You did not provide a speech, or even a quote from said speech. I am not taking homework assignments today.Translation: "I'm not going to read any speeches from Jefferson Davis that prove secession was about slavery."
We were not discussing the causes of the Civil War, but your violoation of Godwin's Law and your bogus quotes and citations. I see no reason to read a long speech in order to guess what point you may desire to make. As you found nothing worth spending your time to cite or quote, I saw no reason to waste my time reading it, and tryuing to divine your purpose.
As you found nothing in the speech worth citing or quoting, I find nothing in it worth reading.Now that's funny. You reposted my comment where I pointed out which passage in particular to review. Didn't you bother to read what you reposted and replied to?
Your non-substantive homework was:
Here is one of his speeches in 1858.Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
Now compare his defense of slavery, and paragraph 7 in particular, to the quote you posted from 1865.
In reply, I neither cited, quoted, or commented upon anything that may be at your cited speech from 1858.
Paragraph 7 of what??? I made allusion to paragraph 7 of the Davis letter of October 11-12 only to point out that the Varina Davis excerpt from paragraph 7 of that letter was:
... I have lately read the ‘Suffering Saviour’ by the Reverend Dr. Krumacher, and was deeply impressed with the dignity, the sublime patience of the model of Christianity, as contrasted with the brutal vindictiveness of unregenerate man; and with the similitude of the portrait given of the Jews to the fierce prosecutions which pursued the Revolutionists after the restoration of the Stuarts. One is led to ask, Did Sir Henry Vane and the Duke of Argyle imitate the more than human virtue of our Saviour, or was their conduct the inspiration of a conscience void of offence in that whereof they were accused?
If you find something about paragraph 7 to be enthralling, tell me about it.
[woodpusher #634] Neither does your quote referencing “negroes’ fidelity” appear in the letter of October 11 in the Papers of Jefferson Davis (13 vols).[TwelveOfTwenty #636] That was from one of your posts here.
Your embedded link:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3999949/posts?page=494#494
Your embedded link goes to the first posting of the quote. It is a post from FLT-bird to wardaddy, and I am not in the address line. I did not post it, and it was not sent to me.
My #590 responded to FLT-bird (and wardaddy) and called the provenance into question.
In addition to the Memoirs of Varina Davis, I have The Papers of Jefferson Davis, Vol. 11, June 1865 - December 1870, Lynda Lasswell Crist, Editor, LSU Press, 2008. In this volume, the Letters appear in chronological order. There is one, and only one, letter of Jefferson Davis to Varina Davis on October 11, 1865 from Fortress Monroe included therein, but it has an entirely different text from what is provided by Varina Davis. Varina only provided excerpts from the text she quoted from, with the excerpts spanning pp. 720-28 of Volume 2 of her Memoir. The Papers of Jefferson Davis provides a different text for that same date in its entirety, spanning pp. 32-36 in a small type font. I have no explanation for this anomaly, but I believe the lengthier excerpt I have provided, with date, provides some useful information.
That is the reason I included FLT-bird and wardaddy in the address line of my #634 to which you here respond.
Upon further investigation, I found:
Four of the Varina Davis excerpts do appear in the text of the October 11-12 letter. The "negroes' fidelity" quote (among others) does not.
Two of the misattributed Varina Davis excerpts that do not appear, I have identified in a November 3-4 letter.
I have not yet identified the misattributed "negroes' fidelity" excerpt within any writing of Jefferson Davis. Neither have you.
I have absolutely proven that some of the Varina Davis excerpts are misattributed to the October 11-12 letter.
Your claim that it is from an 1865 letter has no basis unless you can connect it with an 1865 letter. It is NOT from the Jefferson Davis letter of October 11, 1865. That is a misattribution.
TwelveOfTwenty #592
"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939." Berlin, 29 April, 1945, 4 a.m. Adolf HitlerSee how that works?
At my #594 I invoked Godwin's Law:
Godwin’s law:Usenet "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
At your #597, in response to my #596, you quoted from my #594 without attribution and responded to #594.
Usenet "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches oneI understand your point. My only point was that when all was lost, Hitler's response was something to the effect of "I didn't want this". I saw the same in the comments you posted from Jefferson Davis in 1865, when he tried to distance himself from slavery.
The quote you rely on is misattributed to a letter of October 11-12, 1865. It's actual date and provenance are not traced to Jefferson Davis or any particular date. In any case,
As you linked to #494, you should notice that I did not post it.
Davis was incarcerated on May 22, 1865. Five or six months, or more, after Davis was incarcerated and indicted, how does this parallel Hitler?
As for the rest of your post, I saw personal attacks, diversions, and plenty of text from other people's work. The only thing I didn't see was a rebuttal to my point that Jefferson Davis was walking back his former comments supporting slavery.
You only see whatever ridiclous, specious crap you want to see. Jefferson Davis said nothing walking back his support of slavery. That is merely your vivid imagination at work. Davis and others expressed caring affections for slaves, before and after the war. The "quote" of an unknown letter on an unknown date said, "I hope the negroes fidelity will be duly rewarded, and regret that we are not in a situation to aid and protect them. There is, I observe, a controversy which I regret as to allowing negroes to testify in court."
As documented in my #613:
Grant, Lincoln, and the Freedmen, Reminiscences if the Civil War, with Special Reference to The Work for the Contrabands and Freedmen of the Mississippi Valley, by John Eaton, Ph.D., LL.D., Brigadier-General; General Superintendant of Freedmen, Department of the Tennessee; Assistant Commissioner of Freedmen, Freedmen's Bureau; Commissioner of Education of the United States; U.S. Superintendent of schools, Porto Rico; in collaboration with Ethel Osgood Mason, Longmans, Green, and Co., 91 and 93 Fifth Avenue, New York, London, Bombay, and Calcutta, 1907, p. 165-66:
Available at Googlebooks.
Late in the season—in November and December, 1864, — the Freedmen’s Department was restored to full control over the camps and plantations on President’s Island and Palmyra or Davis Bend. Both these points had been originally occupied at the suggestion of General Grant, and were among the most successful of our enterprises for the Negroes. With the expansion of the lessee system, private interests were allowed to displace the interests of the Negroes whom we had established there under the protection of the Government, but orders issued by General N. J. T. Dana, upon whose sympathetic and intelligent co-operation my officers could always rely, restored to us the full control of these lands. The efforts of the freedmen on Davis Bend were particularly encouraging, and this property, under Colonel Thomas’s able direction, became in reality the “Negro Paradise” that General Grant had urged us to make of it. Early in 1865 a system was adopted for their government in which the freedmen took a considerable part. The Bend was divided into districts, each having a sheriff and judge appointed from among the more reliable and intelligent colored men. A general oversight of the proceedings was maintained by our officer in charge, who confirmed or modified the findings of the court. The shrewdness of the colored judges was very remarkable, though it was sometimes necessary to decrease the severity of the punishments they proposed. Fines and penal service on the Home Farm were the usual sentences imposed. Petty theft, and idleness, were the most frequent causes of trouble, but my officers were able to report that exposed property was as safe on Davis Bend as it would be anywhere. The community distinctly demonstrated the capacity of the Negro to take care of himself and exercise under honest and competent direction the functions of self-government.
And,
Jefferson Davis, the Negroes and the Negro Problem
Walter L. Fleming
The Sewanee Review, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Oct., 1908), pp. 407-427
Longmans, Green & Co., 91-93 Fifth Avenue, New York; London and Bombay; Printed at The University Press of Sewanee Tennessee
Volume 16 available at Googlebooks. Search "the sewanee review 1908"
Fleming at page 411:
After the death of Pemberton in 1852 Davis employed white overseers, some of whom did not approve of his system of managing negroes. They were not allowed to inflict punishment—only to report offenses. One of them left because of his objection to the negro court. The Davis system which was practiced until 1862 had vitality enough to survive for a while after the Federals had occupied the plantations, and a year later a Northern officer who saw what remained of the self-governing community and knowing nothing of its origin took it for a new development, and an evidence of how one year of freedom would elevate the blacks.
This was all while the war was still ongoing. It was not invented by Jefferson Davis after the war.
In your twisted mind, you observe that one southerner [substitute any group] beats his dog, and you conclude that all southerners [or whoever] beat their dog.
Lincoln espoused a reversal of history to have the Union create the States. In that regard you can compare Lincoln to a certain European leader.
President Lincoln's message of July 4, 1861 to the Special Session of Congress.
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?[...]
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.
- - - - - - - - - -
European politician.
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. The extensive rights of independence that were relinquished, 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 sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which we could more accurately designate as privileges.
Two peas in a pod, hard to tell apart.
- - - - - - - - - -
A ready comparison of Lincoln and a European politician can be made. For a view of the Constitution and the Union shared by Jefferson and an American politician, try the following — Ronald Reagan.
President Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, Tuesday, January 20, 1981
All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
Reagan had it right. The States created the Federal government. A small State still has sovereignty. A county of any size does not. The Union was not a sovereign and could not create a sovereign anything. A small State can ratify an Amendment to the Constitution. A county gets to obey whatever the States ratify.
Neither Davis nor Reagan would ever subscribe to the horse pucky stated by Lincoln. DAvis and Reagan both knew that the States created the Union. It seems the notions of Lincoln had support in Europe though.
637
In total
I didn’t know this except from the recent book I knew Davis was by most accounts a reasonable master
I wouldn't call it enthralling and it certainly isn't everything he said about preserving slavery in that speech, but how about "You too know, that among us, white men have an equality resulting form a presence of a lower caste, which cannot exist where white men fill the position here occupied by the servile race."
That wasn't from Mein Kampf. That was from Jefferson Davis.
Since you don't seem to dispute the authenticity of that speech, or if you did then I couldn't see it among all of that other stuff you flooded your post with, we'll go with the understanding that JD actually said this.
Your embedded link goes to the first posting of the quote. It is a post from FLT-bird to wardaddy, and I am not in the address line. I did not post it, and it was not sent to me. My #590 responded to FLT-bird (and wardaddy) and called the provenance into question.
I'm not sure how I got the link to the wrong post, but you are correct. Since I acknowledge my mistake, I'm sure you're going to insult me again.
You only see whatever ridiclous, specious crap you want to see. Jefferson Davis said nothing walking back his support of slavery.
You could have given that answer without burying it in other people's work for post after post, and I would have accepted it.
Neither Davis nor Reagan would ever subscribe to the horse pucky stated by Lincoln.
Neither had to deal with the Democrats splitting the nation in an admitted attempt to preserve slavery.