Steve, this has nothing to do with King but rather Iran. There are more protests in the streets there.......its imperative that those of us who are free and want change in Iran keep that news in the forefront. Its esp. important for the media in all forms. TIA.

King insisted yesterday, "Liberals want to amend our country's history to eradicate the role of Christianity in America and chisel references to God or faith from our historical buildings."

Republicans are so dense. He hasn't even figured out that our eventual goal is to hold Satanic rituals in the Capitol rotunda.

Not to put to fine a point on Rep. King's idiocy, but 260,000 of those Civil War deaths were southerners fighting to keep slavery in place. Oh, never mind, I am getting a headache trying to understand him anyway.

Oh, c'mon now. we really don't know that King is angry that the black folk will be getting their due? With nary a mention of the brave white men who gave their lives to free those useless . . . um . . . folk?

A liberal-sponsored resolution passes with a vote of 399 to 1, and Steve Benen is so upset that it wasn't unanimous, that he's written two articles about it today!

Only in dictatorships are votes ever unanimous. But maybe that's what we've become.

"[O]f the 645,000 Africans that were brought here to be forcibly put intio slavery in the United States, there were over 600,000 people that gave their lives in the Civil War to put an end to slavery."

Maybe I'm being too picky, but the statement seems to say that the 600,000 Civil War dead were all African slaves.

And for what it's worth, King's figures appear to include Confederate dead; approximately 360,000 Union and 260,000 Confederate soldiers lost their lives in the war. Perhaps I'm not remembering my history, but I don't think a quarter of a million Confederates gave their lives to put an end to slavery.

Steve:

It's nice that you're charitable (or maybe there's some legality preventing you from calling a spade a spade). But King isn't trying to offer legitimate reasons: he's casting about for things he can say that might cover his naked racism.

To take his statements at face value is to look carefully at his words while ignoring the substance of what's happening.

Hey, Al: Pretty weak deflection there. Now try addressing the point of Steve's post.

King is just saying that like the Iraqis, black Americans have no gratitude for the people who liberated them.

It's hard to argue with that.

Like KT, I'll observe...

And of the 645,000 Africans that were brought here to be forcibly put into slavery in the United States, there were over 600,000 people that gave their lives in the Civil War to put an end to slavery.

King seems to be saying that about 95% of the Africans imported to the U.S. as slaves died during fighting in the Civil War. WTF?

Oh MykeK here's a statement that's just as pertinent as yours.
You need a glass window in your stomach so you can see where your going while you have your head up your ass which is pretty much all the time.
Wow I know it's a waste of time responding to this butthead but it felt good getting that off my chest.

King's 645,000 v. 600,000 remark not entirely clear, but he seems to be balancing the total number of Africans brought here as slaves v. the total number of battle deaths on the Union AND Confederate side, which is simply absurd, since the Confederate side favored continuing slavery.

Thus his 600,000 figure is such an absurdity that we hardly need get into a discursion on whether the Union was fighting to end slavery, which it was not. It was fighting to end secession. Ultimately, slavery was abolished, but ending slavery was not why the Union went to war.

Dan

So he is saying in his opening sentence ... 645,000 slaves were brought over and 600,000 of those died leaving only 45,000 slaves left.

Now Wiki says that 650,000 slaves were shipped to the US between the 16th and 19th century. So, unless they were rather long lived his premise is wrong.

Gandalf, Myke K is a spoof. There was a 'Mike K' troll here a while back, and Myke K was someone's reaction to that.

This 'Al' poster, on the other hand, seems to be real, albeit very dry and unoriginal.

Steve Benen wrote: "In the world where grown-ups live, it sounds like King doesn't know what he's talking about."

He knows exactly what he's talking about. He's preaching to the Ditto-Heads, and it's the usual Rush Limbaugh sermon about how they are all the poor pitiful "conservative", "real American" victims of "powerful liberal elites" and "eco-fanatics" and "feminazis" and of course "negroes".

I've been told not to criticize Steve on this score because he writes this way for "comedic effect", but I don't see the "comedy" value in attributing King's comments to ignorance or confusion when they are very clearly the deliberately dishonest, brutally cynical, ruthlessly manipulative propaganda of a corrupt con artist.

Maybe I'm being too picky, but the statement seems to say that the 600,000 Civil War dead were all African slaves.

Worse, it says that they were all the same slaves originally transported from Africa (not descendants), and almost all of them, so that there were virtually no African slaves in the US except those the huge number that the statement claims died fighting against slavery in the Civil War.

Steve isn't being comedic so much as sarcastic.

I wonder what the exact history is behind this. The capitol was built around the time of the civil war, and completed after it.

But I thought the Washington D.C. was part of the Union, and didn't allow slavery.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, "In God We Trust" wasn't a part of our "heritage" until the Cold War, to set us against scary godless commies. I can't think of anything less relevant to the history of the Capitol, unless it's meant as a commentary on the capacity of congressmen (and women) for boundless silliness in the name of a warped and frankly insecure of patriotism. IGWT is right up there with "Freedom Fries". Ugh.

Steve you're too highly educated and sophisticated to understand Steve King. King's argument is so abstruse that only wingnuts, or those trained for years in the art of deciphering dumb people stand a chance to get it.

What King is saying is that there were 645,000 African slaves that were brought to the US as the origin of slavery and there were about 600,000 soldiers that died on both sides in the Civil War in order to end slavery. You notice that the two numbers are roughly the same and both of them can be connected to slavery?

Voilà, King's logic: If there were to be a fair balance in depicting history, the Civil War death would need to be mentioned with the same prominence as the slaves that were brought to the American shore. Are these two numbers pretty similar or aren't they?

It's dumb, but his base will find his ability to come up with this kind of absurdity in order to avoid having to pronounce his true feelings ingenious and will reward him with two more years.

An unmentioned link in the Capital to the Civil War is Arlington National Cemetery. It's origins are a vivid reminder of the sacrifices made to keep the nation together. That slavery was abolished was a good result, too.

King is an unrepentant Confederate Republican. I don't give a crap about where he's from, he is appealing to the racists in his party (and elsewhere). One telling omission: by referencing the number of slaved shipped to the U.S., he ignored all of the black (and mixed race) babies born into slavery.

Disgusting.

I wonder what the exact history is behind this. The capitol was built around the time of the civil war, and completed after it.

But I thought the Washington D.C. was part of the Union, and didn't allow slavery.

The current dome was built at that time. But ground was broken for the original capitol building (which has been changed and added to a number of times since) in 1790-something. It was, like the White House, built with slave labor.

This guy is just a tool. The U.S. is littered with monuments to Civil War dead, including s**tloads of monuments to dead Confederates.

Thanks Shade Tail but please allow me to tilt at windmills. It's fun and upliifting.

By the way as of the census of 1860 there were about 4 million slaves held in the United States. The 645,000 number quoted by King is bullshit way of making the numbers seem smaller. Yes that many were brought here but the numbers of slaves increased in population as they lived here.

I wonder what the exact history is behind this. The capitol was built around the time of the civil war, and completed after it.

I think you're mixing up the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, because you're off by over 70 years -- Washington DC was founded in 1791. Slavery was not banned in Washington DC until 1862 so, yes, much of the city, including the Capitol building, was built by slave labor since the original building was completed in 1813.

Rep. King is grossly confused! The majority of all slave owners, and the majority of the political elite who were making (or not making) legal rulings regarding holding one man in bondage by another man were good practicing Christians. These same Christians viewed their human property just as they viewed their mules, furniture and other livestock. Yes, Rep. King, Christians owned slaves and justified such practices by using their holy literature, The Bible.

Yes Rep. King, Christians owned slaves, and quite a few abused those they owned. Now, can't we at least acknowledge the slaves who toiled to build the bastion of democracy, Washington, D.C.? If you are so resistant, please take comfort in your good book and explain to us why such a gesture of recognizing past wrongs is so anti-Christian. -Kevo

King is an idiot. He says:

"...there were over 600,000 people that gave their lives in the Civil War to put an end to slavery..."

Arguably only 360,000 of those gave their lives in that goal. The rest fought on the losing side.

I see I'm not the first (or second or third) to note the obvious. Apologies; next time I'll read all the replies before adding my own two cents (at least they won't be in Confederate currency).

"[O]f the 645,000 Africans that were brought here to be forcibly put into slavery in the United States, there were over 600,000 people that gave their lives in the Civil War to put an end to slavery.
-----------------------

How many died DEFENDING slavery?

A reply to Rep. King:

If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."--A. Lincoln

Agent shortstop,

Please cease and desist all talk concerning our devious, satanic plans for the rotunda.

You've been warned before about revealing details of the Vast Liberal Conspiracy. One more demerit, and you'll be on the electric bullet train straight to the reeducation center where Harry Reid will issue a stern promotion for you indiscretion.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, "In God We Trust" wasn't a part of our "heritage" until the Cold War... -Rob

It started during the mid 1800s, during the Civil War, when it first appeared on currency, but you're correct that it wasn't made a national motto until 1956.

I think the lesson is that war inflames jingoism in the weak of mind, and Congress, like the good leaders they are, follows their citizenry into the depths of stupidity.

It is very revealing that Representative King would conflate "Christian Heritage" with opposing apologies for slavery.

It seems that this bland-sounding term can serve as a cover for some pretty extreme viewpoints - sort of the same way that "Confederate Heritage" does.

there were over 600,000 people that gave their lives in the Civil War to put an end to slavery

I think it's pretty clear King is trying to say we need to honor the Confederate war dead. What he says is a little muddled - he would probably parse it that the Confederate soldiers gave their lives in the Civil war, AND the Civil War was to put an end to slavery. The connection between the two is kind of incidental. Just like German soldiers in WWII gave their lives in the World War to stop Nazism.

of the 645,000 Africans that were brought here to be forcibly put into slavery in the United States

That's only the number that survived the trip presumably. How many were taken from Africa?

The 645,00 number has already gotten some comments, but it's worth remembering that in 1860 there were 4 million slaves in the U.S.

"How many [of the 620,000 or so soldiers killed in the Civil War] died DEFENDING slavery?"

Very few of them, even among the Confederates. Most Confederate soldiers were common folk who didn't own slaves, so they had no personal interest in perpetuating slavery other than, perhaps, to ensure the presence of a class of people below themselves on the social ladder. Most of them fought to protect their homes or to defend the principle of states' rights; loyalty to one's state was much more important then than now.

loyalty to one's state was much more important then than now.

Perhaps. I don't think that was a particularly Northern perspective even in 1861. It's certainly true, though, that the majority of Confederate soldiers weren't slaveholders. Probably more accurate to say they were slaves to the interests of the powers that were, in much the same way that today's red America serves corporate masters against its own economic interests.

Oh, and VLC Enforcement: Sir, yes, sir. Loose lips sink ships.

King's western Iowa district has almost no black people.

Therefore, from the blinkered viewpoint of the Republicans who nominated and elected King, any tax monies spent in any way on helping or recognizing the history of black people is taxing money from "us" and using it for the benefit of "those people".

"I wonder what the exact history is behind this. The capitol was built around the time of the civil war, and completed after it.

But I thought the Washington D.C. was part of the Union, and didn't allow slavery."

First, here is the history, published by the Clerk of the House: http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/art_artifacts/slave_labor_reportl.pdf

Second, the UNION allowed slavery. It was protected in several ways by the US Constitution, and the Congress itself intervened many times to impose slavery on states which tried to abolish it, e.g., the Fugitive Slave Act.

Third, the question of abolition in the District of Columbia was a significant problem throughout the decades before the Civil War.

Because DC is not a state, it had a different relationship to Congress than, say, Virginia or Maryland, the two slave states that surrounded it. It was also under the direct control of Congress, so it was a political as well as a Constitutional question whether, in the end, Congress could abolish even the slave TRADE, the actual buying and selling of human beings, within the nation's Capitol city.

And there was never any question that Congress had no power whatsoever to free slaves who were brought to DC by their owners -- many of whom served in Congress, and had their slaves perform as their personal servants, footmen, etc, on the grounds.

But this particular report documents slaves who were directly employed in the construction of the US Capitol, whose OWNERS were paid for their labor, e.g., "1795... August 6, Francis Hammersly, $30.73, for Negro sawyers..."

This 'Al' poster, on the other hand, seems to be real, albeit very dry and unoriginal.
Posted by: Shade Tail

Al's been a parody troll here for a long time, dating back to Kevin Drum.

if Steve King ever does run into the Saviour, I hope Jesus slaps the shit out of him...

You are such a stupid goober dumbshit Al Jr.

Posted by: Al on July 9, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Benen's comments don't have anything to do with the vote numbers but with King's obvious stupidity. Not that he opposed the measure but his comments for doing so.

After every post today there is Al Jr with some cut on the article. You are so ignorant that you can't even see how ignorant you are. What, do you get paid to troll? At least have an argument besides "Oh yeah, well...well... so are you". Just pathetic. Others here are just dong their best to ignore you to be polite but make no mistake...you appear laughably stupid to them as well Al Jr. troll.

Someone needs to tell Mr. King, that no matter how much racial hatred he has, people already know why.

The American men like to go to Asian countries to have sex with little girls.

Meanwhile, American women like to go to Caribbean countries to have sex with "buffed" black men.

***This is especially so in Dominican Republic - so listen up guys, don't you wonder why some women take the trek and move by themselves. That's right, there are plenty of "boy toys" there.

BTW, I was making this point because as much as these "white" men are trying to make an issue of race, it will never happen.

What they are doing instead is pushing women away from them.

Can we raise money to build a monument to Steve King - Just a big hole, with a bull dozer facing straight down in the middle with trash filled around it.

Steve King is apparently the only congressman with any courage.

I have heard that African blacks find it just hilarious the way American whites cower and pander to the phony hypersensitivity power-play of American blacks.

Slavery was 150 years ago. Time to stop whining and angling for reparations, reparations being nothing but thinly disguised greed.

The odd thing here is that that is the reason I am against reparations. I'm non-white but the reparations America paid for slavery were the loss of 1,000,000 lives in combat, disease and other losses directly attributable to the war. The payments were made, in blood.

That doesn't resolve the obligation to provide a fair shake for all people of color and to guarantee their safety and for their skin color to not be a hindrance, but that obligation is an obligation that comes with being a non-shitty country, not because of slavery.

"Liberals want to amend our country's history to eradicate the role of Christianity in America and chisel references to God or faith from our historical buildings."

Be still, my beating heart. If only!

But this boly who kicked the Sunday school teacher in the shins at age 4 and called her a liar won't be holding his breath that such a wonderful event might happen.

That's why the Capitol Visitors Center exists -- to offer visitors information about the Capitol.

No, the Capitol Visitors Center is a gussied-up security screening bunker designed to keep people away from the historic entrance to the Capitol and funnel them like rats through a tunnel instead. "Offering visitors information" is a distant secondary goal of the center.

Yep--according to King, 92 percent of the Africans brought to America gave their lives in the Civil War.

the reparations America paid for slavery were the loss of 1,000,000 lives in combat, disease and other losses directly attributable to the war.

I think it's difficult to argue that the victims of American slavery were repaid by the sacrifices made during the Civil War.

The war was not fought by the North to preserve the Union, and by the South to seek independence. Slavery was a contributing factor in the outbreak of war, to be sure, but the conflict was not a crusade launched to abolish slavery.

Moreover, if I had been a slave, I might be grateful that the Union decided to end slavery after the war. However, I doubt I would see that as reparations, or compensation for what I'd suffered. This was merely the nation stopping the practice of slavery, not doing anything to make up for what it had done.