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.
No. Governor Pickens was of the opinion that the land had reverted to SC when they seceded, but there was no official act to that end, and there was an internal debate as to whether it Sumter and the other federal property in the south was a matter for the states or for the CSA government.
but the argument that if even secession was permissible that the US could still control and collect taxes from the port of Charleston is silly.
Where did anyone say that? If secession was permissible, then the US couldn't collect taxes at Sumter any more than the US can collect Cuban taxes at Guantanamo, although they could still occupy the fort on land they owned until some agreement was reached. But secession wasn't permissible, in my (and millions of others') opinion.
Actually less than half--VA, NC, SC, GA and TX.
Reasonable people that don't have a hate toward a region see that the consitution is pretty unclear on the matter.
Agreed. If it was there in black and white we'd have little to argue about. People of good faith came down on both sides. I come down on the "unilateral secession is illegal" side.
You have yet to cite any statement in the Constitution that prohibits secession. As Jefferson Davis said on January 10, 1861,
Now, I ask where among the delegated grants to the Federal Government do you find any power to coerce a State; where among the provisions of the Constitution do you find any prohibition on the part of a State to withdraw; and if you find neither one nor the other, must not this power be in that great depository, the reserved rights of the States? How was it ever taken out of that source of all power to the Federal Government? It was not delegated to the Federal Government; it was not prohibited to the States; it necessarily remains, then, among the reserved powers of the States.
The Supreme Court ruled that unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern states was illegal. Based on that there is no other conclusion but that the Viginia secession was not legal.
The Reconstruction Supreme Court? The Supreme Court on occasion makes rulings that fly in the face of the Constitution. The Justices are only people, not gods. They make mistakes in judgment.
Look at the recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right under Campaign Finance Reform to ban certain political free speech within 60 days of an election. What happened to the First Amendment? Political free speech and the right to criticize government is one of the basic freedoms of this country. Or at least it used to be.
BTW, the right of the South to secede was decided by force of arms.
Based on the fact that sovereign nations, as South Carolina rightly or wrongly felt it was, has the power to do what it wants within its borders. I am surprised you haven't heard of it before because it's happened a lot.
I'm sure if that South Carolina wouldn't have minded compensating the US for the forts if a reasonable price would have been set.
The argument is whether SC had the power to secede. I believe the constitution is unclear on the matter so a person's bias is really the only deciding factor.
You: Where did anyone say that?
In post #420 - that was the post that I originally responded to that started this subthread.
That's certainly debatable. Lincoln's words were:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
Lincoln's not saying that he "didn't care" about freeing the slaves. He's making a statement about his priorities as President. Whatever his own feelings in the matter were, preserving the union was paramount.
Therefore, it's unfair to assume that political expediency changed his mind about slavery itself. For one thing, the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't politically expedient for Lincoln, though it brought military and diplomatic advantages for the Union. But beyond that, you're basing your argument on assumptions about his attitude towards slavery that may not hold up.
Lincoln didn't approve of slavery. He wasn't indifferent between freedom and slavery. He was wiling to accept slavery where it existed as the price of union. He may have been wrong to do so, but it's easy to say that now. It wasn't in 1862.
Show me where the Constitution prohibits secession.
If you can't then YOU are doing what Liberals do....
And it doesn't.
i think your are standing in somthing else...
Because, by beating Grant badly, Lee got all his men killed. After that, no tactics were needed to defeat Lee.
It makes sense. I think...
I realize that the vast majority of southerners didn't own slaves, but in an era of "states' rights," the citizens of those states chose to fight rather than make slavery illegal in their own states. In the end - no matter how you look at it - slavery is why the war was fought. Not states' rights. Not private property. If the states had done away with slavery, there wouldn't have been a war.
As a sovereign nation does Cuba have the right to demand the U.S. leave Gitmo? And bombard the base in the event we refuse?
I'm sure if that South Carolina wouldn't have minded compensating the US for the forts if a reasonable price would have been set.
If South Carolina had any intent on compensating the federal government for the appropriated property then shouldn't such compensation have been set before ownership was transferred? In other words, shouldn't they have paid for it before they took it?
Rather than outlaw slavery, southerners (of which I am one), chose to leave the union and fight a war to protect their slaves.
OK, just burn CNN.
>>Now the North is to blame for Jim Crow laws too?<<
Only the ones in the North - Jim Crow laws in the South are part of our history and represent injustices we did with no particular help or blame from Yankees. Jim Crow Laws also existed in the North, however - from Delaware to North Dakota and many points in between.
Yes, but they don't have the military power to do anything about it.
Think about when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal France and England promptly attacked to preserve their investment. Who did the United States and the rest of the world support? The answer is Egypt.
How about when Venezuela nationalized it's oil industry. We might think it was a crappy thing to do but it is their right as a sovereign nation. That is still a risk that companies and investors that purchase property in China face.
In other words, shouldn't they have paid for it before they took it?
Nope, as soon as they felt they were a sovereign nation, the property within their borders was theirs to do with how they wished.
But be real here, the North didn't go to war against the South because it wasn't compensated for the forts. If the North had demanded some sort of compensation for the property then it is very doubtful the south would have refused to enter into negotiations.
Federal forts are not colonies. They are purchased, either directly or via eminent domain, or created on pre-existing Federal land. In the case of Ft. Sumter, title was acquired by State law, passed in the S. Carolina legislature in 1836. It included a quit-claim for the State and any individuals.
They would, because the secession was illegal and the power to collect foreign tariffs is a Federal one, granted in Article I. The only conceivable way that SC would be "in the right" is if they had succeeded in their rebellion by military force. They lost. Deo Vindice: God shall Vindicate [the right].
whatever else lincoln was, he was NOT a decent person by the standards of this, his or any other century.
free dixie,sw
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.