Friday, May 21, 2010

The Great Declaration of Independence by David Barton

Congressional parliamentary procedure requires that in any debate, the individual speaking may not directly address any person except the chairman, and that he may not at any time address any other member of the body by name. Therefore, speakers used terms such as “the distinguished gentleman” or “the gentleman from Georgia” rather than “you” or “Mr. Stephens.” they could not prostitute to the base uses of slavery. The gentleman from Georgia has learned much since, but he is behind the times. Let him lend his influence this nation worthy of the great Declaration of Independence most nearly redeems his reputation. – Slaves who never failed to lift their earnest prayers for success of this government when the gentleman Mr. was asking to break up the Union of these and to blot the American Republic from the galaxy of nations. Civilized world by announcing the birth of a government which the progress of events has swept away that pseudo-government which rested on greed, pride, and tyranny; and the race whom he then ruthlessly spurned and trampled on are here to meet him in debate and to complete the proud structure of legislation which makes which heralded its birth, and he will have done that which will the Stephens States Sir, it is scarcely twelve years since that gentleman shocked the rested on human slavery as its cornerstone.

Demand that the rights which are enjoyed by their former oppressors who vainly sought to overthrow a government which 1861 still a laggard Elliott’s magnificent response did not convert Alexander Stephens or the other Democrats, but it was so eloquent that it silenced them. In fact, the Democrats’ rebuttal against Elliott was so weak that the best they could do was to claim that the speech was not really his – which it was so brilliant that someone else must have written it – that surely a black American such as Elliott could not have created such a masterful speech. 230 That Democratic response against Elliott’s eloquence is reminiscent of an old lawyers’ adage that admonishes: “When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.” That was exactly the approach taken by the Democrats against Elliott. He so completely befuddled them with his oratorical skills that all they could do was claim someone else must have written his speech.

Rep. John Roy Lynch of Mississippi, in closing his speech on the same bill, predicted what he believed would be the outcome of the vote: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Republican Members of the House that the passage of this bill is expected by you. If any of our Democratic friends will vote for it, we will be agreeably surprised. But if Republicans should vote against it, we will be sorely disappointed. . . . But I have no fears whatever in this respect. You Republicans have stood by the colored people of this country when it was more unpopular to do so than it is to pass this bill. You have fulfilled every promise thus far, and I have no reason to believe that you will not fulfill this one.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.