Yet another one-time Presidential candidate is making his soft-on-defense, willing-to-appease, isolationist, wimp-hippie views known!! Why do they hate America??
======
"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses."
"Believing that the happiness of mankind is best promoted by the useful pursuits of peace, that on these alone a stable prosperity can be founded, that the evils of war are great in their endurance, and have a long reckoning for ages to come, I have used my best endeavors to keep our country uncommitted in the troubles which afflict Europe, and which assail us on every side."
"Nothing but the failure of every peaceable mode of redress, nothing but dire necessity, should force us from the path of peace which would be our wisest pursuit, to embark in the broils and contentions of Europe and become a satellite to any power there."
"The desire to preserve our country from the calamities and ravages of war by cultivating a disposition and pursuing a conduct conciliatory and friendly to all nations [yikes!!] has been sincerely entertained and faithfully followed [during my administration of public affairs]. It was dictated by the principles of humanity, the precepts of the gospel and the general wish of our country."
"I hope we shall prove how much happier for man the Quaker policy is, and that the life of the feeder is better than that of the fighter." [Marxist coward!]
"[Many] years of peace and the prosperity so visibly flowing from it
have but strengthened our attachment to it and the blessings it brings, and we do not despair of being always a peaceable nation. We think that peaceable means may be devised of keeping nations in the path of justice towards us by making justice their interest and injuries to react on themselves."
"I do not believe war the most certain means of enforcing principles.
Those peaceable coercions which are in the power of every nation, if
undertaken in concert and in time of peace, are more likely to produce the desired effect."
"War is not the best engine for us to resort to; nature has given us one in our commerce, which, if properly managed will be a better instrument for obliging the interested nations of Europe to treat us with justice... Our object should now be to... endeavor so to form our
commercial regulations as that justice from other nations shall be
their mechanical result."
"A world in arms and trampling on all those moral principles which have heretofore been deemed sacred in the intercourse between nations, could not suffer us to remain insensible of all agitation. During such a course of lawless violence, it was certainly wise to withdraw ourselves from all intercourse with the belligerent nations, to avoid its pernicious effects on manners and morals and the dangers it threatens to free governments, and to cultivate our own resources until our natural and progressive growth should leave us nothing to fear from foreign enterprise."
"Peace is our passion, and the wrongs might drive us from it. We prefer trying ever other just principles, right and safety, before we would recur to war."
"In the course of [a] conflict [elsewhere], let it be our endeavor, as
it is our interest and desire, to cultivate the friendship of the belligerent nations by every act of justice and of incessant kindness; ["incessant kindness?? What kind of wuss is this?! He'd get eaten alive by Iran!"] to receive their armed vessels with hospitality from the distresses of the sea, but to administer the means of annoyance to none."
======
All quotes from that liberal weinie and enemy of Democracy, Thomas Jefferson! Man, in some of those, he sounds like he could have written the primer for Glen Stassen's Just Peacemaking book!
I'll end with another enemy of a strong America:
"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure."
~Abraham Lincoln
19 comments:
Boy, can you imagine them running for office today with quotes like these out there? They'd be shipped off to Guatanamo for "lawful interrogation"!
And today we hear that even the Israelis have gotten into the appeasement game by having talks with Syria. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Dan, you should be sending quotes like these to the press, to the Obama (and even Clinton) campaign, and to the Democratic National Committee. They need to be able to refute these charges with all the AUTHORITATIVE voices from our past they can muster.
But, you see, Michael, these gentlemen lived in a more quaint day. A pre-9/11 age when we could rely on a small defensive army.
It'd be treasonous now not to have the most massive military machine in history, or even to suggest that. It'd be un-American to wage war and drop bombs anywhere we deem necessary with no authorization from Congress. This is war without end, you know?
I'm sure Brother Tom and Abe would understand completely.
Mushroom clouds. New York. Terrorists. Gay marriage!!!
I'm serious, Dan. Yes, the 9/11 thing will be thrown back, but not everyone will buy it. (See what happened to Giuliani's campaign, consisting--as Joe Biden rightly said--of a noun, a verb, and 9/11!) These kinds of quotes, run in Democratic ads, could greatly help.
I'm kiddin' with ya, Michael. Yes, it's a good idea.
What do you think of the Jefferson/Stassen connection? Has anyone ever looked at our founders' comments in regards to Just Peacemaking? Or other historic figures who were not necessarily (or, at all) pacifists?
important note, Lincoln had an anti-war senator deported, he suspended habeas corpus and attacked New York city to quell an anti-war/draft rally.
For more information on how Lincoln handled un-patriotic democrats go to http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm
I thought every one in this country learned about Lincoln in middle school.
Sad to see what they don't teach in history class. I bet you think it was the Republicans who enacted the draft during Vietnam or imprisoned the Japanese during world war II. I guess those examples of Liberals in history didn't make your list.
Lincoln's vision was much like Dubya's, and I, for one, don't mean that as a compliment. Much like Dubya has done, Lincoln misused the presidency not to "save" the nation but to fundamentally change it.
As much as modern civil-rights drunk libs want to deny it, Abraham Lincoln is not today judged a good-natured, folksy tyrant only because his armies, and economy, were greater than the Confederacy, and, because the tide had turned on slavery, globally.
But neither then nor now does the end justify the means. The end the Abolitionists sought was coming. They forced the issue for the near-term benefit of slaves, at the cost of the long-term integrity of the nation as it was formed, as a republic of republics.
I'm not entirely sure how to read your comment there, ER. And considering the Sons of Confederate Veterans link on your blog, I'm thoroughly confused as to the exact nature of your ideology. Perhaps you could explain, because I find it hard to believe that a genuine erudite American could find merit in any kind of a philosophical defense of the CSA, even if it's disguised as some variation of a states' rights debate. Perhaps the end DID justify the means where the Civil War is concerned. I'm willing to bet the "near-term benefit" you mentioned couldn't have come a moment too soon for those living in slavery. Highlighting states' rights - or the "republic of republics", if you will - over equal rights strikes me as little more than a misplaced prioritization of issues. Alexander Hamilton Stephens' opinions regarding black people should put to rest any doubts about the inherent fundamental racism of the old South which, in my opinion, absolutely warranted total destruction.
If I've misread your comments, please forgive me and by all means explain where I went wrong.
Les, ER is one of those "I'm proud of my confederate roots" type of liberals who disagrees strongly with much of Lincoln's policy. Y'all can feel free to talk about that topic at his website, if you'd like.
I'd rather not get into that one here. Thanks.
Edwin said:
important note, Lincoln had an anti-war senator deported, he suspended habeas corpus and attacked New York city to quell an anti-war/draft rally.
And yet, for all his flaws (and those are some pretty serious Anti-American flaws you bring up), he was smart enough to know that if you give a president the power to invade nations willy nilly, that president will likely do so. And it is wrong, as his quote indicates.
Now, if you have something ON-topic to say and want to have actual human conversations, feel free to comment.
If you need some assistance, today's topic is about how Jefferson had a lot to say about the problems with trusting in war solutions. That some of his quotes, in fact, would likely get him criticized harshly by today's Republican Party.
That's the topic. Comment or not, on topic.
Um, if the topic is trusting in war solutions, and you used quotes by both Jefferson and Lincoln in your post, then how is a comment about the rationale for the Civil War off topic, Dan? Is Lincoln not the face of the Civil War?
If you want to discuss the rationale for the Civil War, that's perfectly okay. I just don't want to get into a discussion of heritage and the Confederacy as it deals with cultural heritage today.
As I noted, some of Lincoln's actions (his quote notwithstanding) are very contrary to what most of us consider American ideals.
Thanks.
Fair enough, Dan. As I noted, I'm simply a bit confused about the mentality behind ER's Civil War comment, which is why I mentioned the Sons of Confederate Veterans link. This line from its website is the part that makes its mention relevant to your topic:
"The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South's decision to fight the Second American Revolution."
Yeah. Tell that to the slaves. It's one thing to be proud of and honor the heritage of one's ancestors who fought and died alongside their brethren. It's quite another to whitewash the agenda of the government for which they fought. I think you and I are on the same page in that we never openly HOPE for war. At the same time, when institutional racism plays an instrumental role in the formation of any government, I have no problem with the deployment of military forces to squash such a government - especially since the government in questioned happened to develop within the borders of our own nation.
Just wanted to explain my confusion, that's all.
I'm one of those who believe (a) that slavery could have been abolished in the U.S. without war--as it was in the U.K., Canada, and elsewhere; (b) that if slavery had been abolished without war, we might have had less racism even all these years later; (c) that although defending slavery was one of the major reasons for the Confederacy's treasonous secession, it was not--at first--a major reason for the Union's pursuit of the war, although it became a major justification, later.
The war toll was incredible and some of Lincoln's actions were more than questionable, but, unlike E.R., I think Lincoln was deeply troubled by the war and wanted it ended as quickly as possible and with as little damage to the South. That is NOT the attitude toward war that either W or McCain (McSame) takes.
BTW, if this quote from Lincoln makes him sound like W & McSame's definition of "appeaser," I can find quotations from Lincoln on the relations of Labor and Capital that make him sound like a Marxist! The Party of Lincoln has certainly moved a LOOONG way from Abe, hasn't it?
Daggone Peaceniks! Hippie Pink-os!
;-)
Les, having lived in the South for a dozen years now, I understand your incredulity. Many, (with no reference to anyone on this page) still refuse to accept that it was the economy of slavery that caused the civil war. Dan's hesitance about this discussion is, no doubt, based on the fact that some still can get red-in-the-face over these issues pretty darn quickly. Peace.
Post a Comment