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.
Frankly, I fail to see how it "harmed" agricultural states. It was indeed vital to manufacturing states like Pennsylvania trying to compete with Great Britain, but the south paid no more or no less for imported or domestic goods than the North or West did. The west, just as heavily dominated by agricultural as the south, in fact supported higher tariffs.
The Whig platform you mentioned (Clay's American System) had two key planks... protection for domestic industry (and agriculture, BTW) as well as "internal improvements" financed through tariff revenues. The internal improvement part is why the agricultural Western states also supported tariffs. Western agricultural interests were smaller farmers always concerned with the costs of getting their high-volume, low-value goods like grain to market creating a premium for major public works like canals, roads, harbors etc.
Southern agriculture and politics was driven by a relatively few larger scale planters who basically had a single high-value crop in great demand with no viable competing sources making the cost of transportation to market a much smaller consideration.
But I'm willing to bet that if the status quo had lasted another 20 years or so until Egyptian and Indian cotton production had ramped up, those "southern free-traders" would have been screaming for high protective tariffs.
Whatever the case, the average US citizen probably only paid a dollar or two per you in tariffs. Even considering inflation, that is not what they would have gone to war over.
I'll let in on a little secret - I don't care what they think. I am glad that I have come to know these very great men (Jackson, Stuart, and Lee). How poor my life would be if I had never gotten to know the quality of their character!
>.Whatever the case, the average US citizen probably only paid a dollar or two per you in tariffs. Even considering inflation, that is not what they would have gone to war over.<<
Well, they paid somewhere between a fifth and a half of the price on imported goods it could have been higher than that if you bought something manufactured.
BTW "$8.08 in the year 1865 has the same "purchase power" as $100 in the year 2005." so whatever the cost was you'd multiply it by 12 to get a modern equivalent.
http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppowerus/
I'm sure Jessi Jackson would agree with you, but this Conservative is not fighting for slavery.
>>We southerners were fighting then what conservatives are fighting now. America lost its second war of independence.<<
There is still no better place to live or to be from.
Post the agreement as stipulated in 1805 and then let's talk.
Were the troops collecting the tariffs garrisoned at Sumter? Duh.
OK. How many would go to war over $50 today?
Amen.
That is why I find the "tortured soul" of W.T. Sherman so fascinating.
He recognized the horror of war, and it fought against his very nature.
The mental vision of an ailing, respectful Joe Jackson standing hatless in the rain at Sherman's funeral, should give us all pause.
Thanks. I didn't know that.
The arrogant idea of expelling the western states is consistent with the present day attitude that Boston is the hub of the universe. I went to college up there with New Englanders who had never been west of the Hudson River and didn't feel there was anything worthwhile out in the rest of the country, academic and otherwise.
Those figures are correct. However most of those slaves were concentrated in East Texas, and the Brazos River Valley areas.
Most Texans didn't own slaves in the other areas. The figure of 60,000, also doesn't include those soldiers that were in State service in the Frontier Battalion.
>>re: "We southerners were fighting then what conservatives are fighting now."
---
Ditto:
I'm sure Jessi Jackson would agree with you, but this Conservative is not fighting for slavery.
---
Important distinction. Totally different discussion between "was the South within her rights to secede" and "was the Sotuh right."
The 1805 agreement, assuming one actually existed, is inmaterial. The 1836 legislation clearly grants title to the United States without any restrictions other than the usual one of allowing access to serve writs and arrest fugitives. Sumter was, in every sense of the word, the property of the United States and South Carolina had no claims to it.
OK, I'll bite. Where were the troops collecting the tariff in Charleston garrisoned?
I pick no, and hell no for 500 Alex. ;~))
>>OK. How many would go to war over $50 today?<<
Practically no Americans, thank God. If we went to war every time somebody took advantage of us for a small amount of money we'd never get done with the wars...
but even back then I suspect it was as much the principle of thing - that it felt too much like what England had done to the colonies as much as it was the money itself.
The New York Express has the following:
The Republicans and others in the North who denounce Southern secession, forget that the records of the Massachusetts legislation have them in resolutions to the following effect:
"Resolved, That the annexation of Texas is, ipse facto, a dissolution of the Union."
"Resolved, That Texas being annexed, Massachusetts is out of the Union"
These resolutions, we are told, stand unrepealed. With the personal liberty bill, these resolutions embody nullification in a two-fold form. Supposing now that Massachusetts repeals her "out of the Union act," and with it her personal liberty bill, and thus restores herself to the Union under the constitution.
It is supposedly evidence to support your position. You post it. For all I know, the Dixiepedia author made it up out of thin air, like Bellisle did his "evidence" on guns.
I already posted the law pertaining to the establishment of Ft. Sumter. It clearly contains none of the alleged "conditions". The only reservation mentioned is that SC court processes, such as summons and arrest warrants, could be served at the fort.
Whereas I'm a "yes" and a "no."
That's a two-way street.
Many Southerners assume that all "damnyankees" are like "northeastern liberals".
We're not.
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.