Posted on 12/04/2006 6:10:06 PM PST by goldstategop
RUSH: John in Shreveport, Louisiana. Hello.
CALLER: Mr. Rush, don't you think you're being a hypocrite when you're not -- when you don't want the Iraqis to decide the problems themselves, especially since Abraham Lincoln took two -- two generals named Lincoln [sic--Grant] and Sherman who were responsible for the deaths of 59,000 southern people? And since you hate Confederate heritage that much, don't you think that we should allow the people of Iraq to decide their own fate?
RUSH: (Laughing.) Gee. I hate Confederate heritage?
CALLER: No kidding.
RUSH: On the basis of what do you say that?
CALLER: Okay, allow me to quote you from 2001: "The American Civil War was the first conflict in human history to set a people free from the bondage of slavery." Your quote, sir.
RUSH: Yeah?
CALLER: And that's not --
RUSH: Well, the point is, we fought --
CALLER: -- power --
RUSH: Are we going to have this argument, Steve?
CALLER: Yes, sir, we are, if you've got the nerve to hold it!
RUSH: I'll have this argument with you any time you want. I've been hearing from you guys since I started this show. I know, it's about states' rights, it was about freedom; it was about independence. But it was about preserving the union -- and Abraham Lincoln knew that you couldn't preserve an America with the institutions defined by our Constitution if one man was allowed to own another.
CALLER: Well, you could not preserve the Constitution as long as you could override it by military power and invasion.
RUSH: Well, there was the preservation of the union that was the number one --
CALLER: How about the preservation of the Constitution, shouldn't that be predominant?
RUSH: Look, you still want to secede? What's your solution?
CALLER: We have no choice, we're under occupation now. The thing about it is you still have to lie about Abraham Lincoln to prove your, to make your point.
RUSH: I'm not lying about Abraham Lincoln. What do you mean, you're still under occupation?
CALLER: Put it this way. The South was not allowed to vote its own way; we're not going to allow Iraq to vote its own government, either.
RUSH: But we did.
CALLER: Do you think we're really abiding by that? What they voted for, we're trying to subvert it by military occupation. No difference than what they did here for 12 years in Louisiana. You don't think we don't see that? You don't think we don't see you as a hypocrite for what you say about, oh, yeah, preserve the union, but let's never mind, let's take away the vote from those who are the voting citizens --
RUSH: I cannot believe this!
CALLER: -- Constitution!
RUSH: I can't believe this. You are taking out your frustrations at having lost the Civil War on me and claiming I'm a hypocrite because of my stance on the Iraq war?
CALLER: Yes, sir.
RUSH: Which I don't even think you know what it is.
CALLER: I don't think you know -- I don't think you know who Abraham Lincoln was.
RUSH: I certainly know who Abraham Lincoln was. He's one of the greatest presidents in the history of the country.
CALLER: Who said that --
RUSH: And it wasn't because he defeated the south. It was because he preserved the union.
CALLER: He preserved the union by trampling the Constitution!
RUSH: He did not trample the Constitution. He suspended habeas corpus. He did do some things I wish Bush would do.
CALLER: Like kill 59,000 innocent civilians?
RUSH: Are you talking about Sherman's march through Atlanta?
CALLER: And -- and -- and Grant's shelling the city of Vicksburg. Hello?
RUSH: It won the war, didn't it? You ever heard of Gettysburg? It won the war and that was the objective. I'll tell you what I wish Bush would do that Lincoln did. Take all these anti-war agitators and send 'em to Canada. Send the National Guard in there. Send Harry Reid over to Baghdad if he's going to be so socially --
CALLER: Like that Ohio Congressman Vallandigham, huh?
RUSH: Absolutely, like that Ohio congressman, that Democrat that was snatched out of his house and sent down to Jefferson Davis, who also didn't want him.
CALLER: Well, at least I got you to acknowledge that.
RUSH: Acknowledge what?
CALLER: Well, the fact that Lincoln did have his secret police who went into people's houses, pulled them out in the middle of the night, and had them -- and had them --
RUSH: You know what? I hope before you die you learn to thank God for Abraham Lincoln.
CALLER: I hope before you die you learn what a racist and a bigot and a power-hungry maniac he was.
RUSH: I'm the racist and the bigot?
CALLER: I didn't say you were. I said he was!
RUSH: Oh. Abraham Lincoln? How in the world you can call a guy who ended slavery a racist and a bigot? I have heard everything now. Everything, in 22 years of hosting this program, I have heard everything.
So, my suggestion is to lose your foolish pride [Mr. Limbaugh] and READ THE FACTS! Mr. Lincoln did NOT end slavery. He was a racist, and a bigot who had absolutely no need for the black people, or ...Confoundingly idiotic ...
The full post can be found here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1748501/posts?page=992#992
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."Apparently not for the neo-confeds ...Or maybe 'indivisible' really doesn't mean indivisible.
Wrong. By default - and Amendment X - what is NOT prohibited is retained by the states.
"War of Northern Aggression"LOL!Petronski: Whenever you see that ludicrous appellation, respond by insisting on calling it the "Great Slaver Rebellion of 1861."
True, but obviously some cannot comprehend that New York cannot write laws for Georgia, New Yorkers cannot vote in Texas' elections. And education is a terrible thing to waste.
Article I, Section 10 states "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace..." Since it isn't forbidden then I assume a state could establish an Air Force outside of the control of the federal government and use it as it wishes?
Thanks for your reply. I've been out of town. Just got back tonight. I don't know much about the Quirin ruling, so I looked it up. It seems a little more complicated than that. Here are some excerpts:
All except petitioner Haupt are admittedly citizens of the German Reich, with which the United States is at war. Haupt came to this country with his parents when he was five years old; it is contended that he became a citizen of the United States by virtue of the naturalization of his parents during his minority and that he has not since lost his citizenship. The Government, however, takes the position that on attaining his majority he elected to maintain German allegiance and citizenship or in any case that he has by his conduct renounced or abandoned his United States citizenship.
More:
On the same day, by Proclamation,3 the President declared that 'all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, [317 U.S. 1, 23] and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals'.
The Proclamation also stated in terms that all such persons were denied access to the courts.
FYI, Merryman was not arrested for having burned or disabled bridges but for having Confederate sympathies and drilling a company of Southern-sympathizing Maryland soldiers or militia using Federal weapons. That was according to the officer who arrested him.
A worse case might be that of Mayor Brown, who was mayor of Baltimore when the Baltimore riots took place on April 19, 1861. Mayor Brown led the Northern troops through the rioters. In the official report by a northern officer, the mayor was said to have killed one of the Southern-sympathizers in order to get the troops through the city. (The mayor denied killing the man.)
The mayor was arrested by Federal forces in September. From the Philadelphia Public Ledger of September 14, 1861:
...The arrest of Mayor Brown is supposed to have been on account of the expressions made by him in his letter to Gen. Dix, in regard to the payment of the old police, in which he says: -- "I recognize in the action of the Government of the United States nothing but the assertion of superior force."
Mayor Brown stayed in prison for some 14 months or more without trial. It apparently was pretty dangerous to make statements criticizing the Lincoln government or the actions of their troops back then.
May have been more a matter of pride than honor. I think it was Beauregard who said of Davis that he was as proud as Lucifer.
I would suggest that treason was proscribed by Article VI:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Since South Carolina violated Article VI, and with its attack on federal property, other laws of the United States, it clearly had no safe harbor in the Tenth Amendment. Nor can any county, city or home secede from a state. What supremacy does a state constitution have over a lesser jurisdiction that the US Constitution had over a state?
But such matters are little more than academic exercises anyway. Any revolution is bound to involve force of arms, and will almost always be settled on the battlefield, not the courtroom.
Excellent post.
As regards our secession from England it is quite different from the Southern attempt since the was no representation of American in Parliament whereas the federal government not only did represent Americans but had, in fact, been controlled by Southern politicians for most of our history prior to 1860.
After the slaves were freed, Lincoln gave a speech at the White House stating that the black man should have the right to vote. It was this very statement that Booth heard with his own ears and lead to Lincoln's immediate assassination.
How can you say he was racist, when his very belief in the RIGHTS of the black man lead to his death?
Lincoln knew his ideas were radical. When a staff member of the White House cautioned the president about his personal safety, Lincoln admitted that he might be killed. But he didn't waver for a moment, because he knew he was RIGHT.
In a letter to his brother, Sherman basically indicated that if the question was slavery, he would have no problem with it. The fact is that Sherman was in for one reason alone... he was ardently opposed to secession.
How does a country invade itself?
Troops from one state laying seige to a major city in another state for political reasons... real nice. I suppose you support this tactic. This is the type of thing we might see in Iran.And the losers write the myths. The truly gullible...well, you know the rest.
It is YOU who have completely bought into the PC line on this. Your lefty professors are probably very proud of you. You'll find LOADS of support for your position over at the DU.And defense for the institution of slavery was by far the single, most important reason for the Southern rebellion. If you accept slavery as part of history why don't you accept that part of history, too?
Will you villify the US for our 100 years of slavery? Will you associate the American flag with slavery? Slaves were bought and sold under the American flag for decade after decade after decade. What's it like to be so totally and completely indoctrinated and captivated into a PC position?
Well said. The "usual suspects" are hopelessy locked into the Jesse Jackson PC argument on this issue. I'm sure their friends over at the DU are cheering them on.
So let me get this straight- Fort Sumter wasn't being garrisoned for collecting the tariff; Lincoln was manning Fort Sumter to ward off a possible invasion by the British fleet, or maybe the French or the Spaniards.
President Jackson had regarrisoned Castle Pinckney in Charleston Harbor for the express purpose of enforcing the tariff the previous time South Carolina had objected to a tariff. But Lincoln couldn't have been doing the same thing, no, he was just protecting the renegade South Carolinians from invasion by a foreign power.
You just can't satirize the stuff diehard Lincoln worshippers will believe, they can always outdo your best efforts.
Feel free to post it yourself- that way you can emphasize the parts you think are useful to your argument, and explain away the inconvenient parts that make the marble god a little less than the Second Coming.
And Fredericksburg was my favorite canvas.
My children were taught the truth. Lincoln was a bloody tyrant, who destroyed liberty, and ravaged the South in the name of "UNION". And justice was meted out to him accordingly.
I omit that phrase about "indivisible" when I recite the pledge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.