This article contains quotes regarding fundamental aspects of our government (such as the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, treaties, laws, and so forth). In addition, it contains quotes about the theory of how a government should be organized and what principles are most important for a government to be able to uphold in society. Lastly, there are quotes about politics, which include warnings against tribalism on the basis of political party, multiple Presidents stating the fact that the US government has been controlled by greedy corporations for over a century, and the fact that tyranny of the majority (i.e. democracy) has not been able to uphold the standard of liberty and justice set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
One of the major criticisms of traditional Western monarchies was the "divine right" of the monarch to govern. In the so-called Enlightenment era, political philosophers replaced this concept with the even more abstract notion of the "social contract". Ironically, many in the US have simply elevated the system of democracy to the same divine status that monarchs once held. Sociologists call this concept "American civil religion", which includes, among other things, basically worshiping democracy as a "sacred" system. It is viewed as the most perfected system of government possible, and dogmatically viewed as the only system of government capable of upholding the liberties and values that we supposedly hold dear.
The Founders would have been shocked and disgusted at this development. The Founders of our government would have believed that the people who worship democracy as sacred have everything backwards. Instead of starting with democracy as a non-negotiable necessity, the Founders held that principles such as liberty, justice, and the ability of an individual to live up to their innate potential (i.e. the American Dream) were the most important. Holding these principles to be sacred and non-negotiable, they were open to adopting any system of government which they believed was most likely to uphold them.
Unfortunately driven by the empiricist attitudes which were common in the so-called Enlightenment era, after debating a wide range of potential frameworks for a government, the political philosophers who framed our government decided to "test" the hypothesis that a new system—democracy framed on "Enlightenment" principles—would be more likely to uphold the important principles than any system of government which had been tried in the past.
The test of whether democracy would be able to uphold the paramount principles of liberty, justice, and the American Dream has become known as "the American Experiment".
As our history has shown, democracy has utterly failed to uphold those sacred principles that the Founders valued above all else and wanted to protect. At best, democracy has merely resulted in clientelism. In its typical form, it has resulted in nothing but outright tyranny of the majority. From 1776 to 1865 we had slavery (which took a war to end, since it never would have ended democratically). From 1865 to 1964 we had "Jim Crow" (i.e. apartheid). ...This accounts for over 3/4ths of the entire existence of the US. And this is only scratching the surface of all the disgusting acts of ignobility and evil that have stained our nation's history—and continue to this day.
The racism, sexism, and all other forms of tribalism show no signs of stopping. The abstract notion of "checks and balances" has done nothing to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority. Worse, democracy has proven powerless against the rise of the power of stateless multinational corporations (which Thomas Jefferson warned us about) whose only goal is exploiting average citizens to enrich themselves. These wealthy elites can buy and sell politicians and produce unlimited amounts of propaganda to sway the electorate with ease, all thanks to democracy.
If Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and so many others who founded the US government were alive today, they would have acknowledged that the "Experiment" failed, and they would have gone back to the drawing board to adopt a better system of government which is actually able to uphold the non-negotiable principles of liberty, justice, and the American Dream, rather than insanely adhere to the dogma that having a democracy is more important than having liberty, justice, and the American Dream.
We are not alone in this conviction. Opinion polling conducted in 2015 has shown less than 10% of Americans have confidence in Congress to govern America. A different survey revealed that in each subsequent generation, Americans and people world-wide have increasingly lost faith in democracy. Less than half of Americans from the Millennial and younger generations are "satisfied" with democracy.
Certainly, the Republican party no longer believes in the importance of democracy. Our government was nearly overthrown in a White Supremacist coup organized by their party and supported by the majority of Republican politicians! Since they have faced no punishment, they will try again and again until they ultimately succeed. If they do, they will usher in a reign of tyranny never-before-seen in this land.
False Left talking heads in the media have been gawking about how Republicans and the right-wing have supposedly "trampled" on democracy. Who cares? Democracy is how the far-right came to power in the first place and has been nothing but tyranny of the majority for its entire existence, unable to uphold the most basic aspects of liberty and justice for countless millions. The real question American leftists, nationalists, and all others who believe in the American Dream should be asking ourselves is—who is going to come out victorious in a post-democracy US? White Supremacist traitors who value Western Civilization above all else and hate the very fabric of America, or those of us who still believe in the American Dream?
We Will Replace You and your ignoble form of government with one which truly upholds liberty, justice, and the American Dream for all who inhabit this land. God Bless America.
◦ Article X, XI (articles regarding fair treatment of Native Americans; a similar perpetual alliance is to be formed with the Iroquois Confederacy as soon as possible)
◦ Article XIII ("any and every" other British colony in the Americas are invited to join the Union)
Especially:
◦ Introduction (rationale and duty to revolution)
◦ Grievance #7 (obstructing naturalization of foreigners and failing to pass laws encouraging immigration)—listed much higher than taxation without consent (grievance #17)
◦ Article III (purpose)
◦ Article XI (Canada is to be admitted into the union after its liberation from Britain)
◦ Article XIII (the union shall be perpetual)
◦ Article 5 (other British colonies in North America may be liberated from Britain and incorporated into the US)
◦ Article 6 (France renounces all claims to territories held by Britain or the US in North America)
◦ Article I, Section 8, subsection 11-16 (Congress's power regarding military and militia)
◦ Article II, Section 4 (reasons for impeachment)
◦ Article III, Section 3 (treason defined)
◦ Article V (how to make amendments)
◦ Article VI
◦ Section 2 (supremacy clause)
◦ Section 3 (no religious test for office)
◦ Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10)
◦ Especially: Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 10
◦ Amendments 11-27
◦ Especially: Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 24, 26
Especially:
◦ No. 9-10 (on the belief that the democratic-republican form of government is resilient against factionalism and corruption—contrast this to our history and present-day situation which proves this belief woefully incorrect)
◦ No. 11, final paragraph (the world as victim of European colonialism and arrogance, America united against it)
◦ No. 17 (local and state governments hold the most influence over daily life, therefore citizens should make sure they are well-governed; on the belief that federal legislators will never be able to hold more power over the states than vice versa because the individual states can more easily impose their interests on the federal government—contrast this to our history and present-day situation where party factionalism proves this belief woefully incorrect)
◦ No. 18 (on the tumultuous histories and tendency towards tyranny and war in the representative governments of ancient Greek states)
◦ No. 19 (on the tumultuous history and tendency towards tyranny and war in the representative government of the Holy Roman Empire)
◦ No. 20 (on the history of deficiencies of the representative government of the Netherlands)
◦ No. 26 (paragraph 10: state governments must not only be their citizens' voice against tyranny of the federal government, but the arm of the discontent; paragraph 11: on the opinion that a standing army large enough to threaten liberty is improbable and Congress members, being up for election every few years, will not readily vote for such provisions—contrast this to our post-WWII massive military spending. On the opinion that if there are no federal-level politicians who stand against an excessive military which menaces liberties, that the people must resolve to withdraw loyalty from said government, and assert sovereignty to a local level.)
◦ No. 28, paragraphs 6-10 (on the opinion that state governments have a duty to resist tyrants and traitors in the federal government, that the federal government has a duty to resist tyrants and traitors in the state governments, and that citizens have a duty to resist tyrants and traitors at all levels of their government; but such resistance becomes difficult, if not impossible, for citizens to accomplish if not supported by larger organizations such as the state governments.)
◦ No. 29: Concerning the Militia. (On Hamilton's opinion that a National Guard-like organization (i.e. highly-trained militia loyal to a state government) has a duty to stand ready to defend citizens from the tyranny of the federal government. On the opinion that it is impractical to train all able-bodied citizens into a "well-regulated militia," but "the people at large" have a duty to be armed and have basic yearly militia training nevertheless. Consider the many present-day countries which have compulsory military service (such as N. and S. Korea, Finland, Cuba, Brazil, etc.), demonstrating that it is indeed practical to give all able-bodied citizens a semi-proficient level of training.)
◦ No. 22 (paragraph 12-13; on the opinion that one of the greatest weaknesses of democratic-republics is corruption from foreign powers, but that monarchies are largely resistant to this)
◦ No. 24-25 (on the necessity of sometimes having a standing army)
◦ No. 31 ("Of the same nature are these other maxims in ethics and politics, ...that the means ought to be proportioned to the end; that every power ought to be commensurate with its object; that there ought to be no limitation of a power destined to effect a purpose which is itself incapable of limitation."; "A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people. As the duties of superintending the national defense and of securing the public peace against foreign or domestic violence involve a provision for casualties and dangers to which no possible limits can be assigned, the power of making that provision ought to know no other bounds than the exigencies of the nation and the resources of the community.")
◦ No. 35 ("It is said to be necessary, that all classes of citizens should have some of their own number in the representative body, in order that their feelings and interests may be the better understood and attended to. But we have seen that this will never happen under any arrangement that leaves the votes of the people free. Where this is the case, the representative body, with too few exceptions to have any influence on the spirit of the government, will be composed of landholders, merchants, and men of the learned professions. But where is the danger that the interests and feelings of the different classes of citizens will not be understood or attended to by these three descriptions of men?" —I think our history and present-day situation prove how great a danger this representative system has been for non-elites.)
◦ See also: No. 2, 6, 16, []
◦ Section 4-6 (on the duty of states to protect friendly non-citizens from the tyranny of the federal government; on the opinion that non-citizens are entitled to the Constitutional rights of citizens, and that no one should be deported without legal trial and due process of law)
◦ Section 8 (on the duty for states to nullify and resist tyrannical federal laws)
◦ Article 1 (perpetual peace and friendship are to take place between the US and Amerindian groups signing the treaty)
◦ Article 5 (Amerindian lands in the Northwest Territory may only be relinquished by their sale to the United States government (not private speculators), and the US will defend the Amerindian lands against settlers from the US or other nations)
◦ Article 6 (any "white" person taking land belonging to Amerindians is outside of the protection of the US; can be punished as the Amerindian owners see fit; and may be captured, removed, and punished by the US)
***
"Penn's memorable treaty with Tamanend and other Delaware chiefs, under the great elm at Shakamaxon, within the limits of Philadelphia, is full of romantic interest. Unarmed, clad in his sombre Quaker garb, he addressed the Indians assembled there, uttering the following words, which will be admired throughout the ages: "We meet on the broad pathway of good faith and good-will; no advantage shall be taken on either side, but all shall be openness and love. We are the same as if one man's body was to be divided into two parts; we are of one flesh and one blood." The reply of Tamanend, is equally noble: "We will live in love with William Penn and his children as long as the creeks and rivers run, and while the sun, moon, and stars endure.""
"These are the reasons why we are against the traffick of men-body, as foloweth. Is there any that would be done or handled at this manner? viz., to be sold or made a slave for all the time of his life? ... Now, tho they are black, we can not conceive there is more liberty to have them slaves, as it is to have other white ones. There is a saying that we shall doe to all men like as we will be done ourselves; making no difference of what generation, descent or colour they are. And those who steal or robb men, and those who buy or purchase them, are they not all alike? Here is liberty of conscience wch is right and reasonable; here ought to be liberty of ye body, except of evil-doers,wch is an other case. But to bring men hither, or to rob and sell them against their will, we stand against. In Europe there are many oppressed for conscience sake; and here there are those oppressed wh are of a black colour. ...Ah! doe consider will this thing, you who doe it, if you would be done at this manner? And if it is done according to Christianity? ...And we who profess that is is not lawful to steal, must, likewise, avoid to purchase such things as are stolen, but rather help to stop this robbing and stealing if possible. And such men ought to be delivered out of ye hands of ye robbers, and set free as well as in Europe."
***
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
"Yesterday the greatest question was decided which ever was debated in America; and a greater perhaps never was, nor will be, decided among men. A resolution was passed without one dissenting colony, "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; and, as such, they have, and of right ought to have, full power to make war, conclude peace, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which other States may rightfully do." You will see, in a few days, a Declaration setting forth the causes which have impelled us to this mighty revolution, and the reasons which will justify it in the sight of God and man. A plan of Confederation will be taken up in a few days.
When I look back to the year 1761, and recollect the argument concerning writs of assistance in the Superior Court, which I have hitherto considered as the commencement of this controversy between Great Britain and America, and run through the whole period, from that time to this, and recollect the series of political events, the chain of causes and effects, I am surprised at the suddenness, as well as greatness of this revolution. Britain has been filled with folly, and America with wisdom; at least this is my judgment. Time must determine. It is the will of Heaven that the two countries should be sundered forever. It may be the will of Heaven that America shall suffer calamities still more wasting and distresses yet more dreadful. If this is to be the case, it will have this good effect at least, it will inspire us with many virtues which we have not, and correct many errors, follies, and vices, which threaten to disturb, dishonour, and destroy us. The furnace of affliction produces refinement in States as well as individuals. And the new Governments we are assuming in every part will require a purification from our vices and an augmentation of our virtues, or they will be no blessings. The people wilt have unbounded power; and the people are extremely addicted to corruption and venality, as well as the great."
"Had a Declaration of Independency been made seven Months ago, it would have been attended with many great and glorious Effects. We might before this Hour, have formed Alliances with foreign States. -- We should have mastered Quebec and been in Possession of Canada. ...
But on the other Hand, the Delay of this Declaration to this Time, has many great Advantages attending it. -- The Hopes of Reconciliation, which were fondly entertained by Multitudes of honest and well meaning tho weak and mistaken People, have been gradually and at last totally extinguished. -- Time has been given for the whole People, maturely to consider the great Question of Independence and to ripen their judgments, dissipate their Fears, and allure their Hopes, by discussing it in News Papers and Pamphletts, by debating it, in Assemblies, Conventions, Committees of Safety and Inspection, in Town and County Meetings, as well as in private Conversations, so that the whole People in every Colony of the 13, have now adopted it, as their own Act. -- This will cement the Union, and avoid those Heats and perhaps Convulsions which might have been occasioned, by such a Declaration Six Months ago.
But the Day is past. The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.
You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. -- I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will triumph in that Days Transaction, even although We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not."
"Your Resolution to Subjugate yourself to the controul of no Party, is noble; but have you considered all the Consequences of it? in the whole History of human Life. This Maxim, has rarely failed to annihilate the Influence of the Man who adopts it and very often exposed him to the Tragical Vengence of all Parties.
There are two tyrants in human life who domineer in all nations, in Indians and Negroes, in Tartars and Arabs, in Hindoos and Chinese, in Greeks and Romans, in Britons and Gauls, as well as in our simple, youthful, and beloved United States of America.
These two tyrants are fashion and party. They are sometimes at variance, and I know not whether their mutual hostility is not the only security of human happiness. But they are forever struggling for an alliance with each other; and, when they are united, truth, reason, honor, justice, gratitude, and humanity itself in combination are no match for the coalition. Upon the maturest reflection of a long experience, I am much inclined to believe that fashion is the worst of all tyrants, because he is the original source, cause, preserver, and supporter of all others.
...Nothing less than the Spirit of Martyrdom is Sufficient: for Martyrdom will infallibly ensue. Not always in flames at the Stake, not always in the Guillotine: but in Lies Slanders, Insults and privations, oftentimes more difficult to bear, than the horrors of Smithfield or the Place de Louis quinze.
Men have Suffered Martyrdom for Party and for Fashion, in Sufficient Numbers; but none for Contempt of Party and Fashion, but upon Principles of the highest order."
"I agree with you that in politics the middle way is none at all. If we finally fail in this great and glorious contest, it will be by bewildering ourselves in groping after this middle way."
"The strictures on slavery and on the constitution of Virginia, are not of that kind, and they are the parts which I do not wish to have made public, at least, till I know whether their publication would do most harm or good. It is possible, that in my own country, these strictures might produce an irritation, which would indispose the people towards the two great objects I have in view; that is, the emancipation of their slaves, and the settlement of their constitution on a firmer and more permanent basis. If I learn from thence, that they will not produce that effect, I have printed and reserved just copies enough to be able to give one to every young man at the College. It is to them I look, to the rising generation, and not to the one now in power, for these great reformations."
"Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
...But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
[...]From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.
[...]Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this.
[...]In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it.""
[...]"Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? ... If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one.
[...]This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse."
[...]"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
"Am I mistaken in thinking that we are drawing near the time when we must decide to limit and control great wealth, corporations, and the like, or resort to a strong military government? Is this the urgent question? I read in the [Cleveland] Leader of this morning that Rev. Dr. Washington Gladden lectured in Cleveland last night on “Capital and Labor.” Many good things were said. The general drift and spirit were good. But he leaves out our railroad system. Shall the railroads govern the country, or shall the people govern the railroads? Shall the interest of railroad kings be chiefly regarded, or shall the interest of the people be paramount?"
"In church it occurred to me that it is time for the public to hear that the giant evil and danger in this country, the danger which transcends all others, is the vast wealth owned or controlled by a few persons. Money is power. In Congress, in state legislatures, in city councils, in the courts, in the political conventions, in the press, in the pulpit, in the circles of the educated and the talented, its influence is growing greater and greater. Excessive wealth in the hands of the few means extreme poverty, ignorance, vice, and wretchedness as the lot of the many. It is not yet time to debate about the remedy. The previous question is as to the danger — the evil. Let the people be fully informed and convinced as to the evil. Let them earnestly seek the remedy and it will be found. Fully to know the evil is the first step towards reaching its eradication. Henry George is strong when he portrays the rottenness of the present system. We are, to say the least, not yet ready for his remedy. We may reach and remove the difficulty by changes in the laws regulating corporations, descents of property, wills, trusts, taxation, and a host of other important interests, not omitting lands and other property."
"Mayor Hewitt, of New York, is complimented by the newspapers for brave words spoken on the labor question. They are all in criticism of the Labor men. Some obvious blunders of the leaders and mistakes in the methods are easily pointed out. But there is no bravery in it, and I suspect not much wisdom. The real difficulty is with the vast wealth and power in the hands of the few and the unscrupulous who represent or control capital. Hundreds of laws of Congress and the state legislatures are in the interest of these men and against the interests of workingmen. These need to be exposed and repealed. All laws on corporations, on taxation, on trusts, wills, descent, and the like, need examination and extensive change. This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations. — How is this?"
Therefore, when a small group of men approach Congress in order to induce the committee concerned to concur in certain legislation, nobody knows the ramifications of the interests which those men represent; there seems no frank and open action of public opinion in public counsel, but every man is suspected of representing some other man and it is not known where his connections begin or end.
...I merely say that, by certain processes, now well known, and perhaps natural in themselves, there has come about an extraordinary and very sinister concentration in the control of business in the country.
...A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men...
...I have seen men, who, as they themselves expressed it, were put "out of business by Wall Street," because Wall Street found them inconvenient, didn't want their competition.
...The organization of business has become more centralized,vastly more centralized, than the political organization of the country itself. Corporations have come to cover greater areas than states; have come to live under a greater variety of laws than the citizen himself, have excelled states in their budgets and loomed bigger than whole commonwealths in their influence over the lives and fortunes of entire communities of men. Centralized business has built up vast structures of organization and equipment which overtop all states and seem to have no match or competitor except the Federal government itself."
[...]"For I understand it to be the fundamental proposition of American liberty that we do not desire special privilege, because we know special privilege will never comprehend the general welfare.
...Shall we try to get the grip of monopoly away from our lives, or shall we not? Shall we withhold our hand and say monopoly is inevitable, that all that we can do is to regulate it? Shall we say that all that we can do is to put government in competition with monopoly and try its strength against? Shall we admit that the creature of our own hands is stronger than we are? We have been dreading all along the time when the combined power of high finance would be greater than the power of the government. Have we come to a time when the President of the United States or any man who wishes to be the President must doff his cap in the presence of this high finance, and say, “You are our inevitable master, but we will see how we can make the best of it”?
We are at the parting of the ways. We have, not one or two or three, but many established and formidable monopolies in the United States. We have, not one or two, but many, fields of endeavour into which it is difficult, if not impossible, for the independent man to enter. We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world--no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.
If the government is to tell big business men how to run their business, then don’t you see that big business men have to get closer to the government even than they are now? Don’t you see that they must capture the government, in order not to be restrained too much by it? Got to capture the government? They have already captured it. Are you going to invite those inside to stay inside? They don’t have to get there. They are there. Are you going to own your own premises, or are you not? That is your choice. Are you going to say: "You didn’t get into the house the right way, but you are in there, God bless you; we will stand out here in the cold and you can hand us out something once in a while?""
"I quote from the Progressive platform: "Behind the ostensible Government sits enthroned an invisible Government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day. . . . This country belongs to the people. Its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest." This assertion is explicit. We say directly that "the people" are absolutely to control in any way they see fit, the "business" of the country."
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson--and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States--only on a far bigger and broader basis."
HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, “unlimited money in politics.” It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. … Your thoughts on that?
CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody’s who’s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who’s just a challenger.
"No one has ever given me a good reason why we should obey unjust laws. But the reason why we should resist them is obvious."
"The capitalist press is anxious to prove how insignificant is this group of agitators--a handful of discontents, mostly ignorant foreigners.
A handful of discontents? When in the history of the world has the vanguard been in the majority? Never. People who are ready to devote their lives to the oppressed, hoping for no return but a good conscience, are never found in large numbers at a given time and place. Most men have other affairs to attend to than their fellow men's prosperity and happiness. It is not a question of numbers at first, but the spirit which animates the "handful.""
"We are not free unless the men who frame and execute the laws represent the interests of the lives of the people and no other interest. The ballot does not make a free man out of a wage slave.
...As civilization has grown more complex the workers have become more and more enslaved, until today they are little more than parts of the machines they operate."
"The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, ignorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society."
[...]"When our nation was bankrupt in the thirties we created an agency to provide jobs to all at their existing level of skill. In our overwhelming affluence today what excuse is there for not setting up a national agency for full employment immediately?
[...]These programs are not only eminently sound and vitally needed, but they have the support of an overwhelming majority of the nation-white and Negro. The Harris Poll on August 21, 1967, disclosed that an astounding 69 percent of the country support a works program to provide employment to all and an equally astonishing 65 percent approve a program to tear down the slums.
There is a program and there is heavy majority support for it. Yet, the administration and Congress tinker with trivial proposals to limit costs in an extravagant gamble with disaster.
The President has lamented that he cannot persuade Congress. He can, if the will is there, go to the people, mobilize the people's support and thereby substantially increase his power to persuade Congress. Our most urgent task is to find the tactics that will move the government no matter how determined it is to resist."
[...]"There is another cause of riots that is too important to mention casually-the war in Vietnam. Here again, we are dealing with a controversial issue. But I am convinced that the war in Vietnam has played havoc with our domestic destinies. The bombs that fall in Vietnam explode at home. It does not take much to see what great damage this war has done to the image of our nation. It has left our country politically and morally isolated in the world, where our only friends happen to be puppet nations like Taiwan, Thailand and South Korea. The major allies in the world that have been with us in war and peace are not with us in this war. As a result we find ourselves socially and politically isolated.
The war in Vietnam has torn up the Geneva Accord. It has seriously impaired the United Nations. It has exacerbated the hatreds between continents, and worse still, between races. It has frustrated our development at home by telling our underprivileged citizens that we place insatiable military demands above their most critical needs. It has greatly contributed to the forces of reaction in America, and strengthened the military-industrial complex, against which even President Eisenhower solemnly warned us. It has practically destroyed Vietnam, and left thousands of American and Vietnamese youth maimed and mutilated. And it has exposed the whole world to the risk of nuclear warfare.
As I looked at what this war was doing to our nation, and to the domestic situation and to the Civil Rights movement, I found it necessary to speak vigorously out against it. My speaking out against the war has not gone without criticisms. There are those who tell me that I should stick with civil rights, and stay in my place. I can only respond that I have fought too hard and long to end segregated public accommodations to segregate my own moral concerns. It is my deep conviction that justice is indivisible, that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. For those who tell me I am hurting the Civil Rights movement, and ask, 'Don't you think that in order to be respected, and in order to regain support, you must stop talking against the war?' I can only say that I am not a consensus leader. I do not seek to determine what is right and wrong by taking a Gallop Poll to determine majority opinion. And it is again my deep conviction that ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher of consensus, but a molder of consensus. On some positions cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?!' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But conscience must ask the question, 'Is it right?!' And there comes a time when one must take a stand that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular. But one must take it because it is right. And that is where I find myself today."
