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.
That's great! The South was worse so it's okay that Lincoln destroyed the government formed by Jefferson and Madison. I really don't care about the South. It's the North I care about. I said that already on this thread. Maybe you missed it.
ML/NJ
You're really clueless. Read de Tocqueville sometime.
ML/NJ
And it has been pointed out before, your arguement is bogus. The great sothron claim is that when a state secedes it is no longer bound by the Constitution because it isn't a state anymore. Well, if a state is expelled it isn't entitled to representation anymore. It's the same thing, if one is true then the other must be as well.
Not at all. Why would the Founders leave something that important unsaid?
Why would the founders leave the question of expulsion of a a state unsaid? Is it because such an act is not forbidden? Or is it because implied in the Constitution is protection against such an act.
Here's why. Proponents of the "once-in-you're-stuck-whatever-comes" position knew the Constitution wouldn't be ratified if they put such a restriction in the Constitution.
I'm not one of the "once-in-you're-stuck-whatever-comes" camp. But I'm also not one of your "the only states with Constitutional rights are those that are leaving" crowd. States can leave, if it is done with the consultation and the approval of all the impacted parties. You believe only the rights of the leaving states need be protected, that the remaining states have absolutely no rights whatsoever.
IMO, they hoped to finesse the issue later, which is indeed what they tried to do.
But they went about it the wrong way, launched a rebellion, and got their head handed to them.
Your bias against Southerners is showing. Jefferson was a slave owner and he pushed for no slavery in the NW Territory. He tried to condemn slavery in the DOI. If I remember correctly, Chief Justice Taney of the Dred Scott ruling freed his own slaves in the 1820s or early 1830s.
And your inability to recognize sarcasm is apparent. Taney ruled that Constitutionally blacks, free or slave, could not be citizens. Now how he managed to twist the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to come to that conclusion is impossible to understand, unless you also look at the fact that he had been a slave owner, came from a slave state, and did not believe blacks were people. His personal biases are all over the Dred Scott decision. So that decision should be just as suspect as Texas v White, right?
What rebellion?
The Southern Rebellion. 1861 to 1865. Didn't you hear of it? It was in all the papers.
As I said, Supreme Court rulings do not always follow the Constitution.
And as I've said, something is not Constitutional just because you say it is. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction in that matter, not you.
You apparently come down on the side of the court being supreme over the Constitution.
No, I just recoginize that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction and you don't.
So did the confederacy and that wasn't seen as a sovereign entity by the rest of the world.
ML/NJ
So I guess baseball isn't allowed either.
ML/NJ
"Only those Southerners who love being Americans."
....and you are the arbiter of who is a good American, I suppose?
"The Bill of Rights was a limitation of Federal Gov't over the people, and was not addressing Federal issues per se."
We were discussing just the 10th Amendment, which you clearly did not understand. Now that this Southerner has schooled you on that one, maybe I should work on the other 9 just I can make sure you understand the original intent Constitution.
I appreciate your comments on the 2nd Amendment, however, we weren't discussing that, and that Amendment in particular is understood and freely exercised throughout the South. It is other areas of America that seem to misunderstand this one, particularly the Northeast U.S., as evidenced by their passage of gun control laws that clearly violate the 2nd Amendment.
I get a big kick over folks like you that think that you have some say in the citizen status of southerners. You can't stand it that the Confederacy is part of American history (YOUR history), that the southerners who died in the Civil War are every bit as American, perhaps moreso than you are.
You need to accept and embrace the history of the Confederacy as your own, every bit as much as the Union, because it is the legacy of EVERY American, not just the South.
When you berate Robert E. Lee, you berate your own history, and by extension, if you are an American, yourself.
Most Southerners understand this. You are ignorant to the extent that you still try to relive Reconstruction in your own little world. Good luck with that - you'll find some company here on this forum, but you guys really are inconsequential.
Show me where the Constitution allows for the funding of a branch of the military called "Air Force".
Baseball? Yes. Designated hitter? I'm not so sure.
You seen the kicking that Abraham Lincoln takes around here? Is the same true for those who vilify him?
To be legal shouldn't something be defined as legal especially something as complex an issue as the right to own human being?
Lincoln wanted it defined by law in a debate the south could not hope to win so they quit the union and fought against it.
Did Lincoln secede in what he did?? Enough said.
I never kick Abraham Lincoln, and the same would surely apply.
Abe Lincoln kept the country together, an outcome that I think everyone agrees was the preferred result.
One can argue about Lincoln and whether the Constitution allowed for secession, however, it is a useless endeavor, as the argument was settled at Appomattox a long time ago.
Most Americans get that.
At last we have a winner.
I kept reading and, scanning the post until I found the truth in your post.
I agree with your assessment, you are correct.
WRONG! Better study up on that.
" As for the Declaration, it was the Southern slave states that rejected the idea that all men are created equal."
Wrong again! Lincoln didn't even recognize the blacks as being equal - your assertion holds NO weight. The North as well as a lot of Southerners saw slavery itself as wrong, the problem being an economic one for the South, how to go about freeing slaves (by law - their welfare education and jobs after emancipation) and maintaining their production of cotton and tobacco as whites couldn't tolerate the heat and humidity like the blacks could.
The Northern States conveniently rejected the Constitutional compact (key word) of the rights, and rejected all the rest of the first TWO paragraphs of the Declaration when they invaded the South to force the Southern States to stay in the Union.
The song is beautiful. I thought of it when I saw your screen name. :-)
No, it is you who are wrong.
Nothing in either of those Amendments justify secession.
Stop talking nonsense.
" As for the Declaration, it was the Southern slave states that rejected the idea that all men are created equal." Wrong again! Lincoln didn't even recognize the blacks as being equal - your assertion holds NO weight. The North as well as a lot of Southerners saw slavery itself as wrong, the problem being an economic one for the South, how to go about freeing slaves (by law - their welfare education and jobs after emancipation) and maintaining their production of cotton and tobacco as whites couldn't tolerate the heat and humidity like the blacks could.
Lincoln recognized that the Black had a right to fruits of his own labor, something that the Slave owners rejected.
The Southern slave owners began to see slavery as a moral good and not an evil to be done away with.
The Northern States conveniently rejected the Constitutional compact (key word) of the rights, and rejected all the rest of the first TWO paragraphs of the Declaration when they invaded the South to force the Southern States to stay in the Union.
There was no compact among the States and that was exactly how Madison wanted it when he emphasized that it was a compact between the people of the states and not the States.
The South attempted secession because they did not want slavery to be limited and that was the platform Lincoln was elected on.
Now stop making up history to fit your own prejudices.
Good point.
Lee was a good man who made a bad decision.
He chose his State above his own oath to defend his nation, even though he knew that the State was wrong in seceding.
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.