PDA

View Full Version : BUSH IGNORANT on AMERICAN HISTORY!!! says dred scot case legalizes slavery!!


Wigglytuff
Oct 9th, 2004, 02:41 AM
bush said
DRED SCOTT CASE LEGALIZED SLAVERY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i have never heard something so stupid and ignorant in all my life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EDIT: because not everyone wants to read the whole thing here is the break down from a MUCH later post:

bush was WRONG on NO LESS than EIGHT POINTS
"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights." - GW Bush
1-the court did not legalize slavery, it gave that power to the territories
2-the court took this power to dictate what was a free or a slave territory from the congress
3-it was not because of personal property rights that the court gave this power to the territories or took it away from the congress ("...where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.")
4-giving someone, or someplace, the power to make a decision, DOES NOT mean that you are making it for them.
5-slavery was not legalized (or allowed) in 1857
6-slavery was not legalized (or allowed) because of "the judges".
7-it was not "years ago", it was in 1857
8-Dred scott, the person, was not allowed CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS, because he was black.


but to be fair he was RIGHT on no less than 3 points.
"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights." - GW Bush
1-the dred scott case did deal with black people during slavery
2-it was an "activist" decision.
3-the phrase "personal property rights" was spoken during that time.

Volcana
Oct 9th, 2004, 12:54 PM
YEah, I was a litle surprised to hear Bush even bring that up. I wasn't surprised he couldn't explain it.

Bacardi
Oct 9th, 2004, 05:57 PM
What's new? George W Bush is IGNORANT on EVERYTHING!

Unless he's coached he has no idea what he's talking about, and he still even screws up what he's been coached on.

lizchris
Oct 9th, 2004, 06:17 PM
If he knew anything about history, then he would know that the Dredd Scott decision stated that if you were an escaped slave who escaped to a free state, you were still considered a slave.

Go back to school W.

BTW, why did the Dredd Scott case come up in the debate?

Wigglytuff
Oct 9th, 2004, 07:58 PM
If he knew anything about history, then he would know that the Dredd Scott decision stated that if you were an escaped slave who escaped to a free state, you were still considered a slave.

Go back to school W.

BTW, why did the Dredd Scott case come up in the debate?

normally, i say really mean things about bush, but this is just :fiery: :lol: :confused:

Oct 8, 2004: "Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights." - GW Bush

which is just out there on many many many many levels.

as for the "context" i have to admit that i was so floored by that statement, that i couldnt even recall the "context".

*JR*
Oct 9th, 2004, 10:03 PM
BTW, why did the Dredd Scott case come up in the debate?Bush was (besides seeking some black votes) trying to illustrate a case of a Judge (Chief Justice Taney, who I'm sure he couldn't name) "making law". The only problem is that the Supreme Court was indeed acting then (1857) as the "strict constructionists" (of the Constitution) that Bush cherishes.

Barrie_Dude
Oct 9th, 2004, 10:28 PM
What's new? George W Bush is IGNORANT on EVERYTHING!

Unless he's coached he has no idea what he's talking about, and he still even screws up what he's been coached on.BIG NEWS: Every President and Every Candidate gets coached on positions, speeches, debates, etc!

CJ07
Oct 9th, 2004, 11:05 PM
normally, i say really mean things about bush, but this is just :fiery: :lol: :confused:

Oct 8, 2004: "Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights." - GW Bush

which is just out there on many many many many levels.

as for the "context" i have to admit that i was so floored by that statement, that i couldnt even recall the "context".
thats ironic considering it was also those "activist judges" that allowed me to go to school with everyone else.

Horrible analogy Georgie :(

And it was an honest mistake, but George you gotta do better man

Wigglytuff
Oct 10th, 2004, 12:04 AM
thats ironic considering it was also those "activist judges" that allowed me to go to school with everyone else.

Horrible analogy Georgie :(

And it was an honest mistake, but George you gotta do better man

see i got into a debate with a friend of mine about whether it was a mistake or not.

Dred Scott is one of more important cases in american history we learn about it in middle school, junior, high school and often again in college. its not a case that only some would know about, like say the Loving case during the civil rights movement.

its true that no one can be asked to know everything. but i dont think its too much to ask the president to know that slavery was not "allowed" in 1857 "because of personal property rights".

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 10th, 2004, 12:27 AM
The court held that:

1. Dred Scott had no standing to sue in the American courts because blacks were not and could not be US citizens (even if they were not slaves) and essentially had no legal rights. :eek:

2. A slave was indeed property and could not get freedom by living temporarily above the line set by the Missouri Compromise.

3. In any event, Congress lacked legislative power to deprive citizens of their "property" - in this case slaves. The anti-slavery provisions of the Missouri Compromise were thus struck down, and slavery in territories above the Missouri Compromise line was legalised.

The findings were radical enough to shock many people, and could indeed have been considered to be "activist". Many legal and constitutional writers today mourn the stance that was taken by the court.

All in all, Bush's account is not that far from the truth, though he was doubtless coached on a simplistic overview of the case, rather than understanding the above detail.

I don't like the man, but I'm not going to grasp at straws.

mboyle
Oct 10th, 2004, 01:17 AM
Blacks could be citizens if they immigrated to the country post-Revolution and did so to a northern state.:)

mboyle
Oct 10th, 2004, 01:21 AM
oh and I have heard far more ignorant things. Whenever someone says, "where's it at" or "me and her are going to the movies," I consider that FAR more ignorant. In fact, I have heard my own siblings say more ignorant things in the past three hours.

My 17 year old sister: "Who the hell is Nelson Mandusa (sic.)?"

Mboyle: "He is only the guy who ended Apartied (sp?)!"

Sister: "That would be good if I knew what Apartied was."

Then we have my 9 year old brother in reference to a picture: "Who is him?"

I think both examples display far more ignorance than Bush's not knowing the details of the Dread Scott case, which many schools do not even teach.

Martian Willow
Oct 10th, 2004, 01:40 AM
oh and I have heard far more ignorant things. Whenever someone says, "where's it at" or "me and her are going to the movies," I consider that FAR more ignorant.

That's pretty stupid.

decemberlove
Oct 10th, 2004, 02:14 AM
oh and I have heard far more ignorant things. Whenever someone says, "where's it at" or "me and her are going to the movies," I consider that FAR more ignorant. In fact, I have heard my own siblings say more ignorant things in the past three hours.

My 17 year old sister: "Who the hell is Nelson Mandusa (sic.)?"

Mboyle: "He is only the guy who ended Apartied (sp?)!"

Sister: "That would be good if I knew what Apartied was."

Then we have my 9 year old brother in reference to a picture: "Who is him?"

I think both examples display far more ignorance than Bush's not knowing the details of the Dread Scott case, which many schools do not even teach.
you consider people that don't use formal english in a casual setting ignorant, yet you can't spell apartheid?

i'm glad you've toured the country's schools so that you could come to the conclusion that most schools don't teach the dred scott case. i know i was taught the case in high school, and i just went to a regular public high school in the burbs.

even if it's not taught in most schools, it isn't a good excuse as to why one shouldn't know the case... esp if that person happens to be the president of a country with known racial problems.

maybe if some people didn't rely so much upon schools to teach them about life, they wouldn't have such large sticks up their pompous, ignorant asses. no names needed. :tape:

Steam
Oct 10th, 2004, 02:52 AM
I can vouch that I too learned the Dred Scott case in high school.

Hell, my teacher even emphasized the importance of it, much like the later Brown v. Board of Education.

Even though I was the man in History class back in those days (still no idea why I got fucked out of AP) I have forgotten a lot of details here and there but the Dred Scott case will always stick with me.

Getting back to the topic on hand, does anything Bush says or does surprise anyone? The guy has proven time and time again that he's an idiot. How he even has a chance of winning the election shows how truly awful John Kerry is and is being portrayed.

Wigglytuff
Oct 10th, 2004, 03:18 AM
1- you are correct in your points 1-3

2-however, the issue of the legality of slavery was NOT AT ALL an issue in the dred scott case, it was the issue of CITIZENSHIP rights that were at issue.

now here is where we differ, his account is indeed very very very very far from the truth. (ummm lets not forget that the legalization or "allowance of" slavery happened LONG before 1857)

the question of the legality of slavery is NOT all the same, or even close to the question of citizenship rights.

this is the reason each one (the end of slavery and citizenship rights) got its own amendment, they are not mutually inclusive or exclusive but are indeed to separate ideas that are only somewhat related.

to clarify here are 2 points:

in the vast history of "slavery" in various nations, continents and time periods many societies, gave their slaves some citizenship rights.

in America today we have millions of permanent residents who are legal residents they lack many citizenship rights, but they are hardly slaves.



thats my sig jokes about how roe v wade allowed gays to adopt children, because like the legalization of slavery and citizenship rights, gay adoption and abortion are only somewhat related and then only in certain situations.

even in the most simplistic terms bush's assesment is still simply wrong. the best i can give him credit is that at least he knew that dred scott had something to do with black people during slavery. :shrug: :shrug:

The court held that:

1. Dred Scott had no standing to sue in the American courts because blacks were not and could not be US citizens (even if they were not slaves) and essentially had no legal rights. :eek:

2. A slave was indeed property and could not get freedom by living temporarily above the line set by the Missouri Compromise.

3. In any event, Congress lacked legislative power to deprive citizens of their "property" - in this case slaves. The anti-slavery provisions of the Missouri Compromise were thus struck down, and slavery in territories above the Missouri Compromise line was legalised.

The findings were radical enough to shock many people, and could indeed have been considered to be "activist". Many legal and constitutional writers today mourn the stance that was taken by the court.

All in all, Bush's account is not that far from the truth, though he was doubtless coached on a simplistic overview of the case, rather than understanding the above detail.

I don't like the man, but I'm not going to grasp at straws.

Wigglytuff
Oct 10th, 2004, 03:22 AM
Blacks could be citizens if they immigrated to the country post-Revolution and did so to a northern state.:)

no no they couldnt, read up on it. just type "dred scott" on google and go on the journey of learning.

Wigglytuff
Oct 10th, 2004, 03:32 AM
oh and I have heard far more ignorant things. Whenever someone says, "where's it at" or "me and her are going to the movies," I consider that FAR more ignorant. In fact, I have heard my own siblings say more ignorant things in the past three hours.

My 17 year old sister: "Who the hell is Nelson Mandusa (sic.)?"

Mboyle: "He is only the guy who ended Apartied (sp?)!"

Sister: "That would be good if I knew what Apartied was."

Then we have my 9 year old brother in reference to a picture: "Who is him?"

I think both examples display far more ignorance than Bush's not knowing the details of the Dread Scott case, which many schools do not even teach.

"He is only the guy who ended Apartied (sp?)!"
ok??!!?...hmmm... what do you mean by "only"?


as a student teacher i can tell you that EVERY SCHOOL in my state is required to cover at least briefly, dred scott and the compromise of 1850.

i would be surprised if there was any state in the union that does not require its schools to cover dred scott and the compromise of 1850.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 10th, 2004, 03:42 AM
Well, jiggly, it seems to me that what Bush said was a simplified version of my point 3., which you've agreed is right. So wasn't your first post in the thread a bit over the top? :shrug:

Wigglytuff
Oct 10th, 2004, 04:26 AM
Well, jiggly, it seems to me that what Bush said was a simplified version of my point 3., which you've agreed is right. So wasn't your first post in the thread a bit over the top? :shrug:


as for your third point. i didnt feel like breaking it down, and i realize now i should, i was wrong in say i agreed with your 3 point. because only part of it is true.

3. In any event, Congress lacked legislative power to deprive citizens of their "property" - in this case slaves.
true
The anti-slavery provisions of the Missouri Compromise were thus struck down,
true
and slavery in territories above the Missouri Compromise line was legalised.
not true not even in the most simpliest sense. in fact its a anti true.

the court did rule that the conrgess could not ditate what the territories did. BUT THE COURT DID NOT THEN DICTATE what the territories did. but left the decision up to them. if you read up on what happened after the decision, SOME territories ALLOWED for SLAVERY, others DID NOT ALLOWED for SLAVERY. all the decision said was that CONGRESS could not make the decision. nothing was "legalized" or "allowed" en masse, its just not what happened.

thats it.

-----

no it wasnt over the top, i already explained in detail why it still doesnt make sense. dred scott had nothing at all to do with the legalization of slavery.

again, its apples and oranges, slavery and citizenship. not the same. not close.

he was wrong. he didnt understand the case or the issues. he didnt know what he was talking about.

if anything i've gone easy on the guy.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 10th, 2004, 04:38 AM
Well, federal legislation outlawing slavery in some places was struck down by the Court's decision, thus making slavery legal in some places where it would not otherwise have been. The decision in that respect was, indeed, based on protecting the property rights of slaveowners. This actually went further than the court needed to go, since, as you've said, it was not what the case was primarily about; in that sense it was, as Shrub apparently said, an activist decision.

It seems to me that Shrub had a point. Saying that he was being "stupid and ignorant" (on this occasion) was wrong and makes you look biased. As an oversimplification for a TV audience, whether or not he understood the greater detail, what he was quoted as saying by you and other posters actually wasn't all that bad.

Shane54
Oct 10th, 2004, 05:18 AM
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Wigglytuff
Oct 10th, 2004, 01:32 PM
you should know that i have 32 college level credits on the subject of slavery, thats 8 courses. so i know enough to know that you are not ignorant of what went on. but the spin you are giving to the facts to make bush not seem as stupid as he is, really is too much. anyway,


indeed it was not was the case was mainly about:
you have already stated that the decision was
dred scott could not file a lawsuit AT ALL because he lacked the CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS, the court felt that he could not obtain these rights because of a slave was property and to give a slave CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS would negatively impact THE PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS of the slave owners.

STOP.

the second part of that, as we have already covered, twice at least, was that CONGRESS could not dictate for these territories whether or not they could be slave or free. THATS IT.

THERE WAS NO MENTION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OR ENDING SLAVERY. NONE. NOTHING. NODA.

STOP.

thus making slavery legal in some places where it would not otherwise have been.
this doesn't work on someone with 32 college credits on the subject of slavery, so drop it. seriously.

THE COURT DID NOT GIVE ITSELF THE POWER TO END SLAVERY, OR MAKE SLAVERY LEGAL ANYWHERE. IT GAVE THIS POWER TO THE TERRITORIES.

yes some chose to legalize slavery, but SOME CHOSE TO END IT AS WELL.

THUS: bush was WRONG on NO LESS than EIGHT POINTS
"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights." - GW Bush
1-the court did not legalize slavery, it gave that power to the territories
2-the court took this power to dictate what was a free or a slave territory from the congress
3-it was not because of personal property rights that the court gave this power to the territories or took it away from the congress ("...where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.")
4-giving someone, or someplace, the power to make a decision, DOES NOT mean that you are making it for them.
5-slavery was not legalized (or allowed) in 1857
6-slavery was not legalized (or allowed) because of "the judges".
7-it was not "years ago", it was in 1857
8-Dred scott, the person, was not allowed CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS, because he was black.


but to be fair he was RIGHT on no less than 3 points.
"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights." - GW Bush
1-the dred scott case did deal with black people during slavery
2-it was an "activist" decision.
3-the phrase "personal property rights" was spoken during that time.

Well, federal legislation outlawing slavery in some places was struck down by the Court's decision, thus making slavery legal in some places where it would not otherwise have been. The decision in that respect was, indeed, based on protecting the property rights of slaveowners. This actually went further than the court needed to go, since, as you've said, it was not what the case was primarily about; in that sense it was, as Shrub apparently said, an activist decision.

It seems to me that Shrub had a point. Saying that he was being "stupid and ignorant" (on this occasion) was wrong and makes you look biased. As an oversimplification for a TV audience, whether or not he understood the greater detail, what he was quoted as saying by you and other posters actually wasn't all that bad.

EDIT:
i do like really really like "Shrub" by the way very very nice.

and to be fair i am baised and added a note of it in the first post.

kabuki
Oct 12th, 2004, 02:09 AM
Get 'em Jiggly!

Volcana
Oct 12th, 2004, 03:57 AM
It is possible that the words came over his earpiece to him. "Talk about Dred Scott". So he tried. It's almost laudable.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 12th, 2004, 11:16 AM
Interesting debate, jiggly. A few points:

1. When you use caps, the netiquette is that this equates to shouting. I don't normally like debating with people who shout at me.

2. Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm glad you noted it. Thanks. (I know that some posters, possibly including you, think I'm an arsehole, but it doesn't entail that I don't know what I'm talking about.)

3. When a legislature passes legislation that prohibits X in circumstance Y and court subsequently strikes down the legislation as unconstitutional, there is a sense in which it can be said that the court has "legalised" X. It may be talking loosely, but it's not unfamiliar language in this kind of debate.

4. It never pays to boast about academic credentials. You may find you are debating someone with superior academic credentials ... especially when the someone is me and the debate is about legal issues or issues of legal philosophy.

5. I have no motivation to support Shrub. I despise most of what he stands for. However, the general sort of point he was making about the case (as quoted on this thread) was not all that remote from one that I am familiar with and which is often made by liberal theorists of law whom I respect. Hence it is poor evidence that he is an idiot. He may still be an idiot, but this was not good evidence of it.

6. You have now edited your first post, and you've tried to take into account those points I've made which you accept. Thanks for doing that. Also, despite my comment about shouting, I do thank you for your efforts to discuss this in a nice way. I hope you appreciate that I've also tried to do so, especially since we've fought in the past. It would be nice to think that we've set a good example here. :angel:

*JR*
Oct 12th, 2004, 12:52 PM
Joui, I personally won't debate you on the law in a "hairsplitting" way. But slavery was legal B4 the Dred Scott decision, the "Negro" was only "3/5 of a person" in the Constitution, and Chief Justice Roger :o B. Taney wrote for the Supreme Court respecting all this. Sounds pretty "strict constuctionist" in its practical effect.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 12th, 2004, 01:00 PM
Sure, Roger. And I've never said that Shrub got it absolutely right, only that jiggly's thread-starting post in its original form (now changed, to her credit) was over the top.

Wigglytuff
Oct 12th, 2004, 02:56 PM
i think you understand it was not my intent to shout, despite, nettique rules. just to separate points, using only bold here, where i have used caps is annoying mostly becase the format of this thing scrolls to the bottom.

and in posting my background, i was trying to make it clear that neither of us are fools on this matter. but also to show that i may be a little overly nitpicky on the matter, but more on that later.

i know, people think i am a big mean, but i trying to always be nice, clearly thats easier to do when someone is nice to you in term, and becomes more different when either person is being less civil, which hasnt happened her thank god.

ok, now that we all those niceties out the way: :p :o

the core of the arguement has, it looks to me, come down to this as i understand:

1-because the court struck down the comprise of 1850 and this did lead to the legalization of slaver ownership in some places. shrub is close enough.

or

2-yes the court struck down the comprise, not because of slavery though, because congress didnt have the power in the first place. and though it did allow for slavery in places not allowed before, it also lead to place that might of otherwise had slavery or that did have slavery to do way with it. giving the court credit for ending slavery is one sided at best. shrub is just wrong. as i believe.

so the difference comes down to wether the court should get credit with expanding slavery or the territories.

ok, all that crap being said, its really impossible to agrue beyond this point because now its really about personal opinion.

Interesting debate, jiggly. A few points:

1. When you use caps, the netiquette is that this equates to shouting. I don't normally like debating with people who shout at me.

2. Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm glad you noted it. Thanks. (I know that some posters, possibly including you, think I'm an arsehole, but it doesn't entail that I don't know what I'm talking about.)

3. When a legislature passes legislation that prohibits X in circumstance Y and court subsequently strikes down the legislation as unconstitutional, there is a sense in which it can be said that the court has "legalised" X. It may be talking loosely, but it's not unfamiliar language in this kind of debate.

4. It never pays to boast about academic credentials. You may find you are debating someone with superior academic credentials ... especially when the someone is me and the debate is about legal issues or issues of legal philosophy.

5. I have no motivation to support Shrub. I despise most of what he stands for. However, the general sort of point he was making about the case (as quoted on this thread) was not all that remote from one that I am familiar with and which is often made by liberal theorists of law whom I respect. Hence it is poor evidence that he is an idiot. He may still be an idiot, but this was not good evidence of it.

6. You have now edited your first post, and you've tried to take into account those points I've made which you accept. Thanks for doing that. Also, despite my comment about shouting, I do thank you for your efforts to discuss this in a nice way. I hope you appreciate that I've also tried to do so, especially since we've fought in the past. It would be nice to think that we've set a good example here. :angel:

an example the will not be followed i can promise you that.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 13th, 2004, 12:03 AM
Okay Jiggly, let's leave it there. I largely agree with your last post. People can make up their own minds about how serious Shrub's errors or simplifications were. Thank you for a debate that actually shed some light rather than just generating heat.

lakeway11
Oct 13th, 2004, 12:45 AM
yeah Dred Scott...the fuckin liberal pukeheads never wanted to bring that concept up when little Elian was ordered back to slaveholder Castro...i think all libs like puff puff should be deported to Cuba and enjoy the Communist haven

Wigglytuff
Oct 13th, 2004, 04:37 AM
yeah Dred Scott...the fuckin liberal pukeheads never wanted to bring that concept up when little Elian was ordered back to slaveholder Castro...i think all libs like puff puff should be deported to Cuba and enjoy the Communist haven

well ~ The Leopard ~ you have to thank yourself as well, it takes two to have a good conversation.

anyway, would i be completely wrong if i said the above poster has lost his ever loving mind? i mean, i would respond if i understand it. :wavey: well ~ The Leopard ~ constructive debate was fun while it lasted. :bounce: :sad: :o