by hilzoy
Two weeks ago, publius tried to imagine what the Lincoln-Douglas Debates would have looked like had they been moderated by ABC. I thought it was one of the funnier things I’d ever read. It turns out, however, that in a startling breach with precedent, Fox News has an even funnier take on those debates. Watch the video at Crooks and Liars, or just take a look:
Yep: Fox seems to be under the impression that Frederick Douglass was Lincoln’s opponent for the Senate in 1858. Freed slaves were major candidates for federal office before the Civil War: who knew?
Bear in mind that one short year before Frederick Douglass’ supposed run for the Illinois Senate, the Supreme Court decided Dred Scott v. Sandford. In the opinion in that case, Chief Justice Taney described one of its central issues as follows:
“The question is simply this: can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen, one of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution?”
Taney’s answer? No.
Justice Daniels elaborates:
“The correct conclusions upon the question here considered would seem to be these:
That, in the establishment of the several communities now the States of this Union, and in the formation of the Federal Government, the African was not deemed politically a person. He was regarded and owned in every State in the Union as property merely, and as such was not and could not be a party or an actor, much less a peer in any compact or form of government established by the States or the United States. That if, since the adoption of the State Governments, he has been or could have been elevated to the possession of political rights or powers, this result could have been effected by no authority less potent than that of the sovereignty — the State — exerted [p482] to that end, either in the form of legislation or in some other mode of operation. It could certainly never have been accomplished by the will of an individual operating independently of the sovereign power, and even contravening and controlling that power. That, so far as rights and immunities appertaining to citizens have been defined and secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the African race is not and never was recognised either by the language or purposes of the former, and it has been expressly excluded by every act of Congress providing for the creation of citizens by naturalization, these laws, as has already been remarked, being restricted to free white aliens exclusively.”
Legally, for a political party to run Frederick Douglass for federal office would have been on a par, not with running a citizen of another country, but with running a shovel or a cow: a piece of property whose nature precluded its being a citizen, let alone a Senator. The most Douglass might have aspired to, in 1858, was to be granted such rights in something like the way Caligula made his horse a Consul.
But Fox and Friends think he could have run for Senate. Right.
I take it that was the famous Dredd Scott vs. Sanford and Son? Followed inevitably by James Brown vs. the Board of Education?
aimai
What do you expect from the defenders of tradition and conservative values?
This had to be a joke. I mean Fox and Friends is basically a joke as a program.
And nobody could have the stoopid that bad. Could they?
Obviously, they are using Scalia’s theory of original intent. The first time they heard of Douglas, it was Frederick Douglas, so all other intrepretations of Douglas are wrong or invalid.
Fortunately they didn’t confuse Douglas with Bobby Douglas, alleged quarterback for the Chicago Bears circa 1970. Now that would have been a debate!
Excuse me. They never said that Frederick Douglass ran against Lincoln for the Senate. You made that little leap yourself.
They report, after all. You, however, decide. Personal responsibility, folks.
I’m with Commander Dude, hiding in the blanket fort and singing, “lalalala it must be a joke! They want to be The Onion! lalalala no-one could be that stupid!”
Snd cookies kthxbai.
Pasota — snark, right?
That is something special.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates are dangerous things for Type 3 Democrats to bring up. People might read what Lincoln had to say. For starters, there is only one ‘s’ in Douglas.
http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2251:1.lincoln
Not snark, farmgirl. Truthiness. Big difference. Huge.
Brick Oven Bill: It depends which Douglas(s) you have in mind. Stephen had one s. Frederick had two.
I’m tempted to think that they know there were no Lincoln-Frederick Douglass debates, and yet they think there is video of the Lincoln-Stephen Douglas debates.
As the old joke goes, we would be better suited with a flower-pot than the current president*, so the shovel might not be a bad alternative (don’t know about the cow though).
To put the black Doug in may not be ignorance but a deliberate hint towards Obama/Wright (this PC has no sound, so I could not yet check the video for content).
*but also a number of congressbeings (both parties)
Type 3 Democrats
I may regret asking, but what is a ‘Type 3 Democrat’?
Thanks –
Of course, this bit of idiocy does help explain why conservatives think racism is not, and never has been, much of a big deal.
If Frederick Douglass could run for Senate in 1858, how racist could America *really* be?
Deep thoughts, ya know.
Amazing! It’s surely a coincidence, but a recently published book (I’m at the office and the title escapes me) has Douglass and Lincoln on the cover and could be described as a “debate” between Lincoln and Douglass over strategy and tactics of abolition.
Google hasn’t heard of “Type 3 Democrat”, so signs point to “a fig newton of Brick Oven Bill’s perfervid imagination”.
I hope he’s having fun under the bridge, yelling at the goats.
could be the Enneagram test ? (found this on a D.U. page)
Type 3 = “I must be impressive and attractive to be happy.”
?
there’s also this Type 3: “The Socialist”
Mindset: “I am basically a sociopathic elitist and have resentment and contempt for most people, which is why I support a party/dogma that treats them all like the stupid greedy children they are. If I can avoid common donkeywork and feather my own nest by organising/engineering the lives of these hopeless cattle my philosophical goals are met. If I can portray my base instincts and anti-social agendas as moral superiority and be exalted as a commoner’s demigod, my intellectual needs are met.”
CJColucci:
Actually, there are *two* recent books about Lincoln and Frederick Douglass:
The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics, by James Oakes, and Douglass and Lincoln: How a Revolutionary Black Leader and a Reluctant Liberator Struggled to End Slavery and Save the Union, by Paul Kendrick and Stephen Kendrick.
cleek, that (3 = The Socialist) sounds exactly what I would expect from BoB. Enneagram Type 3 is described in German books as “typically American”, “used car salesman”. Its typical representative is [dramatic drumroll] Ronald Reagan.
Dear Hilzoy: I trust you are well.
I read your column about the DOUGLASS/Lincoln “debates” and then used the link you gave to watch the video.
And I noticed one important fact I believe you should have mentioned. Near the BEGINNING of the video I saw portraits of Stephen DOUGLAS and Abraham Lincoln. It was only quite a bit later in the video that Frederick Douglass picture was shown next to that of Lincoln.
The conclusion I reached was that somebody at Fox News got a bit confused by the similarity of names and inserted the picture of Frederick Douglass for that of Senator Douglas. In short, a minor, even amusing mistake of the kind ANY of us can make.
Sincerely, Sean
I’m too busy with final packing/wrapping to google, but Bill explained his theory of Three Kinds Of Democrats a few days ago in another thread. It had nothing whatever to do with enneagrams; it was his own sort of analysis.
On the plus side, John Thullen is coming by tomorrow; little does he know how many boxes I hope to get him to carry down two flights of stairs; never make friends with someone from the internet!
Sean: the video is of someone on MSNBC making fun of Fox for putting up the picture of Frederick Douglass. MSNBC puts up Stephen Douglas to make the point; Fox, unfortunately, does not.
That said: yes, I’m sure it was a slip. Just a particularly funny one, and one that reveals more or less total ignorance of the condition of blacks in 1858.
Just to meet my quota of corrections for the day: Hilzoy doesn’t have a column. This is a blog; it’s not a newspaper or magazine, and she doesn’t have a column, and isn’t a columnist.
Hope you’re continuing to heal up, Sean. I still urge you to seek out some of the stronger critiques of Liberal Fascism, when you feel like googling. Meanwhile, get better.
Dear Hilzoy: Thanks for writing to me.
And I appreciate your correction re MSNBC. However, I still think some tired, overworked research assistant at Fox got confused and made a simple mistake. And was not necessarily ignorant of the shameful status of blacks in the US of 1858.
Sincerely, Sean
Dear Gary. Thanks for your note.
Yes, I know OW is a blog. But the owners and main contributords do post what sure LOOKS like columns to me. So what should we call them? Blogumns? (Blah!) Blog letters? (Better, but it seems awkward.) COLUMNS seems simplest.
Thanks for your good wishes re my surgery. The chief problem has not been pain or discomfort, just plain old tiredness.
And, I HAVE read many reviews of Jonah Goldberg’s excellent book LIBERAL FASCISM. Both pro and con. Including the one printed in NATIONAL REVIEW, the author of which does not entirely agree with Mr. Goldberg’s argument. One common feature I noticed with many of the hostile reviews was the sheer IRRATIONAL rage they had for Goldberg and his book.
Sincerely, Sean
Minor correction: It’s Justice Daniel, not Justice Daniels. (Peter Vivian Daniel was his name)
One common feature I noticed with many of the hostile reviews was the sheer IRRATIONAL rage they had for Goldberg and his book.
I love how anger at being insulted – and Goldberg’s idiotic book is nothing more than a full-length “no YOU’RE the Nazis” with lots of longer words – is “irrational” in conservaworld.
and Goldberg’s idiotic book is nothing more than a full-length “no YOU’RE the Nazis” with lots of longer words
Knowing Jonah, they probably weren’t that much longer…
“But the owners and main contributords do post what sure LOOKS like columns to me. So what should we call them?”
Blog posts. Like blog posts always been called.
“COLUMNS seems simplest.”
Only in the sense that it’s completely wrong.
As it is, enough people are confused and clueless about the difference between a newspaper editorial, an editorial columnist, and an Op-Ed piece.
All of which are extremely different things, and the distinctions between which are crucial: an editorial speaks for the position of the paper, and the paper’s editorial board.
A column is given to a select handful of people at a newspaper or magazine or syndication slot, and is a fixed gig of so many columns per week.
An Op-Ed (opposite-the-editorial) is an individual opinion piece representing only the views of the guest contributor.
Columnists are specific things, and so are columns. A blog post is no more a newspaper column than it is a door knob, or potted plant. See definition:
If you go to a newspaper or magazine, you can read a list of their columnists. It’s a specific job. They have specific contracts as columnists to produce columns. Other people do not.
If this was a regular publication, and Hilzoy was a featured columnist, with a schedule of two columns a week, or three, or five, or whatever, she’d be writing a column. But this isn’t a publication, it isn’t regular, Hilzoy isn’t an employee, she hasn’t been given a column, and her post isn’t a column. It’s a blog post, and we’re making comments on a blog post. “Blog post.” “Commments.”
Are we clear now?
I must go now, but please stop being wrong on the internet about this. Thanks.
J,
Could you please cite some proof for this statement?
I assume you are aware that both Lincoln and MLK were Republicans and that conservatives align themselves with Republicans. Only the Democrats have a former KKK member as a leader in Congress.
tired, overworked research assistant at Fox
We are very, very close to oxymoron territory here, people.
Jonah Goldberg’s excellent book LIBERAL FASCISM
wow.
that’s the kind of statement that stops a brain dead in its tracks…
Uh, “flow,” we are gonna need at least five cites on Martin Luther King being a Republican, from reputable biographers and historians. At least.
I’ll leave you to research the Council of Conservative Citizens and the Dixiecrats on your own, since tossing out “Lincoln was a Republican” and Robert Byrd generally indicates someone with . . . crap, what’s the polite way to say this? . . . a dearth of knowledge about 20th century political and racial history.
I assume you are aware that both Lincoln and MLK were Republicans
i assume you just happened to forget about a little thing called The Southern Strategy.
in case you don’t know what that was, here’s how Richard Nixon’s strategist, Kevin Phillip, described it:
From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that… but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
Dear Gary: I trust you are well.
Thanks for your long explanation on the proper defining and use of the word “column.” I accept that since OW is not a newspaper or magazing and since Hilzoy is not a contractual employee of OW, she does not write “columns.” We’ll simply call her contributions “blog posts.”
Sincerely, Sean
btw, Sean, I hope your recovery is going well.
since tossing out “Lincoln was a Republican” and Robert Byrd generally indicates someone with . . . crap, what’s the polite way to say this? . . . a dearth of knowledge about 20th century political and racial history.
How about “honkyvision”? I’m not sure how apt it is, but damn, do I like saying “honkyvision”.
And, I HAVE read many reviews of Jonah Goldberg’s excellent book LIBERAL FASCISM.
Ah yes, the long awaited 250 page rebuttal to the Dead Kennedy’s “California Uber Alles”
I don’t know how we got by for so long without one.
I assume you are aware that both Lincoln and MLK were Republicans
Sadly, both are dead and gone. We don’t get Republicans of quite that quality, these days.
Sean, I think if you do some homework on the history and ideology of fascism, you’ll find that it’s quite a bit different from current-day American liberalism. I’m sure Goldberg has some interesting things to say, but I think his basic premise is, historically, unsound.
I’m glad your surgery was successful. Take it easy for a while, if you can.
Thanks –
How about “honkyvision”? I’m not sure how apt it is, but damn, do I like saying “honkyvision”.
Heh. This reminds me (for unknown reasons) of a recent post at unfogged that quoted Chris Rock on Jeremiah Wright, something along the lines of:
“What?!!? A 75 year-old black man who hates white people?! Is there any other kind?”
“How about ‘honkyvision’? I’m not sure how apt it is, but damn, do I like saying ‘honkyvision’.”
I was very pleased to recently find number 15 available in streaming form again.
Phil,
I guess today’s Democrats were really the 1960’s Republicans that voted for the Civil Rights Act. I imagine you believe more Democrats voted for it than Republicans.
I wonder how many Democrats actually defected to the Republican party?
Let’s see Byrd… nope.
Let’s
(D)VA Harry F. Byrd, 1933-1965
(D)VA A. Willis Robertson, 1946-1966
(D)MS John C. Stennis, 1947-1989
(D)MS James O. Eastland, 1941-1941, 1943-1978
(D)LA Allen J. Ellender, 1937-1972
(D)LA Russell B. Long, 1948-1987
(D)OK Thomas Pryor Gore, 1906-1921, 1931-1937
(D)AL J. Lister Hill, 1938-1969
(D)AL John J. Sparkman, 1946-1979
(D)FL Spessard Holland, 1946-1971
(D)FL George Smathers, 1951-1969
(D)SC Olin D. Johnston, 1945-1965
(D,R)SC Strom Thurmond, 1954-1956, 1956-2003
(D)AR John McClellan, 1943-1977
(D)GA Richard B. Russell, Jr., 1933-1971
(D)GA Herman E. Talmadge, 1957-1981
(D)TN Herbert S. Walters, 1963-1964
flow, instead of including long lists, you can just link to the vote summary here, which shows that more Dems voted for it in the Senate and in the House for the original version, but more Republicans in the House voted for it for the Senate version.
Dear Hilzoy: I trust you are well.
Yes, I really am getting better. The chief problem this week was plain old TIREDNESS. Even noncomplicated surgery can DRAIN you of energy. Felt like a weak kitten Wednesday afternoon!
But I do hope to feel able to go to the chess club Friday night.
Sincerely, Sean
Dear Russell: Thanks for your note.
I am getting better. Little pain or discomfort. Just felt wiped out this week.
And, I do plan to read up more on “fascism.” Such as reading Adolf Hitler’s MEIN KAMPF. Altho Mussolini’s writings would probably be better. And the argument, among others, Goldberg made defining “fascism” as a left wing phenomemon from citing the ex Italian Socialist Party leader Mussolini’s works was esp. interesting.
I suggest you also read Goldberg’s book LIBERAL FASCISM, and then making your mind up.
Sincerely, Sean
And the argument, among others, Goldberg made defining “fascism” as a left wing phenomemon from citing the ex Italian Socialist Party leader Mussolini’s works was esp. interesting.
With respect — and partially inspired by Gary’s link above — it wasn’t even an argument. It was at best a contradiction. Or maybe just outright abuse.