Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Renfrew

“(Jefferson)Davis makes exactly the same arguments as modern Democrats: that the USA was founded as a slave state and was designed for white supremacy.”

Wasn’t it Jefferson Davis that made the following quote? Or, was it someone else?

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”


10 posted on 08/04/2023 6:20:29 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: jeffersondem

I’ll take Lincoln for $500.


12 posted on 08/04/2023 7:22:16 PM PDT by ebshumidors ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: jeffersondem

I think Lincoln said that.


43 posted on 08/07/2023 1:08:14 PM PDT by laplata (They want each crisis to take the greatest toll possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: jeffersondem

Bookmark


44 posted on 08/07/2023 1:13:55 PM PDT by Loud Mime ("The Real Constitution and its Real Enemies" now available on Amazon. Check it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: jeffersondem
Wasn’t it Jefferson Davis that made the following quote? Or, was it someone else?

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:20.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext

It is from the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858; Lincoln speaking. CW 3:145-146, at link above.

See also, Seventh Debate, Alton, Illinois, October 15, 1858; CW 3:317

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:33.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext

I suppose most of us, (I know it of myself,) believe that the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional fugitive slave law—that it is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to them without Congressional legislation. In the Judge's language, it is a "barren right" which needs legislation before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. And as the right is constitutional I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it—and that not that we like the institution of slavery. We profess to have no taste for running and catching n****** — at least I profess no taste for that job at all. Why then do I yield support to a fugitive slave law? Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that right, can be supported without it.

Can you identify who said what?

- - -

[1] Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of their territory as they inhabit.

- - -

[2] What is the particular sacredness of a State? I speak not of that position which is given to a State in and by the Constitution of the United States, for that all of us agree to---we abide by; but that position assumed, that a State can carry with it out of the Union that which it holds in sacredness by virtue of its connection with the Union. I am speaking of that assumed right of a State, as a primary principle, that the Constitution should rule all that is less than itself, and ruin all that is bigger than itself. But, I ask, wherein does consist that right? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county?

- - -

[3] The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States.

- - -

[4] What is a confederation of states? By a confederacy, we mean a group of sovereign states which come together of their own free will and, in virtue of their sovereignty, create a collective entity. In doing so, they assign selective sovereign rights to the national body that will allow it to safeguard the existence of the joint union.

This theoretical definition does not apply in practice, at least not without some alterations, to any existing confederation of states in the world today. It applies the least to the American Union of States. Most of these individual states never possessed any sovereignty whatsoever. They were gradually brought into the framework of the union as a whole. Therefore. the various states of the American Union constitute, in most instances smaller or larger territories that were formed for technical administrative reasons and their borders were frequently drawn with a roler. These states never possessed any previous sovereignty of their own because that would have been impossible. These states did not come together to create the Union, but it was the Union that created these so-called states. The extensive rights of independence that were relinquishcd, or rather rights that were granted, to the different territories are in harmony with the whole character of this confederation of states and with the vastness of its area and overall size which is almost as large as a continent. So, in referring to the states of the American Union, one cannot speak of their state soverignty, but only of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which we could more accurately designate as privileges.

- - -

[5] All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.


49 posted on 08/07/2023 3:04:46 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson