Wed Sep 16, 2015, 03:31 PM

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

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.

258 replies, 12886 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

258 replies	Author	Time	Post
Hillary's historian refutes Sanders claim that this country is "created on racist principles". (Original post)	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	OP
You deal with the truth....	daleanime	Sep 2015	#1
Bernie doesn't speak with forked tongue.	GeorgeGist	Sep 2015	#2
Such a good response!!!!!	AlbertCat	Sep 2015	#79
Clinton Campaign Has Many Forked Tounges	billhicks76	Sep 2015	#118
Her campaign is going to go down in history...	SoapBox	Sep 2015	#135
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#143
That campaign will probably get mixed up and use the WD-40 ON the chickens.	Ken Burch	Sep 2015	#198
They Know About Our In-House Ostriches	billhicks76	Sep 2015	#257
They're putting WD-40 on the stuff that moves when it should and duct	Fawke Em	Sep 2015	#203
Boy he sure is getting his ass handed to him!	beam me up scottie	Sep 2015	#3
According to his CV he is.	historylovr	Sep 2015	#54
I guess some people are willing to destroy their reputation for a politician.	beam me up scottie	Sep 2015	#57
Glancing through them now.	historylovr	Sep 2015	#67
I can't find the comments.	Fantastic Anarchist	Sep 2015	#99
No. They will appear on the right near the bottom of the article. You'll see a box	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#101
Ah, thank you!	Fantastic Anarchist	Sep 2015	#136
No, I'm not.	beam me up scottie	Sep 2015	#103
Thank you!	Fantastic Anarchist	Sep 2015	#137
My pleasure!	beam me up scottie	Sep 2015	#138
What reputation?	Ken Burch	Sep 2015	#258
fit into the arc of progressive history over the last half-century or more,	AlbertCat	Sep 2015	#80
That made me laugh.	historylovr	Sep 2015	#104
Good! It was supposed to.	AlbertCat	Sep 2015	#120
Can it be that Hillary truly believes she is progressive...	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#128
Even the founding fathers knew that slavery was a time bomb buried in the constitution.	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2015	#4
+100%!	Enthusiast	Sep 2015	#161
This nation was built on the backs of slaves.	bunnies	Sep 2015	#5
He's one of her closest advisors.	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#8
Great.	bunnies	Sep 2015	#11
Nuh uh!!!	jeff47	Sep 2015	#18
...	bunnies	Sep 2015	#21
Who were effectively slaves.	blackspade	Sep 2015	#155
Hence the sarcasm tag. (nt)	jeff47	Sep 2015	#193
gotcha	blackspade	Sep 2015	#242
Naw, there is a huge difference.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#206
Indentured servitude was a palatable term for whites in bondage	blackspade	Sep 2015	#243
Check out Bernard Bailyn's	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#244
Cool, I'll check it out.	blackspade	Sep 2015	#245
And on the graves of natives. This Clinton minion is an idiot. n/t	arcane1	Sep 2015	#35
+1000. nt	bunnies	Sep 2015	#39
On the backs of slaves and the bones of Indians.	Enthusiast	Sep 2015	#162
The foundation of cruelty and hatred.	bunnies	Sep 2015	#237
I believe it was the late Marc Bloch who observed...	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#192
Yes. On the backs of the people who have suffered the most.	bunnies	Sep 2015	#236
Riiiight...not based on racism.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Sep 2015	#6
A gruesome response to anyone that doesn't think that this country isn't built on	erronis	Sep 2015	#109
Uh let's not forget Native American genocide either.	ibegurpard	Sep 2015	#7
True that.	HooptieWagon	Sep 2015	#17
well, technically it was a lot of LITTLER genocides, and often they just starved to death by	MisterP	Sep 2015	#81
often they just starved to death	AlbertCat	Sep 2015	#96
Killing off the buffalo was a stated means used to eradicate the natives.	Enthusiast	Sep 2015	#165
And things haven't changed much when we invade other nations to steal	sabrina 1	Sep 2015	#234
Thank you, sabrina. Once again, you nailed it.	Enthusiast	Sep 2015	#238
It's racist all the way down.	Cheese Sandwich	Sep 2015	#9
Just like turtles.	Enthusiast	Sep 2015	#167
Gee, I could have sworn I remember reading something...	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#10
If he talked about Native Americans not paying taxes	jwirr	Sep 2015	#19
Context, jwirr, context.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#23
Ah, I just learned something new. As you know that is	jwirr	Sep 2015	#229
The Constitution does not say "black folks"	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#22
Article 1, Section 2 , Paragraph 3:	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#25
Yes, I knew that it didn't say black folks	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#29
Nothing wrong with your memory. But your understanding is completely wrong.	ieoeja	Sep 2015	#33
Yeah, I'm familiar with that point.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#56
No, it does not even come close to saying they only count as 3/5th of a real human.	ieoeja	Sep 2015	#106
Eh, I don't think you're off-topic.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#126
Slaves shouldn't have counted at all.	AlbertCat	Sep 2015	#87
Exactly	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#93
Like the Spanish Inquisition...	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#130
Do I see some role reversal going on here?	Armstead	Sep 2015	#12
He had to ignore Native Americans because manifest	jwirr	Sep 2015	#13
Wow. Talk about being wrong!	in_cog_ni_to	Sep 2015	#14
Let The Mudslinging Begin	cantbeserious	Sep 2015	#15
Must not have heard of the 3/5 compromise.	HooptieWagon	Sep 2015	#16
Utter horseshit.	hifiguy	Sep 2015	#20
Read Wilentz's discussion, though	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#26
can't both be true ?	JI7	Sep 2015	#36
It may be a measure of how smart some of our Founders were...	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#38
Truth train left Clinton Station long ago.	HooptieWagon	Sep 2015	#42
Around the time of the NAFTA debate,	hifiguy	Sep 2015	#49
Frederick Douglass provides an alternate interpretation of the 3/5 language:	jonno99	Sep 2015	#76
My main beef with the article is the Mr. Welintz conflates country with Constitution.	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#82
"our country was founded on racist principles." - but what does really mean? That some of the	jonno99	Sep 2015	#90
Explain	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#107
It is generally agreed that slavery would have eventually ended.	jonno99	Sep 2015	#124
Well, we do know that the British, in spite of abolishing slavery in 1833	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#140
What? The United States was one of last countries to outlaw slavery.	mhatrw	Sep 2015	#148
One of the last? Your link appears to have the US somewhere in the middle. Not to mention	jonno99	Sep 2015	#173
To me that's the question of this thread. Racism's precedes capture and ownership. "Principles"	ancianita	Sep 2015	#224
"...attempting to judge the past by the present, ...is always a preposterous thing to do"	AlbertCat	Sep 2015	#92
Perhaps. His statement is somewhat lacking in specifics:	jonno99	Sep 2015	#114
which racist principles he is referring to...	AlbertCat	Sep 2015	#123
Ok - but as codified by what specifially? This whole discussion is a little nebulas.	jonno99	Sep 2015	#132
Are you (or Bernie) referring to the "three fifths of all other Persons" language in article 1?	AlbertCat	Sep 2015	#139
We agree on this: many whites thought they were superior to everyone else.	jonno99	Sep 2015	#164
"principles" may be an unfelicitous word choice.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#172
No. I think he means what he says… Principles has several meanings...	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#181
Might just be semantics.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#185
I agree, and yet our jurisprudence is based on the words of the document - not the	jonno99	Sep 2015	#183
Well, to an extent.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#190
Consider that the question is between de jure and de facto...	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#142
Agreed. I think the argument could be made that while the founders	jonno99	Sep 2015	#159
I felt the article was reminicient of Fox pundrity myself.	Enthusiast	Sep 2015	#174
I guess slavery never happened?	JRLeft	Sep 2015	#24
Both Washington and Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves and freed none during their lifetimes.	Nye Bevan	Sep 2015	#27
The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson is not a pretty read.	Skwmom	Sep 2015	#41
Thank you for that link.	bunnies	Sep 2015	#46
Can Hillary's lawyer explain why a slave could both not vote and only counted 3/5 th?	karynnj	Sep 2015	#28
Well, he IS using Douglass's argument	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#34
So, Hillary's lawyer is on the wrong side of an argument made a century and a half ago?	karynnj	Sep 2015	#50
Go read both Garrison's and Douglass' arguments	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#59
Yep, it is an interesting question.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#71
Yes, Garrison's argument (and Bernie's argument here, too)	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#88
Garrison favored emigration too, at first.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#111
Yes, some speculate that Garrison was jealous of Douglass	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#121
Can Hillary's lawyer explain why	AlbertCat	Sep 2015	#98
right out of the gop playbook	restorefreedom	Sep 2015	#30
the guy is a fucking jackass. he was one of those going after Obama on rev wright	JI7	Sep 2015	#31
There ya go. I did not know that.	Enthusiast	Sep 2015	#177
Stick a fork in her	get the red out	Sep 2015	#32
Slavery was NOT abolished until 1865 with the 13th Amendment. Are we going to ignore history. n/t	Skwmom	Sep 2015	#37
The only reason this matters to some is the supposed connection to Hillary...duh	randys1	Sep 2015	#40
Did I blame Hillary? Oh no I did not. I do hope someone asks her about it, though.	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#44
OMG, at least be sincere HILLARY'S HISTORIAN what in the WORLD does that mean?	randys1	Sep 2015	#52
Because he advises her on historical issues and is sometimes referred as Hillary's Historian.	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#60
so Hillary's historian says, US not founded on racist principles, but Obama's campaign was?	virtualobserver	Sep 2015	#69
HuffPo:	beam me up scottie	Sep 2015	#61
Their whole record belies any claim to any "fit into the arc of progression." Their record fits,	ancianita	Sep 2015	#146
yeah just look at the comments .	JI7	Sep 2015	#53
I doubt they really care beyond hoping it hurts her politically.	AlbertCat	Sep 2015	#108
All the Cornell West posts?	Armstead	Sep 2015	#58
BINGO.	beam me up scottie	Sep 2015	#63
People here are focused on criticizing DEMOCRATS, most of that is against Hillary.	randys1	Sep 2015	#65
Hillary's surrogates are attacking Bernie in the NYT....	virtualobserver	Sep 2015	#91
You were defending Brock's use of guilt by association earlier.	frylock	Sep 2015	#89
and there is a whole hell of a lot more "association" with this story	virtualobserver	Sep 2015	#158
You are, I kid you not, the best and most HONEST "Bernie supporter" on DU.	delrem	Sep 2015	#186
Aww geee shucks, thanks.	randys1	Sep 2015	#187
How come I never see you do this? BASH bash BASH Bernie	Autumn	Sep 2015	#223
I correct people all the time, problem is there is a 20-1 ratio of attacks on hillary.	randys1	Sep 2015	#247
Like I said you don't defend Bernie in those threads. What if they keep it up	Autumn	Sep 2015	#248
I make positive comments about him all the time. You cant win this with me	randys1	Sep 2015	#249
Positive comment are one thing. My point is that I have never	Autumn	Sep 2015	#250
None of them have threatened NOT to vote if their candidate isnt the one.	randys1	Sep 2015	#251
I call bull shit, the OP does not threaten to NOT to vote if their candidate isn't the one	Autumn	Sep 2015	#252
racist principles ?	left-of-center2012	Sep 2015	#43
And they still had to wait 56 more years after the 14th amendment for citizenship	jfern	Sep 2015	#156
hopefully Clinton supporters will not defend this	JI7	Sep 2015	#45
I can't imagine the 80 or 90 whatever % of African Americans who support her	m-lekktor	Sep 2015	#51
Another unforced error..	99Forever	Sep 2015	#47
I can't find a full version of Garrison's argument	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#48
Is this what you are looking for? (Had it bookmarked)	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#55
That's one of them	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#62
Do you agree that the USA was not founded on racist principles? n/t	mhatrw	Sep 2015	#157
Of course I don't agree with that	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#171
"Wilentz's argument was not complete, though." < AKA Lying by omission. n/t	jtuck004	Sep 2015	#240
Strictly speaking, the only way that Wilentz CAN make this argument	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#256
dear Sean	olddots	Sep 2015	#64
This is almost genocide denial	Cheese Sandwich	Sep 2015	#66
+1.	historylovr	Sep 2015	#78
I was incredulous, so I had to google.	azmom	Sep 2015	#68
"Jacksonian Democrat?"	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#86
Maybe he's the type to do anything	azmom	Sep 2015	#97
Sean Wilentz is a highly respected historian...	riversedge	Sep 2015	#70
Did you trust his writing in 2008 when he said this about Obama?	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#74
The work of any historian, regardless of how respected he or she may be, is still subject	Maedhros	Sep 2015	#253
This guy is an NSA apologist to boot!	TM99	Sep 2015	#72
Don't make the mistake of assuming Hillary's supporters are arguing in good faith.	Maedhros	Sep 2015	#254
So, Hillary's historian denies the founding racism of this country, seemingly unaware ...	hedda_foil	Sep 2015	#73
Spaghetti Flinging. Trying to see what sticks.	aidbo	Sep 2015	#75
It's an OpEd in the NYT by a Clinton advisor who claims that Bernie poisoning the current presidential	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#77
Hillary seems lost. She will say and do anything to get elected. Why?	jalan48	Sep 2015	#83
This has very little to do with Hillary.	Metric System	Sep 2015	#85
True-he's just an advisor. She still seems lost though.	jalan48	Sep 2015	#94
Hillary surrogates, writing op-eds in the NYT	virtualobserver	Sep 2015	#150
he's a big Jackson booster, redeeming the "white Republic"	MisterP	Sep 2015	#84
What a fucking idiot.	Fantastic Anarchist	Sep 2015	#95
I hate to say it, Sean, but . . .	DrBulldog	Sep 2015	#100
This what he wrote during the 08' campaign	Truprogressive85	Sep 2015	#102
WOW.	beam me up scottie	Sep 2015	#110
I'm not defending him at all	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#117
This is classic Clinton politics and he knows how to play the game.	beam me up scottie	Sep 2015	#119
Oh, I get it...middle of a primary and all of that	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#125
Yeah, you joined right at the beginning and it's only going to get worse.	beam me up scottie	Sep 2015	#127
LOL, 2008 didn't even bother me that much	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#154
I understand his argument and that is not my main complaint. Bernie stated the COUNTRY	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#129
Bernie (and William Lloyd Garrison) made a cultural argument, yes	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#147
Please do. I can't anymore because I timed out on my 10 free monthly access to the Times.	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#151
Yeah, Sean doesn't mention Garrison at all.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#163
Thanks for that; especially your second paragraph.	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#168
Yeah, this is when DU gets good.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#176
Thank you (that is, if I am "the new guy")	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#196
Indeed. You are the new guy. Welcome and thanks for your every contribution.	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#211
The state of Virginia, for instance	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#182
Ditto for Pennsylvania	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#189
You can delete cookies and reset the count. nt	DisgustipatedinCA	Sep 2015	#166
But I looooooove cookies!	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#169
There is a plague of assholes aligned against Bernie and us.	Enthusiast	Sep 2015	#194
Yup.	beam me up scottie	Sep 2015	#233
I like how he tossed in "by any means necessary"	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#116
How does a moron like this even get close to a Democratic candidate?	BillZBubb	Sep 2015	#105
He shilled for her in 2008 and accused Obama of deploying "racial politics":	beam me up scottie	Sep 2015	#112
Not founded on racism because....	Geronimoe	Sep 2015	#113
He doesn't refute anything	demwing	Sep 2015	#115
Conservatives are lying idiots regardless of party.	TheKentuckian	Sep 2015	#122
Yesterday it was Sanders is like some guy in England	DaveT	Sep 2015	#131
"This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free." -George Carlin	Fearless	Sep 2015	#133
Hillary's historian...	PowerToThePeople	Sep 2015	#134
Are people going to claim that "3/5ths of a person" has nothing to do with racism?	jfern	Sep 2015	#141
Yep. Read the thread.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#145
So Sanders is only 3/5ths correct about this? n/t	mhatrw	Sep 2015	#144
No system of evil has "principles." Sanders just needs to lose that word. That's 17th Century l	ancianita	Sep 2015	#149
It means, in this context, the underlying foundation for a belief or behavior system.	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#160
Then we disagree on depravity, which is the basis of slavery, not "principles". "Foundation" is	ancianita	Sep 2015	#170
No. We disagree that a word can have more than one meaning. The members of the KKK	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#175
Like I said, there are no principles as the foundation of any evil system of bigotry/racism.	ancianita	Sep 2015	#184
Actually, Sanders and my definition is the first definition in every dictionary.	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#210
Definitions are living documents subject to change by thinking through words' ramifications.	ancianita	Sep 2015	#213
Oh I understand. I just think removing context and contracting meaning makes us less	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#216
To say that "foundation" and "principles" are synonymous muddles context and makes us unintelligent.	ancianita	Sep 2015	#218
I've not said that at all. The definition of principles has a foundation. That foundation is	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#230
The foundation of racism is fear, depravity and greed. Those are not principles. Principles are	ancianita	Sep 2015	#232
Like it our not, principles are the ideological foundation of both the odious and the sublime.	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#235
Actually, your disagreement is whether a meaning is appropriate.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#199
Thank you. If a word could have two different meanings, there wouldn't be need for different words,	ancianita	Sep 2015	#205
I understand that but I loathe disregarding context and the contraction of vocabulary.	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#207
Well, as a thought exercise, you might want to noodle the idea...	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#212
Yes, it certainly does dictate context, particularly when one tries to rationalize the real world	ancianita	Sep 2015	#214
I also look to motives of those who strive to restrict language within narrow bounds.	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#221
But you're not the Shadow	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#222
I'll point this out...	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#226
This is where we are done. Enjoyed the conversation. Reject where's black Waldo.	Luminous Animal	Sep 2015	#228
Sorry my trust was misplaced.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#239
Disagree	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#200
That's beyond the scope of this thread. You could agree if you didn't distract yourself with that.	ancianita	Sep 2015	#202
"Old school" though, in the context I was using it...	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#209
Fair enough. But I'm on record as not putting anything past the language of status quo supporters.	ancianita	Sep 2015	#217
I wouldn't have said that	Chitown Kev	Sep 2015	#215
Fine. I got the history part. But I'm trying to deal with a candidate's use of language today.	ancianita	Sep 2015	#219
You're confused.	Maedhros	Sep 2015	#255
Wow, and I decided not to use the old Schools argument...	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#195
It is possible to support evil when one rationalizes the benefits of it by using exonerating words	ancianita	Sep 2015	#197
Neither is the question of willing evil a semantical question.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#204
Changing language changes thinking. Language use is psycholinguistic training. It's crucial to seein	ancianita	Sep 2015	#208
Language of rebellion may also be the tool of falsity	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#220
Oh yes. No doubt. All kinds of astroturf uses of language...meet the new boss, same as the old boss	ancianita	Sep 2015	#225
I'd enjoy it as well.	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#227
I like the thread, too. Thanks for all your posts! Have a restful night.	ancianita	Sep 2015	#231
Wilentz is a revisionist historian.	blackspade	Sep 2015	#152
You would rather he was a conformist historian?	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#179
Revisionist in the sense that he wants to rewrite history to fit a racist world view.	blackspade	Sep 2015	#241
What is it with the Clintons and self-sabotage?	nichomachus	Sep 2015	#153
Did he ever work for Monsanto ?	orpupilofnature57	Sep 2015	#178
Wow, what a douchebag.	Major Hogwash	Sep 2015	#180
I had a feeling this statement would come back to bite him	FloridaBlues	Sep 2015	#188
To whom are you referring?	malthaussen	Sep 2015	#191
Seems to me Hillary is taking the black	azmom	Sep 2015	#201
It was written into the Constitution	me b zola	Sep 2015	#246

Response to Luminous Animal (Original post)

Wed Sep 16, 2015, 03:34 PM

daleanime (17,796 posts)

1. You deal with the truth....

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

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

1. You deal with the truth....

2. Bernie doesn't speak with forked tongue.

79. Such a good response!!!!!

118. Clinton Campaign Has Many Forked Tounges

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

143. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

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

257. They Know About Our In-House Ostriches

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

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

54. According to his CV he is.

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

67. Glancing through them now.

99. I can't find the comments.

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

136. Ah, thank you!

103. No, I'm not.

137. Thank you!

138. My pleasure!

258. What reputation?

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

104. That made me laugh.

120. Good! It was supposed to.

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

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

161. +100%!

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

8. He's one of her closest advisors.

11. Great.

18. Nuh uh!!!

21. ...

155. Who were effectively slaves.

193. Hence the sarcasm tag. (nt)

242. gotcha

206. Naw, there is a huge difference.

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

244. Check out Bernard Bailyn's

245. Cool, I'll check it out.

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

39. +1000. nt

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

237. The foundation of cruelty and hatred.

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

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

6. Riiiight...not based on racism.

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

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

17. True that.

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

96. often they just starved to death

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

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

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

9. It's racist all the way down.

167. Just like turtles.

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

19. If he talked about Native Americans not paying taxes

23. Context, jwirr, context.

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

22. The Constitution does not say "black folks"

25. Article 1, Section 2 , Paragraph 3:

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

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

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

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

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

87. Slaves shouldn't have counted at all.

93. Exactly

130. Like the Spanish Inquisition...

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

13. He had to ignore Native Americans because manifest

14. Wow. Talk about being wrong!

15. Let The Mudslinging Begin

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

20. Utter horseshit.

26. Read Wilentz's discussion, though

36. can't both be true ?

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

42. Truth train left Clinton Station long ago.