There is a speech attributed to Davy Crockett, Not Yours To Give that can be found all over the internet. It appears to have first surfaced and circulated (as legit) in print in the early 60s among right wing tax protest groups. It even found its way into the wikipedia entry on Davy Crockett and from there links to Texas Congressman Ron Paul's government website as a source, saying that it was Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm
It states Crockett was so fond of this speech he had 100s of copies printed up, yet in my preliminary research I can find no record of it in the Register of Debates of the period at the Congressional Record website:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwrd.html
It apparently does not come from the only book Crockett co-authored, (he was functionally illiterate until late in his life and could only read and write marginally even then), but rather from this book, The Life of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward Sylvester Ellis, a man born long after Crockett died at the Alamo and who wrote mostly "dime novels" of the day:
http://www.ulib.niu.edu/badndp/ellis_edward.html
Like this one:
http://www.bigredhair.com/steamman/index.html
I suspect this alleged "Crockett speech" is pure fiction. Can you verify it, or are my suspicions correct?
Thank you, Rad Refs.
CONFIRMED!
Here is the register of debates for April 2 1828 where Crocket is recorded as delivering sentiments opposing a bill for relief to the widow of General Brown and offering his paycheck!
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llrd&fileName=006/llrd006.db&recNum=308
Wow! Now that is what I call having your theory shot down hard!
I don't suppose your personal ideological bias had any hand in formulating this inquiry, or in the one-sided and selective nature of your research? For someone who did a a fair amount of digging, you seem to have overlooked a very obvious smoking gun, wouldn't you say? Hmmm . . . Hopelessly ideologically biased (to the point of self-delusion) or simply inept? That is indeed finding oneself between the proverbial Scylla and Charybdis.
All that work assembling your evidence out of context, crafting subtly condescending turns of phrase, the faux innocence of the request. Truly an excellent example of statist propaganda. I applaud you! But all that brainpower and dedication, the burning righteous conviction in your beliefs, all of that shot down by one simple thing . . . the truth. You're playing for the losing team, and it's time to come to grips with that. The truth cannot be buried forever, nor can its consequences be avoided by radical, unshakable, irrational belief in something else. Poof! One link from "mjhard11" and your weak propaganda attempt is so resoundingly and thoroughly defeated that you don't even attempt to defend it.
But I'm sure that only makes someone like you even madder - to have been beaten by "facts"! To have been exposed as either a lazy incompetent at best, or a disingenuous person with a hidden agenda, at worst! All that cleverness, wasted. Oh the shame, I am sure.
But do you know what else? You can choose to put aside your pride and learn something here. Go back and read that story again, now that you know it is true. Mr. Bunce is talking to you, madam. I can guarantee that, if you spend a mere fraction of the time you spent trying to "debunk" a heartwarming story from our nation's formative years - a shining example of what made this country great - then you will learn the error of your ways and repent of your ignorance.
comments prior to deletion
The above commenter apparently did not heed his own advice, for in fact the link he so celebrates does not confirm that Crockett gave the speech referred to, and in fact merely repeats the same link that he first answerer provided, not rightly that this does NOT confirm (or, to be sure, refute), the attribution of that speech. In retrospect, it may have been unwise to have let that comment stand. Perhaps we are too willing to assume that our users actually do a bit of work for themselves.
We do not, however, condone ad hominem attacks or flaming. However, the sad pathos of the above is so readily apparent to me that I hesitate to delete it. Clearly the ravings of a small mind and petty personality. At least that's what I would say if I were inclined to engage in the type of discourse favoured by libertarian nutcases. But I would never do that.