Confederate Kook Still Smarts Under Civil War "Occupation" (El Rushbo Defends The Union Alert)

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | 12/04/2006 | Rush Limbaugh

[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.

[lentulusgracchus]

People put way too much faith in the Federalist Papers. They were nothing more than the interpretation of the meaning of three people. They were intended to soften the blow of the new Constitution and to basically sell it. Any reading of the Anti-Federalist Papers shows how in virtually every aspect of the conventions and the development of the Constitution, there were many differences of opinion, which did not evaporate with the publication of the Federalist Papers.

If you don't regard the writings of three of the authors of the Constitution as authoritative, then I suppose there's nothing more to be said about our differences on the nature of the People. I've repeatedly pointed you to the text that explains why the Constitution was ratified the way it was; Madison's notes in the Philadelphia Convention are also very illuminating, and they show the Framers' conception of the People and their relationship to the States, the Union, and to the documents of the founding which they had in hand at that very moment.

I don't know what else I can do. If you're determined to declare secession illegal (because the alternative is unthinkable for its implications?), I can't stop you, I can only contradict you and cite sources. The People are sovereign in this land, but if you win the argument, then maybe they aren't, and Nancy Pelosi and her ilk, are, and all this discussion about "our" country and "our" history is just fantasy.

[MACVSOG68]

Thanks. An interesting place, I visited it earlier this year. The Park Service employee who tells the story really enjoys his job. He is very good at it and answers everyone's questions well. There are a lot worse assignments than Charleston.

[4CJ]

I would suggest that treason was proscribed by Article VI:

Treason can only be against those owing allegiance to the sovereign. The STATES created the federal government, not vice versa. The federal government is a creature/agent of the states. Secession is not prohibited.

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.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.'

[BillyBoy]

>> You do know that people like Jesse Jackson uses the term Neo-Confederate right?

You do know that petty third world dictators and communist cheerleaders around the globe use the term "damnyankee tyrants", right? Visit Venezuela, Syria, or France, and tell everyone how much you despise the damnyankees. You'll be very popular the hate America crowd and the terrorists who loathe American values in general.

The Dixiecrats here sure love to embrace a phrase used by anti-American third world turds to trash their country. Be sure to boo the song 'yankee doodle dandy' while you're at it. Wouldn't want to be associated with any "yankees".

[4CJ]

Courtesy ping of interest.

[4CJ]

I'm sure their friends over at the DU are cheering them on.

That's where most of their banned members are, or else they're in chains.

[lentulusgracchus]

Thanks for the ping, and for the quote from Hamilton, but I think our interlocutor is determined to support his own opinion in the face of any documentation you or I come up with.

And as a contemporary-trendy, "living Consitution" Al-Goresque pol would point out, it isn't history or facts that determine outcomes.

[MACVSOG68]

Lincoln bears the onus of a war policy. It was his trapdoor out of the constitutional dilemma of how to end slavery without the consent of the governed. Actually, there was a cluster of policy disputes between North and South, and war allowed him to win them all by major force.

I'm not aware of any significant disputes other than the earlier dispute over tariffs which was resolved. The consent of the governed is not necessary to end slavery, since freedom from bondage is a natural human right, and therefore not subject to the approval of anyone. It is why some are upset over USSC decisions upholding the rights of individuals. Many have never understood that rights of individuals always trump the power of a state or of the United States.

[MACVSOG68]

Whatever the King's motives may have been, the Treaty of Paris was the deed to the farm. We got it, and getting it made the People, by George's confession of it, his peers.

Indeed, though we already had the keys to the farm, by our Declaration of Independence. And make no mistake, without force of arms, every signer would have swung from the yardarm.

[MACVSOG68]

Davis went on to explain the difference between Article VI's operation on Nullification, and its lack of applicability to States no longer members of the Union.

You will of course pardon me if I don't take Jeff Davis as the authority on the Constitution. Regardless of what may have been the motives behind Article VI, it is clear. It is not tricky. It has no preamble discussing various reasons for it. No elected official in any state may support any constitution over the US Constitution. It was written as the supreme law of the land. There is no mistake, or other rationale that can explain away such language.

When I look at the 2d Amendment I know that the meaning then had everything to do with arming militias. Yet I do not let that prevent me from using the words in the Amendment to ensure I have a right to bear arms.

In 1844, Article VI did not apply to Texas, howbeit that Texas was indeed a State, because Texas was not yet in the Union.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Texas was an independent nation in 1844.

Likewise, Article VI did not apply to former States of the Union that were in 1861 States of the Confederacy.

Well, we obviously disagree on that point, since they would have to have violated Article VI in order to secede.

You are either in the club, or you are out. If nobody can quit the club, then the club is the Mafia and everybody has a problem with retirement.

Then why can't I secede from South Carolina. I'm tired of being in the club?

[lentulusgracchus]

The consent of the governed is not necessary .....

That about sum it up for you?

[MACVSOG68]

If you don't regard the writings of three of the authors of the Constitution as authoritative, then I suppose there's nothing more to be said about our differences on the nature of the People.

What do you think they did, walk into the Constitutional Convention, hand them a constitution, give a few explanations and walk out? Why on earth do you think it took two years of debate in the various state legislatures? And a number of the votes were very close. There is much history in the Federalist Papers, but they are not the Constitution, and in fact, reading the Anti-Federalist Papers reflects that many differences continued to exist. And I have the highest regard for all three of the authors. Only 11 of the 13 states ratified the Constitution in time for a Union to be declared. So what was Rhode Island...chopped liver or an independent nation?

I don't know what else I can do. If you're determined to declare secession illegal (because the alternative is unthinkable for its implications?), I can't stop you, I can only contradict you and cite sources.

With all due respect, I don't recall any citation showing that the Framers did not intend to build a solid Union, and left a loophole for any state that wanted to secede. I have given you the actual wording of the two applicable parts of the Constitution, and we both agree that the USSC agrees. Outside of that, I guess we can agree to disagree.

The People are sovereign in this land, but if you win the argument, then maybe they aren't, and Nancy Pelosi and her ilk, are, and all this discussion about "our" country and "our" history is just fantasy.

We agree on that completely, but remember, that sovereignty is manifested in the US Constitution, which those very same sovereign citizens have declared to be the supreme law of the land. Any other kind of sovereignty of the people without the structure of law, would be tantamount to anarchy. And as has been said before, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

As for Pelosi, I'm not too worried at this point because if she's smart she will shy away from any legislation that can become a lightning rod...at least until 2008.

[MACVSOG68]

Treason can only be against those owing allegiance to the sovereign. The STATES created the federal government, not vice versa. The federal government is a creature/agent of the states. Secession is not prohibited.

A reading of Article VI and the Tenth Amendment would dispute that assertion.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.'

And how does this support secession? A reading of it would suggest to me that the established form is the Constitution, and annulling it would require the same methodology as was used to create it, or at least a constitutional amendment. And further, since he refers to the people, he is surely referring to We the People of these United States.

[MACVSOG68]

That about sum it up for you?

Pretty much when it comes to the protection of individual rights. If Thomas Jefferson was correct, then we have certain unalienable rights guaranteed by the Creator, which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So no, if I have rights guaranteed by God, the consent of the governed is not required to assert those rights. They exist period.

[lentulusgracchus]

[You, quoting me] I don't know what else I can do. If you're determined to declare secession illegal (because the alternative is unthinkable for its implications?), I can't stop you, I can only contradict you and cite sources.

[You, retorting] With all due respect, I don't recall any citation showing that the Framers did not intend to build a solid Union, and left a loophole for any state that wanted to secede.

I beg your pardon. I quoted the Tenth Amendment and explained its significance regarding the reserved powers. I cited and quoted Federalist 39, which you now say isn't good enough for you.

If by "a solid Union" you mean the kind of post-Lincolnian centripetal national state that Reconstruction built, the Framers shunned it, as shown, again, by Federalist 39 and other numbers, all of which of course you reject.

Your complaint about lack of cites and quotes is tardy and specious. The bottom line here is that I can't quote enough sources, show you enough quotes or cites, to budge your made-up mind. You are rock-solid on Lincoln's legality, legitimacy, and political greatness, and you are dead-set on defending his place in the pantheon while crying "treason" at those who defended their rights against his overthrow of them. What is left to discuss? Very little.

I have given you the actual wording of the two applicable parts of the Constitution, and we both agree that the USSC agrees.

Don't try to speak for what I agree with. I don't agree with anything the Supreme Court did with respect to secession, when it was in the hands of Lincoln's appointees, any more than I accept what the Supreme Court did with the Commerce Clause or the Second Amendment when it was tricking for FDR.

Outside of that, I guess we can agree to disagree.

No kidding.

We agree on that completely, but remember, that sovereignty is manifested in the US Constitution, which those very same sovereign citizens have declared to be the supreme law of the land. Any other kind of sovereignty of the people without the structure of law, would be tantamount to anarchy. And as has been said before, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Sovereignty, whether manifested or not, resides in the People. And remember what the Soviet state was able to do, after it issued papers to people: it used the false authority of paperwork to separate people from their rights: without the papers, they were nothing, they couldn't work, they had to beg to eat while they listened to the State organs revile them as "parasites".

Either the People are sovereign and possess it, or if it's in the hands of politicians, the people are dispossessed, and playthings of the political classes. What Lincoln did was to wage a war to transfer sovereignty, precisely by the formula you quote, from the People to his "mystical Union", which was just a euphemism for the federal government under machine control -- his machine.

Your conception of sovereignty is an ideological utility created by Lincoln and his politicians for their own purpose, which was to defraud the People of their rights and make themselves the masters of the country. That was the political basis of the Gilded Age, and evidently it suits you just fine.

Your crack about a suicide pact rings hollow, too. What were the Civil War dead, but the collateral damage of Lincoln's rewriting of the Constitution to transfer sovereignty from the People to his office?

[lentulusgracchus]

[MACVSOG68] And further, since he refers to the people, he is surely referring to We the People of these United States.

You're referring to the amalgamation model again -- which is Lincolnite and Declarationist propaganda.

You have been corrected on that point, and the correction supported by documentary authority as to original intent. Slothful induction and intransigence. Discussion over.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Tenth Amendment makes that point explicit. It is not "silent". It is comprehensive, instead.

"But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word 'expressly,' and declares only, that the powers 'not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people;' thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument." - Chief Justice Marshall, McCulloch v Maryland

[MACVSOG68]

Your complaint about lack of cites and quotes is tardy and specious. The bottom line here is that I can't quote enough sources, show you enough quotes or cites, to budge your made-up mind.

Not when your quotes and cites give you some kind of interpretation of words in the Constitution that are crystal clear. I'm reminded of all here who challenge the meaning of the 14th Amendment, by citing the "original intent" while ignoring crystal clear language. Perhaps we should simply ignore the Constitution and re-publish the Federalist Papers as our new supreme law of the land.

Either the People are sovereign and possess it, or if it's in the hands of politicians, the people are dispossessed, and playthings of the political classes.

As I said before the people are sovereign, but the Constitution is the sovereign law of the land. Now if there is a conflict what happens? Looking at your play-book the sovereign people should win out. Either they are anarchistic or they believe in the form of some law. Is that supreme law only applicable if the sovereign people want to follow it?

What Lincoln did was to wage a war to transfer sovereignty, precisely by the formula you quote, from the People to his "mystical Union", which was just a euphemism for the federal government under machine control -- his machine.

So the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land? Given his numerous attempts to prevent the conflict you say he was planning since his cub scout days, all those efforts were pretty silly, huh? But why didn't he just go along with the secession. Ok now what. This would have been much easier, because he now could have considered the Confederacy an enemy which threatened the security of the United States and its territories. He could then have launched a preemptive strike and after the defeat, recreated new states, with new state lines, or kept them as territories.

What Lincoln did was to wage a war to transfer sovereignty, precisely by the formula you quote, from the People to his "mystical Union", which was just a euphemism for the federal government under machine control -- his machine.

AKA preserving the Union.

Your conception of sovereignty is an ideological utility created by Lincoln and his politicians for their own purpose, which was to defraud the People of their rights and make themselves the masters of the country.

You must be mistaken on this rights thingy. Before Lincoln, millions of slaves were held in bondage, women couldn't vote, only property owning white males could vote for some time; large land owning slave holders represented most of our presidents; in spite of a ban on religious tests, they were prominent. After the Civil War, slaves were freed, given the right to vote; the 14th Amendment ensured that at least one day they and all Americans would have the right to due process and the equal application of the law; women were given the right to vote; miscegenation was outlawed as unconstitutional. So just which rights were you concerned about that Lincoln abrogated, the rights of the slave owner or the rights of slaves to freedom?

What were the Civil War dead, but the collateral damage of Lincoln's rewriting of the Constitution to transfer sovereignty from the People to his office?

Sounds an awful lot like Dems today charging Bush with all the war dead. At least the South found out that starting a war can be a costly event. But there is almost no doubt that a larger war would have been fought as the South clamored to extend its hold on the territories and make separate treaties which would endanger the United States. But its rights to slaves would be forever protected.

[MACVSOG68]

You have been corrected on that point, and the correction supported by documentary authority as to original intent. Slothful induction and intransigence. Discussion over.

Bout time. I was afraid I was going to have to show my passport to get back into the good old USA.

Take care.

[Non-Sequitur]

...and in the most telling passage on the Sumter confrontation, Nicolay praises Lincoln's caginess in maneuvering the Southerners into opening overt hostilities.

Only southron supporters can celebrate the fact that their leaderships was too stupid to see through Lincoln's plot and instead fell into his trap. </sarcasm>