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.
You should be concerned what happened in the nation.
The war was a legimate one and had to be fought.
All wars lead to increase centralization of gov't, as our current one is doing also.
If anyone is to blame for the centralization of the gov't it is the South who brought the war about.
Yes, the American Revolution led to an increase in the power of central gov't, taxes on the states, printing of money, raising of troops, diplomatic efforts
The colonies worked together as a nation, through its Congress.
The lack of an effective Executive branch almost doomed the war effort.
Why should I show you what the Constitution doesn't say?
If secession is not written in it, then secession is not allowed.
It is the Liberal who disregards what is written for what isn't.
And so?
Neither the 9th or 10th Amendment justifiy secession.
As for the Declaration, it was the Southern slave states that rejected the idea that all men are created equal.
They even put that in their constitution, picking out the Negro as the race they had a right to enslave.
It is the South in the Civil War that rejects the Declaration of Independence, as A.H. Stephens stated in his 'Cornerstone Speech'.
It was Lincoln who believed that the Declaration was applicable to all men no matter what color.
They formed a union to fight the Revolution and fought that war as States.
They were never separate nations.
When they joined into Union under the Constitution they had the option to remain outside the Union as an independent nation or remain a state in the Union.
They chose to join the Union and thus were never independent sovereign nations.
They joined the Union as people of those States, not as the states themselves.
Madison wanted to make it clear that this was going to be a compact among the people of the states and not a compact among the states as the Articles of Confederation was.
Thus, the people of those States when they voted to enter the Union did so in special conventions, not through their state leglislatives.
In any event, an entity that joins a union should be able to leave it - otherwise it is assimilation rather than a union.
No, it is a federal system.
No state can leave because the people are one people.
No state can be ejected either, but the advocates of secession never seem to address the logical conclusion of their argument.
Why can't the other States just eject another state if they are just entities that can and go?
The argument can be made for secession was legal for states like Georgia and Texas that were independent entities before joining the United States. States like Alaska that were acquired by the federal government are a different story.
When was Georgia a separate entity?
It was one of the original colonies.
Texas gave up her sovereignity when she joined the Union and it was never suggested that it was a optional pact.
She became united with the other states and part of America.
Where did you get that impression?
The South was not resisting a communist nation (which would give her the right to revolt) but a duly elected constitutional one, in the name of keeping other men enslaved.
It was the North that fighting to keep freedom alive, as is Taiwan.
And the point is that secession was not considered some sacred right.
The Party that suggested, the Federalists, were considered treasonous for attempting to leave the other states.
Only those Southerners who love being Americans.
The Bill of Rights was a limitation of Federal Gov't over the people, and was not addressing Federal issues per se.
That is why the 2nd Amendment is not about state militia, even though the purpose of allowing private ownership of weapaons was so that a state could form a militia.
The ultimate purpose was so that the individual could join with others and fight against gov't tyranny.
There is nothing in the those statements that would allow those states the 'right' of secession.
What it would allow would be the right of revolt as found in the Declaration, which is an individual right, not a state one.
Based on your continued posts containing abundant yet incomplete information, I understand now that you are arguing out of willful maliciousness, and support for centralized government and tyranny, rather than out of ignorance. That's bothersome, and you might find closer companionship at a place like DU, where such views are encouraged. BTW, I'm not using the FR corollary of Godwin...I mean it most seriously.
Yes, arguing for the Declaration of Independence and against slavery is arguing for centralized gov't and tyranny.
Of the two sides, the South was the far more tyrannical and centralized.
But when are you have left is ad hominem I can understand your frustration.
Not firing on a U.S. fort for a start.
Honoring their obligations to collect revenues for a second.
The problem with Reconstruction came from the South who refused to recognize that slavery was dead and attempted to reimpose their will on the Black man with special laws directed against them.
There are objective standards by which you can judge.
The South met none of the standards that represent her as living under any tyranny.
Her chief complaint was that an election was held that she did not like the results of.
The South was determined to keep her 'peculiar' institution as a sacred right.
So much so the South wrote it into her Constitution as such.
Not "every one," some were slaves, not citizens.
And that State thing never applies to us Texicans.
I know what your point is, but I wonder how we would have held up over the following 100 years if the Union had not been restored and strengthened. I also wonder how much stronger we could be if Reconstruction had been handled better and all those good old Christians of both the North and the South had acted like Christians.
Lee was a decent guy. He believed in America and thought secession to be illegal, but simply couldn't bring himself to raise arms against his family and friends in Virgina. After the civil war was over, he warmly embraced the union and urged the defeated confederates to "make your sons American". If he was alive today and posted on FR, many of his alleged "admirers" in the south would probably be calling him a scalawag and Lincoln apologist.
On the other hand, I wouldn't have hesitated to tie slavery-luvin' anti-American tratior Alexander Stephens to a noose and hung him high...
Yeah, since O.J. Simpson WON his caes, you can bet all the history books will reflect that he was a victim of racism and a poor innocent dupe who was framed by "the man" for henious murders he obviously didn't commit.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
"Beyond the Reflecting Pool the dignified columns of the Lincoln Memorial. Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln. And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans."
-- Ronald Wilson Reagan, First Inaugural Adddress, 1981
"We fought a terrible war to guarantee that one category of mankind — black people in America — could not be denied the inalienable rights with which their Creator endowed them. The great champion of the sanctity of all human life in that day, Abraham Lincoln, gave us his assessment of the Declaration's purpose."
-- Ronald Wilson Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, 1983
"Just who exactly do they mean by 'we'? And to top it off, they even tried to portray themselves as sharing the same fundamental values of our party! What they truly don't understand is the principle so eloquently stated by Abraham Lincoln: 'You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves'. If we ever hear the Democrats quoting that passage by Lincoln and acting like they mean it, then, my friends, we will know that the opposition has really changed.
-- Ronald Wilson Reagan, speech to the Republican convention, 1992
Would that be THIS Ronald Reagan? The one who's role model and HERO was Abe Lincoln? The one who's ancestors fought for the UNION?
I think you've got him confused with another Ronald Reagan.
If the one who was President was alive today and posted his thoughts on this thread, you'd be denouncing him as a "ILLINOIS BORN DAMNYANKEE SOUTHRON HATING CARPETBAGGING LINCOLN-LOVING MARXIST TYRANT".
Copperheads (politics) Faction of Democrats in the North who opposed the American Civil War, wanting an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates. The name Copperheads was given to them by their opponents the Republicans , probably derived from the venomous snake (the American copperhead) that strikes without warning — Copperheads reinterpreted this insult as a term of honor, and wore copper liberty-head coins as badges. They were also called "Peace Democrats"
Wow a rare glipse of honesty on your part. Gee Stands, this is the first time you've OPENLY admitted you love and adore Democrats. The word "Copperhead" is exclusively used to refer to pacifist, anti-war northern Democrats who believe in cut & run during wartime. They are "peace Democrats"
Today, we still have plenty of copperheads in the north demanding an immediate surrender, but I sure as HELL don't support THEM.
That's okay, George McGovern and John Kerry thank you for your support!
I particularly like how they said it was about "confederate hertiage" and had "nothing to do with racism" when A) Sonny Perdue, who they despised so much, incorporated the very FIRST flag of the confederacy from 1861 into the new flag, INSTEAD of using the 1950s era segregation flag, B) the 1950s era segregation flag they love so much was put up by a corrupt socialist Dem governor SOLELY to protest the civil rights movement, and C) Their Dixiecrat "Republican" candidate who opposed Perdue in the primary was endorsed across the board by white supremacist groups and admitted he was only running as a "Republican" to get on the ballot.
The primary election results make it abundantly clear how popular their George Wallace era stuff is in today's Georgia:
REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
SONNY PERDUE 370,756 88.4 %
RAY MCBERRY 48,498 11.6 %
McBerry's buddies in the Klan spent a fortunate on this campaign, and they only got 48,000 votes statewide for the segregationalist "cause". Man they must be pi$$ed!!
Doesn't make a lot of difference, does it.
(And BTW the UN taxes are called "assessments," and unfortunately we all pay them through the Federal government.)
ML/NJ
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.