Did Abraham Lincoln Really Say This?
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
-
* You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.
* You cannot strengthen the weak,
by weakening the strong.
* You cannot bring about prosperity,
by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot lift the wage earner up,
by pulling the wage payer down.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man,
by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot build character and courage,
by taking away men’s initiative and independence.
* You cannot help men permanently,
by doing for them what they could and should, do for themselves.
The Author
Abraham Lincoln
Comment by Bonnie Wheeler on 12 March 2009:
Whether or not Lincoln said this it is a true statment. I believe it is a Lincoln quote.
Comment by MarcusinTexas on 12 August 2010:
When Abe Lincoln first went to the U.S. Congress, did he really describe the members (of congress) as “a few brilliant beacons in a fog of fools?” This quote is shown on page 196 of Seth Grahame-Smith’s book entitled “Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter.”
If it is correctly attributed, it appears that the same description is as appropriate now as it was then.
Comment by MarcusinTexas on 12 August 2010:
Whoever said it is a genius and as of today it seems that about 89% of the citizens of the USA would say “AMEN.”
Comment by underlyin bigots on 7 November 2010:
Boy, I’m not a history or law scholar,just a regular human being with a GED! Can I pose this question to you my intelligent, fine men and woman? If there were no Constitution would I be obligated to pay income tax? If so when, when, how and who created this obligation?
Also, doesn’t a contractual agreement consist of 4 elements? How does the Constitution satisfy those four elements when the document is unsigned?
Isn’t allegence create when and agent has a duty to its principal? Why are we taught to pledge allegence to our agent the Untied States Government?
Last question folks, How can there be citizens and a state when the Supreme Court decided in Bowers v Devito that …the government has no duty to protect or provide services as elmentary as police enforcement.
Now I’m not the brightest bulb in the carton but nowhere do I see a contractual agreement between the government and human beings! Could it be that government provide their services with the barrel of a gun?Can a representative, senator or congressman actually represent thousands and millions of human being intrest individually. Oh, to the “Commander,” The term bigot is not describing anyone on this blog, it is an “in general” term because every race practices bigotry even me sometimes thanks to our great educational system. God Bless Luv Ya’ll
Comment by proletarian on 7 November 2010:
Well now, underlyin bigots, I’ll try to answer a couple of your questions here. First of all the Constitution has nothing to do with federal income tax. I’ll presume the federal income tax is what you’re alluding to. The first time it reared its ugly head was in the Revenue Act of 1861 which was passed by Congress. It was in response to the rising cost of war, Civil War, and worked in conjunction with a newly restored excise tax. At the time there was a 3% income tax levied on those making $800 a year or more. So, to answer you question “if there were no Constitution would I be obliged to pay income tax” — yes. That is unless you want to break the law and go to jail. Many have tried, many have taken your stance, and many are in jail.
Your second question, doesn’t a contractual agreement consist of four elements? Why, yes it does. I’ll have to assume, since you so eloquently enlightened us that you possess a GED, that you have done a little reading on the subject. Did you notice it always referred to “business” contracts? The Constitution isn’t a business contract, it’s the dogma we Americans believe in, what the founding fathers believed in. Well, most Americans anyway. It is a set of beliefs that a political, philosophical, or maoral group hold to be true. It’s our fundamentals, what we live by. I believe that’s why we have such an uproar in our society today. There are those, a small segment of society, that wish to take America a different direction than what made her great. And then there is the silent majority that has finally awoken to make their voices heard. Hence the mid-terms. Oh, by the way, the “document” is unsigned because it simply states doctrine, it’s not a contract.
As far as allegiance, it’s not created, especially not as you put it. Allegiance you refer to was alive and well in the days of feudal systems, but that’s not what this country was founded on (Constitution) and is not what’s taking place today. Allegiance is a form of duty, derived from a sense of obligation for what one believes in. Such as your allegiance to the denigration of America,or those who do not believe in your tenets. We were taught to give allegiance to the United States government because when that allegiance was first adopted our government wasn’t as corrupt as it is today. This is why some of us are trying to change our government. Why some of us want to get back to what made us prosperous, benevolent, and strong. We pledge allegiance to the flag because it stands for something, only we have temporarily lost our way.
Lastly, the Bowers vs Devito ruling said the federal government didn’t “have” to enforce elementary, local laws. It donsn’t mean they can’t enforce federal laws within the confines of individual states. But nonetheless, protection by the federal government is meant to be protection from foreign entities and invasion, or to enforce the laws embodied in the Constitution, Article I. We have this exact situation going on in Arizona today. Only this time it’s our president that is not fulfilling his duty by securing the borders from foreign invasion. Let me ask you this. According to your statement “the government has no duty to protect or provide services as elementary as police enforcement” — why is Obama getting involved in a lawsuit against Arizona? Isn’t SB 1070 a localized, state law? Isn’t that merely “police enforcement?”
I hope this helped answer your questions. Or were they solely rhetorical and you didn’t really want to hear the other side.