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.
It is also accurate, in the case of this caller. He clearly considers himself a confederate, hence that part of the appelation. "Kook" comes into play by his insistence on using rhetoric and emotion in place of reason, and on leveling charges without apparent cause - at least no valid cause he can articulate.
I would hope that we can use accurate language (without cursing) to describe people in accordance with their own actions. This glimpse into the caller's mind certainly puts him in the confederate kook category for me.
If someone doesn't love American I wouldn't consider him a good American.
I think that is a very reasonable deduction.
"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.
Nothing in the 10 Amendment gives any State the right to secede.
It says that no power not explicitly granted to the Federal Gov't remains with that of the State and individual.
The State never had a right to secede so there is no power to do so found in the 10th Amendement.
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.
And the Bill of Rights are dealing with individual rights, not state rights.
Moreover, gun control laws began in the South, when blacks were forbidden to own them.
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.
The Confederacy is part of American history, but so is WW1 and 2.
The fight against the Confederacy was a fight against tyranny and oppression.
The sugar coating it into the 'noble cause' is one of the greatest deceptions in modern history.
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.
What I joyfully embrace is the fact that the Confederacy was crushed in its infancy and never was allowed to spread its racist cancer throughout the rest of the Continent.
Picking out a race of people to keep enslaved (as stated in the Confederate Constitution) was proto-fascist, not American.
The Confederacy rejected the principles of the Declaration of Independence and thought they had a right to enslave a particular race of people.
They rejected American values.
Any American Southerner will reject the Confederacy as well.
When you berate Robert E. Lee, you berate your own history, and by extension, if you are an American, yourself.
I didn't berate R.E.Lee, but he did violate his oath of office as did all those 'noble' Confederates who fought against the United States.
Lee believed that secession was not legitimate also.
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.
No, it is the Pro-Confederates who try to make something noble out of the Confederacy and to demonize Lincoln and the Union cause.
The Confederacy and what it stood for, slavery of the negro race, was evil and had to be destroyed.
What the Southern apologists want to do is rewrite history and have been attempting to do so with the myth of the 'failed noble cause' and the nonsense of 'state rights'.
Only individual rights exist and the state exists to protect them.
The Federal gov't was created to protect the individual from (gasp!) abuse by State gov't.
Each has their role to play in a Federal system of Gov't, whose goal is to protect individual freedom, not keep one race enslaved for the benefit of another race.
Never said that racism was only a Southern issue and I know that Southern prisoners also suffered greatly while POW's.
However, the South passed laws (black codes) specifically aimed to make sure that the black was kept 'in his place'.
That stubbornness on the part of the South to accept the reality of results of the war kept Reconstruction going longer than it had to.
Moreover, Reconstruction failed when the North wearied of it and pulled its troops from the South, leaving the Black to become victims of Jim Crow laws.
It should be pointed out that this was the Democrat South.
>> There are objective standards by which you can judge.
The South met none of the standards that represent her as living under any tyranny.<<
So who sets these objective standards? There was no U.N back then and I'm not sure I'd want them to decide who gets to be free. I noticed your screen name contains the word "Declaration" capitalized - I gather that means you share my great respect for the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration said that they were compelled to explain the reason they were leaving the Empire to form a new government - it did not acknowledge that anyone other than the states in question had the right to decide if these met some some objective standard, particularly not the government from which they were seperating.
>>That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government<<
If the Southern States, having joined the Union voluntrarily, now believed they were being treated much like England had treated the colonies and that because of electoral math there was no chance they ever change this it really was their choice to secede, peacefully.
It was not their right to attack and kill men to recapture Fort Sumter after the North provoked them by taking it bloodlessly- a tragic and terrible error on the part of the South Carolina Governor and General Beauregard.
I shouldn't even have to say this, but lest I be misunderstood, I am eternally greatful that the end result is a United America with an equal protection ammendment... there is no time or place in history I would rather live. Now, if the government would just follow even more of the Constitution I'd be even happier about it.
Lease was permanent.
Your smug remark notwithstanding.
"Honoring their obligations to collect revenues for a second." The North was looting the South through unfair tariffs to pay for the North’s industrial policy. By 1858 the South was paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their very livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation. Imagine that, a group of people rebelling against an oppressive government for being unfairly taxed. I suppose you oppose the Revolutionary War as well.
The Tariffs were passed legally.
If the South did not like them, they had elections they could turn to.
We fought the Revolution because we had no recourse (no taxation without representation).
Fort Sumter was little more than a tax collection center, and having withdrawn from the union southern states were no longer obligated to pay the unfair tariffs.
Well, since the South had no right to withdraw, it was an act of treason to fire on the U.S.flag.
Thus, Lincoln was justified in calling up troops to put down the rebellion.
"Well, since the South had no right to withdraw, it was an act of treason to fire on the U.S.flag."
Well, that's where your house of cards falls down. The states did and still do have the right to withdraw.
Well read the Declaration and you will see how Jefferson stated the case for the Colonies having no recourse but to rebel.
Nothing in the Declaration could be stated to be having done in the South.
The South had political recourse.
What they were complaining about is that slavery was going to be limited and that they could not accept.
The Declaration said that they were compelled to explain the reason they were leaving the Empire to form a new government - it did not acknowledge that anyone other than the states in question had the right to decide if these met some some objective standard, particularly not the government from which they were seperating.
The Declaration lays out the fact that when a Gov't attacks individual right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness and there is no other recourse then there is a right, indeed a duty to overthrow that gov't and form a new one.
The South was not in danger of losing life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness and moreover had political recourse to defend its interests.
What it wanted to do was keep other people from their right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness and defend that tyranny as a virtue.
The South rejected the principles of the Declaration referring to all men.
They were going to form a new gov't on the new 'cornerstone' on the 'reality' of the 'inequality' of the races, as stated by Vice President A.H. Stephens.
>>That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government<< If the Southern States, having joined the Union voluntrarily, now believed they were being treated much like England had treated the colonies and that because of electoral math there was no chance they ever change this it really was their choice to secede, peacefully.
They were not treated like colonies but had every political right.
They did not attempt secession over abuse of their political rights, but were upset that a 'great political party had been formed to limit slavery' according to President Jeff Davis.
It was not their right to attack and kill men to recapture Fort Sumter after the North provoked them by taking it bloodlessly- a tragic and terrible error on the part of the South Carolina Governor and General Beauregard. I shouldn't even have to say this, but lest I be misunderstood, I am eternally greatful that the end result is a United America with an equal protection ammendment... there is no time or place in history I would rather live. Now, if the government would just follow even more of the Constitution I'd be even happier about it.
We would all be happier if the Constitution was followed more closely and the Federal gov't was more limited.
However, the Confederacy was not pro-freedom, but anti-American in its concept and philosophy.
Not according to the Constitution it doesn't.
It is a compact among the people not the states.
A state can more withdraw from the union than it can be kicked out of the Union.
Well, we clearly disagree but I'm glad we had the discussion.
>>A state can more withdraw from the union than it can be kicked out of the Union.<,
Thought I was through but one last point. A citizen cannot be exiled but he can leave voluntarily and voluntarily give up his citizenship - so I don't think that analogy holds.
Best to you - gotta go to work.
Interesting. So "the people" joined the union, not the states. Well, that opens up a whole new line of argument, doesn't it.
So if "the [Southern] PEOPLE" had just decided to leave the union instead of their state governments that would have been OK. And here I thought states were the people. Stupid me.
I am in awe of your logic.
So, you don't believe in property rights or rule of law? Perhaps you would have urged the Cherokee Nation to take back large parts of the Carolinas from the Southerner occupiers as well. I think they had better claim to it than any Southerner claimant, since Andy Jackson stole the land and forcibly removed them in violation of the Supreme Court ruling. That would have been about the same time as SC ceded in whole the land under Ft Sumter to the Federal Government.
Or, are you arguing that "might makes right" when it comes to land possession? If you take something clearly owned by someone else, then it is yours. If so, then all of Charleston was clearly owned by Sherman's Army in 1865.
And this explains the four Union states how?
Well then consider my great-grandmother taking a shower, her last shower, and probably weighing 80 pounds, wondering what happened to her children (if she could think at all).
If you are refering to the Nazi Holocaust, then realize that the victims of the death camps WERE slaves. They were, for all practical purposes, owned by the State.
Documentation of proof please.
Yep!
Wrong...you have it mixed up. Any powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution are reserved to the STATES. The states chose to secede. They were legal.
How about "provide for the common defense" (in the preamble).....I should think that covers it.
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.