants had continued the practice of the slave trade by sending slaves for sale to the ports like that of Virginia, which had banned the trade. Slavery would likely have continued on US shores had the US attempted to force abolition too soon at the expense of leaving the union in a weak confederacy only to be enveloped by the European powers again who would make more slavery than less. The answer was to do a controlled abolition. There were some delegates at that convention; however, who warned that slavery, if continued, would make matters worse for the country. In many respects, those abolitionists were very extremely accurate in what such an evil will do to the country as if they could see the future. But they knew simply by observation of what slavery already had done in the US, as well as the history of slavery in other countries.

SooDohNim| 7.1.11 @ 8:09PM

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LI.....asp?id=122

Jim| 7.2.11 @ 10:24PM

I wonder if George knows the "1st Continental Congress" opened with a prayer that lasted almost 2 hours? Indeed it would be difficult to have a "prayer" last 2 minutes if the men were deists, agnostics, and atheists. This opening prayer time is a matter of "Congressional Record".

Due to agendas and incorrect reporting, perceptions change, history does not!

Ethan| 7.5.11 @ 9:23PM

If they worked so hard to end slavery, why didnt they? It's not like congress was working againt them.

MikeF| 7.8.11 @ 10:52AM

Ethan can't read... or comprehend, anyway..

blah blah| 7.22.11 @ 2:25PM

Is this a joke? Worked tirelessly to end slavery? Why dont you ASK BLACK MEN AND WOMEN IF THEY AGREE WITH YOU? Michelle Bachman is qualified for only one reason as far you are concerned, she did four months in a Kibbutz as a teenager, this is epitome, the epitome of why special interests must be ended in this nation...Michelle Bachman would support Apartheid if she could, and THIS PROVES IT!!!

More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/28/levin-stephanopoulos-is-foolis

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Immigration Bill Clears Key Committee

Jordan Gonzalez | 11:56AM

Nixonian

Yogi Love | 11:54AM

Moore, OK by Steve Breen

Patrick Ryan | 11:50AM

He’s Just Not That Into You

Ross Kaminsky | 11:34AM

Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi

Quin Hillyer | 11:29AM

Issa’s Mistake

Ross Kaminsky | 11:11AM

Bernanke: No Need to Reimplement Glass-Steagal

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Lerner Says She Did Nothing Wrong, Then Pleads the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 10:50AM

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|65 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|40 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|46 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|13 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|6 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|11 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|21 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|11 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.