• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    For those wondering, this is part of a quote attributed to Lincoln by Teddy Roosevelt in a 1910 speech where he attributes several quotes to Lincoln. A fuller excerpt of the Roosevelt speech is as follows:

    Part of our debt to [Lincoln] is because he forecast our present struggle and saw the way out. He said: “I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind.” And again: “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a Communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln’s. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear. Now, let the working man hear his side. “Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. . . . Nor should this lead to a war upon the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor; . . . property is desirable; is a positive good in the world.” And then comes a thoroughly Lincoln-like sentence: “Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Oh wow, I can’t believe I only ever knew this as Teddy quoting Lincoln. I never actually bothered to look it up to confirm it, but it makes sense that it would be a State of the Union. Genuinely thank you for that. For those interested in reading it, Wikipedia has a sister project called Wikisource that houses the full texts of this sort of thing.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          I actually noticed the wikisource link at the bottom right after I posted the wikipedia article lmao. Talk about bad timing on my part.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      “Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. . . . Nor should this lead to a war upon the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor; . . . property is desirable; is a positive good in the world.” And then comes a thoroughly Lincoln-like sentence: “Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”

      Lemmy is going to pull you out of your home and hang you by the nearest streetlamp. How DARE you!

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class—neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families—wives, sons, and daughters—work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

        Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Oh, to be clear, I massively disagree with that part of the quote; I’m just presenting that part because it would be pretty deliberate misrepresentation otherwise.