Which Famous Politician Said The Following?

[FaninAma]

“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 confirmed 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 the territory as they inhabit.”

[Turd_Ferguson]

Wrath of Sicem in 3...2...

[rock on sooner]

“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 confirmed 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 the territory as they inhabit.”

Prolly Ron Paul...talkin to his son doin the filibuster thing...

[StoopTroup]

http://d2om8tvz4lgco4.cloudfront.net/archive/x766867998/g24400000000000000090b4e92ec71dc9dfa81ab48a25e49e3 64f2c9f5f.jpg

[FaninAma]

Very good, Stoop.

[cleller]

Very good, Stoop.

A good guess based upon context? Prior knowledge? Or copy/paste?

[SicEmBaylor]

A good guess based upon context? Prior knowledge? Or copy/paste?
I think Turd's 'sic'em' comment tipped him off.

[StoopTroup]

I saw it in a Movie. :D

[FaninAma]

Proof beyond a doubt that Lincoln was a sell-out to the northern industrialists who needed the South for raw materials and to pay the lion's share of the federal taxes.

And yes, this is another Lincoln was an @$$hole thread.

[SicEmBaylor]

Proof beyond a doubt that Licoln was a sell-out to the northern industrialists who needed the South for raw materials and to pay the lion's share of the federal taxes.

And yes, this is another Lincoln was an @$$hole thread.

Yep. Slavery was a threat to northern industrialists. Lincoln was a tool of the industrialists making the end of slavery the gift of a lifetime to union banks and big business.

600,000 Americans died so that Lincoln could enrich himself and his benefactors. There has never ever been a President that could equal the moral depravity of that man.

[StoopTroup]

How much did Honest Abe take with him when he died?

[FaninAma]

How much did Honest Abe take with him when he died?

At least a few grains of industrial base metal.

[jkjsooner]

Yep. Slavery was a threat to northern industrialists. Lincoln was a tool of the industrialists making the end of slavery the gift of a lifetime to union banks and big business.

600,000 Americans died so that Lincoln could enrich himself and his benefactors. There has never ever been a President that could equal the moral depravity of that man.


#1 Slavery was wrong. Whether or not the civil war was about slavery or about the northern industrialists, it was a shameful institution. It was shameful institution thousands of years ago just as it was 150 years ago. I'm all for looking at these things in historical perspective and giving individuals who lived in that era the benefit of the doubt, but the civil war ended an institution that was morally wrong. There is no way to reconcile the declaration of independence with slavery unless you view black people as sub-human. And, frankly, this wasn't a unique position even at the time of independence. Even some of our slave owning founding fathers had reservations about the institution.

So, if a few northern industrialists were enriched by the civil war then so be it. Frankly the institution of slavery held us back. Once we no longer had that free labor we found much better ways to get things done on the farm.

#2 You act as if those who died were just innocent unarmed folks playing with their kids in the yard. You also act as if Lincoln unilaterally caused the civil war. Things were reaching a boiling point before Lincoln took office and the civil war would have happened with or without Lincoln.

[SicEmBaylor]

#1 Slavery was wrong. Whether or not the civil war was about slavery or about the northern industrialists, it was a shameful institution. It was shameful institution thousands of years ago just as it was 150 years ago. I'm all for looking at these things in historical perspective and giving individuals who lived in that era the benefit of the doubt, but the civil war ended an institution that was morally wrong. There is no way to reconcile the declaration of independence with slavery unless you view black people as sub-human. And, frankly, this wasn't a unique position even at the time of independence. Even some of our slave owning founding fathers had reservations about the institution.

So, if a few northern industrialists were enriched by the civil war then so be it. Frankly the institution of slavery held us back. Once we no longer had that free labor we found much better ways to get things done on the farm.

#2 You act as if those who died were just innocent unarmed folks playing with their kids in the yard. You also act as if Lincoln unilaterally caused the civil war. Things were reaching a boiling point before Lincoln took office and the civil war would have happened with or without Lincoln.

I've been over all these points on this forum a billion times, and I have no desire to do so again...at least not for a little while. The latest round of this was a month or so ago. Suffice it to say, everything I would say in response to you is right and you are wrong.

[FaninAma]

#1 Slavery was wrong. Whether or not the civil war was about slavery or about the northern industrialists, it was a shameful institution. It was shameful institution thousands of years ago just as it was 150 years ago. I'm all for looking at these things in historical perspective and giving individuals who lived in that era the benefit of the doubt, but the civil war ended an institution that was morally wrong. There is no way to reconcile the declaration of independence with slavery unless you view black people as sub-human. And, frankly, this wasn't a unique position even at the time of independence. Even some of our slave owning founding fathers had reservations about the institution.

So, if a few northern industrialists were enriched by the civil war then so be it. Frankly the institution of slavery held us back. Once we no longer had that free labor we found much better ways to get things done on the farm.

#2 You act as if those who died were just innocent unarmed folks playing with their kids in the yard. You also act as if Lincoln unilaterally caused the civil war. Things were reaching a boiling point before Lincoln took office and the civil war would have happened with or without Lincoln.

The Civil War did not have to happen if the South had been allowed to secede. The Union would have been reunited later with the states holding more control over their affairs. Jefferson Davis and the Confederate legislature drew up legislation to ban slavery regardless of the outcome of the war. And yes, the majority of those who died were unarmed southern civilians most of whom had never owned slaves. Conservative estimates plass the civilian loss of life at 700,000+ with other estimates putting it in excess of 2 million. But of course it was all worth it to you apparently.

And I see you want to totally ignore the fact that Lincoln did a 180 on his earlier convictions about secession just proving he was nothing more than a lying, bought and paid for politician who was willing to kill close to a million civilians to keep the northern industrialists happy.

Lincoln's legacy is destroying the South and burning it to the ground so that it has taken until just recently for the region to recover economically and intellectually. He devestated an entire section of the country and insured deep political divisions within the country that still exist today. He also insured that Americans can never, ever hope to escape the tentacles of a powerful federal government no matter how tyranical it becomes. Even the former USSR allowed its former republics to decide their own fate without a bloody war to force them to stay in the Union.

[sooner_born_1960]

Just a thought, but sometimes people do a 180 when they realize they were wrong.

[FaninAma]

Just a thought, but sometimes people do a 180 when they realize they were wrong.
Rare among honest people. Quite often among lying politicians.

I guess it comes down to which you feel is more immoral....allowing slavery to continue for 10 to 15 more years or killing over 2 million Americans, most of them civilian and leaving hundreds of thousands more maimed for life and an entire region of the country utterly in ruins.

[sappstuf]

“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 confirmed 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 the territory as they inhabit.*”


* Southern States excluded

Fan,

you missed the small print...

[jkjsooner]

The Civil War did not have to happen if the South had been allowed to secede. The Union would have been reunited later with the states holding more control over their affairs. Jefferson Davis and the Confederate legislature drew up legislation to ban slavery regardless of the outcome of the war.

Was this before or after the war started? Just a quick search shows that if true this happened in 1864. That's a little late don't you think? And my guess is that such ideas would have never been considered had it not been for the war.

The fact is, the confederate constitution had a lot to say about slavery and all of it protected the practice. Here's one small part.




Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

[FaninAma]

It happened during the war but, again, I ask you, what was the bigger moral crime against humanity....to do what Lincoln and the North did to the South and the entire country or allow slavery to end a little later through peaceful means. Remember, it is estimated that a lot of slaves lost their lives duriung the Civil War as well as the enormous loss of life among the civilian population. 30% of the male population of the South was either killed or permanently disabled because of the war.

Additionally, slave labor essentially continued well into the next century in terms of share cropping and prison gang forced labor but I hear nary a peep out of the Lincoln loyalists about why those injustices against blacks(and poor white southerners) weren't rectified. Lincoln essentially took a stable economic system and destroyed it without any plan on how to deal with the consequences. As a result an entire region and class(white and black) continued to suffer the consequnces of such an abrupt economic upheaval for 100 years(1864 to 1964). The country paid a 100 year sentnece for Lincoln's actions.