PRESIDENT DONALD J TRUMP
whitehouse.gov
donaldjtrump.com
DAILY SCHEDULE (WH Press Corps)
publicpool.kinja.com
WH PRESS BRIEFINGS
pastebin.com
APPEARANCES
>Pres Trump Weekly Address #23 6/30/17
youtu.be
>Pres Trump admonishes the press 6/30/17
youtu.be
>Pres Trump signs Space Council EO 6/30/17
youtu.be
>Pres Trump bilateral meet w/Moon Leader 6/30/17
youtu.be
>Victims of Illegal Immigration 6/30/17
youtu.be
>Victims of Illigal Immigration - Juan Pina's story 6/30/17
youtu.be
>Pres Trump joint statement w/Moon Leader 6/30/17
youtu.be
>Pres Trump meets w/Moon Leader 6/30/17
youtu.be
>VP Pence/Moon Leader Wreath Laying Ceremony for korean war 6/30/17
youtu.be
>WH Press Brief (Sarah, audio only) 6/30/17
youtu.be
>State Dept FPC Brief - US leadership in Energy 6/30/17
youtu.be
NEWTRUMP NIGHTLY NEWS
pastebin.com
PREV APPEARANCES
pastebin.com
FUN STUFF
Trump Playlist
pastebin.com
>Trump SwordDancing to Shadilay
youtu.be
>AF1 Takeoff in the rain
youtu.be
>Donald Trump Emperor of America
youtu.be
>TrumpBot vs Mexico
youtu.be
>Shadilay
youtu.be
INSPIRATION
>Trump Triumphant
www.dailymotion.com/video/x4ulway
>MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
youtu.be
>Hold Back The Night
youtu.be
>Inauguration of Fire
youtu.be
>#TrumpTheEstablishement
youtu.be
>American Hero
youtu.be
>TRUMP - MAGA
youtu.be
OP pastebin: pastebin.com
prev
/ptg/ PRESIDENT TRUMP GENERAL - BURGERS ARE STILL ASLEEP EDITION
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
m.youtube.com
twitter.com
MAGA
NO MORE FUCKING ESSAY POSTS
>Taney's opinion took up first the question whether Dred Scott, as a black man, was a citizen with the right to sue in federal courts. Taney devoted more space to this matter than to anything else. Why he did so is puzzling, for in the public mind this was the least important issue in the case. But southern whites viewed free blacks as an anomaly and a threat to the stability of slavery; Taney's own state of Maryland contained the largest free Negro population of any state. The chief justice's apparent purpose in negating U.S. citizenship for blacks, wrote Fehrenbacher, was "to launch a sweeping counterattack on the antislavery movement and . . . to meet every threat to southern stability by separating the Negro race absolutely from the federal Constitution and all the rights that it bestowed." To do so, however, he had to juggle history, law, and logic in "a gross perversion of the facts."8 Negroes had not been part of the "sovereign people" who made the Constitution, Taney ruled; they were not included in the "all men" whom the Declaration of Independence proclaimed "created equal." After all, the author of that Declaration and many of the signers owned slaves, and for them to have regarded members of the enslaved race as potential citizens would have been "utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted." For that matter, wrote Taney, at the time the Constitution was adopted Negroes "had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order . . . so far inferior, that they had no rights which a white man was bound to respect."
das rite awoo mufuggah
awooo
I wonder when we are going to get a update on today's schedule
>This was false, as Curtis and McLean pointed out in their dissents. Free blacks in 1788 and later had many legal rights (to hold and bequeath property, make contracts, seek redress in courts, among others). In five of the thirteen states that ratified the Constitution black men were legal voters and participated in the ratification process. No matter, said Taney, these were rights of state citizenship and the question at issue was United States citizenship. A person might "have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State," opined the chief justice, and "yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State"—a piece of judicial legerdemain that contradicted Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Having established to his satisfaction that blacks were not citizens, Taney could have stopped there and refused jurisdiction because the case was not properly before the Court. That he did not do so rendered the remainder of his decision, in the opinion of many contemporaries and the earliest generations of historians, obiter dictum —a statement in passing on matters not formally before the Court and therefore without force of law. But Taney insisted that because the circuit court had considered all aspects of the case and decided them "on their merits," the whole case including the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise restriction on which Scott based part of his suit for freedom was properly before the Court. Modern scholars agree. Whatever else Taney's ruling was, it was not obiter dictum.
lel
Fuck Drumpf and fuck white people.
>33 posts by this ID
>53 by the other
Well, at least it keeps the thread bumped
>Taney and six other justices (with only Curtis and McLean dissenting) concurred that Scott's "sojourn" for two years in Illinois and for a similar period at Fort Snelling, even if the latter was free territory, did not make him free once he returned to Missouri. To this matter Taney devoted only one of the 55 pages of his opinion. The constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise received 21 pages of labored prose arguing that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in a territory. That the Constitution (Article IV, Section 3) gave Congress the power to "make all needful rules and regulations" for the territories was not relevant, said the chief justice in a typical example of hair-splitting, because rules and regulations were not laws. The Fifth Amendment protected persons from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process; slavery was no different from other property, and a ban on slavery was therefore an unconstitutional deprivation of property. "And if Congress itself cannot do this," continued Taney in what he intended as a blow against popular sovereignty, "it could not authorize a territorial government to exercise" such a power. This clearly was obiter dictum, since the question of the power of a territorial government over slavery was not part of the case.
Too late, he's here too.
Its gotta be a dump script, no way someone would do this 3:47AM when most users are asleep.
oh.
It's been a long time since that memory came up. Thanks for that, I guess.
>Republicans adopted the dissents by Curtis and McLean as their official position on the case. Not only was Scott a free man by virtue of his prolonged residence in free territory, said the dissenters, but he was also a citizen under the Constitution. And that Constitution did empower Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories. "All needful rules and regulations" meant precisely what it said. The first Congress under the Constitution had reaffirmed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banning slavery in the Northwest Territory. Subsequent Congresses down through 1820 excluded slavery from specific territories on four additional occasions. Many framers of the Constitution were alive during this period, and none objected to these acts. Indeed, several framers served in Congress and voted for them or, as presidents of the United States, signed them into law! If the exclusion of slavery from a territory violated due process, asked Curtis, what of the 1807 law ending importation of slaves from Africa? Indeed, what of laws in free states banning slavery? In any case, to prevent a slaveowner from taking his slaves into a territory did not deprive him of that property.
>Land on Moon 50 years ago.
>"Ok better stop this insanity, lets not colonize the near space, moon & mars.
What made Man do such a stupid thing
A quick reminder to please report any spam and spam posters so that hopefully some fatass gets off of their ass and deals with it at some point.
Salty about losing the election and based on that flag you are also salty about the travel ban
Essaybot is here, now where's the reddit troll?
Can you filter ids on mobile?
>dumpf voters
Reminder that /ptg/ is full of kekistani redditor cucks, all alt righters go for intellectuals discussions over to TRS
Keep dropping those tactical blackippls, fellow fashypedes!
MELANIA, IVANKA, KELLYANNE, SARAH, HOPE BTFO
AWOO~
>Instead of removing the issue of slavery in the territories from politics, the Court's ruling became itself a political issue. Northern Democrats gloated that Taney's opinion was "the funeral sermon of Black Republicanism . . . crushing and annihilating . . . the anti-slavery platform . . . at a single blow." Southerners congratulated themselves that "Southern opinion upon the subject of Southern slavery . . . is now the supreme law of the land." The decision "crushes the life out of that miserable . . . Black Republican organization." But the Republican party declined to die. Its press condemned this "Jesuitical decision" based on "gross historical falsehoods" and a "willful perversion" of the Constitution. If this ruling "shall stand for law," wrote William Cullen Bryant, slavery was no longer the "peculiar institution" of fifteen states but "a Federal institution, the common patrimony and shame of all the States. . . . Hereafter, wherever our . . . flag floats, it is the flag of slavery. . . . Are we to accept, without question . . . that hereafter it shall be a slaveholders' instead of the freemen's Constitution? Never! Never!" In this spirit several Republican state legislatures passed resolutions asserting that the ruling was "not binding in law and conscience."
No, stop being a phoneposter.
Between then and now, satellites were launched into space. It broadened out the advancement of technology, especially the internet.
Imagine what the new US Space Corps will bring us.
You just described a Liberal SJW. Projection?
drumpf has crashed and burned
if only we elected a constitutional conservative like Ted Cruz who could restore America
Stop spamming.
The beans, user. The answer lies within the beans
Didn't the MSM just have a melt down over Trump criticizing Mika's face...
Can you stop. You've been doing this all day.
>The New York Tribune declared contemptuously that this decision by "five slaveholders and two doughfaces"15 was a " dictum . . . entitled to just as much moral weight as would be the judgment of a majority of those congregated in any Washington bar-room." The dictum theory justified Republican refusal to recognize the ruling as a binding precedent. They proclaimed an intent to "reconstitute" the Court after winning the presidency in 1860 and to overturn the "inhuman dicta" of Dred Scott. "The remedy," said the Chicago Tribune, was "the ballot box. . . . Let the next President be Republican, and 1860 will mark an era kindred with that of 1776."
>It soon dawned on northern Democrats that Taney had aimed to discomfit them as well as the Republicans. Although the question of popular sovereignty had not been directly before the Court, the principle of Dred Scott was not merely that Congress had no power to exclude slavery from a territory, but that slave property could not be excluded. Douglas grasped this nettle fearlessly. Yes, he said in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, in June 1857, the Dred Scott decision was law and all good citizens must obey it. A master's right to take slaves into any territory was irrevocable. BUT—citizens of a territory could still control this matter. How? The right of property in slaves "necessarily remains a barren and worthless right," said Douglas, "unless sustained, protected and enforced by appropriate police regulations and local legislation" which depended on "the will and the wishes of the people of the Territory."
>This anticipated the famous Freeport doctrine enunciated by Douglas more than a year later in his debates with Lincoln. It was an ingenious attempt to enable both northern and southern Democrats to have their cake and eat it. It might have worked had not Lecompton crumbled Democratic unity. When that happened, southern Democrats insisted on another dessert. They agreed with Douglas that the Dred Scott decision would not enforce itself. "The Senator from Illinois is right," conceded Senator Albert G. Brown of Mississippi. "By non-action, by unfriendly action . . . the Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery." But that would amount to a denial of the "right of protection for our slave property in the Territories. The Constitution as expounded by the Supreme Court, awards it. We demand it; we mean to have it." Congress must pass a federal slave code for the territories, said Brown, and enforce it with the United States army if necessary. If pirates seized ships owned by citizens of Massachusetts, senators of that state would demand naval protection. "Have I, sir, less right to demand protection for my slave property in the Territories?" If you of the North "deny to us rights guarantied by the Constitution . . . then, sir . . . the Union is a despotism [and] I am prepared to retire from the concern."
>constitutional conservative like Ted Cruz
You got your talking points backward, that was McMuffin and "the renegades."
I'm in bed user, not gonna lug that shit on top of me
C'MERE YOU SLUT
We asked you to stop posting random screenshots that have nothing to do with Trump.
>Thus instead of crippling the Republican party as Taney had hoped, the Dred Scott decision strengthened it by widening the sectional schism among Democrats. Republicans moved quickly to exploit their advantage by depicting the decision as the consequence of a slave-power conspiracy. Seward and Lincoln were two of the foremost advocates of a conspiracy theory. Citing "whisperings" between Taney and Buchanan at the inaugural ceremony plus other unnamed evidence, Seward charged collusion between the president-elect and the chief justice. One day after the inauguration and one day before announcing the decision, said Seward, "the judges, without even exchanging their silken robes for courtiers' gowns, paid their salutations to the President, in the Executive palace. Doubtlessly the President received them as graciously as Charles I did the judges who had, at his instance, subverted the statutes of English liberty." Seward's accusations provoked an uproar. Some historians have echoed Democratic opinion that they were "venomous" and "slanderous."
>But in fact Seward hit uncomfortably close to the mark. He might almost have read the letter from Buchanan to Grier urging the Pennsylvania justice to go along with the southern majority.
>Seward's insinuations enraged Taney. The chief justice said later that if the New Yorker had won the presidency in 1860 he would have refused to administer the oath. Ironically, Taney did administer the oath to a man who had made a similar accusation. In a speech after his nomination for senator from Illinois in 1858, Abraham Lincoln reviewed the process by which Democrats had repealed the Missouri Compromise in 1854 and then declared it unconstitutional in 1857. We cannot know that all of this was part of a conspiracy to expand slavery, conceded Lincoln. "But when we see a lot of framed timbers . . . which we know have been gotten out at different times and places by different workmen—Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance—and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house . . . we find it impossible to not believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James . . . all worked upon a common plan ."
Get out of bed or go to sleep and please report the spammer in some vain hope that a hotpocket will get off of their lazy ass.
That was still not properly actualized version of conquering immediate near space.
No trips no long post just everyone stop posting period!
Waaaahh! My pussy hurts!
Meant for
>someone posts a gallery link to 230 high quality awoos
>keep reposting the same shitty old ones
>The same speech included a more famous house metaphor. " 'A house divided against itself cannot stand,' " said Lincoln quoting Jesus. "I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free." The opponents of slavery hoped to stop the spread of the institution and "place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction." But advocates of slavery—including those conspiring carpenters—were trying to "push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States . . . North as well as South." How could they do this? "Simply [by] the next Dred Scott decision. It is merely for the Supreme Court to decide that no State under the Constitution can exclude it, just as they have already decided that . . . neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature can do it." Article VI of the Constitution affirms that the Constitution and laws of the United States "shall be the supreme law of the land . . . anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." If, therefore, the U.S. Constitution protected "the right of property in a slave," noted Lincoln, then "nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy the right of property in a slave." Lincoln himself believed that "the right of property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution." But Democrats including Douglas believed that it was. If they had their way, Lincoln told Illinois Republicans in June 1858, "we shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality , instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State."
...
I'll awoo to that
>No trips
I agree
>Did Lincoln and other Republicans really believe that the Dred Scott decision was part of a conspiracy to expand slavery into free states ? Or were they creating a bugaboo to frighten northern voters? Stephen Douglas presumed the latter. "A school boy knows" that the Court would never make "so ridiculous a decision," said Douglas. "It is an insult to men's understanding, and a gross calumny on the Court." A good many historians have echoed Douglas's words. But was the Republican claim ridiculous? In November 1857 the Washington Union, organ of the Buchanan administration, carried an article asserting that the abolition of slavery in northern states had been an unconstitutional attack on property. In private correspondence and in other contexts not conducive to propaganda, Republicans expressed genuine alarm at the implications of Dred Scott. "The Constitution of the United States is the paramount law of every State," Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin pointed out, "and if that recognizes slaves as property, as horses are property, no State constitution or State law can abolish it." Noting that Scott had lived as a slave in Illinois for two years, the New York legislature denounced the doctrine that "a master may take his slave into a Free State without dissolving the relation of master and slave. . . . [This] will bring slavery within our borders, against our will, with all its unhallowed, demoralizing, and blighting influences."
Look at these based black men protecting this Trump voter from crazy white nationalists.
fucking BASED.
woooow, what the fuck is this, my fellow fashypedes?
No, /comfy/. I've reported the fucking nigger almost 10 times, I don't want to get banned myself for reporting so much.
>The legislature's concern was not abstract. Pending in the New York courts was a case concerning a slaveholder's right to retain ownership of his slaves while in transit through a free state. Lemmon v. The People had originated in 1852 when a New York judge upheld the freedom of eight slaves who had left their Virginia owner while in New York City on their way to Texas. Most northern states had earlier granted slaveowners the right of transit or temporary sojourn with their slaves. But by the 1850s all except New Jersey and Illinois had laws on the books offering freedom to any slave brought by a master within their borders. The Dred Scott decision challenged the principle of these laws. Virginia therefore decided to take the Lemmon case to the highest New York court (which upheld the state law in 1860) and would undoubtedly have appealed it to Taney's Supreme Court had not secession intervened. The Lemmon case might well have become Lincoln's "next Dred Scott decision." Recent scholarship sustains Lincoln's apprehension that the Taney Court would have sanctioned "some form of slavery in the North." Even the right of transit or temporary sojourn was, from the antislavery point of view, an ominous foot in the door. "If a man can hold a slave one day in a free state," asked a Republican newspaper, "why not one month, why not one year? Why could not his 'transit' be indefinitely lengthened, his 'visit' a practical permanency?"
MAGA
Everyone who isn't reddit would much prefer it.
the expense mainly, and to a lesser extent the lack of rivalry after the soviets fell
True, and in the meantime NASA and other space agencies conducted experiments in zero gravity environments. Space exploration is an expensive field, but its rewarding.
Its our destiny as a species. This world is going to die one day, and only the ones who can leave this world can survive.
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAP
>Thus in the context of Dred Scott, Lincoln's "warning that slavery might become lawful everywhere was . . . far from absurd." His attempt to identify Douglas with this proslavery conspiracy ("Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James") was part of Lincoln's campaign for the Senate in 1858. 26 During the Lecompton debate Douglas had said that he cared not whether slavery was voted down or up in Kansas—his concern was that Kansas have a fair vote. This "care not" policy, said Lincoln, had been prolific of evil, for it enabled the proponents of slavery to push forward their program of expansion without effective opposition. The only way to stop them was to elect Republicans "whose hearts are in the work—who do care for the result," who "consider slavery a moral, social, and political wrong," who "will oppose . . . the modern Democratic idea that slavery is as good as freedom, and ought to have room for expansion all over the continent."
>This was the message that Lincoln carried to Illinois voters in dozens of speeches during that summer of '58. Douglas traversed the same territory branding Lincoln a Black Republican whose abolition doctrines would destroy the Union and flood Illinois with thousands of thick-lipped, bullet-headed, degenerate blacks. Lincoln "believes that the Almighty made the Negro equal to the white man," said Douglas at Springfield in July. "He thinks that the Negro is his brother. I do not think the Negro is any kin of mine at all. . . . This government . . . was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity, to be executed and managed by white men."
I noticed that they started spamming in the early morning since a few days.
It's often two guys at once and it can really clutter up the thread when it is a bit slow.
It will die out between 6 AM and 7 AM.
But I just don't understand why they would do that at this time, there's hardly anyone here.
but what about the GAINS
>Desiring to confront Douglas directly, Lincoln proposed a series of debates. Douglas agreed to seven confrontations in various parts of the state. These debates are deservedly the most famous in American history. They matched two powerful logicians and hard-hitting speakers, one of them nationally eminent and the other little known outside his region. To the seven prairie towns came thousands of farmers, workers, clerks, lawyers, and people from all walks of life to sit or stand outdoors for hours in sunshine or rain, heat or cold, dust or mud. The crowds participated in the debates by shouted questions, pointed comments, cheers, and groans. The stakes were higher than a senatorial election, higher even than the looming presidential contest of 1860, for the theme of the debates was nothing less than the future of slavery and the Union. Tariffs, banks, internal improvements, corruption, and other staples of American politics received not a word in these debates—the sole topic was slavery.
cute!
The guy on the left looks like a literal chimpanzee.
Smartphones are why the internet has gone to shit, they're too easy to use if a savage like that can figure it out.
You mean the communist empire you sided with against the pro white anti Jew nation of nazi Germany?
They turned out to be the real bad guys?
Time for some nostalgia!
youtube.com
That's right,fashypede, you are doing a good job convincing them you are one of the kekistani redditors!
They won't know a thing, keep dropping those tactical blackpills!
Seems the left was salty about today's rally
>In the fashion of debaters, Douglas and Lincoln opened with slashing attacks designed to force the other man to spend his time defending vulnerable positions. A Republican journalist phrased this strategy in a letter of advice to one of Lincoln's associates: "When you see Abe at Freeport, for God's sake tell him to 'Charge Chester! charge!' . . . We must not be parrying all the while. We want the deadliest thrusts. Let us see blood follow any time he closes a sentence." Lincoln's main thrust was the accusation that Douglas had departed from the position of the founding fathers, while the Republicans were upholding that position. Like the fathers, Republicans "insist that [slavery] should as far as may be, be treated as a wrong, and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow no larger ." Lincoln reiterated that the country could not exist forever half slave and half free; it had existed in that condition so far only because until 1854 most Americans shared the founders' faith that restricting slavery's growth would put it on the path to ultimate extinction. But Douglas not only "looks to no end of the institution of slavery," he looks to its "perpetuity and nationalization." He is thus "eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty in this American people."
Excuse me?
You fucking racist white nationalist. How can you say such vile hatred towards a based black pede like that?
>In one respect Lincoln's celebrated Freeport question was a departure from this strategy of linking Douglas to the slave power. Was there any lawful way, Lincoln asked at Freeport, that the people of a territory could exclude slavery if they wished to do so? The point of the question, of course, was to nail the contradiction between Dred Scott and popular sovereignty. Folklore history has portrayed this question as the stone that slew Goliath. If Douglas answered No, he alienated Illinois voters and jeopardized his re-election to the Senate. If he answered Yes, he alienated the South and lost their support for the presidency in 1860. The problem with this thesis is that Douglas had already confronted the issue many times. Lincoln knew how he would answer the question: "He will instantly take ground that slavery can not actually exist in the territories, unless the people desire it, and so give it protective territorial legislation. If this offends the South he will let it offend them; as at all events he means to hold on to his chances in Illinois. . . . He cares nothing for the South—he knows he is already dead there" because of his opposition to Lecompton. Lincoln asked the question anyway; Douglas answered as expected. His answer became famous in retrospect as the Freeport doctrine. It did play a role in prompting the southern demand for a territorial slave code—an issue that split the Democratic party in 1860. But this would have happened anyway. Lincoln did not press the question in subsequent debates, for its tendency to highlight Douglas's differences from southern Democrats ran counter to Lincoln's effort to highlight their similarities.
They have problems they need sorting out, and they need a place to vent. Deal with it, fashypedes are here to stay
Oh, very. Any day that they chimp out is a good day to me.
You posted this last thread. Nobody cared.
I dunno. Who cares. They're wasting no one's time but their own.
>Douglas's counterattack smote Lincoln's house-divided metaphor. Why cannot the country continue to "exist divided into free and slave States?" asked Douglas. Whatever their personal sentiments toward slavery, the founding fathers "left each State perfectly free to do as it pleased on the subject." If the nation "cannot endure thus divided, then [Lincoln] must strive to make them all free or all slave, which will inevitably bring about a dissolution of the Union." To talk about ultimate extinction of slavery "is revolutionary and destructive of the existence of this Government." If it means anything, it means "warfare between the North and the South, to be carried on with ruthless vengeance, until the one section or the other shall be driven to the wall and become the victim of the rapacity of the other." No, said Douglas, "I would not endanger the perpetuity of this Union. I would not blot out the great inalienable rights of the white men for all the negroes that ever existed."
>Lincoln's inclusion of blacks among those "created equal" was a "monstrous heresy," said Douglas. "The signers of the Declaration had no reference to the negro . . . or any other inferior and degraded race, when they spoke of the equality of men." Did Thomas Jefferson "intend to say in that Declaration that his negro slaves, which he held and treated as property, were created his equals by Divine law, and that he was violating the law of God every day of his life by holding them as slaves? ('No, no.')"
This is the only time I've been on here late night, I usually would have gone to bed four hours ago as I work during the day, but since I have the next three days off due to the sabbath and the holiday, I decided to check out /ptg/ this late at night.
What an (((interesting))) face
...
>ha I'm calling them pedes like they call us
>got em
Meanwhile
>Douglas hit his stride in exploitation of the race issue. He considered it a sure winner in southern and central Illinois. The Negro "must always, always occupy an inferior position," shouted Douglas to cheering partisans. "Are you in favor of conferring upon the negro the rights and privileges of citizenship? ('No, no.') Do you desire to strike out of our State Constitution that clause which keeps slaves and free negroes out of the State . . . in order that when Missouri abolishes slavery she can send one hundred thousand emancipated slaves into Illinois, to become citizens and voters on an equality with yourselves? ('Never,' 'no.') . . . If you desire to allow them to come into the State and settle with the white man, if you desire them to vote . . . then support Mr. Lincoln and the Black Republican party, who are in favor of the citizenship of the negro. ('Never, never.')"
Are the burgers in America actually pretty good?
>the sabbath
plz like my video, fellow fashypede
Germanclobber with a heart warming non-political article
so true
Please someone hat the ass.
Fuck off Spencerpedes
>Douglas's harping on this theme exasperated Lincoln. "Negro equality! Fudge!!" he wrote privately. "How long . . . shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagougeism?" But try as he might, Lincoln could not ignore the issue. As he emerged from his hotel for the fourth debate at Charleston in southern Illinois, a man asked him if he was "really in favor of producing a perfect equality between negroes and white people." Placed on the defensive, Lincoln responded defensively. "Anything that argues me into his idea of a perfect social and political equality," complained Lincoln of Douglas's innuendoes, "is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse." Lincoln admitted that he believed black people "entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But "I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily have her for a wife. (Cheers and laughter)" So that his horse chestnut should no longer be mistaken for a chestnut horse, Lincoln spelled out his position with clarity: "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, (applause)—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 races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
Better than any other country I have been in, absolutely. Beef is insanely inexpensive in the US so they are meaty as hell.
What do you guys think would have happen to us if Hillary won?
>So far Lincoln would go in concession to the prejudices of most Illinois voters. But no farther. "Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man—this race and that race and the other race being inferior," he said in Chicago. Instead let us "unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal." Whether or not the black man was equal to the white man in mental or moral endowment, "in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. (Great applause.)" As for political rights, racial intermarriage, and the like, these were matters for the state legislature, "and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature where he can fight the measures. (Uproarious laughter and applause.)"
You tell me.
Yeah, I have Sundays off. The union that works there must have bargained for it.
Wow a christian attacking a christian nation.
Also funny how whites when pulling off rare terror attacks, do it so much better..like Breivik
>Despite Lincoln's wit, Douglas scored points on this issue. The Little Giant also backed Lincoln into a corner on the matter of slavery's "ultimate extinction." More than once Lincoln had said: "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists." "Well, if he is not in favor of that," asked Douglas, "how does he expect to bring slavery in a course of ultimate extinction? ('Hit him again.')" With such obfuscatory rhetoric, charged ouglas, the Black Republicans tried to conceal their purpose to attack slavery and break up the Union. Lincoln replied that when he spoke of ultimate extinction, he meant just that. "I do not mean . . . it will be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in less than a hundred years at the least; but that it will occur in the best way for both races in God's good time, I have no doubt. (Applause.)" Like the abolitionists, Lincoln refused to be drawn into discussion of a "plan" for ending slavery. He hoped that southerners would once again come to regard bondage as an evil, just as Washington, Jefferson, and the other founders had regarded it. And just as they had limited its expansion as a first step toward ending the evil, "I have no doubt that it would become extinct, for all time to come, if we but re-adopted the policy of the fathers."
Blackbagged, dead, etc etc.