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.
On the contrary, I don't condemn the south for any actions unless one of you Southron types get all hypocritical on us. Call Lincoln a tyrant? Fine, look at Davis's tyranny and condemn him, too. Want to condemn Black Codes in the North? Terrific, but don't forget to include the Black Codes in the South in your arguement. Think Lincoln is racist? Not a problem, so long as you condemn Lee and Davis and Jackson for their racist beliefs. So long as you keep it fair and balanced then I don't have a problem.
Funny... you do just the same for the north.
You're complaining about tyranny leading up to the rebellion. Well for most of that period Southerners controlled the Congress or the Presidency or both. If there was any tyranny then it was aided and abetted by Southerners.
If I appear that way it's because I'm trying to debate with someone who is as thick as a brick. You claimed that if something isn't explicitly forbidden by the Constitution then it's permitted to the states. Except when implied powers work to your advantage but I digress. Nothing in the Constitution forbids a state from establishing an Air Force independent of the U.S. military, so by your eccentric interpretation a state has the power to estabish one. Right?
Secession without the consent of the states was. Just ask the Supreme Court.
There was no freedom of speech or expression in much of the north. Folks were jailed on suspicion of having "southern leanings" and whaat we saw is essentially what is practiced in the middle east today.
And which were also practiced in the confederacy under Jefferson Davis. Have you no criticism for him? Of course not, that would be even-handed.
Wow! Right from the Pee Wee Herman, "I know you are, but what am I" repertois of debate.
OK. You win. You're intellectual prowess is much too great for me. Who knew Pee Wee was such a formidable foe.
So that would make you the man who lost to Peewee Herman? Are you going to add that to your tagline?
That's my whole point. The 2d was put in for a different reason than we look to it today, and I fully support the 2d Amendment, but my point was one cannot simply look to the initial reasons of some for what was written or what may have been omitted from the Constitution. Some believe they have an unfettered right to bear arms however that may be defined by them. Most of course, feel there can and should be some reasonable controls.
Great idea.
Thanks.
"If you're just dense, or if your reading comprehension skills are lacking, I can't help you."
the man (or woman) has admitted to being the intellectual equal of Pee Wee Herman, what did you expect?
Lincoln sent his personal assistant Ward Lamon to the Governor of South Carolina assuring him that Fort Sumter would be evacuated and his cabinet member Seward to the Southern Commissioners in Washington saying the same thing.
I'm aware of his trip subsequent to the attack on Sumter, but not of any prior efforts on his part to negotiate anything.
The South was trying to get rid of a hostile fort in their harbor that had a commander who had threatened in January 1861 to use the fort to shell Charleston. The South was trying to negotiate peace in Washington in April 1861.
The only real effort from the South other than participants in the independent peace commission that I am aware of was Virginia. South Carolina, Louisiana, Texas continued taking custody of federal forts, a mint and supplies. And of course, there's little doubt the South wanted a peaceful separation from the Union. Under no reading of the Constitution was that going to happen. But in any case, my point was that the South was organizing, consolidating and developing armies throughout the first 4 months of 1861.
That would then conflict with those on your side of the issue who say that the people are of a higher pay grade than the Constitution. In any case, the preamble should not be taken to presume that the "people" of a separate state can trump the "people" of the United States. That is the issue.
Ellsworth's motion to refer the plan to the legislatures of the states for ratification was defeated 3-7. The plan that was submitted by committe 'to refer the Constitution, after the approbation of Congress, to assemblies chosen by the people' of the several states separately was accepted 9-1.
Logistically that was likely the only acceptable means of ratification. But any assertion that once the Union had been created out of the votes of the states, it could then be dissolved, or its Constitution modified without the same vote of a majority of the states is simply without basis.
Don't disagree. The framers were creating a constitutional republic, not a democracy. But they also created sufficient glue to hold that together, barring a vote of a sufficient number of states to dissolve it. But again, I notice here on this thread, many look to the intentions of one or two while ignoring the language of the document itself. We had the discussion on the 2d Amendment and the intention of it was irrelevant to the same people.
Perhaps this is another of those areas where we should simply ignore the language. It clearly states that the Constitution together with all of the laws of the United States is the supreme law of the land. And it further states that every official in every state is bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.
Now I'm not sure how the setting up of new state constitutions, calling for votes to put aside the Constitution, and taking specific actions against the laws of the United States did not violate this clause.
i KNOW that this "issue" is a "problem" for SILLY people (and a "red herring" that APOLOGISTS like you trot out to FOOL the IGNORANT), but the TRUTH is that a CSSC would have been IRRELEVANT to WINNING the war against the HATERS & CRIMINALS from DAMNyankeeland.
had our ancestors WON our war, there would have been COURTS & the other agencies necessary to run a new, FREE republic.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
pity that you don't know that you have joined the ranks of the IDIOT fringe of FR posters/poseurs.you are becoming another laughingstock like "x", "ditto", "modernman", etc, who are "targets of opportunity for derision".
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
why not toddle over to DU & post your IGNORANT, BIGOTED bilge there????
free dixie,sw
And yet Davis had no problem keeping is cabinet fully stocked throughout the entire war. He had an attorney general, but no court for him to oversee. A secretary of state with no foreign governments willing to deal with him. Neither of which required by the constitution. But one branch of government that was required? Couldn't be bothered.
had our ancestors WON our war, there would have been COURTS & the other agencies necessary to run a new, FREE republic.
You can go to the new FREE republic if you want. I'll stay here over on the old FreeRepublic.
PITY that the rest of the BIGOTS, DY extremists & BIGOTS don't leave too, as FR is for CONSERVATIVES.
for example, "mike from ohio", based solely on his posts BELONGS on DU, with "heyworthLESS", "wlat", "jaguaretype", "modernman" & the other DAMNyankee, clueLESS,EX-FReepers.
to all: you should note that not EVEN one "good 'ole reb" from FR (though several have been banned) is ON those sorts of sites. SOUTHRONS are CONSERVATIVE.
the DYs are ANYTHING BUT conservative. MOST are just BIGOTED, ignorant of the facts & DUMB!
free dixie,sw
Lamon, who was the one who made the out of town trip, made his trip prior to the attack on Sumter. I'm not sure his trip was to negotiate anything other than a trip to the fort. From the Official Records:
CHARLESTON, S. C., March 26, 1861.
Major ROBERT ANDERSON,
U. S. Army, Commanding at Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, S. C.:
MY DEAR MAJOR: Having been informed that Mr. Lamon, the authorized agent of the President of the United States, advised Governor Pickens, after his interview with you at Fort Sumter, that yourself and command would be transferred to another post in a few days, and understanding that you are under the impression I intended under all circumstances to require of you a formal surrender or capitulation, I hasten to disabuse you, and to inform you that our countries not being at war, and wishing as far as lies in my power to avoid the latter calamity, no such condition will be exacted of you, unless brought about as the natural result of hostilities.
Whenever you will be prepared to leave the fort, if you will inform Governor Pickens or myself of your intentions relative thereto, we will be happy to see that you are provided with proper means of transportation out of this harbor for yourself and command, including baggage, private and company property. all that will be required of you on account of the public rumors that have reached us will be your word of honor as an officer and a gentleman, that the fort, all public property therein, its armament, &c., shall remain in their present condition, without any arrangements or preparation for their destruction or injury after you shall have left the fort.
On our part no objection will be raised to your retiring with your side and company arms, and to your saluting your flag on lowering it. Hoping to have the pleasure of meeting you soon under more favorable circumstances,
I remain, dear major, yours, very truly,
G. T. BEAUREGARD.
The only real effort from the South other than participants in the independent peace commission that I am aware of was Virginia.
Then you've come to the right place to get educated. Here is a February 27, 1861 letter from Jefferson Davis to the President of the United States.
For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises, transmitting the same to the President of the Confederate States for his final ratification by and with the consent of the Congress of the Confederate States.
Those were the guys who in April, 1861, denounced the Lincoln administration's false statements as gross perfidy.
And there were the commissioners from South Carolina. Here's an excerpt from their letter to the President of the United States:
WASHINGTON, 28th DECEMBER, 1860.
Sir: We have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the full powers from the Convention of the People of South Carolina, under which we are "authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light houses and other real estate, with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment of the public debt and for a division of all other property held by the Government of the United States as agent of the confederated States, of which South Carolina was recently a member; and generally to negotiate as to all other measures and arrangements proper to be made and adopted in the existing relation of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this commonwealth and the Government at Washington."
You mentioned the independent peace commissioners. I assume you mean the one headed by former President Tyler, who later became a Confederate Congressman.
Richmond, March 1 -- Ex-President Tyler and Mr. Seldon, late Commissioners to the Washington Peace Conference, arrived in this city, on their way home, yesterday afternoon, and in the evening were honored with a serenade. Ex-President Tyler, in returning his thanks, said the South had nothing to hope from the Black Republicans. The secession feeling is on the increase. (Source: Mar 2, 1861 New Orleans Daily Picayune)
South Carolina, Louisiana, Texas continued taking custody of federal forts, a mint and supplies.
Your list is shy a number of Southern states who also took over facilities in their states. The great great majority of the forts, arsenals, etc., were surrendered peacefully.
And of course, there's little doubt the South wanted a peaceful separation from the Union. Under no reading of the Constitution was that going to happen.
Where in the Constitution do your read that? I am reminded of the words of Alexander Hamilton to the New York Ratification Committee that ratified the Constitution:
It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself! Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a Government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government.
But in any case, my point was that the South was organizing, consolidating and developing armies throughout the first 4 months of 1861.
That's what independent states do. Most of the effort at developing an army in the South took place after Lincoln's first inaugural address which was widely interpreted as a declaration of war against the South. See my old thread: Lincoln's First Inaugural
why not leave SC NOW, as nobody in dixie will mourn the loss of one scalawag????
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.