Michele Bachmann Promoted Bizarre, Revisionist View of Slavery

Reader Comments
Back to blog

"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

Dear Rich: You are an utter phoney. She wasn't endorsing an obscure book as a must-read...because she wanted a book nobody ever read to be discreditied?? Is "Mein Kampf" on her list? Now THERE is a book that should be discredited.

Jay of FL 10:35AM September 01, 2011

How can anybody say with a straight face that children of slaves were reared in two parent families??? Slaves were considered property and children, mothers, and fathers were routinely sold to different "owners." Black children of slaves were NOT reared in two parent families, many black slave children never knew their parents. Today more black children are reared in two parent families than were children of black slaves. I'm ashamed to be white when I read pretzel logic such as the drivel expounded upon by right wing liars.
That white people actually in their minds have a picture of the quaint little old slave family living together in harmony and raising their chirruns in a little old family unit of Father, Mother, and little slave Children gives a new meaning to the term WhiteWash. Black slave families were routinely ripped apart when family members were sold away to other owners. Get it into your white heads! There was NoThing good about slavery, the end, amen.
I could honestly cry to think that white folks are so freaking delusional. Maybe more white people should have mixed ethnicity children so that when they look at the beautiful brown faces white parents would never by so hypocritical or insensitive as to say that slavery had an up side.
I'm also a history minor so I don't need any chastising from Dr. History Crackpot, Phd, okay? Did much research into abolitionism, William Lloyd Garrison and the crew, so I don't need to be chastised with revisionist white HisStory.

Sunny of TX 10:05PM August 29, 2011

Bachmann's favorite historian is David Barton who taught at ORU the same college Bachmann graduated from. He makes up history to suit his religious beliefs and publishes his "works" in DVD format. Bachmann's distorted view of history explains some of her history gaffes over her career.
Scholars that research his work will discover his clever lies.
http://www.liarsforjesus.com by Chris Rodda

Ron Spears of TX 7:14PM August 29, 2011

Nunya of OH: "Actually, if a book is listed as "must read," then you must assume that its thesis is largely supported by the person listing the book. And that doesn't make you a "jackass," it makes you intelligent."
Actually, it doesn't.
My college courses required (a.k.a., "must read") books ranging from the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, The Federalist Papers, The Prince, Art of War, The Republic and many, many more. The disparate views in those books would indicate the university was exposing students to different ideas; not endorsing any one.
Schlesinger's argument makes as much sense as cherry-picking ONE of those books and claiming the school endorsed that view - it's ludicrous. What other books were on Bachmann's list, and why weren't they included in the article? Most likely because it wouldn't fit Schlesinger's attack piece.
InYaFace of MN: "She didn't list this revisionist tome as "must read" in order to decry how wrong it is as the genius who said basically "just because I call the Communist Manifesto must-read doesn't mean I support its theses." You see, genius, by looking at the fact that the thesis of that book aligns with statements Michelle has made, combined with no disavowal or explanation of how it got on the list, those of us over here in Rational Land can conclude she listed the decrepit piece of scholarship and revisionism because largely supported its theses. This is what we commonly call "logic." If I thought you had the mental facility to understand how to engage this wonderful tool of reason, I'd explain further."
So you somehow mystically know her reasons for listing the book - and you think I'm the nutty one? I'm not a Bachmann supporter and I don't keep up with her every utterance; perhaps you do. I couldn't tell you if the book matches her statements or not.
I CAN tell you that just listing a book as "must-read" doesn't necessarily mean the person endorses the views therein, and my statement is 100% correct.
Having worked for politicians, I can say she probably never even read the book; some staffer most likely compiled the list. That's the way these things usually work. That's not to excuse it - she's the congresswoman and it's HER staff.
But you over there in "Rational Land" might want to rethink something: jumping to conclusions doesn't make you rational or intelligent. It makes you the exact opposite. If you can produce multiple Bachmann quotes that support your claim that she agrees with the books thesis, then you likely have a case. Otherwise, you're just a tool, which your attitude leads me to believe is the case.
So kindly refrain from explaining your misguided concept of "logic" - I doubt you're capable, or you wouldn't have to jump to conclusions.

Rich of CO 2:10PM August 10, 2011

What are your "primary source or the primary source is PROVIDED by the secondary source" proof ???

Bill Hedges of MO 9:30AM August 10, 2011

Bachmann has built a career on conservative teavangelical nonsense and now will not answer questions as a candidate on some of her extreme positions. Bachmann has made a name for herself by gay bashing here in Minnesota. This gal is a flake and Democrats will be more than happy if she is picked as the nominee.
Who is really dumb is the nasty bigot who constantly harasses anyone who posts anything here that doesn't fit his hardcore Republican porn agenda.

Ann of MN 12:03AM August 10, 2011

Hopelessly in debt, AA+ rating, and 9.2% unemployment. He Wanted more debt, $$$ 9.5 trillion more. What is this guy THINKING...
Fed announced unheard of near "0" interest rate FOR 2 YEARS. God help us, obama isn't. It's EVERYBODY'S fault but his...

Bill Hedges of MO 11:06PM August 09, 2011