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.
It took treasonous acts to meet with the intention of secession, call for votes to recognize a constitution as superior to the US Constitution, and to develop a constitution all done prior to secession. So therefore, all of the traitors involved should have been extradited to the US to face trial even if arguably you are correct.
Having said that, the US was now faced by a hostile nation that threatened its security and had an obligation to take action against it. So either way, Lincoln correctly responded.
Interesting. I do understand he came back after the attack, but was himself assaulted by the citizens, and then rescued. Not sure his purpose then either.
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.
I distinguish between efforts such as this to get acceptance of separation from the efforts to prevent it, which I was discussing. Since Lincoln rightfully rejected any claims of sovereignty, these efforts were fruitless.
You mentioned the independent peace commissioners. I assume you mean the one headed by former President Tyler, who later became a Confederate Congressman.
Yes. I have daily papers (New York) from December through April and they daily discussed these efforts.
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.
Yes, I mentioned the three because they were to me the most interesting, and the most reported on in the press. As for surrendering peacefully, it was a combination of treasonous officers and a force of arms, not any recognition of sovereignty.
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:
Two ways. First, under Article VI and the Tenth Amendment I claim that no state can secede without a constitutional amendment. Second, assuming I am incorrect, and I've seen nothing in this thread so far to indicate that, then the President as CIC has the power to use the armed forces to protect the security of the United States. And since the Confederacy threatened that security, he had the responsibility to use those armed forces. But since he and Congress did not consider it a war but an insurrection, he did not need a congressional declaration to put it down.
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.
I'm not going to go back to that, but is is clear that the speech was intended to bring SC back without bloodshed and he used the carrot and stick. SC committed the insurrection, and Lincoln extended a hand to peacefully end it. So it may widely have been considered a declaration of war, but only because that's what the people were told. It was propaganda to bring the many who did not want to secede into the fold.
To the contrary...And it is quite easy for me to say what I do regarding Lincoln and his profoundly inhumane status. If you were to take all the strictly political actions out-of-context(and what you are speaking of, was a political move) as many people do, it would be quite easy to tout Lincoln as a wonderful savior. Any and all formal declarations or speeches which appear to be good, have been done for nothing other than appearances. Lincoln was a sneaky so and so in politics. He talked out of both sides of his mouth to get elected. And when the folks realized what they got after he was elected, they protested. And were subsequently eliminated by either death, banishment, or prison. These acts put the fear of God in the remaining folks. And this was in the North! We already know what happened in the South.
And regarding your question of how I can say Lincoln was racist when touting this, that, and the other, and was assasinated shortly thereafter. Actually, one has nothing to do with the other. And if you think about it, it was a payback for all the Southerners that were either wounded, raped, molested, and/or killed by the Lincoln regime.
If you are truly interested in knowing the facts on the grand 'ole fella, read some true history. He was not a shiny little marble.
It must always be remembered that Lincoln did the same kind of thing that Saddam Hussein did to the Iraqis. Or what Hitler did to the Jews, blacks, gypsies, and others. Or Mussloini, Stalin, Mao, and all the other two-bit road shows. And, I for one simply do not think any of those people deserved to die because some bumblehead said so...
Regarding Lincoln knowing his ideas were radical...
I agree with you 100%. However, probably for opposite reasons. For indeed it is a very, very radical idea for any United States President, who is sworn to uphold our constitution and protect the lives of our people to willfully kill many in his country...
Because in spite of a handful of lunatics and morons, this is a great state. The vast majority are friendly, intelligent, oriented toward the family, helpful, and most of all very patriotic. A few who salute only the Confederate flag still can't get over their well earned defeat.
But any who wish to try and contact me personally to offer their "assistance" in moving me can certainly try. I'm not hard to find.
Take care.
Marshall was a lot clearer on the subject of what delegation and reservation meant, when he debated ratification of the Constitution in Virginia's convention in 1788. Do you want me to quote him again?
Here he is encroaching on the Tenth, to help out a prized Federalist hobby horse, a national bank charter (ancestor of the Fed).
At least he used the word "fair".
Now, this quotation undermines my comment about the Tenth Amendment how?
You should not waste your precious time on what you consider to be, "profoundly idiotic". Most especially since you quite obviously do not know what you are speaking of. If you choose to remain in la-la land on this issue, that is your business. And I, unlike you, have not touted any of your words as, "profoundly idiotic". So please, in the future keep all your unwelcome and insensitive remarks to yourself...
So according to Madison, Virginia and New York had faulty ratification documents, and should not have been accepted into the new union.
But they were accepted, with the conditions in place - with all the consequences of the conditions, meaning according to Madison the union was weaker, but the conditions were valid.
Thanks for proving my point.
Nope. Justice Thomas simply notes that that people of the several states are NOT one people, with any delegated power. He says absolutely nothing about the people of a state lacking sovereignty. Per the Constitution the states are mandated to recognize state acts, as well as have a republican form of government (elected representative). The sovereigns of each state - the people - elected delegates to attend conventions to ratify/reject. Nowhere in the Constitution does it assert that states cannot alter their form of government.
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.
The Preamble confers no power, and the covention exlictly rejected the attempt to consolidate the people of the several states into one amalgamated 'people'. Every action must be done by the states SEVERALLY. New York cannot vote in Georgia's elections, Massachusetts cannot craft laws for Alabama.
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.
New York could not ratify for South Carolina. South Carolina's ratification was not binding on New York. Each state accepted/rejected the Constitution UNILATERALLY.
But they did find the time to pass tariff legislation, suspend habeas corpus, "increase the clerical force of the Bureau of Second Auditor of the Treasury Department," "provide for the expenses of the public service within the Indian tribes," "prescribe the mode of publishing the laws and treaties of the Confederate States," "prescribe the salary of the Private Secretary of the President of the Confederate States," and much more.
Maybe in the rush of trying to determine how much Jefferson Davis's private secretary was going to be paid, they forgot all about establishing a Supreme Court.
I've got no use for Booth. If he was such a great Confederate, why wasn't he in the reb army? Not counting women and the infirm, 99% of the good Confederates were in the reb army, leaving the home front to the low quality politicians who precipitated the secession and their vicious home guards who terrorized the people of the south in the name of the CSA. Lincoln and his army had to overcome the reb army to get at and liberate the south from the politicians who ran the CSA for their own benefit. If southerners truly understood the way the CSA was run on the home front, the people of the south would have gratitude toward Lincoln for this deliverance.
Sure, as long as that sovereignty does not conflict with the Constitution including the BOR. Not sure I follow the issue here.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it assert that states cannot alter their form of government.
Again, not sure what you mean. If you mean that a smaller number of states can dissolve the Union than that required to create it, it's a leap of faith.
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.
That is my whole argument. You are agreeing to this?
The Preamble confers no power, and the covention exlictly rejected the attempt to consolidate the people of the several states into one amalgamated 'people'.
They must have overlooked it then. Frequently it's hard to follow folks here when they distinguish between those constitutional words as being literal and those only written to look nice.
Every action must be done by the states SEVERALLY. New York cannot vote in Georgia's elections, Massachusetts cannot craft laws for Alabama.
Of course. But hopefully you are not taking a republican form of government that is characterized by that example to project some innate right to destroy the very Union it created, outside of the same process used to legalize it, are you?
New York could not ratify for South Carolina. South Carolina's ratification was not binding on New York. Each state accepted/rejected the Constitution UNILATERALLY.
But once created, by what authority do you show that permitted a dissolution with a smaller vote? I assume you see the resemblance between the Constitution and a contract? In a contract, all parties are free to agree or disagree with it. Once signed, however, they are legally bound, short of another agreement by all parties to abrogate the contract. If one party walks away, he is violating the contract and will suffer the penalties. If the parties to the contract wanted the ability to walk away, they would have explicitly put it into the contract.
I think all southerners should learn about the truth of what the confederates really were and not rely on the old false fables of the solid south uniting as one to throw of the unjust yoke of the yankee invader.
In 1861, the real enemies of the typical southerner were south of the Mason-Dixon.
There was no Supreme Court under the Continental Congress or the AofC, because none was called for by those organizations. The Constitution, which first called for a Supreme Court took effect on March 4, 1789. The very first bill submitted to the Senate was on April 7, and it organized the judiciary. The Supreme Court met for the first time on February 2, 1790.
The Confederate Constitution took effect on March 26, 1861. From time to time a bill to establish the Supreme Court called for in the Constitution would come up, but was always delayed. On November 29, 1864, for example,"A bill "to establish the Supreme Court of the Confederate States," reported back the same with the recommendation that it do lie upon the table; which was agreed to." source
The Confederate Congress found the time to do all sorts of things. Just not that. Maybe they were too busy organizing Davis's inauguration:
Mr. Lyons, from the joint committee appointed to participate in the arrangement of the ceremonies for the inauguration of the President and Vice-President of the Confederate States, reported that the committee had discharged the duty and presented the following:
Programme for the inauguration of the President and Vice-President of the Confederate States.
First. Col. Charles Dimmock to be chief marshal, assisted by four aids.
Second. The Senate and House of Representatives will meet in their respective halts at 11.30 o'clock a. m., and then, with their respective officers, repair to the hall of the house of delegates of Virginia, which has been kindly tendered by the house of delegates.
Third. The President and Vice-President elect will be conducted to the hall by the Joint Committee of Arrangements at 11.45 o'clock, and be received by the assembly standing.
Fourth. The President of the Senate will occupy the seat on the right of the President-elect; the Vice-President-elect that on the left of the President, and the Speaker of the House that on the left of the Vice-President.
Fifth. Invitations are extended to the following persons and bodies, to wit: Members of the Cabinet, who will be seated on the right and left of the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House; the governor of Virginia and his staff; the governors of any other of the Confederate States who may be in Richmond, and ex-Governor Lowe, of Maryland; the senate and house of delegates of Virginia, with their respective officers; the judges of the supreme court of Virginia, and of the supreme court of any other of the Confederate States who may be in Richmond; the judge of the Confederate district court at Richmond, and any other judge of a Confederate court who may he in Richmond; the members of the late Provisional Congress; the officers of the Army and Navy of the Confederate States who may be in Richmond; the mayor and corporate authorities of the city of Richmond; the reverend clergy, and Masonic and other benevolent societies, and the members of the press.
Sixth. At half past 12 o'clock the procession will move from the hall by the eastern door of the Capitol to the statue of Washington, on the public square, by such route as the chief marshal may direct, in the following order, to wit:
I. The chief marshal.
II. The band.
III. Six members of the Committee of Arrangements, including their respective chairmen.
IV. The President-elect, attended by the President of the Senate.
V. The Vice-President-elect, attended by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
VI. The members of the Cabinet.
VII. The officiating clergyman, and the judge of the Confederate court at Richmond.
VIII. the Senate of the Confederate States, with its officers, in column of fours.
IX. The House of Representatives, with its officers, in column of fours.
X. The governors of Virginia and other States and staffs.
XI. The members of the senate and house of delegates of Virginia and their officers.
XII. The judges of the supreme court of Virginia and other States, who may be in the city of Richmond.
XIII. The officers of the Army and Navy.
XIV. The reverend clergy.
XV. The mayor and corporate authorities of the city of Richmond.
XVI. The Masons and other benevolent societies. XVII. Members of the press. XVIII. Citizens generally.
Seats will be provided by the chief marshal for the governors of States, the judges, and, as far as practicable, for the other guests.
The invited guests are requested to present themselves at the door of the hall in the order above indicated.
At the statue of Washington the President-elect, the Vice-President-elect, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the officiating clergyman, Confederate judge, governors of States, judges of the supreme courts States, the chief marshal and his aids, and six of the Committee of Arrangements will take positions on the platform. Prayer will then be offered by the Right Rev. Bishop Johns.
The inaugural address will then be delivered, after which the oath will be administered to the President by the Confederate judge, in Richmond, the Hon. J. D. Halyburton, and the result will be announced by the President of the Senate.
The oath will then be administered to the Vice-President by the President of the Senate, who will also announce the result.
The several legislative bodies will then return to their respective halls, and the President and Vice-President will then be escorted to their respective homes by the Committee of Arrangements.
The report was agreed to.
From Lincoln's Cooper Union speech:
You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need to be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held to and made by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves.
Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was "got up by Black Republicanism."
Historically, the war between the states IS misrepresented by educators, because they take the minority point of view. In reality, the issue lies with this point: If the war was based on the freedom of southern slaves (the north had theirs as well), then why did Lincoln - who forgot who his base was after running as Fremont's vice president - wait before releasing the Emancipation Proclamation?
Additionally, why then was the north allowed to hold onto their slaves for an additional year?
SS
Marble god? That's you're straw man, not mine. And with your twisted and distorted views, if Lincoln were not the Second Coming, then he must have been The Anti-Christ while out of the other side of your mouth you demand that we understand the context and environment of the age that drove your Confederate heroes to defended slavery as a positive good not as a national shame that earlier generations, both north and south did.
Here's a link the Douglass speech you mentioned and any look at that speech through honest eyes will not see what your hate perverted lens shows.
"vicious home guards"......
My friend, I respectfully submit that you have been watching too much "Cold Mountain"....:)
No. His remarks on McCulloch v Maryland and Madison's comments in his letter to Daniel Webster all have the advantage of watching the Constitution and the states in action for 25 or more years. They are no longer speaking in the abstract or dealing with theory but speak from experience and observation. It's pretty clear that neither Marshall or Madison would have thought much of the confederate rebellion.
Here he is encroaching on the Tenth, to help out a prized Federalist hobby horse, a national bank charter (ancestor of the Fed).
(*sigh*) So once again we see how any decision you disagree with just has to have an ulterior, usually sinister motive. Where would you rebs be without your conspiracy theories? I mean don't you think that Taney might have an ox to gore in his decisions on slavery?
You are abusing your children.
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.