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.
"War of Northern Aggression"
You know, that is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and I've heard it over and over again. As a history major, I would like to bring up some facts. The first shots of the Civil War were fired WHERE? Fort Sumter. By WHOM? The South. When the South shells a Union fort into submission, then complains when the North marches to the ocean burning towns is kind of like Japan bombing Pearl Harbor then getting upset when the U.S. firebombs and nukes Japanese cities.
War of Northern Aggression. Sheesh. What other things from the Civil War could people possibly screw up because they're too lazy to read history? Next thing you know, blacks will erroneously think that they are ALL entitled to 40 acres and a mule, even though it was a battlefield order only affecting a small area and not pertaining to all blacks as a whole. Nah, never happen.
Yeah, the Flaggots (thanks for the term, Boortz!) really showed Sonny Purdue their electoral boycott power, didn't they!
Well I guess you told me using that tired old quote from Grant.
That would be the same U.S. Grant that as president promised to re invade the South if the Klu Klux Klan wasn't abolished and promised to hang any southern supporting them?
Any suggestion that Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist should be tempered by the fact that he wanted a debate on the constitutionality of slavery in Congress and was willing to suggest amending the Constitution to allow slavery to get congress to debate the issue where he knew the south and the democrats would lose.
Knowing they could not win such a debate, they seceded.
Now show us the documentation that proves the North went to war to end slavery.
This caller sounded a tad bit younger, though.
I'm another to stand shoulder to shoulder with stand watie. He makes direct arguments and has never engaged in hidden attacks or third party name calling or any of that. Like everyone else here, he is strong in his beliefs and will not go along with the politically correct position on these issues as our liberal university professors would have us do. We need more stand waties on this board and less of those poltically-correct types that just seem to repeat what their leftist college professors have taught them.
Sir,
If I thought for a pico-second that it would make any difference to point you to the numerous "unpinged" slams from Mr Watie I could do so. As can anyone else (even you) via looking at the archives. But you know this as you too are posting on those same threads.
The issue is dead now. "He's dead Jim" OK?
Ssssssh, don't tell anybody.
BTW --- Slavery was legal in the US for nearly 100 years. It was legal in the Confederacy for four years.
Thanks for your erudite responses. As I said, the Confederate Constitution addressed many of the issues that were problematic in the US Constitution and slavery was one of them. The line item veto, cost overruns, self sustaining post office are just a few of the improvements that the Confederate Constitution had over the US (these are from memory...there were a good many other improvements that would be helpful in today's Constitution).
I just love a good Jonny Reb vs. Yankee dust-up on Free Republic!
Thank you for that interesting history lesson.
BTW --- Slavery was legal in the US for nearly 100 years. It was legal in the Confederacy for four years.
Show me even one instance where the word slave or slavery is used in the U.S. Constitution and I'll believe you.
Perhaps.
But had Lincoln lost the Presidency, as seemed likely before the fall of Atlanta, the conduct of the war and the post war period would have been radically different.
And "raping and piligaing" of your enemies home soil had better be the goal of any modern Army.
Lee and Sherman were indeed different men. One old, one new.
Didn't Roosevelt suspend parts of the Constitution during WWII? Yet, he is a hero because he was a Democrat?
Yes Groanup.You seem to be number 2 in the "blasting" rankings judging from your history.
Don't bother with "common courtesy" bud. You don't exibit any such thing unlike most of your brethren.
Got nothing to say to you.
Well I do, too...but what we think today isn't really the question. What did the men in this country think before, during and after the war? I know that Grant didn't free his wife's slaves until AFTER the Civil War was over. You would have thought he'd have been ready to free them prior...considering the Union's anti-slavery stance and all that, ya know. ;)
Grant, on the other hand, was a master of the tactics of World War I.
The American Civil War (1861 - 1865) was transitional. The first half (1861 - 1863) would have been familiar to any Napoleonic Era general with cavalry charges and massed infantry. The second half (1863 - 1865) was a precursor to WWI with trench warfare and siege artillery.
This explains why Lee and Johnston won most of the battles in the first half and why Grant and Sherman won most of the battles in the second half.
I enjoy reading the ravings of the Confederate Kook Brigade for a while, but it gets really tiresome after a while. There are some rebs here on FR who are as crazy as the guy who called Rush.
Article 1 Section 9.1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
That's pretty much it, and even then, that's pretty weak protection. A temporary compromise in order to ensure the Constitution's passage.
No where in the US Constitution is slavery and ownership of our fellow man protected as a national ideal, unlike certain other documents. :p
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.