Hillary's historian refutes Sanders claim that this country is "created on racist principles".

[Luminous Animal]

In an OP for the NY Times, historian and advisor to Hillary Clinton, Sean Wilentz, claims that Bernie Sanders threatens to

"poison the current presidential campaign. The United States, Bernie Sanders has charged, “in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back, on racist principles, that’s a fact.”"

And that, Sanders, stating such is furthering "one of the most destructive falsehoods in all of American history."

He then goes on to myopically restrict the topic of racism solely to the institution of slavery and defends the Constitution with merely tolerating slavery as a local institution rather than enshrining it as a national law as proof that Sanders is promoting a falsehood. Unbelievably, he attempts to downplay the three-fifths clause and the fugitive slave clause.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/opinion/constitutionally-slavery-is-no-national-institution.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

Fortunately, he is getting his ass handed to him in the comments.

[daleanime]

1. You deal with the truth....

it doesn't matter whether it's comfortable or not.

[GeorgeGist]

2. Bernie doesn't speak with forked tongue.

[AlbertCat]

79. Such a good response!!!!!

+1000

[billhicks76]

118. Clinton Campaign Has Many Forked Tounges

They are unbelievable....do they think we are ALL stupid or just most of us? This guy Sean cant be that much of a total idiot...maybe he is just doing his job as master manipulator. One thing is for sure...whether it's either of the two buddy pals that get elected, Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton, they should both be thrown out as they are practically complicit criminals in what they have allowed and facilitated to happen in this world. Im sorry but Hillary supported mass murder abroad and mass incarceration at home. Anyone who makes excuses for that needs a heart transplant and then a brain transplant if that doesn't work. She supported the Honduran coup too by the way...anyone care about worker exploitation and human right atrocities in Latin America anymore??? She is antithetical to human decency and way to in bed with the Bush Family. Lanny Davis is her mentor/confidant/liason??? He is a criminal in a suit and masquerades as a Democrat...more like a Joe Leiberman Democrat...in other words a fake.

[SoapBox]

135. Her campaign is going to go down in history...

As one of the dumbest ever.

Misstep after misstep by idiots like this guy.

[malthaussen]

143. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

I'd suggest it is not advisable to count one's chickens before they are running around in the yard, but the Clinton machine is certainly showing signs that some WD-40 wouldn't come amiss.

-- Mal

[Ken Burch]

198. That campaign will probably get mixed up and use the WD-40 ON the chickens.

[billhicks76]

257. They Know About Our In-House Ostriches

You know...the one who hide from the truth with their heads in the sand. The Bush Syndicate knew some of us would be plenty happy just have a W in the win column regardless if it was all a scam by the Bushes to have a collaborator in when the republican pendulum swung away from them electorally. Clinton is that person.

[Fawke Em]

203. They're putting WD-40 on the stuff that moves when it should and duct

tape on things that are stuck when they should.

Everyone who owns a house knows that the remedy is the opposite.

(BTW, I ALWAYS give people WD-40 and duct tape as housewarming gifts. Not fancy or glamorous, but new homeowners eventually know those are the two BEST gifts they ever got - I set up my own house earlier than most of my friends, so I learned young. )

[beam me up scottie]

3. Boy he sure is getting his ass handed to him!

And rightly so.

Is he actually an historian?

[historylovr]

54. According to his CV he is.

Teaches at Princeton. His area is supposed to be early National. Huh. It lists him as Robert Wilentz, but further down it says Sean.

Found this tidbit on his website, http://seanwilentz.com/about/

"In 1998, Wilentz joined with his friends and colleagues Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., and C. Vann Woodward to form Historians in Defense of the Constitution, an ad hoc organization of several hundred American historians who opposed on constitutional grounds the impeachment of President Bill Clinton."

And here on Huffington Post: "He has been helping Clinton understand where and how her potential administration, and that of her husband Bill Clinton, fit into the arc of progressive history over the last half-century or more, according to people who know both him and the candidate."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/hillarys-historian-sean-wilentz_n_7337896.html

So, supposedly he know his stuff. And yet ...

[beam me up scottie]

57. I guess some people are willing to destroy their reputation for a politician.

The NYT comments are brutal.

[historylovr]

67. Glancing through them now.

God, I'd love to know what my former profs think of this piece. That'd be fun.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

99. I can't find the comments.

Do you have to be a subscriber to see the comments?

[Luminous Animal]

101. No. They will appear on the right near the bottom of the article. You'll see a box

with some truncated comments. Click on it and the comment section will load.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

136. Ah, thank you!

[beam me up scottie]

103. No, I'm not.

Look to the right of the article and about halfway down the page for "Recent Comments" - it takes a little while to load for me.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

137. Thank you!

[beam me up scottie]

138. My pleasure!

[Ken Burch]

258. What reputation?

Wilentz used to write for "Even The Liberal New Republic&quot as Reagan called that rag every time it supported what he was doing to Nicaragua and El Salvador).

[AlbertCat]

80. fit into the arc of progressive history over the last half-century or more,

"progressive..."

No, not here...


not here....


maybe if we turn it sideways it'll fit....

[historylovr]

104. That made me laugh.

[AlbertCat]

120. Good! It was supposed to.

Does anyone think Sanders is worried about how his administration will "fit into the arc of progressive history over the last half-century or more"?... or is he doing what he thinks is right?

Personally I don't think Clinton is worried about it either.

It struck me as lame PR babble. Her campaign needs to cut down on the lame PR babble.

[malthaussen]

128. Can it be that Hillary truly believes she is progressive...

... because she has Progressive ideas about women and health care?

-- Mal

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Even the founding fathers knew that slavery was a time bomb buried in the constitution.

They did their best to delay the inevitable reckoning, but they knew.

Whitewashing, so to speak, the actual history does no one any favors. Maybe Hillary's team should spend more time selling voters on the merits (meaning policy- not the Hillary™ brand) of their candidate than poring over Sanders' words for a "gotcha".

At least he actually, you know, says stuff.

[Enthusiast]

161. +100%!

[bunnies]

5. This nation was built on the backs of slaves.

Full fucking stop. Dumbass.

Is this the caliber of "intellect" she'd surround herself with at the White House. My fuck gawd. What a disgrace.

[Luminous Animal]

8. He's one of her closest advisors.

[bunnies]

11. Great.

Thats just great.

[jeff47]

18. Nuh uh!!!

There were also indentured servants!!

[bunnies]

21. ...

[blackspade]

155. Who were effectively slaves.

[jeff47]

193. Hence the sarcasm tag. (nt)

[blackspade]

242. gotcha

[malthaussen]

206. Naw, there is a huge difference.

For one thing, indentures were for a term, the indentured servant always had knowledge that some day, he would be free. Also, most contracts of indenture provided for material assistance in setting up as a free man once the indenture was served, although these were naturally often honored more in the breach than otherwise. And indentured servants had more rights than slaves -- not so many as a free man, but a few -- so their condition was better in that respect as well.

OTOH, since one only owned an indentured servant for a term of years, he had less qualms about taking care of him and not working him to an early death, unlike a chattel slave who could provide many more years of labor. So in that respect, they may have been worse off than many chattel slaves.

-- Mal

[blackspade]

243. Indentured servitude was a palatable term for whites in bondage

But make no mistake, they were effectively slaves with a few more rights.
There were important differences though that you rightly point out.
However, many of these 'servants were mistreated and some could never get out of their terms due to extensions or having to work off additional debts incurred with the head of the household.
Many fled the Eastern cities for the frontier, where the threat of Indian or French attacks were preferable to perpetual bondage.

I do want to clarify that indentured servitude, while effectively making people slaves, was distinctly different and significantly less horrid than chattel slavery. I was merely pointing out that people in bondage were the hands that forged this nation, just as much or more that the folks that we read about in history texts.

[malthaussen]

244. Check out Bernard Bailyn's

Voyagers to the West. The second half is comprised of contemporary anecdotes about life as a new arrival -- the first half straightforward social history with a graph or chart on about every page. I remember when it came out, he was criticized for lack of focus, which would tend to prove that you can't please everybody.

-- Mal

[blackspade]

245. Cool, I'll check it out.

[arcane1]

35. And on the graves of natives. This Clinton minion is an idiot. n/t

[bunnies]

39. +1000. nt

[Enthusiast]

162. On the backs of slaves and the bones of Indians.

Simply a fact.

[bunnies]

237. The foundation of cruelty and hatred.

Too bad certain "intellectuals" cant see the truth for what it is.

[malthaussen]

192. I believe it was the late Marc Bloch who observed...

... "Most history is made on the backs of most people."

-- Mal

[bunnies]

236. Yes. On the backs of the people who have suffered the most.

When the fuck are we going to put our collective foot down?! When we all vote for the lesser of the evils we enable our abusers. Im done with that. Ill never do it again.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Riiiight...not based on racism.

[erronis]

109. A gruesome response to anyone that doesn't think that this country isn't built on

- murdering anyone who gets in the way of the plutocrats/monied interests;
- enslaving (via law or debt) anyone who has some value to those interests;
- removing the right to free speech and free assembly for all;
- controlling the dissemination of information to the masses (pamphleteers in the 1800s)
- attempting to control the free flow of information to everyone (internet restrictions, etc.)
- and monitoring everyone to understand the ones that can be manipulated and the ones that need to be dealt with.

[ibegurpard]

7. Uh let's not forget Native American genocide either.

[HooptieWagon]

17. True that.

[MisterP]

81. well, technically it was a lot of LITTLER genocides, and often they just starved to death by

mischance while being force-marched in deserts or their lands divvied up to make them good independent yeomen

[AlbertCat]

96. often they just starved to death

One reason why bison were nearly eradicated. Elk too.

[Enthusiast]

165. Killing off the buffalo was a stated means used to eradicate the natives.

Didn't Phil Sheridan say, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." If it wasn't General Sheridan is was some other prominent military leader. It. Was. Policy.

[sabrina 1]

234. And things haven't changed much when we invade other nations to steal

THEIR resources. The racism of our FPs is so blatant, it's amazing to see people who CLAIM to be against racism, so willing to go to the countries of dark skinned people and use nasty, racist epethets to describe the victims of our Imperialism.

I think it was Gen. Miller, though I could be wrong, it's been a while, who instructed the troops going to Iraq to 'treat the Iraqis like dogs', and as we know sadly, they did.

And then there were the nasty, racist epithets that became so common during the war this guy's boss voted for. 'Camel Jockeys' eg, and 'Sand Ni##&rs etc.

I imagine Native Americans will have something to say about this not to mention AAs.

[Enthusiast]

238. Thank you, sabrina. Once again, you nailed it.

[Cheese Sandwich]

9. It's racist all the way down.

It's too bad some people refuse to acknowledge.

[Enthusiast]

167. Just like turtles.

[malthaussen]

10. Gee, I could have sworn I remember reading something...

,,, in the U.S. Constitution about black folks only being 3/5 of a person. No, no, how could I make such a mistake! It's "three fifths of all other persons." Hey, not only nothing about being black, nothing about being slaves, either! Wow, Mr Wilentz, I am so happy you corrected my memory, there!

(I note that in the same clause, Indians are excluded because they don't pay taxes. Guess that isn't racist, either. They're just sort of, there.)

-- Mal

[jwirr]

19. If he talked about Native Americans not paying taxes

he is dead wrong. Native Americans all pay taxes to the federal government. They do not pay taxes to state governments because the services they receive on the reservation are from the federal government and not the state. Any Native not living on the reservation pays both state and federal taxes.

[malthaussen]

23. Context, jwirr, context.

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution (now entirely obsolete, but we're talking about the Founding, here) states that Indians who do not pay taxes are not counted for purposes of representation.

At that time, the Indians having not been completely subjugated and mostly wiped out, there were quite a few who did not live on reservations and paid no taxes. It would have been problematic collecting them!

Hillary's historian is not making that claim, the U.S. Constitution is.

-- Mal

[jwirr]

229. Ah, I just learned something new. As you know that is

still one of the claims that haters claim today. It is one of the lies that we fought to change in the 70s. I suspect we did not make a dent in the truth.

[Chitown Kev]

22. The Constitution does not say "black folks"

it says "slaves", FWIW.

Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison actually disagreed about this topic.

[malthaussen]

25. Article 1, Section 2 , Paragraph 3:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

The word "slaves" does not appear. Neat trick, that. Incidentally, "bound to Service for a Term of Years" means indentured servants, who counted as a whole person. "Slaves" fall into the category of "all other Persons."

-- Mal

[Chitown Kev]

29. Yes, I knew that it didn't say black folks

since there were a very very few slaves that were not black.

[ieoeja]

33. Nothing wrong with your memory. But your understanding is completely wrong.

Technically, nowhere does it reference African-Americans. And nowhere does it state a Slave is 3/5th of a person. It says a slave Owner only gets to count 3/5th of his slaves when determining the number of Representatives he, not the Slaves, received in Congress or the number of Electors he, not the Slaves, received in the Electoral College.

Would have preferred that slave owners had more political power?

In truth, Slaves shouldn't have counted at all. It isn't like those Representatives were going to represent their best interest. Just the opposite actually. They used their power to extend slavery, not end it.

The best option would be counting only those eligible to vote. Racists would be fucked. If they disenfranchise African-Americans, they lessen their national political power. If they enfranchise them, they lessen their local political power. Damned if they do. Damned if the don't.

[malthaussen]

56. Yeah, I'm familiar with that point.

It does, however, establish that an "other person" only counts as 3/5 of a real human. One might suggest that this establishes a definitely racists criterion, since the majority of slaves were, after all, non-white. What is interesting, to my mind, is that no one wanted to challenge the underlying principle of ownership of other persons, or the humanity of persons so owned. Personally, I think most of the people involved around the founding of our country (and for many years after) were white supremacists, in that while they may have had a few piddling qualms about chattel slavery, they had no thought that those enslaved were actually equal to them (except, of course, in the eyes of the Creator, which is a nice little way to dodge the question). Hell, they didn't even care much for those with no real property.

-- Mal

[ieoeja]

106. No, it does not even come close to saying they only count as 3/5th of a real human.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

That does not say that all other Persons are less "human". Even if I accept your way of looking it, I would say it then means 3 out of every 5 of them counted as full human beings, while the other 2 did not count. Which makes no sense, but I think it better fits your definition of the terminology.

It was the Slavers, not the anti-Slavery people, who wanted to count all Slaves rather only 3/5th of them. The anti-Slavery folk did not want them to count at all because they saw the hypocrisy of counting them.

One might suggest that this establishes a definitely racists criterion, since the majority of slaves were, after all, non-white.

To the best of my knowledge, all Slaves at that point were non-White. The clause specifically refers to indentured servants, and it slightly pisses me off when people try to lump indentured servant with slaves. Throughout his indenture, the Servant knows it is not forever. The Slave has no such hope. And, of course, the Master better not abuse the Servant too much because some day that man is going to be Free and probably the first thing he's doing is buying a gun and hunting your abusive ass down.

And, yes, I agree implies a racist criterion which is why the author of the article is wrong. The author hangs his hat on "implies" vs that "definitely".

What is interesting, to my mind, is that no one wanted to challenge the underlying principle of ownership of other persons, or the humanity of persons so owned.

Then I suggest you read the article. Cause while his opinions are sketchy, his facts seem okay. He points out that the pro-Slavery delegation wanted to include Slave ownership as a Constitutional right. But that the anti-Slavery refused to allow that. There were unquestionably ones who not only wanted, but actually did "challenge the underlying principle of ownership of other persons, or the humanity of persons so owned."

I can even add to what he wrote. Many, possibly most, of the delegates wanted to make Slavery unconstitutional on day one. When that failed, just as they included a sunset clause on the ban of regulating the overseas Slave trade, there was a big push to insert a sunset clause on Slave ownership altogether. If I remember my history correctly, South Carolina stood alone in their refusal to consider that possibilty.

Of course, South Carolina pretty much opposed the Revolutionary War altogether, surrendered in the first year of the war, ordered the Continental Army out of South Carolina, and spent the rest of the war supplying the Brits. We should have just said good riddance to them on the ground they not rejoin the Empire.

Personally, I think most of the people involved around the founding of our country (and for many years after) were white supremacists, in that while they may have had a few piddling qualms about chattel slavery, they had no thought that those enslaved were actually equal to them (except, of course, in the eyes of the Creator, which is a nice little way to dodge the question).

While undoubtedly true they pretty much at least largely had a noblese oblige way of looking at it in the beginning. The hypocrisy of the Revolution changed that. You don't get a whole lot of chatter about Africans being inferior prior to the Revolution. Writings on the inferiority concept becomes increasingly strident the further you move from the Revolution. They needed some way to justify the continuation of Slavery.

And American Slavery itself was most certainly not born out of racist views though it clearly became such. It was a continuation of the Feudal system where Plantations replaced Baronys and Slaves replaced Serfs. Show me a Confederate General and I'll show you the descendant of a Norman who followed William the Conqueror to England. Unlike the Anglo-Saxons up north who came to America to escape the British Empire, the Norman southerners came to expand the British Empire.

Britain could probably have ended the Revolution in a year had they offered noble titles to key plantation owners in the south. But that would have risked turning the American Revolution into a British Civil War. Also, King George III rivaled George the W when it came to stupid.


Yeah, I know. I got a bit off topic there.

[malthaussen]

126. Eh, I don't think you're off-topic.

Please allow me to correct what seems to be a misapprehension on your part, however, I do not equate indentured servants with slaves. They are a whole 'nother smoke.

As for challenging the underlying principle, I was thinking specifically of overt challenge. I don't remember reading many discussions about whether the institution was valid, just about what status and protections the enslaved should have. Clearly the anti-slavery sect had some pull, because the institution was not overtly enshrined in the Constitution (which is the point Wilentz is laboring). But whatever Jefferson might have said to Madison while they were boozing it up in the City Tavern, I'd have to go with the interpretation that, by remaining silent on the subject, they tacitly approved it (for the best of reasons, of course, since there would have been no Union if they had not). And then there is the subject of the Indians -- for even if one were to place the best interpretation he pleases on the Africans, the racism towards the indigenous population was certainly abundant, even if "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" was also not written into the Constitution. As I say downthread, there is some real (GOP-level!) irony in a fan of Andrew Jackson trying to sell that the country was not founded on racist principles.

-- Mal

[AlbertCat]

87. Slaves shouldn't have counted at all.

But I thought the South wanted them to be fully counted so they could have more Reps in Congress. Non-slave states went "Whoa!"... so this was the compromise.


Anyway, that's how I remember it.

[Chitown Kev]

93. Exactly

he Founders did not believe that slavery would last long as an institution, either.

Remember, there were other events going on in the world and that Sally Hemings wasn't always Thomas Jefferson's slave, technically.

[malthaussen]

130. Like the Spanish Inquisition...

... nobody expected the Cotton Gin.

-- Mal

[Armstead]

12. Do I see some role reversal going on here?

Sanders pointing out an uncomfortable truth about racism, and a Hillary surrogate refusing ro acknowledge the role of racism.

[jwirr]

13. He had to ignore Native Americans because manifest

destiny was and often still is one of the rights white immigrants to America used to claim their place in America. And at the time the Constitution was written only white landowners were allowed to vote. Black people were counted in the census only because the count toward the census.

There are a lot of other examples that could be used but if I were Hillary I would want to distance myself from this man.

At the very least the Constitution did nothing to end slavery until the Civil War.

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. Wow. Talk about being wrong!

Native Americans and AA may just argue his idiotic points. Hillary's advisor, eh? Well, isn't that - interesting. I'll be waiting for the outrage posts.

[cantbeserious]

15. Let The Mudslinging Begin

eom

[HooptieWagon]

16. Must not have heard of the 3/5 compromise.

Are Hillary's advisors willfully stupid, or does it come naturally?
Wall Street, whom Hillary represents, was built by slave laborers, to be a slave market.

[hifiguy]

20. Utter horseshit.

The fugitive slave clause and the the 3/5 clause are the triple distilled essence of racism.

This sounds like it could have come straight from Fox.

It's now abundantly clear that truth means absolutely nothing to the Hillionaires.

[Chitown Kev]

26. Read Wilentz's discussion, though

I disagree with it, as did William Lloyd Garrison but Wilentz is citing Frederick Douglass.

I, on the other hand, deny that the Constitution guarantees the right to hold property in man, and believe that the way to abolish slavery in America is to vote such men into power as well use their powers for the abolition of slavery.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-is-it-pro-slavery-or-anti-slavery/

[JI7]

36. can't both be true ?

People can interpret the constitution in different ways. And what happens will come down to who is in power.

And why the supreme court is do important these days.

[malthaussen]

38. It may be a measure of how smart some of our Founders were...

... that they could write such beautifully ambiguous language as to satisfy everyone's palette, but they possibly didn't foresee the extremes to which men of ill-will would take their words.

One could agree with both Garrison and Douglass in this question: the Constitution did not legitimize slavery de jure, but did so de facto. Naturally, Douglass would prefer that the very principle that property could be held in men were discredited.

Unfortunately, later statute would serve to establish slavery de jure as well.

-- Mal

[HooptieWagon]

42. Truth train left Clinton Station long ago.

All they got left are lies.

[hifiguy]

49. Around the time of the NAFTA debate,

IIIRC. Long time gone...

[jonno99]

76. Frederick Douglass provides an alternate interpretation of the 3/5 language:

(from Kev's above link)

"Let us grant, for the sake of the argument, that the first of these provisions, referring to the basis of representation and taxation, does refer to slaves. We are not compelled to make that admission, for it might fairly apply to aliens — persons living in the country, but not naturalized.
But giving the provisions the very worse construction, what does it amount to? I answer — It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution.
Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of “two-fifths” of political power to free over slave States.
So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote."

As recently quoted at DU: "...attempting to judge the past by the present, ...is always a preposterous thing to do"

[Luminous Animal]

82. My main beef with the article is the Mr. Welintz conflates country with Constitution.

He created a straw man. Bernie did not say our Constitution was founded on racist principles. Bernie said, our country was founded on racist principles. Mr. Welintz correctly quoted Bernie but then moved the goal posts to fit his agenda and accused Bernie of poisoning the campaign.

[jonno99]

90. "our country was founded on racist principles." - but what does really mean? That some of the

founders were racists is like saying the sky is blue - of course some of them were.

But the fact is that slavery existed prior to the founding, and slavery would most like have lasted LONGER - were it not for the founding.

I like Douglas's view on the founding document - versus the founders as human beings:

"This jumbling up things is a sort of dust-throwing which is often indulged in by small men who argue for victory rather than for truth. Thus, for instance, the American Government and the American Constitution are spoken of in a manner which would naturally lead the hearer to believe that one is identical with the other; when the truth is, they are distinct in character as is a ship and a compass. The one may point right and the other steer wrong. A chart is one thing, the course of the vessel is another. The Constitution may be right, the Government is wrong. If the Government has been governed by mean, sordid, and wicked passions, it does not follow that the Constitution is mean, sordid, and wicked."

[Chitown Kev]

107. Explain

Do you mean that slavery would have lasted longer under the Articles of Confederation or that slavery would have lasted longer if America had remained a British colony?

[jonno99]

124. It is generally agreed that slavery would have eventually ended.

However, the question is, would the south have given up slavery - short of losing a war?

Otherwise, were we still a British colony, would the brits have forced the end of slavery? And if so could they (or would they) have enforced that dictate?

I don't know one way or the other, but my sense is that the civil war ended slavery more quickly - than were it allowed to run it's course...

[Chitown Kev]

140. Well, we do know that the British, in spite of abolishing slavery in 1833

loved them some Southern cotton and because the Union won the Civil War, Britain imports of Southern cotton stopped and they had to get their cotton from elsewhere...which turned out to be India.

[mhatrw]

148. What? The United States was one of last countries to outlaw slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

[jonno99]

173. One of the last? Your link appears to have the US somewhere in the middle. Not to mention

that 100's of thousands who gave their lives in the bloody civil ware to end slavery in the US. My un-scientific guess is that number exceeds the entirety of lives sacrificed for the abolitionist movement - worldwide...

[ancianita]

224. To me that's the question of this thread. Racism's precedes capture and ownership. "Principles"

is the set of legitimizations of slavery that offend the very meaning of "principle's" historic meaning of morality. Racism precedes all the practices and policies that historically define slavery.

In using that word, one endorses the founders rationalizations for accepting human trafficking for forced labor that they knew as a necessary evil but hoped would be temporary. It was an evil, nonetheless, and now we should see that their rationalized use of "principles" attached to slavery should no longer be attached, any more than "principles" or "culture" should be words attached to the Southern battle flag.

Language matters if there's going to be the political revolution that Sanders wants.

[AlbertCat]

92. "...attempting to judge the past by the present, ...is always a preposterous thing to do"

Indeed.

Even when Lincoln did the "Emancipation Proclamation" the general 19th century "wisdom", North, South, East and West, was that blacks could not be civilized like whites.

But that doesn't make Sanders' statement any less true.

[jonno99]

114. Perhaps. His statement is somewhat lacking in specifics:

"And I would also say that as a nation, the truth is, that a nation in which many ways was created, and I'm sorry to have to say this, from way back, on racist principles, we have, a long way as a nation. "

Perhaps I don't have the full quote, but to fully understand his position it would be helpful to know which racist principles he is referring to...

[AlbertCat]

123. which racist principles he is referring to...

Uh... maybe, just maybe, it's that white people are better than non white people.

[jonno99]

132. Ok - but as codified by what specifially? This whole discussion is a little nebulas.

Are you (or Bernie) referring to the "three fifths of all other Persons" language in article 1?

[AlbertCat]

139. Are you (or Bernie) referring to the "three fifths of all other Persons" language in article 1?

That has come up...but I'm referring the whites thinking they are superior to everyone else... a common belief when this country was founded. It should be acknowledged...with the fact that it was the general "wisdom" back then. Y'know, "from way back".

Sanders' statement about where we've been, where we are, and where we need to go.

What else did he say.... like right before and right after.... I'd like to know. I still think he's being broad. But it's still a fact.

[jonno99]

164. We agree on this: many whites thought they were superior to everyone else.

And even worse, there were horrendous acts committed by whites against virtually every ethnic group.

My question is, how does that specifically translate into "the country was founded on racists principles"?

[malthaussen]

172. "principles" may be an unfelicitous word choice.

The entire history of natural jurisprudence is full of high-minded sentiments that were hardly exercised in fact. Arguably, their advocates didn't even want or intend them to be. Double-speak goes pretty far back in history, and one does not have to look far for leaders who say one thing while facilitating the reverse. So, when Mr Sanders says the country was founded on racist principles, I interpret him as meaning ideas, rather than principles. While this document or that might assert that all men are created equal, there is no doubt that in practice, the people on the ground at the time considered that some were more equal than others. Well, no doubt unless one happens to be Sean Wilentz, apparently.

-- Mal

[Luminous Animal]

181. No. I think he means what he says… Principles has several meanings...

One being a foundation for a system of belief or behavior. That belief or behavior may not be principled but nonetheless, it is still guided by principles.

[malthaussen]

185. Might just be semantics.

Problem with the statement is that, the principles may not be specified, but detected through action. But that is an interpretive act, too. I kill an Indian -- is it because I am a racist, or because that individual offended me enough to kill? Or maybe I was just feeling ornery, and anyone would have done. It requires a bit of effort to determine what principles actuate an action -- and even then, it is an interpretive act, unless the actor declares his principles up front (but who is to say he isn't lying?).

-- Mal

[jonno99]

183. I agree, and yet our jurisprudence is based on the words of the document - not the

deeds of it authors (though at times we attempt to divine "original intent&quot . And so it is the words that have endured.

[malthaussen]

190. Well, to an extent.

U.S. jurisprudence is also based on common law, which way or may not be statutory.

Natural jurisprudence, however, is not the same thing -- it is the attempt to divine natural laws that apply to all jurisdictions. Hence the preamble to the Declaration -- the whole "We hold these truths to be self-evident" bit is in the tradition of natural jurisprudence.

Also, deeds do persist. Were it not for the extermination of the Indians, for example, the racial makeup of our country would be quite different.

-- Mal

[malthaussen]

142. Consider that the question is between de jure and de facto...

... if this or that article is cited, one can then argue about the interpretation of the clause, and generally one ends as one begins. Mr Wilentz is trying to make the argument that, because the Constitution nowhere formally recognizes slavery, racism was not in any way an underpinning of the foundation of the country. He's also stealthing in an argument that the issue of slavery was left up to the States, which has certain implications for modern Constitutional issues.

He ignores any racist implications of the slaughter of the indigenous population (which he might again, if pressed, declare was an affair of the states, although being a Jacksonian scholar he should know that the Federal government was involved with said slaughter up to their bayonets). And after all, who is to say we wouldn't have slaughtered the indigenes if they had been white, anyway? It's not like European history isn't full of exactly such slaughters.

-- Mal

[jonno99]

159. Agreed. I think the argument could be made that while the founders

often failed horribly in their words and deeds, in the end, they produced a document that exceeded them, and the document has not only endured but improved with age. There are few historical writings that can make such a claim.

[Enthusiast]

174. I felt the article was reminicient of Fox pundrity myself.

We and Bernie and the truth are on the side of right. There is always that.

[JRLeft]

24. I guess slavery never happened?

[Nye Bevan]

27. Both Washington and Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves and freed none during their lifetimes.

Anyone who claims that this country was not founded on racist principles is an idiot.

Even the Revolutionary War was motivated, in part, by slavery:

https://allotherpersons.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/did-slavery-cause-of-the-revolutionary-war-yes-book-review-of-slave-nation/

[Skwmom]

41. The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson is not a pretty read.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/?no-ist

[bunnies]

46. Thank you for that link.

I hadnt bought a new book in a while. Cant wait to start reading it.

[karynnj]

28. Can Hillary's lawyer explain why a slave could both not vote and only counted 3/5 th?

This is a pretty stupid argument and it actually is unfair to the forefathers. The forefathers were pretty enlightened for the late 1700s - but that does not mean they were enlightened enough to really mean ALL MEN WERE CREATED EQUAL.

[Chitown Kev]

34. Well, he IS using Douglass's argument

and, given the plain language of the Constitution, Douglass is right. William Lloyd Garrison disagreed with him and I agree with Garrison.

The Garrison/Douglass debate on this question is a fascinating one, actually.

[karynnj]

50. So, Hillary's lawyer is on the wrong side of an argument made a century and a half ago?

Can someone tell me again why the Clinton folks argue that African Americans uniformly support them over Bernie Sanders?

[Chitown Kev]

59. Go read both Garrison's and Douglass' arguments

Douglass' argument is actually a very good one and I understand why Douglass was making the specific case that he made.

[malthaussen]

71. Yep, it is an interesting question.

Garrison appears, in my mind, to not recognize that if it is granted that the Constitution does establish the odious principle, then nothing stands in the way of perpetuating it except indignation, which changes as the fashions change. Whereas I think Douglass's idea was that, if it were established that the Constitution does not legitimize slavery, then any statute made pursuant to that goal would be illegitimate on the grounds of the compact, and no invocations of a higher authority need apply.

So, in brief, Garrison says the Constitution does legitimize slavery, but it is wrong, whereas Douglass says it doesn't matter in the first place, because the Constitution doesn't legitimize slavery. Methinks Mr Douglass was the more practical-minded in this debate, but Garrison wins in the end, since the Constitution had to be amended to disqualify slavery.

-- Mal

[Chitown Kev]

88. Yes, Garrison's argument (and Bernie's argument here, too)

is about the overall culture...and Garrison and Bernie are right.

And remember too, Lincoln actually advocated for black slaves to emigrate back to Africa, Douglass wanted former slaves to attain American citizenship rights.

[malthaussen]

111. Garrison favored emigration too, at first.

One thing I find interesting about abolitionists, and the Enlightenment principles they nurtured, is that they were as racist (or white supremacist, if you want to draw the distinction) as the most firebrand pro-slavery advocate, but simply didn't like the idea of slavery. I do not think there were many whites (or even blacks, necessarily) who would have supported the idea that the blacks were truly his equals, but they deserve credit for at least believing they should be equally treated under the law.

-- Mal

[Chitown Kev]

121. Yes, some speculate that Garrison was jealous of Douglass

and that Garrison treated him paternalistically...the Garrison/Douglass falling out happened because of this very argument and that Douglass went and founded his own newspaper.

[AlbertCat]

98. Can Hillary's lawyer explain why

... even SHE couldn't vote until 1919?



(I can hear it now..."women aren't a race!". But, same principal as racism)

[restorefreedom]

30. right out of the gop playbook

she should just drop out now.

this is getting embarrassing.

[JI7]

31. the guy is a fucking jackass. he was one of those going after Obama on rev wright

And other racist shit

[Enthusiast]

177. There ya go. I did not know that.

[get the red out]

32. Stick a fork in her

Done.

[Skwmom]

37. Slavery was NOT abolished until 1865 with the 13th Amendment. Are we going to ignore history. n/t

[randys1]

40. The only reason this matters to some is the supposed connection to Hillary...duh

So if we find an adviser to Bernie with views that are out of the mainstream or just wrong, do we get to blame Bernie for them?

Hope not, as a Bernie supporter I have no doubt he has friends or supporters or advisers who could have fucked up views on one thing or another.

BASH bash BASH Hillary day...

[Luminous Animal]

44. Did I blame Hillary? Oh no I did not. I do hope someone asks her about it, though.

He is the one who dragged Sanders into the conversation, by the way.

[randys1]

52. OMG, at least be sincere HILLARY'S HISTORIAN what in the WORLD does that mean?

If not an intention to link her to this idiots position.

[Luminous Animal]

60. Because he advises her on historical issues and is sometimes referred as Hillary's Historian.

He has been a long time supporter of the Clintons and advisor. Here is what he had to say about Obama in 2008: " "purposefully polluted the primary electoral contest" with "the most outrageous deployment of racial politics since the Willie Horton ad campaign in 1988."

[virtualobserver]

69. so Hillary's historian says, US not founded on racist principles, but Obama's campaign was?

where is the Hillary supporter outrage about Hillary's historian?

amazing

[beam me up scottie]

61. HuffPo:

"He has been helping Clinton understand where and how her potential administration, and that of her husband Bill Clinton, fit into the arc of progressive history over the last half-century or more, according to people who know both him and the candidate."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/hillarys-historian-sean-wilentz_n_7337896.html

[ancianita]

146. Their whole record belies any claim to any "fit into the arc of progression." Their record fits,

instead, into historical attempts at control of African American lives, specifically, and non-whites generally. Euphemisms of that time were attempts to build in 'race neutral' language to cover for the same race-targeted controls that they effected.

It's a horrible record that they cannot cover up. There is actually REgression for AA during their last stay in the White House.

It's not that they didn't know what they were doing or its long-term effects; maybe for the time they thought they were doing the best they could do; it's still my guess that they just didn't care to think through the consequences of what they did. Bill's 'cosmetics' kept the public from seeing his activities more clearly.

[JI7]

53. yeah just look at the comments .

And considering the things said by some on this issue before I doubt they really care beyond hoping it hurts her politically.

[AlbertCat]

108. I doubt they really care beyond hoping it hurts her politically.

Oh do you? Well, I doubt you care about the truth of the arguments and just want to get Hillary out of a jam. So...

How about some examples...

Or is this a "Sanders and his supporters really don't care about the AA community" meme redux?

[Armstead]

58. All the Cornell West posts?

[beam me up scottie]

63. BINGO.

Oh the irony.

[randys1]

65. People here are focused on criticizing DEMOCRATS, most of that is against Hillary.

I am focused on making sure the terrorist group known as the teaparty, American Taliban, GOP, whatever name you want to give them, dont take over the WH.

To that end I dont criticize any of the Democrats, I will have plenty of time to do that once the terrorists are defeated at the polls.

[virtualobserver]

91. Hillary's surrogates are attacking Bernie in the NYT....

or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[frylock]

89. You were defending Brock's use of guilt by association earlier.

hunh.

[virtualobserver]

158. and there is a whole hell of a lot more "association" with this story

and some real negatives in that "association" unlike the weak Brock attempt.

[delrem]

186. You are, I kid you not, the best and most HONEST "Bernie supporter" on DU.

I look forward to all your posts supporting Bernie Sanders.
Like you, your posts bring the light of truth to the world.

[randys1]

187. Aww geee shucks, thanks.

[Autumn]

223. How come I never see you do this? BASH bash BASH Bernie

in the threads that just out and out attack and lie about him, even to the point of using RW points to do it? Same when his supporters are being trashed and lied about. But anything any Bernie supporters posts about Hillary, even when it's true there you are with your BASH bash BASH Hillary. It's almost funny anymore.

[randys1]

247. I correct people all the time, problem is there is a 20-1 ratio of attacks on hillary.

Keep it up, harm her candidacy enough and if she is the nominee and loses...

[Autumn]

248. Like I said you don't defend Bernie in those threads. What if they keep it up

and harm his candidacy enough and if he is the nominee and loses... then what?

[randys1]

249. I make positive comments about him all the time. You cant win this with me

the attacks on Hillary are 20-1 than those of Bernie and are doing way more harm.

Fact

[Autumn]

250. Positive comment are one thing. My point is that I have never

seen you go into one of those threads and attack a Hillary supporters for trashing Bernie like you do Bernie supporters. unless I have all the right people on ignore. I'm not trying to win jack shit, just pointing out your hypocrisy. Now that I've done that you have a nice day, and by that I mean have a nice day.

[randys1]

251. None of them have threatened NOT to vote if their candidate isnt the one.

[Autumn]

252. I call bull shit, the OP does not threaten to NOT to vote if their candidate isn't the one

in their comments. Your post was in response to the article in the OP and the comment by the OP. And technically if anyone was being attacked in the OP and the article it was Sean Wilentz for his bull shit, he's the one getting his ass handed to him. You deflection failed, now I'm done.

randys1 (9,919 posts)
40. The only reason this matters to some is the supposed connection to Hillary...duh

So if we find an adviser to Bernie with views that are out of the mainstream or just wrong, do we get to blame Bernie for them?

Hope not, as a Bernie supporter I have no doubt he has friends or supporters or advisers who could have fucked up views on one thing or another.

BASH bash BASH Hillary day...

[left-of-center2012]

43. racist principles ?

Yo, Hillary historian ~
Native-Americans weren't treated as equals by the Pilgrims, etc.

[jfern]

156. And they still had to wait 56 more years after the 14th amendment for citizenship

[JI7]

45. hopefully Clinton supporters will not defend this

[m-lekktor]

51. I can't imagine the 80 or 90 whatever % of African Americans who support her

defending this.

[99Forever]

47. Another unforced error..

At least Camp Weathervane is consistent, consistently wrong.

[Chitown Kev]

48. I can't find a full version of Garrison's argument

but here's the relevant portion of it.

“There is much declamation about the sacredness of the compact which was formed between the free and slave states on the adoption of the Constitution. A sacred compact, forsooth! We pronounce it the most bloody and heaven-daring arrangement ever made by men for the continuance and protection of a system of the most atrocious villany ever exhibited on earth. Yes – we recognize the compact, but with feelings of shame and indignation; and it will be held in everlasting infamy by the friends of justice and humanity throughout the world. It was compact formed at the sacrifice of the bodies and souls of millions of our race, for the sake of achieving a political object — an unblushing and monstrous coalition to do evil that good might come. Such a compact was, in the nature of things and according to the law of God, null and void from the beginning. No body of men ever had the right to guarantee the holding of human beings in bondage. Who or what were the framers of our government, that they should dare confirm and authorize such high-handed villany – such a flagrant violation of all the precepts and injunctions of the gospel — such a savage war upon a sixth of our whole population? —They were men, like ourselves – as fallible, as sinful, as weak, as ourselves. By the infamous bargain which they made between themselves, they virtually dethroned the Most High God, and trampled beneath their feet their own solemn and heaven-attested Declaration, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights – among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They had no awful power to bind themselves, or their posterity, for one hour – for one moment – by such an unholy alliance. It was not valid then – it is not valid now. Still they persisted in maintaining it –and still their successors, the people of Massachusetts, of New England, and of the twelve free states persist in maintaining it. A sacred compact! A sacred compact! What, then, is wicked, and ignominious?”

http://www.theliberatorfiles.com/5-the-constitution-and-a-call-for-disunion/

[Luminous Animal]

55. Is this what you are looking for? (Had it bookmarked)

http://fair-use.org/the-liberator/1832/12/29/the-great-crisis#p7

[Chitown Kev]

62. That's one of them

there were others.

William Lloyd Garrison very publically burned a copy of the United States Constitution over this very question.

[mhatrw]

157. Do you agree that the USA was not founded on racist principles? n/t

[Chitown Kev]

171. Of course I don't agree with that

BUT you won't find those principles in the plain text of the federal Constitution in 1789, either, Douglass was correct about that...Wilentz's argument was not complete, though.

[jtuck004]

240. "Wilentz's argument was not complete, though." < AKA Lying by omission. n/t

[Chitown Kev]

256. Strictly speaking, the only way that Wilentz CAN make this argument

is by limiting it to the words of the federal Constitution.

Bernie Sanders was talking about a lot more than the written text of the federal Constitution...shall we, for example, get into what all of the state Constitutions said about race and slavery? That would be one way defeat Wilentz's very narrow argument and purposefully misleading argument.

I don't get how this reflects on Hillary Clinton, though.

[olddots]

64. dear Sean

"Its only a. Schoolboy Crush"

[Cheese Sandwich]

66. This is almost genocide denial

It's denying historical reality.

It's kind of amazing how much of a pass Hillary gets on race issues because this is pretty bad.

[historylovr]

78. +1.

[azmom]

68. I was incredulous, so I had to google.

Meet Hillary's Historian: Professor Sean Wilentz, Partisan Jacksonian Democrat


WASHINGTON -- As a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has a tight circle of advisers who counsel her on economic policy, foreign affairs and politics in general. In Sean Wilentz, she also has something of a house historian.

Wilentz, a Princeton professor, was an outspoken supporter of Clinton during her previous presidential bid, and has remained close to her since, according to Clinton insiders. He has been helping Clinton understand where and how her potential administration, and that of her husband Bill Clinton, fit into the arc of progressive history over the last half-century or more, according to people who know both him and the candidate.

Wilentz, Princeton's George Henry Davis 1886 professor of American history, was a guest of honor at a Ready for Hillary event in the Hamptons, one Clinton source said, and remains in close touch with Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/opinion/constitutionally-slavery-is-no-national-institution.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

[malthaussen]

86. "Jacksonian Democrat?"

And he's trying to sell that the country was not founded on racist principles? This does not compute.

-- Mal

[azmom]

97. Maybe he's the type to do anything

For an old friend? Who knows.

[riversedge]

70. Sean Wilentz is a highly respected historian...

Last edited Wed Sep 16, 2015, 07:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I would trust his writing.


http://www.princeton.edu/history/people/display_person.xml?netid=swilentz

[Luminous Animal]

74. Did you trust his writing in 2008 when he said this about Obama?

"purposefully polluted the primary electoral contest" with "the most outrageous deployment of racial politics since the Willie Horton ad campaign in 1988."

[Maedhros]

253. The work of any historian, regardless of how respected he or she may be, is still subject

to analysis, interpretation and refutation.

[TM99]

72. This guy is an NSA apologist to boot!

How in the fuck can the AA community support this Clinton campaign.

This is another racist fucking comment from a Clinton surrogate. And yes, he is, Clinton apologists. He has been an outspoke and vocal supporter of Clinton since her failed run in 2008.

But....but...Cornel West is a racist!

[Maedhros]

254. Don't make the mistake of assuming Hillary's supporters are arguing in good faith.

They will say absolutely anything, regardless of relevance or veracity, to attack their candidate's opponents.

[hedda_foil]

73. So, Hillary's historian denies the founding racism of this country, seemingly unaware ...

Whoever in Hillary's camp asked him to write this oped seems to have forgotten how racist his piece itself could seem to the very African American voters that Hillary world believes are in their hip pocket.

This whole thing just reeks of ignorance and hypocrisy.

[aidbo]

75. Spaghetti Flinging. Trying to see what sticks.

[Luminous Animal]

77. It's an OpEd in the NYT by a Clinton advisor who claims that Bernie poisoning the current presidential

campaign by saying that this country is founded on racist principles.

Yes. I agree. Sean Wilentz flung spaghetti and it bounced back into his face. The comments on that OP are brutal. And the majority are not defending Bernie but, rather pointedly, letting Mr. Welintz know that his history is bunk.

[jalan48]

83. Hillary seems lost. She will say and do anything to get elected. Why?

[Metric System]

85. This has very little to do with Hillary.

[jalan48]

94. True-he's just an advisor. She still seems lost though.

[virtualobserver]

150. Hillary surrogates, writing op-eds in the NYT

has a hell of a lot to do with her.

[MisterP]

84. he's a big Jackson booster, redeeming the "white Republic"

so ironically we have two types of populism at loggerheads her!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Wilentz#Scholarship
http://www.amazon.com/The-Rise-Fall-White-Republic/dp/1859844677

he also said the liberal intelligentsia had allowed turrsts like Ayers and Wright into politics and damned Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange as traitors

"the value of some of their revelations does not mean that they deserve the prestige and influence that has been accorded to them. The leakers and their supporters would never hand the state modern surveillance powers, even if they came wrapped in all sorts of rules and regulations that would constrain their abuse. They are right to worry, but wrong — even paranoid — to distrust democratic governments in this way. Surveillance and secrecy will never be attractive features of a democratic government, but they are not inimical to it, either. This the leakers will never understand."

quite an *ahem* historian

[Fantastic Anarchist]

95. What a fucking idiot.

Sounds exactly like a reactionary. Hilary should be quite concerned.

[DrBulldog]

100. I hate to say it, Sean, but . . .

. . . you're only 3/5 of a historian.

[Truprogressive85]

102. This what he wrote during the 08' campaign

[beam me up scottie]

110. WOW.

What a fucking asshole.

And people are going to defend this guy here?

[Chitown Kev]

117. I'm not defending him at all

I understood the exact argument that he was making though and I wish more people would read some of the necessary documents.

He did plunk that article down at a rather shady moment, admittedly.

[beam me up scottie]

119. This is classic Clinton politics and he knows how to play the game.

They're pulling the same dirty tricks they used on Obama and they're hoping people won't notice or care if they do.

They want to win at any cost and they don't care who or what they exploit on the way to the nomination.

So you can understand why so many of us are outraged by this kind of tactic.

[Chitown Kev]

125. Oh, I get it...middle of a primary and all of that

that part of it really interests me less than the history of the arguments here (I'm a long-time history buff)

[beam me up scottie]

127. Yeah, you joined right at the beginning and it's only going to get worse.

Most of us remember the racist campaign the Clintons ran in 2008 and we're not looking forward to a repeat.

[Chitown Kev]

154. LOL, 2008 didn't even bother me that much

(although I was quite aware of the dog-whistles) until Hillary started talking about all of these hard-working white people that were going to be her base to build a broader coalition on...

What can I say, I studied Roman politics in school (in fact, seems as if its about time to pick up my Cicero again!) At least they don't behead you and mount your head on the Forum, nowadays.

[Luminous Animal]

129. I understand his argument and that is not my main complaint. Bernie stated the COUNTRY

was created on racist principles. Sean turned country into Constitution and launched his argument from that point.

[Chitown Kev]

147. Bernie (and William Lloyd Garrison) made a cultural argument, yes

and I agree with that point of view

I have to go back and read the article, but I don't think that Wilentz ever mentioned Garrison by name which is why I thought the whole discussion was kinda shady to begin with.

[Luminous Animal]

151. Please do. I can't anymore because I timed out on my 10 free monthly access to the Times.

[malthaussen]

163. Yeah, Sean doesn't mention Garrison at all.

He does refer to Douglass, and juxtaposes him and Lincoln to Calhoun, which says to me there is a deeper, "state's rights" subtext to his argument. But it is subtle.

The whole thrust of his argument, though, seems to be that the Federal government was not founded on racist principles (because none such were enumerated in the Constitution), but that it may have been a different story in the States. Looks like he's following Fehrenbach, here. So not only is he conflating the Constitution with the founding principles of the country, he's also apparently developing the idea that whatever this or that state might have ruled, the Federal government is lily-pure as far as racism is concerned. Which would seem to indicate he also thinks corporations are people, since so far as I am aware, it is usually considered to be people who hold principles and establish institutions which reference them, and not the institutions themselves which do the thinking.

-- Mal

[Luminous Animal]

168. Thanks for that; especially your second paragraph.

I have to say, I am supremely pleased about starting this thread just for the level of intelligent input from DUers like you and the new guy and a few others. Thanks!

[malthaussen]

176. Yeah, this is when DU gets good.

Natural jurisprudence is a subject I'll gas about for as long as I have people willing to endure it.

-- Mal

[Chitown Kev]

196. Thank you (that is, if I am "the new guy")

In my AP History (nowadays they want to water this stuff down) we studied these documents. It was the first time that I read Douglass's argument and I was completely in awe of Douglass and the argument he was making.

[Luminous Animal]

211. Indeed. You are the new guy. Welcome and thanks for your every contribution.

It's great when DUers compel me to dig deeper. And you have.

[Chitown Kev]

182. The state of Virginia, for instance

had laws on the books related to race that dated back to the 17h century. All 13 states, I believe, had "slave laws" on the books.

[malthaussen]

189. Ditto for Pennsylvania

The slavery issue caused a split in the Quakers in PA. The abolitionists won.

-- Mal

[DisgustipatedinCA]

166. You can delete cookies and reset the count. nt

[Luminous Animal]

169. But I looooooove cookies!

Good advice and will do. I really want to keep reading the comments.

[Enthusiast]

194. There is a plague of assholes aligned against Bernie and us.

[beam me up scottie]

233. Yup.

Bernie will brush it off and stick to the issues, though.

[Luminous Animal]

116. I like how he tossed in "by any means necessary"

[BillZBubb]

105. How does a moron like this even get close to a Democratic candidate?

Hopefully, Hillary will repudiate this jerk.

[beam me up scottie]

112. He shilled for her in 2008 and accused Obama of deploying "racial politics":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=599509

[Geronimoe]

113. Not founded on racism because....

people of color such as Native Americans, Africans, and Mexicans didn't count and apparently for many, still don't.

[demwing]

115. He doesn't refute anything

he disputes, which is entirely different

[TheKentuckian]

122. Conservatives are lying idiots regardless of party.

[DaveT]

131. Yesterday it was Sanders is like some guy in England

and now today it is that Sanders thinks that there was some racism going on when we owned slaves and slaughtered the native population.

Good luck with that, and we'll see you on election day.

[Fearless]

133. "This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free." -George Carlin

[PowerToThePeople]

134. Hillary's historian...

Where did they get him from, Fox news?

[jfern]

141. Are people going to claim that "3/5ths of a person" has nothing to do with racism?

And I thought it was supposed to be Bernie supporters and not Hillary supporters who had no clue about racism.

[malthaussen]

145. Yep. Read the thread.

It's an argument not wholly without merit, but does ignore the implication that the chattels are not regarded as people at all.

-- Mal

[mhatrw]

144. So Sanders is only 3/5ths correct about this? n/t

[ancianita]

149. No system of evil has "principles." Sanders just needs to lose that word. That's 17th Century l

language used to rationalize the evil of wanting to treat another human being as less human or equal to oneself.

That wording alone gives the game away. Sanders needs to drop its trappings.

[Luminous Animal]

160. It means, in this context, the underlying foundation for a belief or behavior system.

It does not mean that it is right or true.

[ancianita]

170. Then we disagree on depravity, which is the basis of slavery, not "principles". "Foundation" is

not fairly synonymous with "principles."

Principles are the solid, constructive foundation of civilization -- law, safety, etc. Principles are moral.

Slavery is founded on fear and the depraved urge to dominate another by screening them out as an equal. These are not moral anything. They are anti-civilization.

When dominating, controlling that being -- animal or environment -- is covered up with civilized language, the normalizing of evil hides within our language and civilization.

Decided to be named "principles," they are normalized through "laws."

King chipped away at the 20th Century top of the millennial iceberg, down toward the 18th Century founders' debate; he helped everyone with the language that floated that iceberg, too, saying there are just and unjust laws. Language buries evil or uncovers it.

We CANNOT, MUST NOT ever see "principles" in light of studying injustice or evil. There are no principles at all in controlling other humans. There are only self serving lies.

I'll say it again: Bernie Sanders MUST lose this word. There are other words. But not this one.

[Luminous Animal]

175. No. We disagree that a word can have more than one meaning. The members of the KKK

are not principled but their doctrine is based on the principles of bigotry and racism.

[ancianita]

184. Like I said, there are no principles as the foundation of any evil system of bigotry/racism.

Anyone who agrees that principles undergird evil systems falls for the mental slight of hand of 18th Century rationalizations of human control and oppression.

I will never, never accept "principles" in any discussion of inequality of race or sex -- whether the founders' use the word or Sanders -- except the principles by which those evil systems are ended.

Sanders should say this country was "created on racism," period. That covers assaults -- personal and governmental -- on this land base's indigenous people and slavery.

[Luminous Animal]

210. Actually, Sanders and my definition is the first definition in every dictionary.

That its, it is the ultimate definition. The word itself is objective. It makes no claim to morality or righteousness.

You or I or Bernie Sanders would never claim that the KKK is principled. And all of us would agree that their foundation for their beliefs (i.e., principles) are abhorrent.

[ancianita]

213. Definitions are living documents subject to change by thinking through words' ramifications.

You are morally compelled to see that "principles" can only support moral beliefs. "Principles" cannot be used to normalize immoral drives simply because one wants the benefits or legitimizing of those drives.

Racism cannot stand on any set of "principles" that we are bound to uphold. Ever. Racism has a foundation of immorality -- depravity and fear -- that "principles" should never be used to normalize or legitimize.

Sanders is trying to be careful with his language and I'm just trying to help him and his supporters out here.

[Luminous Animal]

216. Oh I understand. I just think removing context and contracting meaning makes us less

intelligent.

[ancianita]

218. To say that "foundation" and "principles" are synonymous muddles context and makes us unintelligent.

[Luminous Animal]

230. I've not said that at all. The definition of principles has a foundation. That foundation is

objective. Principles has no moral underpinning. You, personally may object to that definition and may assert that principle should have a different definition but, you own personal preference does not make it so.

Like it or not, the KKK operates under a specific set of principles.

Like it or not, Planned Parenthood operates under a specific set of principles.

Like it or not, this nation was founded under racist principles.

[ancianita]

232. The foundation of racism is fear, depravity and greed. Those are not principles. Principles are

the articulation of positive humane and scientific ideas and practices.

Any ideas and practices that are inhumane do not stand on principle. They stand on foundations. Foundations may be good or evil.

Like it or not, the KKK's foundation is racism, whose foundation is the inhumane view of non-whites.
You legitimze their foundation by saying the KKK operates on principles.

Planned Parenthood operates under a specific set of principles, yes, because of the humane morality of reproductive health and moral prior life rights to proceed with or end pregnancy.

This nation was founded under racism, understood at the time to be legitimized by Enlightenment studies of the time. That slavery was known to be an evil by the founders is important. That they thought racism was some legitimate "ism" but their confusion about its evilness rested in all the confusions fomented by "principles" made up be slave trafficers. It's even more important to recognize that their understanding was later disproven by scientific studies of the realities of humanness as a construct used by profiteers across continents.

I daresay they'd never use "principles" in connection with racism today.

To say that "principles" may be attached to racism wrongly places racism in the same legitimized spheres as philosophy or science or even sociology. You uphold the denoted, implied neutrality of a word for inhumane and immoral purposes.

I just won't do that. That's my "principle" principle.

[Luminous Animal]

235. Like it our not, principles are the ideological foundation of both the odious and the sublime.

The woman who refused to provide a marriage license to a gay couple stood on her "principles".

Go ahead and google Storm Front principles

The first thing that pops up is "14 White Nationalist Principles"

[malthaussen]

199. Actually, your disagreement is whether a meaning is appropriate.

This is actually a can of worms with a fairly long history in philosophy; I expect it also is alluded to upthread.

Suffice it that, in a certain mode of thinking, "principles" can only have a positive connotation, as the person you are addressing explains.

-- Mal

[ancianita]

205. Thank you. If a word could have two different meanings, there wouldn't be need for different words,

would there. When that happens, it's called bullshit.

[Luminous Animal]

207. I understand that but I loathe disregarding context and the contraction of vocabulary.

My definition of the word is the leading definition in nearly all dictionaries. Perhaps in 10 years, it will be 3rd or 4th and perhaps in 30 years it will disappear altogether. In my point of view, an expansive mind understands context and will understand the meaning and spend meaningful time arguing against those principles.

[malthaussen]

212. Well, as a thought exercise, you might want to noodle the idea...

... that language can dictate context, and determine it within narrow bounds. I'll agree with you about the contraction of vocabulary (and even expand the thought to the proscribing of certain words and the enforcement of using others), but I also dig that, from a certain perspective, language can be used as shackles, and it is wholly understandable that one who has felt those shackles might reject the language.

-- Mal

[ancianita]

214. Yes, it certainly does dictate context, particularly when one tries to rationalize the real world

context of benefits through using that language.

[Luminous Animal]

221. I also look to motives of those who strive to restrict language within narrow bounds.

Why? Certainly, every single audience that Bernie has spoken to and has used that word understands it. He gets wild applause. C'mon

The principles of Apartheid. The principle of Catholicism. The principles of Nazism. The Principles of The Nation of Islam.

The only people who are shackled to the notion of principles are those who adhere to their principles.

[malthaussen]

222. But you're not the Shadow

You may not be competent to determine motivations.

-- Mal

[malthaussen]

226. I'll point this out...

... and trust that I won't be accused of Bernie bashing, or regurgitating tired memes. I'm trusting that we have established sufficient rapport to say this:

I was looking at the pix from Bernie in North Carolina, and there was not a black face in the scene. It is a persistent worry (and false "concern&quot that he is not reaching the black population efficiently. The specific point being made here about his language is that using the accepted language of the oppressor might disenchant the black electorate. It's a point that has merit, although I have to say I am not personally competent to judge how much. "Every single audience" may understand and applaud, but that does not mean every possible audience will.

And even if that were not a reasonable concern, there is still the possibility that unscrupulous opponents might use the word choice against him.

-- Mal

[Luminous Animal]

228. This is where we are done. Enjoyed the conversation. Reject where's black Waldo.

[malthaussen]

239. Sorry my trust was misplaced.

Ciao, baby.

-- Mal

[Chitown Kev]

200. Disagree

Slavery is founded on fear and the depraved urge to dominate another by screening them out as an equal. These are not moral anything. They are anti-civilization.

I might agree with that if we were talking simply about the systems of slavery in "The New World."

Greek and Roman slavery is a bit trickier.

[ancianita]

202. That's beyond the scope of this thread. You could agree if you didn't distract yourself with that.

We ARE talking about systems of racism that the New World and this country's founders rationalized within a constitutional framework, believing it to be a living document that would reflect growing morality in business and government that would change its language and manifestations in law.

But prejudice, greed and racism outran laws, thanks to efforts of John Calhoun and the culture of victimization that Southern slaveholders practiced in Washington.

We do have to see reality with reality-based language, and "principles of slavery" doesn't serve our view today.

"Old school," like any good school, is reality based.

[malthaussen]

209. "Old school" though, in the context I was using it...

... refers to the ideas of the Schoolmen, who are not usually considered reality-based at all.

You put well, IMO, what we are discussing in the thread, but I see the rejection of the word "principle" as the distraction. And an unfortunate one, because we believe the same about the Constitution and how it enforced racism.

-- Mal

[ancianita]

217. Fair enough. But I'm on record as not putting anything past the language of status quo supporters.

That's why I'm trying to help a candidate who's trying to use language carefully, because he wants a broad based national discussion as the context of voter decision making. I want those voters who've been discouraged to trust his language, thus his thinking. The very idea that racism has principles galls anyone, nevermind people of color. I had to put that out there.

I truly hope this "principles" issue goes nowhere. But if it does, I've said my peace.

[Chitown Kev]

215. I wouldn't have said that

If I hadn't studied ancient systems of slavery like the Greek and Roman systems.

I do think there is something about New World slavery (esp. in America, the West Indies, and Brazil) that is "new" and comparatively insidious when compared to the older systems of antiquity; the question of race being one of those "new things"

[ancianita]

219. Fine. I got the history part. But I'm trying to deal with a candidate's use of language today.

[Maedhros]

255. You're confused.

"Principles" is a neutral term. By our analysis of any given set of principles, we can determine if they are "moral" or "immoral."

For example, the Nazi Party certainly followed an underlying set of principles which, upon examination, have been determined to be heinous.

[malthaussen]

195. Wow, and I decided not to use the old Schools argument...

... so is it safe to deduce you believe that it is not possible to will evil?

-- Mal

[ancianita]

197. It is possible to support evil when one rationalizes the benefits of it by using exonerating words

like "principles" and other lipstick-on-a-pig dressings like law, tradition, social custom.

This isn't a semantics debate. I'm challenging the language that covers the evil of racism, and expecting my candidate to understand that "principles" in the 18th Century sense must now be, in his "revolution of politics," overturned to reflect the new moral center we want for our country.

That will undergird revolutionary dismantling of racist structures that systematically hurt citizens of color.

Southerners have believed that their battle flag was legitimized by "principles" as well. We need to expand our dismantling of such rationalizing language. The Sanders campaign can do that for PoC and their allies.

[malthaussen]

204. Neither is the question of willing evil a semantical question.

But set that aside, as it is not central.

I disagree that use of the word "principle" in this context is not a semantical question, as you pose it, nor do I have any faith that changing the language will change the discourse. I've been hearing it all my life, and I see no evidence that calling women "Ms," for example, has lessened the burden of authoritarian paternalism and misogyny one whit.

However, having been served notice that you disapprove the use of "principles" in this context, I will eschew it with you, since I am anyway hardly wedded to the term.

-- Mal

[ancianita]

208. Changing language changes thinking. Language use is psycholinguistic training. It's crucial to seein

g the difference between what's inside ourselves and what's out there as moral for the greatest good of others.

Hedges points out in The Wages of Rebellion is that every single successful revolution started out by dismantling the oppressor's language. Language is the tool of falsity or reality.

Seriously. I'm not wedded to a term unless it has broader political implications for people of color in this country. I daresay they'd laugh at the Sanders use of it when describing slavery, as well.

To keep people of color as stakeholders of this country, we HAVE to have a clearer language to reflect how they see it. I want a political revolution to start with language that dismantles structures of legal oppressions, even if we won't change old school prejudiced cultures.

I'm trying to look out for the guy here and not give same-party opposition any ammunition that might later excuse the "both parties are racist" crap that alienates 30% of our voters as we move into the general.

[malthaussen]

220. Language of rebellion may also be the tool of falsity

But in the case of "principles," I wouldn't try to persuade you of it. Problem is, though, that it's still an interpretive thing. Remember all the folks who said they supported the Shrub because he "had principles?" They started from the same point: that "principle" means only good ideas. But in their case, the "principle" is one that reinforces the authoritarian suppression of those not a member of their perceived group. Very well, you could reply, this proves my point. But all you are really arguing is that your definition is right, and theirs wrong. I would say to them (indeed, I did say to them), "No, you're mistaken, you don't support him because he has principles, you support him because you agree with his principles." (Not that that advanced the discussion any, really, since they didn't understand the point)

I had a friend of many years who believed that, in communication it was always advisable to "swap dictionaries," so that everyone involved knew they were on the same page. A wise idea, I think, but the problem still remains that even definitions are based on words, and sometimes the meanings are so far apart that it is hard to find a common ground. On that basis, simplification of language is an excellent idea. But I think it is also a good idea to take into view that definitions can differ so widely, the desire to streamline the language may actually complicate it, because if we decide, for example, that "principle" means only what you want it to mean, we have to come up with language to describe all the other meanings which are now obsolete.

Well, I ramble. This is another of those topics I am usually happy to discuss at inexorable length, though I doubt I advance the discourse by much.

Insofar, however, as your concern about the candidate being misunderstood by an infelicitous word choice, I'm not really competent to hold an opinion, but FWIW, I do get that point. Much would ultimately depend on how much of the benefit of the doubt his auditors are willing to give him.

-- Mal

[ancianita]

225. Oh yes. No doubt. All kinds of astroturf uses of language...meet the new boss, same as the old boss

I like your ramble! We could get into it, but I'm glad the connection of words with reality appeals to you.

[malthaussen]

227. I'd enjoy it as well.

However, I go to bed about now. Sad to say, my health is not as I'd wish it to be, so I have to indulge myself shamelessly.

I've enjoyed our discussion, and think you make good points. I've been loving this thread. Back in my grad school days (30 years ago, now), there was a spate of new books on symbolism and revolution, many written by feminist historians who were just starting to get a constituency in the field. I ended up approaching the study of history from the standpoint of literary criticism, which was at the time a pretty modern approach. I've always been absorbed by the questions of perception and reality, and how one dictates the other. Does art imitate life, or life art? I think I'm really just a sophomore at heart.

-- Mal

[ancianita]

231. I like the thread, too. Thanks for all your posts! Have a restful night.

[blackspade]

152. Wilentz is a revisionist historian.

And a noxious one at that.

[malthaussen]

179. You would rather he was a conformist historian?

I don't agree with him an iota (well, maybe an iota, with caveats), but I'd rather a revisionist than otherwise. All good historians are revisionists.

"Noxious" I can get behind. I think the whole article is just loaded with interesting sentiments, more representative of RW ravings than LW principles.

-- Mal

[blackspade]

241. Revisionist in the sense that he wants to rewrite history to fit a racist world view.

Whitewashing if you will.

[nichomachus]

153. What is it with the Clintons and self-sabotage?

It's like they want to lose -- or they're just arrogant and challenging fate.

[orpupilofnature57]

178. Did he ever work for Monsanto ?

[Major Hogwash]

180. Wow, what a douchebag.

Bet he has never had a DNA test either!

[FloridaBlues]

188. I had a feeling this statement would come back to bite him

[malthaussen]

191. To whom are you referring?

Mr Sanders, or Mr Wilentz?

-- Mal

[azmom]

201. Seems to me Hillary is taking the black

Vote for granted.

[me b zola]

246. It was written into the Constitution

It doesn't get any simpler than that. How any one can deny that this nation was built by the subjugation of people of color and certain ethnic groups is beyond me. The land itself was stolen from the native peoples by forced displacement, war, and straight out genocide. But this nation wasn't founded on racism? :shakingmyheadatalossforwords: