1. Michelle Bachmann promoted similar claims. In 2011 her campaign website recommended a 1997 biography of Robert E. Lee by J. Steven Wilkins.

    Wilkins wrote:


    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 more about Bachmann read this:

  2. Daniel

    I’m not a fan of Bundy. I’m a pro-gun supporter. I think Bundy is probably a racist, and I find racism disgusting. I think Bundy is unsophiscated, partly because he kept saying “they was,” instead of “they were.” I think the armed response to an armed response was wrong. However, please quote what Bundy actually said. He didn’t say, “Negroes” had in better on the plantation, rather he said he had “wondered” if they had it better on the plantation. It makes some difference.

  3. Number 6

    Excellent article! Everything was summed up very nicely….except….I would add one thing….Besides being an unabashed racist, Bundy is a mooch….Other ranchers pay the grazing fees, but not Bundy.

  4. Jon

    The land belongs to all of us. He’s using it for his own personal profit.

    Imagine someone wanders into your living room, says, “It’s nice, I’ll take it”. Your objections about rental agreements and security deposits are simply met with “I don’t respect your authority” and he starts selling auto parts out of your living room. Then you call the cops on him, and fifty of his ‘best friends’ show up with rifles and the one responding cop car just ups and backs off.

    It’s our land. It’s his profit. How can this be a ‘freedom’ issue?


  5. In 2004 the Federal agencies spent $144 million in grazing management programs while collecting $21 million or 1/6 of the expenditure of managing the grazing lands. It would be more in the people’s interest to not manage the land at all, or to allow the state or local governments to manage the land within their territories if the objective is to preserve the wealth of the people at a Federal level.

    • My stats sourced here. Of note, “The purpose of the grazing fee is, ultimately, for the
      Congress to determine.”

      Unsure what they determined it was for. Seems like a ranch subsidy more than anything else.