Michele Bachmann Promoted Bizarre, Revisionist View of Slavery

August 8, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (48)

Ryan Lizza has an exhaustive profile of Rep. Michele Bachmann in the current New Yorker, containing several interesting nuggets and insights into the controversial congresswoman. One in particular stuck out at me, especially given her, ahem, singular views of slavery.

[See who's in and who's out in the 2012 GOP field.]

Bachmann, you will recall, has gotten into trouble for imagining that the Founding Fathers (many of whom were slave owners) "worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States," specifically citing John Quincy Adams, who was indeed a tireless opponent of slavery, but was more a founding son than founding father, and died 13 years before the start of the Civil War.

[Check out political cartoons about the 2012 GOP field.]

Perusing a campaign website from her state senate days, Lizza found a suggested reading list which included a 1997 biography of Robert E. Lee, by one J. Steven Wilkins.

Wilkins is the leading proponent of the theory that the South was an orthodox Christian nation unjustly attacked by the godless North. ... In the book, Wilkins condemns "the radical abolitionists of New England" and writes that "most southerners strove to treat their slaves with respect and provide them with a sufficiency of goods for a comfortable, though—by modern standards—spare existence."

African slaves brought to America, he argues, were essentially lucky: "Africa, like any other pagan country, was permeated by the cruelty and barbarism typical of unbelieving cultures." … Wilkins also approvingly cites Lee’s insistence that abolition could not come until "the sanctifying effects of Christianity” had time “to work in the black race and fit its people for freedom."

Ah, the ever misunderstood respect of the whip and the chain. Ah, the poor, misunderstood, antebellum slave owner. Ah, I think I'm going to be sick. Lizza quotes from a Wilkins chapter on race relations:

Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded upon racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause. The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith. . .  The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith.

For several years, the book, which Bachmann’s campaign declined to discuss with me, was listed on her Web site, under the heading "Michele’s Must Read List."

The campaign may have declined to discuss the list, but someone should ask Bachmann whether she still considers the book a must-read, whether she believes that slavery was an institution which bred mutual respect between the races. And assuming her answers are no, she might want to explain what ever possessed her to promote such offensive nonsense.

Reader Comments Read all comments (48)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

"Plenty of blacks fought for the Confederate side." Nowhere near as many as those in Union uniform. If Lincoln hadn't pretended to be a bigot he couldn't have been elected. As the war ended he looked forward to a day when race wouldn't matter--and that creep Booth vowed "That's the last speech he'll ever give."

Thomas Lee Boles of MN 5:39PM March 29, 2012

Mr. Schlesinger shouldn't accuse one of being a revisionist when he clearly has no understanding of the history in the US of slavery, race relations, or the basics of the Civil War time era. He seems to have extreme difficulties telling the differences between race and slavery. Race and slavery not the same thing. Lincoln and the abolitionist were against people owning other people, but they weren't fond of blacks at all.

Robert E. Lee was asked by Lincoln to lead the Union's army, but he eventually turned it down because he felt his loyalties belonged to the state he was from, which was Virginia, so Lee offered his expertise to the state of Virginia.

Next, Lincoln and the abolitionist were all, in modern day terms, racists. This should be common knowledge, at least I thought it did. Lincoln stated numerous times in speeches and personal letters that he believed blacks were an "inferior race." The abolitionist felt that blacks were inferior to whites, as well. Robert E. Lee. So technically, at least according to Schlesinger, by reading Lincoln's letters, papers or autobiography would instantly make one a racist and that they agree with Lincoln's views 100%. Lincoln "racist" language makes anything Robert E. Lee wrote or said look like chump change. Lincoln position on slavery had zilch to do with ones race.

The slaves were treated far better by American Slave owners compared to African slave owners. This should be self-explanatory of why they were treated better in America compared to Africa. Well, maybe not to revisionists. At that time, slaves were viewed as an investment and property. The slave owners would typically try to keep the slaves healthy. There would've been no point to buying a slave and then just beating them. That would be a waste to their "investment."

The slaves were property before they were sold to whitey in Africa. The ones that sold them were black, for the most part. Their African slave owners cared much less if the slaves weren't healthy or if they died. The African slave owners could always just go and kidnap more from African tribes.

Schlesinger should read some of Lincoln's letters and speeches or ones from abolitionists.

Is this the best this libtard could come up with to attack some random republican? Most of what Schlesinger wrote is classic revisionism and pure ignorance. I wonder if Schlesinger understand that there were plenty of blacks that owned slaves and that there were blacks, who willingly fought for the confederate side.

I must admit, this site is hilarious. I thought the USNews tried to somewhat be an actual news source? It just bashes the right.

Whoever compares reading a book to endorsing its contents is a fool. Such an idiotic claim, especially when Schlesinger cherry picks from another person's article. Some prefer to get info from more than one side, instead of info that agrees 100% wit their views. Sadly Schlesinger isn't one of those people.

Timbo of MD 6:32AM September 03, 2011

Being Greedy, Self-centered and Rich is no way to go through life Republicans

Richard Sudden of CA 9:56PM September 01, 2011

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger is managing editor for opinion at U.S. News and World Report, overseeing all opinion editorial content. He is the author of "White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters." E-mail him at rschlesinger@usnews.com. Follow him on Twitter: @rschles.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

Mary Kate Cary

A Democracy in Crisis

Can the country long survive an ever-growing government?

Latest Videos

advertisement