Thomas Paine (1737–1809) English and American political activist
1790s, First Principles of Government (1795)
Source: The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism, 2014, p. 13 (Zeitschrift der Akademie fuer Deutches Recht, July 1, 1938, p. 513)
Thomas Paine (1737–1809) English and American political activist
1790s, First Principles of Government (1795)
Bruno Bauer book The Jewish Question
As quoted in Karl Marx's "The Jewish Question" by ; as translated in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels : Collected Works (1975) edited by International Publishers
John Rawls book A Theory of Justice
Source: A Theory of Justice (1971; 1975; 1999), p. 216
Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury (1830–1903) British politician
Speech to a banquet of the Merchant Taylors' Company, London (10 May 1886), quoted in The Times (11 May 1886), p. 12
1880s
Jonathan Sacks (1948) British rabbi
House of Lords debate on antisemitism, 20 June 2019 https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/tonge-blames-israel-for-jew-hate-during-debate-on-antisemitism-1.485685 <br class="br">Other
Richard Hofstadter (1916–1970) American historian
Source: The Age of Reform: from Bryan to F.D.R. (1955), Chapter III, part I, p. 97
James Monroe (1758–1831) American politician, 5th President of the United States (in office from 1817 to 1825)
The Monroe Doctrine (2 December 1823)
Max Eastman (1883–1969) American activist
Source: Reflections on the Failure of Socialism (1955), p. 18
Alexander H. Stephens (1812–1883) Vice President of the Confederate States (in office from 1861 to 1865)
The Cornerstone Speech (1861)
Context: The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch 'of the accursed soil. Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave