[Peace-discuss] young Lincoln on R3volution --

[John W.]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:06 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:

Lincoln said this.  The question is if he rejected it or carried it out on a
> grand scale.
>
>
> 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 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 territory 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 this
> 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.
>
>
>
> Abraham Lincoln
>
> January 12, 1848


I'm not nearly as smart as you and Carl.  But taking Lincoln's words at face
value, and emphasizing these - "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 territory as they inhabit." - it seems to me that Lincoln
opposed himself to such "revolutionizing" when the South wanted to do it.

Of course, it's self-evident that a group of people CAN attempt a
revolution.  But it's equally self-evident that those in power are going to
oppose the revolution.  And it's usually violent, and the strongest side
usually wins.

So what's your point?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090214/87c1440e/attachment.htm