I took the liberty of changing font color to reflect the two sides of our present argument. I personally associate with the red text.
Posted on 05/06/2007 10:16:36 AM PDT by gitmo
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
I took the liberty of changing font color to reflect the two sides of our present argument. I personally associate with the red text.
In many ways Patrick and the other gentlemen of 1775 faced a much less difficult issue than we today.
While they were far weaker militarily than their opponent, at least they knew exactly who and where that opponent was, and what was needed to defeat him. All they needed to do was keep fighting until the enemy got tired and went home. Victory consisted merely of not being totally defeated.
Today we are in almost the opposite situation. Our enemy hides among millions of hostages. He is not defeated as long as he is able to keep attacking, and he mostly attacks not our troops but the hostages. He is perceived by the world as winning as long as he is able to kill a few dozen hostages every few days.
My favorite speech.
I do not think a more profound group of words have ever been assembled together.....
It was funny. My son was dreading his lesson, and I didn’t know what it was about. I started reading the speech to him, to try and get him interested, when it dawned on me what I was reading.
We spent hours on the speech, discussing current events, the historical context of the speech, and how our nation today is perhaps a direct result of this speech. He couldn’t believe people were opposing the fight against the British. When we tied it to people insisting we can ignore the actions an words of Islamic war mongers the light began to shine.
He is now enthusiastic about this boring subject.
Today the liberals are led by the nose by a pacifist mob that would rather die than go to war.
As conservatives, one day we may need to pick up arms against the pacifists that will ultimately get us all killed.
Under her cloak of rationality, Hillary is a fanatic pacifist at heart.
From a strictly logical viewpoint, I concur. But today we have "leaders" telling us we've already lost this war and that we don't have a prayer at prevailing.
Before we tackled Saddam's army, they told us our military was soft and didn't understand desert warfare. After Gulf War I, they told us we caught the Iraqis by surprise ... they didn't know our tanks would work in sand. But now that they know, we don't stand a chance.
So my point is that even though you and I know we have superior military capabilities, many in this nation are ignorant of that and believe the opposite.
FMCDH(BITS)
Thanks.
I think the cause has been picked up by people who are neither socialists nor communists. I was shocked the other day when a man I think highly of told me the Iraqis are “kicking our butt over there” and we need to get out now. I told him the kill ratio is somewhere between 25:1 to 50:1.
The doubts don't come from there. The doubts come from (1) the people knowing that fighting wars is different from maintaining a constabulary force, which is what we're doing, and (2) having the strong suspicion that this drawn-out situation didn't have to occur--and wouldn't have occurred without a bumbling Administration. Yes, that includes Rumsfeld (one of the few positions with which I agree with McCain).
“Amazing how Amercians still believe we can ignore war..”
I don’t think Americans believe we can ignore war, but most of got tired of hearing about it because little has been accomplished so far. Does it seem that we are at war when we have open borders and are afraid to stand up to the Muslims as they slowly try to change our society?
LET LOOSE THE DOGS OF WAR - DON’T JUST WALK THEM TO TAKE A SHIT!!
Another difference I see is that we had overwhelming forces in place (or the threat of overwhelming force in Japan, i.e., another A-bomb). The people were demoralized and tired, and that, combined with the overwhelming force, made the situation much more manageable. Our lack of that force in Iraq--whatever "overwhelming" is in the sense it is needed for the transition--is why I think Rumsfeld was so disastrous (I DID love him with the press, I hasten to say).
I'd love to continue the discussion and hear more of your ideas, but I won't be able to respond until after I get off work. Thanks for the civil reply.
That worked out so well for the average Cambodians forty years ago.
Their actions seem to imply they want us to lose this engagement. And the point of publishing the speech above is that past actions of the Islamic jihadists and their past statements clearly indicate their objective is to kill us. As in Patrick Henry’s day, if we don’t meet this threat head-on, it will meet us unprepared and in a weaker condition.
save
Asking Americans to send their sons and daughters to die for our "security" and "sovereignty" and the "American Way of Life" seems like a perverse joke. It rings hollow as hell in this context.
Die for what? That which we are freely giving away?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.