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.
Nope. It replied to the South's aggression at Sumter because to do otherwise would be to concede that the secession was legal. S. Carolina chose to go the route of military force. Gambled and lost. Once they shot at Sumter, it was either an insurrection, or the act of a sovereign nation; the Union reply was foreordained the moment Beauregard ordered military action.
Perhaps if SC had chosen to try to enforce its claims through the courts, it may have succeeded. Who knows, since the question of secession had never been brought before the USSC. But consider that the Chief Justice was Taney, author of Dred Scott, and had a Southern majority at the time.
frankly, i do NOT expect another even half as good in the future.
free dixie,sw
only HACKS do.
free dixie,sw
Theft. At cannonpoint.
laughing AT you!
free dixie,sw
may i gently point out that "things are SIMPLE only to simpletons"???
free dixie,sw
wasn't me.
had it been me, i would have gone at Rush "with both barrels loaded" & would have sounded (i hope) a lot better than he did.
as i've told you a HUNDRED times at least, "DAMNyankee" is ONE word,which is APPROPRIATE ONLY if you are discussing the 10-15% of ARROGANT,HATE-filled,SELF-righteous,LOUD-mouthed,ignorant, sanctimonious, clueLESS, PREJUDICED, south-HATERS, from the north.
the other 85-90% are just NORTHERNERS! (also, "a good sized slice" of northerners are COPPERHEADS, i.e. northern partisans of dixie LIBERTY. copperheads were/are LOVED & CHERISHED in dixie!)
free dixie,sw
Actually he never signed it. Presidents aren't required to sign amendments. However, he was the first to break that tradition and sign the 13th amendment, which ENDED slavery for all time. His support for the Crittenden amendment was based on his belief that it merely reiterated what he already believed. From his First Inaugural:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
want proof of that: just look at the collection of DUNCES, LIARS,IDIOTS,PERVERTS, CROOKS & IDIOTS that they vote to represent them!
HITLERry rodham klintoon, chuckie schumer, teddy (the cape cod orca), & that ilk come to mind.
free dixie,sw
Not what I argued. I argued that even if secession was legal, SC still didn't have any claim to land that they had sold and ceded authority over to the US Federal Government, just as Virgina and Maryland had for D.C.
Article I, Sec. 8: [Congress shall have Power] ...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;...
You may rationalize it as "nationalizing" foreign assets. What it is, is theft. The only legally recognized way of doing this at that time was "right of conquest", but even then the United States compensated Mexico by treaty for the land taken in the Mexican-American War.
Hey Stand
a 2-day stay in any northern city will teach you that.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
We're not talking about military power, we're talking about legal right. Does Cuba have the legal right to demand our departure from Gitmo? And if we refuse would Cuba be within her rights to bombard the base into surrender? And would you not support her actions as proper and legal?
Nope, as soon as they felt they were a sovereign nation, the property within their borders was theirs to do with how they wished.
Then they were under no obligation to pay for anything? After all, it was their property now and why pay for something that was your's?
But be real here, the North didn't go to war against the South because it wasn't compensated for the forts.
No, the North went to war because the south started one. Because they bombarded a federal facility into surrender. That's what started the war, and that was the war the south eventually lost.
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.
Why should the North expect any payment? After all, you said the forts belonged to the confederacy, why offer to pay for your own property? In your scenario, the forts were never really the property of the government. The state was free to seize them at any time. So why should they be entitled to compensation.
Nice to see you two weigh in on the issue. It was lonely not having you two when this thread opened.
Hawaii will be the next one to try secession. It will be interesting.
And you have yet to cite any statement in the Constitution that prohibits a state from being expelled against its will. Yet nobody is pretending that is allowed. The Constitution grants the federal government powers, expressed and implied. Expressed is the power for Congress to create a state and to OK any changes in its status once admitted. Implied is the need for Congressional OK to leave altogether.
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.
The tired old Southron whine, I don't agree with the decision so the decision must be invalid. Why doesn't that work with Dred Scott? A majority of the members were slave owners and/or southerners? How could any decision of their's concerning slavery be unbiased? Dred Scott flies in the face of the Constitution! It must be a mistake in judgement! It's obviously invalid!
Is that how it works?
BTW, the right of the South to secede was decided by force of arms.
No. The Southern rebellion was put down by force of arms. The question of the legality of their acts of unilateral secession was settled by the Supreme Court.
Negotiations with whom? And how do you capture a fort that was under your command in the first place?
Lincoln's home state of IIlinois ratified the the Corwin Amendment before the war broke out in 1861. Both Ohio and Maryland State legislatures ratified it as well
But the south wanted more.
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.