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 are just a BAD joke to FReepers as a group.
laughing AT you!
free dixie,sw
I just got done with the war in Southwest Virginia it was great book
True, because the Army and the Navy are specifically authorized by the Constitution, and so long as those pig-flinging branches remain a part of those organizations then there is no problem with Congress being allowed to fund them. But the Air Force is different. Once a part of the Army, and constitutional, it was spun off into it's own military branch, the funding for which is not mentioned in the Constitution. You all are the ones constantly making the claim that the Constitutional powers granted the federal government are few and explicit. Now all of a sudden you're taking the tack that the federal government does have implied powers? Something I've been claiming all along to no avail? Like your magical, mystical "no explusion allowed" powers, it seems that Congress has implied powers only when you personally agree that they should. Quite convenient.
The State then appointed commissioners and paid for the land to be surveyed out of its own treasury. Work on Fort Sumter did not begin until 1829 and had still not been completed by 1860. Unfinished and unoccupied for over thirty years, the terms of the cession were clearly not fulfilled. Consequently, the fort was never the property of the United States Government, as Abraham Lincoln claimed in his First Inaugural Address, and, upon secession from the Union, the only duty which South Carolina owed, either legally or morally, to the other States was "adequate compensation... for the value of the works and for any other advantage obtained by the one party, or loss incurred by the other."
Such being the case, the occupation of Fort Sumter by U.S. troops was technically an act of invasion and the Confederate forces in Charleston were wholly justified in firing upon them when it became evident that Lincoln intended to use military force against the State.
Source? Preferably a primary source? Partial quotes here tend to be the same as modern sound bites; out of context and contrary to what they actually mean.
This would appear to refer to other fortifications, such as Ft Moultrie which exited in 1805. Since Moultrie was in repair and garrisoned, your argument fails. The land for Sumter was ceded in 1836, under separate legislation. I cited the whole text earlier. There were no "conditions".
Really?!
Per http://www.mises.org/story/952 quoting from "Tariff History of the United States" Frank W. Taussig
At the time, Taussig says, [blah, blah, blah, rhetoric, spin]
Yes, really. Cite any tax receipts collected at either fort.
It is also amusing that you cite a lack of a garrison as evidence that the Feds had no claim on the Federal fortifications, then turn around and cite the presence of Federal troops at the Federal forts as justification for attacking them.
And the Constitution also says, "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.." which would tend to put your whole confederacy in an illegal light. "But", you claim, "when a state secedes it isn't a state anymore and not bound by the Constitution." So why should Article V apply? If a state is expelled then it isn't a state anymore and not entitled to equal sufferage in the Senate. So where, exactly, does it say a state can't be expelled?
IMO, the Founders that wanted to make withdrawal impossible without the consent of other states realized that if they put in words to that effect, the Constitution would never be ratified by large key states such as New York or Virginia.
IMHO, if the Founders wanted to make expulsion of a state impossible they would have put words to that effect into the Constitution. They didn't.
Did the other states at the time tell New York and Virginia that they had it wrong? Surely you can point to documents that make your case.
It was not up to the other states or the United States to tell New York or Virginia they screwed up. New York and Virginia were ratifying the Constitution, the Constitution wasn't ratifying them. They accepted the document, agreed to abide by it. The fact that they mistakenly believed they could leave at will was their screw-up.
"a more PERFECT Union" NOT "Perpetual Union"
Nice Try NS...but no cigar :)
Tyrant, thy name is Lincoln.
Kindly desist from using the motto of the C.S.A.
It doesn't work coming from you.
We will just agree to disagree.
Texans did have slaves. Texans in the Red River counties
voted against secession but slave holding planters inflamed
fears of invasion. They also incited lynching up here
of suspected Union sympathisers.
Convenient way of opening up some new real estate...
Yes, and as Franklin said, if we don't hang together (with moral purpose that is honest to God about the equal status of all mankind) the Republic hangs separately.
OK, I did. Two references, both seemed to be quoting the same nonsense. Hardly a rigning endorsement.
Now tell me, what was it that the south was importing in such massive quantities that they accounted for 87% of the tariff revenue. And was virtually none of it collected in Southern ports?
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" - Chief Justice Chase
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.."
If a state withdraws from the Union (an action not prohibited by the Constitution), it is no longer bound by the Constitution. It can then form whatever agreements or compacts it wishes.
So where, exactly, does it say a state can't be expelled?
A state can be expelled if it gives its consent. "... no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." But it can't be expelled without its consent.
The fact that they mistakenly believed they could leave at will was their screw-up.
Spoken like a true proponent of centralized power and sectional aggrandizement.
"If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature." - Alexis de Tocqueville
You seem to be the one with the problem understanding. If a state is expelled (an action not prohibited by the Constitution) it is no longer entitled to representation in the House or Senate so Article V is moot. The concept of 'voluntary expulsion' is so ridiculous that it isn't worth discussing how such a case could arise.
Spoken like a true proponent of centralized power and sectional aggrandizement.
No, spoken like someone who has read the Constitution and the writings of Madison.
Nonsense. The framers were not clairvoyants, did not consult with Ms, Cleo, but did empower Congress to provide for the common defence of the states. It's not a difficult concept to understand.
As well as enpowering Congress with creating states and governing their status once admitted. Including, by implication, leaving. Also not a difficult concept to understand.
By Justice Chase' flawed reasoning, the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Confederation of 13 states are still in existance. Yet the Constitution EXPLICITLY states that when NINE (9 is less than 13) states ratified the new 'union' was created.
Chase sucked at math.
Deo Vindice means "God Shall Vindicate [the right]". It far predates the Confederacy (at least back to Visigothic times), and has been invoked as an indication that in a trial by combat, God's will shall be known by the outcome. Since the outcome of the War is quite clear, I find it deliciously ironic that the Lost Cause types continue to cling to the motto.
P.S.: an alternate translation of Deo Vindice is "God Shall Be Our Punisher".
Yes..you would quote a Yankee, Radical Republican like Chase.
Sorry, I don't buy your interpretation.
NONsense. Congress did not IMPLY that the states were not to be defended. The several states in congress were delegated the power to admit new states, but departure is not admission.
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.