Confederate Kook Still Smarts Under Civil War "Occupation" (El Rushbo Defends The Union Alert)

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | 12/04/2006 | Rush Limbaugh

[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.

[Ditto]

OK. I did my own Google and other than Lew Rockwell making that 87% claim (for which he also sites no source) I can't find anything to support that, and in fact simple logic says it is impossible.

Now let me link you to some primary sources.

CUSTOM-HOUSE RECEIPTS.--1854.
Free States,	$60,010,489
Slave States,	5,136,969
Balance in favor of the Free States,	$54,873,520

Source: http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/helper/helper.html

Now I know the argument that all of those goods imported with tariffs paid in Northern ports did not stay in the North and that is likely true.

But what percentage of them went to the south as it's final destination? According to you, most of it. Let's try your numbers and see how it works.

Let's round that year 1854 and we see total tariffs paid, both North & South came to $65 million.

87% of that figure is $56 Million worth you say was paid by the South with only $9 million paid by the North.

The White population of the North was more than double the South -- 13+ million vs approx 6 million for the South.

If those 6 mi9llion southerners paid $56 million in tariffs, that works out to approx $9.50 tariff paid for every white man, woman and child in the South vs. only $0.70 per man, woman and child in the North.

Now for ever southern citizen to pay $9.50 in tariff assuming an average 15% tariff rate means that each white person in the South, man. woman and child, spent $63 a year on foreign taxable imports or for a family of four, $253 per year --- strictly on imports.

But there is this as well...

Table 1 The Fraction of Whites' Incomes from Slavery
State	Percent of the Population That Were Slaves	Per Capita Earnings of Free Whites (in dollars)	Slave Earnings per Free White (in dollars)	Fraction of Earnings Due to Slavery
Alabama	45	120	50	41.7
South Carolina	57	159	57	35.8
Florida	44	143	48	33.6
Georgia	44	136	40	29.4
Mississippi	55	253	74	29.2
Louisiana	47	229	54	23.6
Texas	30	134	26	19.4
Seven Cotton States	46	163	50	30.6
North Carolina	33	108	21	19.4
Tennessee	25	93	17	18.3
Arkansas	26	121	21	17.4
Virginia	32	121	21	17.4
All 11 States	38	135	35	25.9
Source: Computed from data in Gerald Gunderson (1974: 922, Table 1)

Source: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us

----------------------------------------------------------

As you can see, with an average per capita income of $135/year in the South, you are asking us to believe (just because you and Lew Rockwell say so with absolutly no citation or source) that the average man, woman and child in the south spent fully 50% of their yearly income on foreign imports.

Sorry bud, but that is ridiculous on it's face.

[Ditto]

See number 701 for my analysis of the 87% nonsense.

[Lee'sGhost]

There are many references. Here's just one. http://www.southernhistoricalreview.org/wiki/index.php/Fort_Sumter
Of course the orginal source is The Statutes at Large of South Carolina [Columbia, South Carolina: A.S. Johnston, 1836], Volume V, page 501. You'll have to get your own copy. I can't do everything for you.

I wasn't citing the lack of a garrison, I was citing the lack of not completing the improvements and establishing a garrison within three years as was stipulated in the agreement. Try to keep up.

[Unfinished and unoccupied for over thirty years, the terms of the cession were clearly violated and it was thus "void and of no effect." Consequently, the fort was never the property of the United States Government, as 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" (Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume I, page 211). 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.]

The above also addresses your misrepresentation that I am arguing both that there was and that there was not a federal presence at the fort.

I would suggest that instead of jerking your knee you actually read the posts and apply a little analytical thought before answering.

And finally, in re to the collection of tariffs there are many references; here's one. Please, for the love of Pete, do some research so you will know what you are talking about.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/NR/travel/charleston/community.htm

In the first half of the 19th century, South Carolinians became more devoted to the idea that state's rights were superior to the Federal government's authority. Buildings such as the Marine Hospital ignited controversy over the degree in which the Federal government should be involved in South Carolina's government, society, and commerce. During this period over 90 percent of Federal funding was generated from import duties, collected by custom houses such as the one in Charleston. In 1832 South Carolina passed an ordinance of nullification, a procedure in which a state could in effect repeal a Federal law, directed against the most recent tariff acts. Soon Federal soldiers were dispensed to Charleston's forts and began to collect tariffs by force.

[TommyUdo]

"It is also worth noting that generals with names like von Kleist, von Manstein, von Leeb, von Paulus, and von Runstedt waged war Sherman's way in Russia, and the result was the most bitter war in human history, exceeding even the wars against the Mongols in its savagery. Russian veterans forbade German eleemosynary organizations the privilege even of collecting for burial the 50-year-old remains of German dead at Stalingrad, who were left lying where they fell by the Russians."

Yes, I suppose it could be argued that the example you've given was the last conflict (Does the Cold War count?) that resulted in a decisive victory. The first Iraq war is as you note (I think) a stunning example of not finishing the job.

I don't think enough credit is given Sherman for his avoidance of conflict. He purposely avoided contact with the enemy, even when the numbers were on his side.

[TommyUdo]

"Then give me the old anyday."

I agree, sir.

Unfortunately, methinks our current enemies do not.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Slavery wasn't the issue with most Texans. I am quite sure you know that in Texas, we had less slaves than most. Those 60,000 Texans that fought for the Confederacy could have cared less about slavery.

In 1860, Texas had 182,000 slaves, 30% of the total population, and the slave population was growing faster than the white population. If your number of Texans in the Confederate army is accurate, it means that the state had over three times more slaves than fighting men.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

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

It's interesting that the Hartford Convention, oft touted by southern partisans as evidence that secession was an accepted option by all parties, also discussed expelling the western states from the Union.

[Ditto]

"It is also worth noting that generals with names like von Kleist, von Manstein, von Leeb, von Paulus, and von Runstedt waged war Sherman's way in Russia...

Actually, just the opposite. It was the Soviet Army that did what Sherman did, only in reverse --- they destroyed their own property in retreat so it would not fall into the hands of the Germans (scorched earth -- the Czar's army did the same in 1814 when Napoleon invaded.)

Contrary to neo-Confederate mythology, Sherman's march through Georgia was relatively bloodless affair with only a few minor engagements with Confederate forces. (The mass rape and murder stuff is all BS). Sherman did play hell with the infrastructure and resources, destroying railroads, forges, food stocks etc that could be of use to the Confederates --- scorched earth. While the Germans targeted large cities of Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev and Stalingrad, Sherman avoided the larger cities of Macon and Augusta on his march and could have easily leveled Savannah if he chose to, but he didn't.

[TommyUdo]

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy.
One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.
Killing the enemy is a matter of arousing anger in men; taking the enemy's wealth is a matter of reward.
Therefore, in chariot battles, reward the first to capture at least ten chariots.
Replace the enemy's flags and standards with our own.
Mix the captured chariots with our own, treat the captured soldiers well.
This is called defeating the enemy and increasing our strength.
Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.
Therefore, a general who understands warfare is the guardian of people's lives, and the ruler of the nation's security.

--Sun Tsu--

It should be noted that Sherman was taken to task at the end of the conflict for being to lenient towards the defeated Rebs.

[x]

The residents of defeated Germany, Japan and even Iraq were/are treated better, with more respect for their civil rights, etc. than the white residents of the South during the Reconstruction era.

That's really doubtful. We had complete control over Germany and Japan after 1945. What made things different was that we gave them developmental aid to rebuild, not that we were in some way easier on the defeated and their rights. What also made things different was the feeling of Southern Whites that emancipating and enfranchising the freedmen was an insult to their dignity and honor.

[TommyUdo]

"Actually, just the opposite. It was the Soviet Army that did what Sherman did, only in reverse --- they destroyed their own property in retreat so it would not fall into the hands of the Germans (scorched earth -- the Czar's army did the same in 1814 when Napoleon invaded.)

Contrary to neo-Confederate mythology, Sherman's march through Georgia was relatively bloodless affair with only a few minor engagements with Confederate forces. (The mass rape and murder stuff is all BS). Sherman did play hell with the infrastructure and resources, destroying railroads, forges, food stocks etc that could be of use to the Confederates --- scorched earth. While the Germans targeted large cities of Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev and Stalingrad, Sherman avoided the larger cities of Macon and Augusta on his march and could have easily leveled Savannah if he chose to, but he didn't.

You are correct.

Sherman was also tasked with having to settle the nerves of both Grant and Lincoln, who thought his March to the Sea idea dangerous.

The very nature of his rapid movements precluded the "rape and pillage" stories. But, then, I've never had my homeland invaded, either.

At least until recently.

[gondramB]

>>By 1858 the South was paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue...

Source please.<<

I found that same percentage quoted several places but no good documentation.

I did find good documentation that Southerners favored low tarrifs because they wanted to have the option of buying manufactured goods from Europe instead of only from the North.

The Whigs apparently raised import tariffs to about 40% with the Tariff of 1842.

But it was lowered back to 18% with the Tariff of 1857.

Once the civil war started the south lowered tariffs to 15% while the North raised them until by 1868 they were at 49%.

So I don't know if the South was paying 87% of tariffs but they clearly wanted low tariffs and the North, particularly the Whigs and then Republicans wanted high tariffs.

And the tarrifs favored manufacturing states while harming agricultural states so I can see how it would be an issue.

BTW, I'm not claiming Wikipedia as a primary source but these articles are themselves well sourced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_American_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1842
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1857

[gondramB]

>>obviously, you know LITTLE about the old days in the coal fields.

free dixie,sw<<

That's probably true.

[LexBaird]

There are many references. Here's just one. http://www.southernhistoricalreview.org/wiki/index.php/Fort_Sumter Of course the orginal source is The Statutes at Large of South Carolina [Columbia, South Carolina: A.S. Johnston, 1836], Volume V, page 501. You'll have to get your own copy. I can't do everything for you.

IOW, you copied and pasted some out of context stuff from "Dixiepedia", which tries to conflate fortifications existing in 1805, such as Ft Moultrie which was in repair and garrisoned, with Ft Sumter. You have no idea what that legislation actually says, or if the "stipulations" are as the Wiki article indicates, or if it just another piece of junk opinion masquerading as established evidence.

I wasn't citing the lack of a garrison, I was citing the lack of not completing the improvements and establishing a garrison within three years as was stipulated in the agreement. Try to keep up.

Well, here's the "agreement" regarding Ft Sumter in whole. Please be so kind as to point out the "stipulation" to which you refer. Please also note the date of Dec. 31 of that year, and thus superceding anything in A.S. Johnson's book, presumably published before the last day of that year.

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives [of S. Carolina], December 31st, 1836

        "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

        "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

        "Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

        "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

        "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."

"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
Jacob Warly, C. S.

[gondramB]

>> Once a nation is at war, as the Union was against the Confederacy, then habeas corpus is always suspended! (Or should be, hello President Bush?) What do you think all this insanity over Gitmo is about? We don't give the enemy a trial, we either kill him on the battlefield or use a military tribunal and hold him prisoner. We're talking about war here!

The Constitution and its guarantees are not for application to the enemy in a time of war. Whining about habeas corpus in reference to an enemy combatant is sheer madness! It's like complaining that nobody read that poor Nazi soldier his Miranda rights before shooting him!<<

I thought Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for Northern Citizens, not just enemies.

And are you sure that constitutional rights are always suspended during war?

[gondramB]

>>Contrary to neo-Confederate mythology, Sherman's march through Georgia was relatively bloodless affair with only a few minor engagements with Confederate forces. (The mass rape and murder stuff is all BS). Sherman did play hell with the infrastructure and resources, destroying railroads, forges, food stocks etc that could be of use to the Confederates --- scorched earth.<<

I suspect that it is easier to personify the resentment that Southerners felt by focusing on Sherman.

[LexBaird]

And finally, in re to the collection of tariffs there are many references; here's one. Please, for the love of Pete, do some research so you will know what you are talking about.

Your source contradicts your contention: that the Fts were "tariff collection points". It clearly states that the tariffs were collected at the Customs House. That the soldiers enforcing the Constitutionality of Article I, Sec 8 were quartered in the Fts does not make them collection points. It makes them compliant with the 3rd Amendment.

Were there Federal troops enforcing collection? Yes. Were they doing it at Ft Sumter? No.

[Constantine XIII]

Also, Robo-Lincoln was just way too cool to stay mad at for long.

[zbigreddogz]

Contrary to neo-Confederate mythology, Sherman's march through Georgia was relatively bloodless affair with only a few minor engagements with Confederate forces. (The mass rape and murder stuff is all BS).

True. I just recently learned this after years of being under the false impression that a lot of southern historians want you to believe. The way a lot of southern pride types talk, you'd think he was Genghis Kahn. The truth is somewhat different.

Ah well, what's good for John Kerry is good for the "South will rise again" crowd, I guess.

[theseus ship]

We southerners were fighting then what conservatives are fighting now. America lost its second war of independence.