Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: libertarianben
How the hell did you come up with that? Did you not read the quote?

Yeah, I read the quote. I've read the whole speech, in fact. He's talking about the natural Right of Rebellion, not about secession from the Union. Read a little more of the context of the quote you cherry pick. He's talking about Texas and the War with Mexico: "The extent of our teritory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on revolution 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,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined 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 teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones. s to the country now in question, we bought it of France in 18O3, and sold it to Spain in 1819, according to the President's statements. After this, all Mexico, including Texas, revolutionized against Spain; and still later, Texas revolutionized against Mexico. In my view, just so far as she carried her revolution, by obtaining the actual, willing or unwilling, submission of the people, so far, the country was hers, and no farther."

Clearly what Lincoln is saying isn't that states can unilaterally renounce the Union, but that any people, anywhere, can revolt against an existing government and claim as much territory as they can hold. In this case Texas had revolted against Mexico and succeeded, through force, in holding territory. The question was whether this territory extended to the Rio Grande or only to the Nueces.

286 posted on 02/07/2006 2:52:06 PM PST by Heyworth ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies ]


To: Heyworth

If he was for rebellion, which he called the South rebels, then why go to war?


288 posted on 02/07/2006 3:04:38 PM PST by libertarianben (Looking for sanity and his hard to find cousin common sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies ]

To: Heyworth

"Clearly what Lincoln is saying isn't that states can unilaterally renounce the Union, but that any people, anywhere, can revolt against an existing government and claim as much territory as they can hold. In this case Texas had revolted against Mexico and succeeded, through force, in holding territory. The question was whether this territory extended to the Rio Grande or only to the Nueces."

It that not talking out both sides of your mouth. It's ok for Texas to leave Mexico but the Southern states can't leave the US.


289 posted on 02/07/2006 3:07:44 PM PST by libertarianben (Looking for sanity and his hard to find cousin common sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies ]

To: Heyworth
He's talking about the natural Right of Rebellion, not about secession from the Union. Read a little more of the context of the quote you cherry pick.

Um, no. Lincoln is emphatic:

"This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined 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 teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement.
Lincoln is not speaking of armed revolution - which is not a right at all, but simply the exercise of raw military power. He's not referring to revolution in the modern sense - the fight to overthrow an existing government and seize control - he's referring to what the Colonies exercised - the RIGHT of SELF-GOVERNMENT. And he states that the idea should spread, "which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." He's not calling for wars to occur on a massive scale, he's hoping that repressed people everywhere will do exactly what the colonies did - secede from their existing government, and form one that is ideally suited to their needs and desires.

Speaking of reading the speech, I especially like his comment about the "half insane mumbling of a fever-dream".

Clearly what Lincoln is saying isn't that states can unilaterally renounce the Union...

Lincoln said, "Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit." Nowhere does he state that they must beg permission, instead they have the right to "shake off the existing government".

352 posted on 02/15/2006 5:53:48 AM PST by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te fortuna sinet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson