Pat Buchanan mixes in a little ignorance to his outright bigotry [emphasis mine]:
When asked why the overwhelming majority of justices have been white, Buchanan declined to explicitly cite discrimination, but explained that “White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks, who were 90% of the nation in 1960 when I was growing up and the other 10% were African-Americans who had been discriminated against. That’s why.”
I think Buchanan needs to brush up on his Civil War knowledge:
In May and June of 1863, 1600 Black troops fighting and dying under the official label of United States Colored Troops (USCT) at Milliken’s Bend, across the Mississippi River northwest of Vicksburg, made General Ulysses Grant’s Siege of Vicksburg a success and brought that “Gibraltar of the Confederacy” crashing to the ground on July 4, 1863.
“Discover” Susan Hutchison
If Hutchison’s name was on the Dishonesty Institute’s site, it’s been Stalinistically purged with creationist expedience. They are very good at that and have done that with their members as well who have said they were never associated with the DI, yet links have proven otherwise. Even the links for Google appear to have nothing on the DI/Hutchison link anymore. But writers are absolutely correct that this group is insanely, religiously devoted to the destruction of science within the United States. They are like a manifestation of the “1984” novel.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”
Why will this barking racist be on my supreme court?
Pat Buchanan is a total douche bag! He has a Republican sense of “facts”…that is none. Just a total anti-reality field. Part of the evolution and science isn’t real, the earth is 6,000 year old anti-fact crowd. You think they would have LET black people in the door? Blacks were slaves in most of the country, women couldn’t vote also and were MASSIVELY discouraged from taking up ‘politics’, but I guess Buchanan thinks women are lazy and shiftless TOO since women didn’t sign the Constitution or fight at Gettysburg.
Republicans…not just wrong…f**king crazy.
#1 – Republicans just don’t let facts get in your way do you? That was a silly comment, but in “context” made sense. And find me a ruling where she did anything racist? The Richey firefighters? No, she was upholding LOCAL jurisdiction (town ruling)…remember, Republicans believe LOCAL control, not activists judges overruling them, remember? That ruling also followed legal precedent for the last 40 years which was required. It was the Supreme Court that were activists judges and changed the precedent of the law of the last 40 years because “they didn’t like it”. They changed the law to suite their tastes…are they activist judges? Nope, because it came from conservatives. :)
I’m sure some black folks would have helped with writing the Declaration of Independence, if only Master Jefferson had allowed them out of the fields to do it. Oh, and if reading and writing had been legal for slaves.
Sheesh.
I don’t know what Rachel likes about that guy.
Most of the Founding Fathers weren’t “Christians” per se. They were Deists: they believed in a Supreme Being, but weren’t all that sure about Jesus, Muhammad, or Abraham’s role with the Supreme Being.
I’m all for separation of church and state, but I won’t get too worked up if somebody in government refers to “God” or the “Supreme Being” from time-to-time. It ain’t gonna hurt anything.
Just to keep our facts correct:
Jefferson’s version of the Declaration strongly condemned slavery .
Jefferson’s immediate confidants for a good deal of his life were highly skilled members of the Heming’s family. These included Hemings who assisted on his mission to New York, in the building of Monticello, in crafting many nof his inventions, and .. of course .. in bringing french cuisine to the US.
In Jefferson’s writings he clearly saw a need to end slavery BUT he had concerns that Blacks, especially “pure” blacks, were not the equal of whites. He actually supported miscegenation! FWIW, the “great emancipator” also dloubted the biologic equality of Africans.
Back to Buchanana, he is not the brightest turn in the manure pile. His own ag=rguements could be anbd have been used against appointin Irish to the Court.
Jefferson was a Deist. But his views were very much in the minority even in the intellectual circles of the Virginia aristocracy.
BTW, Jefferson was also an antisemite.
Jefferson’s house slaves did learn to read and write.
BTW, no Native Americans got to help either despite the huge respect Tyhomas had for their culture and the hiswotry of democracy under the Iroquois.
“Jefferson was a Deist. But his views were very much in the minority even in the intellectual circles of the Virginia aristocracy.”
True, but the “heavies” of the Founding Fathers were mostly Deists. Ben Franklin, for example.
Hey, I’m just agreeing with Thom Hartmann here – a rarity,to be sure.
It’ll all be over soon. She’ll be confirmed and we can all get back to talking about what’s important…. Michael Jackson.
@9 Yep Franklin was a Deist, probably an atheist. He was also a whore monger and his efforts in England to create a land grant for hi8mslef were … well .. less than honorable.
The great majority, however were Christians albeit likley far more rational and intellectual than today’s Radical Republican Remnant would like us all to believe.
The diversity amongst the FF was amazing. I am sure, for example, there were far MORE smugglers and petty crooks (Sam Adams, Hancock and Franklin himself) than there were philosophers of the caliber of TJ.
The miracle of the revolution was that Jefferson and Franklin and a few other free thinkers came together with a far more3 conservative community .. Adams, Washington, Marshall, Hamilton, Madison, etc. to create the amazing synthesis we now have. In locuntries where ione side or the other dominated, England and France, later Germany, efforts at workable revolutions failed.
Out loyal christian friends ought to remember that the CHRISTIAN POV in 1776 was probabaly the Tory POV. Jefferson and Franklin may have been outliers in the American spectrum but they would have been outcasts in the British world.
While our Christianityis America crew is at it, I wonder how many iof them know how anti catholic the colonies were? Is Pat able to look back at how the Irish were received when they got here? Does he really think Irish (or Italian) experience has not affected the Court?
SJ: As you have referenced, there is quite a lot of diversity among the viewpoints of our “Founding Fathers” among quite a few subjects, including religion. The various regions of the American colonies were settled by British with very fundamental differences one from another in culture, background, social standing, and time period of immigration. The Puritans of New England were so different from the Cavaliers which settled Virginia and the Quakers in Pennsylvania that those differences have been cited as one of the contributing factors of the later Civil War. Add to that the later Scots-Irish immigration (settling the Appalachian foothills and beyond), and you would be hard-pressed to find much common ground between them. The book “Seeds of Albion: Four British Folkways in America” is somewhat heavy reading (heavy in historical sociology), but enlightening.
Add to that the fact that many of the “Founding Fathers” themselves said contradictory things at various times in their lifetimes, and the end result is that it is pretty difficult form any valid consensus about their religious views.
Jefferson, for example, in one letter to John Adams (while Jefferson was U.S. consol to France, and Adams the first U.S. consol to the British Empire), lamented the injustice of slavery, but then went on to complain that his income wasn’t meeting his expenses, so he would have to rely upon the labor of his slaves back home to pay off his accumulating debt. I guess his moral values on the subject stopped where his pocketbook began.
I’m glad Lee picked up on the USCT reference. There were, by far, more USCT regiments used in combat in the Western Theatre of the Civil War (anyplace West of the Appalachians) than in the East. This may in part have been because Union advances in the West made available more potential black recruits than the more static fronts in the East.
Of course, there was also considerable discrimination against the black troops in both theatres, and doubts about their ability to hold a line in the face of a charge by white Confederate troops. As a result they received more than their fair share of labor duty and rear-guard action, such as Gen. Bank’s use of the Corps d’ Africa to guard the baggage train and provide labor for the construction Bailey’s Dam during the Red River Campaign (March-May, 1864). But despite such discrimination, some Union commanders such as Sherman and Grant did use USCT troops in prominant positions in their offensive campaigns.
Of course, if you want to talk about a real disaster in the use (or non-use) of USCT regiments, we could talk about the Battle of the Crater during the Petersburg campaign, but that’s a subject for a very long discussion.
Yep, all those black civil war infantry were fighting against southern democrats. It is a shame that instead of winning, they were enslaved a second time at the hands of the same people by means of welfare and entitlement spending.
And let’s not forget that Pat Buchanan got his start working as a speach writer for Richard Nixon. It just goes to show that TV shows use commentators for their entertainment value, credibility is not necessarily a job qualification.
SJ @ 11,
Yep, the colonies, with the exception of Maryland, were anti-Catholic. If memory serves, Rhode Island was pretty tolerant of early Jews in America. The rest of the colonies were pretty intolerant on religious matters but had the common sense to see that religious freedom was important. That is, the Baptists would tolerate the Anglicans, the Anglicans would tolerate the Presbyterians, who would tolerate the Methodists, who would be tolerant of the Baptists. But none of the colonists were particularly tolerant of Catholics and Jews. They had it in their best interests, as Protestants, to tolerate each other. Jews and Catholics weren’t that big a population in the 13 colonies, so they were fair game for discrimination. Imagine the colonists’ surprise when they actually established a Constitution that didn’t support their particular brand of religion!
And now freedom from religion is also protected under the Constitution. I doubt, however, we’ll ever get rid of religion’s influence in this country. It’s just too pervasive. The best we can do is let people believe in whatever and not force our particular belief set on to others.
The Golden Rule is the major point of religion anyway. The rest is just meaning less ritual.
Glad that you’re high on Clarence Thomas, Lee. Even you can’t be wrong about everything.
(Rather than wasting time on Lee and his drug-addled blogging, read Jan Crawford Greenberg’s book about the Court.)
@13
I’m glad Lee picked up on the USCT reference. There were, by far, more USCT regiments used in combat in the Western Theatre of the Civil War (anyplace West of the Appalachians) than in the East.
Yes, and it’s possible that the number of black Union casualties at Gettysburg was 0. I couldn’t find a reference in my searching this morning (which was admittedly rushed as I needed to catch my bus).
However, I did find a link that claimed that there were a small number (less than 10) of black casualties at Gettysburg for the Confederacy. Not sure how reliable that link was though.
“White men were … 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg”
I think Pat Buchanan was referring to the Confederate soldiers. Buchanan is probably not entirely correct on this issue, since there were some blacks serving with the Confederate forces (mostly in servant roles, including slaves who accompanied the army) and presumably some of them died directly or indirectly in the fighting.
I don’t defend Buchanan. I think he’s a nutcase.
BUT….that said, what he said was not nearly as racist as this….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIT3jUrNTX0
This racist should be equally condemned.
@12 rhp
Great post!
I think the diagnosis of hypocrite is not really just for TJ. Bigot may come closer to the truth. He was clearly bigoted towards what he did not know .. including Jews, Injuns, and educated Blacks, These biases were, BTW, not always negative. TJ had an inordinately high view of the noble savages .. at least those well outside of the areas claimed by the Euroes.
I recently finished the biography of the Hemmings Family. A wonderful effort to see through the cloud that still encompasses TJ.
On thing that does bug me is BHO’s reverence for Lincoln (as opposed to) Jefferson. I think BHO is an amazing synthesis of these too. He has Jefferson’s intellectual curiosity combined with the focus of Lincoln. I hope he is a lot better than either of them at politics.
“However, I did find a link that claimed that there were a small number (less than 10) of black casualties at Gettysburg for the Confederacy. Not sure how reliable that link was though.”
The one way to get a really heated argument started on the Civil War history discussion boards is to bring up the possibility of black Confederates. There were undeniably blacks serving as teamsters, cooks, laborers, etc. for various Confederate armies, some of which wore a semblence of a uniform, and which were probably for the most part slaves loaned to the Confederate cause or free hired servants. I’m assuming that the Confederate black casualties were among these folk. But the prospect of arming black Confederates, free or slave, was a subject of considerable debate in the South. Gen. Cleborne advanced the idea in early 1863, and found his career more or less permanantly side-tracked as a result (he died in the battle of Franklin, Tennessee, late in 1864). By early 1865, however, Robert E. Lee himself was desperate for manpower of any color and pleaded with the Confederate Congress to allow infantry regiments to be enrolled consisting of free blacks or slaves (with the permission of their masters). For the slaves, eventual freedom was promised. Some of the most ardent fire-brands within the Confederate Congress condemned the measure, pointing out that if slaves could be armed and fight as men, then what moral or logical justification could there be for slavery?
But the legislation to enlist black infantry regimetns was finally adopted, I think, in March of 1865, and at least one regiment was uniformed, issued muskets, and paraded for inspection. But it was only a short time afterwards (two weeks or so?) that Lee’s army was compelled to evacuate Petersburg and Richmond, and retreat toward it’s destiny at Appomatox Courthouse, so it was certainly a case of to little, far too late, to do the Confederacy any good.
Despite this history, there are some who insist that there were free blacks who voluntarily fought for the Confederacy, but that’s widely disputed by historians.
Here’s an interesting twist on twisted history. Haven’t read this, but have heard that blacks served in Confederate combat units after Gettysberg.
Oops … looks like a reiteration of rhp’s excellent post, above, which isn’t at all turgid.
rhp
Another fine post. Would you do me the favor of contacting me by email? I have an idea to explore.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
Hey, we have Log Cabin Republicans so why not a few black Confederates?
SJ @ 24: You would have to leave an e-mail address. I would suggest you use a “disposable” one.
sounds like sj and rhp are getting ready to consummate. who’s handling the bridal shower registry?
“Jews for Pat Buchanan” – who is with me to start that one up? Any volunteers?
@29: Sure and let’s start up the “Catholic’s for Abortion” group, the “Republican’s for fiscal responsibility” and the “neocons for invading the wrong country” groups….I am sure all of them will have people just begging to join :)
Strange how the progressives are ignoring the blatant, condescending racist remarks by Barbara “dont call me ma’am” Boxer…..
Now, had those same remarks been made by a non-progressive, the left nuts would he howling at the moon and barking for someones removal from office.
What you see in Babs Boxer is the true racism of the liberal left: The condescending, behind your back, turn every issue into a race issue type if racism. All you minorities out there take heed, the white liberals think your a pathetic piece of shit who’s only purpose is to provide a consistent voting bloc -nothing more than a tool – believe it.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
@31
Um, when someone other than a crazyperson accuses her of racism, then progressives will care.
he must not have been too crazy, since the progressives invited him….oh wait, he didnt tow the party line, so he MUST be crazy.
lee you sound like yet another racist progressive.
So Babs Boxer has shown us all (again) the two sides of progressivism:
1. Disdain for the military – yes, we rememeber when the dumb cunt decided to dress down a general for calling her “ma’am”.
2. Disdain for minorities when they dont tow the line(be a good black man and act the tool) – as we saw yesterday.
BTW Lee, why would Babs Boxer even inject race into a discussion about energy policy? I can answer: because its the same old liberal playbook: no matter what the subject, always bring race into the discussion.
And now freedom from religion is also protected under the Constitution.
Actually religion is protected from government.
Bill Of Rights:
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise there of; or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press:or the right of the people peacably to assemble,or to petition the government for a redress of grieviences.
This country is regressing back to racism,Americans are Americans,
When a neighbor needs help or wants to help you do you really notice what color they are? If a child is sick or hurt do you really notice what color the child is before you help.
Why is America letting this happen?
This country is for the people by the people no matter what color you are, i think every racist in public office should be exposed, dealt with accordingly, and permanantly expelled from holding any office in this country from the top to the bottom.
One racist remark should be all that is neccessary to remove them from office.PERIOD
It just causes division of the people.
And the people are AMERICA.
@33
he must not have been too crazy, since the progressives invited him
Why is that? The link I provided you talked about how he claimed that California doesn’t have green jobs. That dude is a few tacos short of a combination platter.
Second, just because Barbara Boxer discussed the NAACP’s position doesn’t make her a racist, even if a black man somehow becomes offended by it.
@36…did you even listen to the exchange? FFS, could you be in more denial?
keep making excuses, its the progressive way…
and how many green jobs does CA have? oh wait, what is their unemployment rate? hahahahah, and how much in debt are they? Yes, CA is a fine example of the liberal economy that awaits us all.
@34,
cmon dude, didnt you know that the constitution is a “living, breathing document”?? In other words, the meaning of the constitution changes to fit the current agenda…what a crock of shit the progressives has bestowed upon us with their revisionism.
We are America and if we stand aside and let it be a living will of government instead of ground in stone by the people for the people, then we deserve what ever we get.
Stand up, get a move on, its never to late.
I have many progressive and liberal friends that do believe we are headed in the wrong direction, they admit they were wrong in thier choice,no ones perfect.
@37
and how many green jobs does CA have? oh wait, what is their unemployment rate?
Wow, what awesome logic. You must get your hand stuck in pickle jars a lot.
I’m not even sure where to begin if you can watch that exchange and believe that Barbara Boxer is actually a racist. I guess you’d be someone who comes to a political blog, uses the name “Haywood Jablome”, says things that are fall-down stupid, and then gets all defensive when he gets made fun of. Pathetic.
Bottom line: being a white male in America is STILL a crime even though some people think it is.