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.
Actually, I don't think so; Sumter was still under construction. They were probably at Moultrie. Would you rather they had been quartered in the residences of the Charlestonians?
BTW, I doubt the troops were collecting anything. They were likely just enforcing the ability of the duly authorized tax collectors. A subtle difference, but real. They were performing that duty as well as others, such as garrisoning the coastal defense works. No doubt if the citizens of SC had been compliant with Article I, Sec. 8, there would have been no need for troopers to fill that duty. Some people obey the Rule of Law, some must be compelled.
UNLIKE some on FR, you've actually read some books, rather than believing the ARROGANT, KNOWING LIES of the REVISIONIST, LEFTIST boobs of socialist/leftist/marxist-leninist-stalinist academia.
free dixie,sw
even THAT late, the lot of a coal miner in PA was AT BEST hard & AT WORST little, if any, better than slavery.
yes, you could quit BUT you might find yourself (and your family) DEAD, by the hand of "the company men".
go do some reading about the 19th/20th century in the KY/PA/WV "coal fields" & we'll then talk about how slavery & "forced labor" are different.
free dixie,sw
It is a myth that British taxes caused the Revolution. They did not. All they did was make people in all 13 colonies agree on something and to speak with one voice for the first time. The King did not like to be sassed and overplayed his hand. If he had allowed them to send a couple of Representatives to the House of Commons, he would have got his taxes and satisfied people who at that time considered themselves loyal British citizens even if they didn't like the tax.
He chose to ignore their requests. It was a full 10 years from the time of the Stamp Act to the first shots at Lexington & Concord when the Brits attempted to force their will and still another year after that when faced with the largest military expedition in history heading for their shores before the colonies agreed that independence from the crown was the only solution.
The American Revolution was not a rash act, and contrary to what the left teaches, had little or nothing to do with taxation. And wealthy men like Washington and Jefferson did not risk their necks over a few pounds in taxes.
The Confederacy was represented in Congress --- in fact over represented. They were not being oppressed in any way by the Federal government. In fact, they controlled that very government for most of the nation's history.
They simply didn't like the outcome of an perfectly constitutional election where they lost control of one branch of government but kept effective control of the other two. They chose (I would say conspired to create) a revolution. It was not over a few dollars in tariffs.
As for the citizens of the USA:
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" - (U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9) [emphasis added]...so the entire Constitution may not be suspended for citizens, but at least that right may be.
As for the enemy in a time of war--this is where the Gitmo thing goes awry--they don't have Constitutional protection in the first place!
In the case of the Civil War, since the Confederacy had put themselves in the position of the enemy of the USA (the Union), they cut themselves off from those protections for the duration of the war. Any other American citizen who explicitly or effectively joins the side of the enemy in a time of war puts themselves in the same position, IMO.
The basic rationale for the lack of Constitutional protections for even a citizen enemy combatant in a time of war is that there simply isn't time for them. The overriding concern is the defense of the country, so those lesser concerns which may conflict with it must of necessity be suspended. The country could conceivably be overrun and the war lost before a single trial could be adequately prosecuted.
deceit is the NATURE of a PROPAGANDIST, just as it is the NATURE of a serpent to slither.
free dixie,sw
i think NOT.
free dixie,sw
please don't tell me the census data, as that is UNtrustwiorthy for ANY purpose. at BEST the 1850/1860/1870 censuses were a UNeducated, wild GUESS as to the population of TEXAS.
the 19th century censuses are SO INACCURRATE that the DAR won't accept them as PROOF to join the DAR, absent OTHER/better data.
free dixie,sw
Google "Nueces Massacre" or "The Great Gainesville Hanging" and learn something.
IF the DAMNyankee elites had had their PREFERENCE there would have been NOBODY left ALIVE in dixie at the end of the war.
what we DID have all across dixie (during & after the war) was widespread looting, torture, rape, larceny, arson, robbery & other WAR CRIMES & CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, which were committed against HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of UNarmed, INNOCENT southern civilians.
particularly "persons of colour" (both slave & free), AmerIndians,Asians, Latinos,helpless CSA civilian "detainees"/prisoners of War, religious minorities (Catholics,Jews, Quakers,etc) & "the poorest of the poor whites" suffered MOST at the hands of the invaders.
otoh, the "landed elites" suffered LITTLE or NOTHING at the hands of the "scourge in blue", other than loss of PROPERTY!
one of the "odd truths" of the war period was that "the blue-clad crusaders against slavery", all too frequently, only freed the slaves from BEING ALIVE!
free dixie,sw
I got them from the Handbook of Texas Online, created by the University of Texas. If you've got support for different numbers, show it. Until then, I'll take the word of University of Texas over your say-so.
our family was POOR, NON-white & defenseLESS, so they were TARGETS OF OPPORTUNITY for the "blue horde" of CRIMINALS, who "raged through the prostrate south like a herd of rabid swine".
PLEASE don't post about things of which you know ZILCH! (your writing "fiction" makes you look SILLY & "raises my blood pressure".)
free dixie,sw
Another odd truth is that a good number of confederate defenders of Dixie spent their best efforts in pursuing and murdering their fellow Southern whites who refused to bow the knee to the confederate slave kingdom.
Both sides had their criminal exploiters of the situation.
ALL freedom-loving Americans LOST the war to the financial/social/academic/intellectual ELITES out of the northeast!
free dixie,sw
MY family ( and tens of thousands of other poor & "other than white" dixie families) just wanted OUT of the union. they simply wanted nothing more & nothing less than LIBERTY!
free dixie,sw
otoh, on the DAMNyankee side the CRIMINALS were MANY & LEGION!
free dixie,sw
On top of what I said earlier, imagine telling Germans or Japanese in 1945 to wait in lines for food, to show their ids and ration carts, not to meet in large groups, to prove that they weren't members of the old governments, to submit to press censorship, etc. The Germans and the Japanese didn't object. They put up with all manner of things that the US didn't impose on the defeated Confederates.
First of all, Germans and Japanese were used to standing in lines and obeying authorities. Secondly they'd just lost the most destructive war in history and weren't in any position to object. So we could -- and did -- impose our will on them far more than we could on the defeated Confederates, who were apt to forget that they'd fought and lost a war against us and make objections and demands.
Talk about the harshness of Reconstruction as opposed to our treatment of the Germans and Japanese has a lot more to do with the absence of a comprehensive aid and development package like the martial plan than with the harshness of US policies or a lack of respect for the rights of the defeated. That's because the country didn't yet have enough experience of victory to see the usefulness of a Marshall Plan-like program for economic rebuilding.
Someday, spell checkers will detect things like that.
Well, you could say that Reconstruction was a sort of 'martial' plan. ;~))
Destroyer? Yes.
War Criminal?
Taken from a "Memorandum, or Basis of Agreement," dated Aptil 18th 1865, between Joe Johnson and W.T. Sherman:
...(5) The people and inhabitants of all the states to be guaranteed, so far as the executive can, their political rights and franchises as well as their rights of person and property, as defined by the Constitution of the United States and of the States respectively. (Emphasis mine)
6. The Executive authority of the Government of the United States not to disturb any of the people by reason of the late war, so long as they live in peace and quiet, abstain from acts of armed hostility, and obey the laws in existance at the place of their residence. (Emphasis mine)
7. In general terms--the war to cease; a general amnnesty... (Emphasis mine)
Now, of course you recall what happened to ol' Uncle Billy when the folks upstairs received this "draconian" edict, right?
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.