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.

[Gondring]

I was just wondering what the Constitution says about secession by a State.

The same thing it says about a state being allowed to issue hunting permits and what balloting method must be used, etc. IOW, it's up to the state.

[StoneWall Brigade]

Two-Thirds of the people in West Virginia didn't get a vote on rather to leave Virginia or not

[Non-Sequitur]

There at least 3,000 blacks fully Armed Blacks in the StoneWall Brigade in 1862.

You really need to read the whole Steiner reports. He goes on to say how the confederate rank-and-file reacted with horror and disgust at the idea of someday having to face black Union troops in combat. If blacks were treated as equals or as comrades in arms in the confederate ranks then why did they feel that way? Why did the confederate army show such a reluctance to take black Union soldiers as prisoners?

There is no doubt that thousands of blacks served in supporting roles in the confederate army. There is no doubt that many, perhaps most served willingly. But there is virtually no evidence at all to support the idea that blacks served as combat soldiers in any numbers.

[FreeAtlanta]

Do you think Taiwan has the right to secede from China?

Shouldn't Alaska be able to leave the union so they can drill for their own oil? If they had that right, do you think we would be telling them they can't drill for oil? When will the big cities demand low cost food from the midwest? Not being able to leave the Union when mistreated by the rest of the union would be distastful to Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and probably most of our founding fathers.

[Moose4]

In fact had Lincoln lived, the South might've fared much better in the aftermath of the WBTS than was the case with those Radical Republican thugs in Congress and their carpetbagger/scalawag goon squads running Reconstruction.

I tend to agree. John Wilkes Booth was one of the worst things to ever happen to the South. All Lincoln's assassination did was anger the North and make Reconstruction that much worse.

}:-)4

[Dr.Deth]

That was the 5 minutes of his show I managed to catch between meetings. You could tell this was a special event.

[groanup]

My bad. It wasn't illegal. It was clearly "hostile".

[Dr.Deth]

But that's why it's so dangerous to judge people in the 1860s by modern standards, which is something that modern liberals always seem to want to do.

You, good sir, "get it". The misapplication of current societal mores to the past is perhaps the single greatest logical fallacy in the modern world, perpetuated chiefly by the bleating, baying, pretentious faux intellectual liberal moonbats, as a blanket justification for their malformed and ill-conceived opinions.

We'll leave the anthropomorphization of everything (number two on my dips**t parade of prevalent fallacies) for another time :)

[Gondring]

I've read about the reunions that the Union and Confederate soldiers had years after the war, and they were circumspect, respectful, and usually reverent of one another's sacrifices.

You mean they didn't disparage each other with terms like "Confederate Kook"? What a concept!

[Moose4]

We will have to agree to disagree on this, because I really, truly believe that a state had the right to secede from the Union in 1861, and they still have that right today in 2006. Yes, that opens up all sorts of scary possibilities geographically, but I just take a more Federalist view on things, I guess.

Now, with the massive entanglements of the Federal government's pursestrings reaching so deep into every state, actually doing a PRACTICAL secession is nigh on impossible nowadays. If Wisconsin decided to stage a Cheese Rebellion and secede, while they have the right to do so, you're then faced with having to give up all those billions of dollars of Federal highway funds, welfare funds, block grants, and so on. What do you do with military bases (the Fort Sumter problem)? The Wisconsin National Guard's equipment? Will the Federal government be compensated for the loss of Federal buildings in Wisconsin?

I believe the right to secede exists. But after 140 years, the Federal government has grown to the point where that right is merely theoretical--which points out just how big and out of control the Federal government has gotten.

}:-)4

[RFEngineer]

"The 10th Amendment was to limit the role of the Federal gov't in its use on the individual."

The 10th amendment is simple. It states:

'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.'

This is a limitation of federal power, and has nothing directly to do with individual liberties.

You are arguing with yourself on the rest of your post.

We southerners are Americans, better Americans than many if you measure by military service rates. I'm not sure why you would seek to argue that somehow our patriotism, citizenship, and constitution-abiding ways are somehow suspect or subject to caveat.

[Gondring]

How so? Because S. Carolina demanded possession? That demand was plainly unconstitutional.

You forgot to highlight the relevant part: "Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same"

[Non-Sequitur]

...because I really, truly believe that a state had the right to secede from the Union in 1861, and they still have that right today in 2006.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

[MACVSOG68]

Yours is a reasonable argument but not definitive. So the law of the land, including States which may wish to secede, is the Constitution. So what does the Constitution say about secession?

I guess a couple of points. First the Constitution by its ratification was an historic contract. And as with contract law, once there is offer and acceptance, the contract rules. One party cannot abrogate the contract outside of any specific terms authorizing it. Second, there can be little doubt that the actions I referred to did violate Article VI of the Constitution. And no, there was no mention of secession, and by default, since it had the effect of changing the structure of the Union guaranteed by the Constitution, must have had a constitutional amendment to permit it.

One of the "defects" noted within the Articles of Confederation was "the federal government could not check quarrels between states nor a rebellion in any, not having the constitutional power nor means to interpose according to the exigency". This defect was noted by Governor Randolph of Virginia during discussions leading to the adoption of the Constitution. I would suggest that Article VI precluded any state from rebelling, and Article II empowered the President as commander-in-chief of the armed forces including the militias of the several states when he calls them up, to deal with a rebellion.

Finally, though some quote the Tenth Amendment as acknowledging to any state those powers not reserved for the federal government, those powers did not include any that would have the effect of otherwise violating other parts of the Constitution, or of modifying the Constitution short of an amendment.

If any state constitution has no secession clause within it, can a county or city secede? Our own secession from Britain, though technically illegal, was successful simply because of force of arms, not because we had some legal right to do so. Ultimately, had the South succeeded, either by force of arms, or by Lincoln's refusal to engage them, it would have been irrelevant.

[Moose4]

Didn't the Supreme Court originally find that secession WAS guaranteed by the Constitution, then reverse themselves later? I seem to remember that somewhere, although I may be wrong.

Besides, the Supreme Court also thinks the right to abortion IS in the Constitution. They aren't infallible. :)

It's a theoretical discussion, at best. The upheaval from a secession attempt today would make 1860-61 look like a tea party. And multiple generations have been educated that the United States is a monolith, not the "several States" anyway. Federalism is mostly dead.

}:-)4

[LexBaird]

A State can no more secede from the Union than it can be thrown out of the Union.

Can we make an exception for Massachusetts? We'd be better off without them, and I'm sure they'd be happy under a hereditary Kennedy monarchy.

[StoneWall Brigade]

Whats your view of H.K. Edgerton?

[TNdandelion]

It makes sense now. You're just having an imaginary argument just in case those folks show up. Good to know!

[Risha]

The great hero of the south...

[Non-Sequitur]

Didn't the Supreme Court originally find that secession WAS guaranteed by the Constitution, then reverse themselves later? I seem to remember that somewhere, although I may be wrong.

No, the only time secession has ever been attempted was during the Civil War. So the only instances of secession that the Court has been able to review came out of that. And in 1868 the Court did find that unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern states was illegal.

Besides, the Supreme Court also thinks the right to abortion IS in the Constitution. They aren't infallible. :)

No, but their interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that counts. We may disagree with their decisions and the rational behind it, but that is meaningless. Our approval or agreement isn't necessary. The fact of the matter is that secession as practiced by the Southern states is unconstitutional because the Court ruled it was.