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.
Post the decision that the USSC addressed Virginia's secession.
Virginia's ratification is clearly conditional upon the language in the acceptance document. If the ratifaction was accepted it was accepted with the conditions in the ratification document. Are you saying Virginia never lawfully ratified the constitution?
Next, please explain how West Virginia is a legal state, given its origin as a part of the territory of the State of Virginia. (Subdividing sates is forbidden by the constitution.)
You should really read a little better, because none of the things you bring up have anything to do with anything I posted.
Already been there
When the Supreme Court ruled that the Texas act of unilateral secession was unconstitutional that included all similar acts by the other southern states. The decision is Here.
Virginia's ratification is clearly conditional upon the language in the acceptance document. If the ratifaction was accepted it was accepted with the conditions in the ratification document. Are you saying Virginia never lawfully ratified the constitution?
You have it backwards. Virginia was ratifying the Constitution, not the other way around. It was agreeing to abide by the restrictions placed on it by that document. None of the ratification documents were identical, but all agreed to ratify the Constitution as it was.
Next, please explain how West Virginia is a legal state, given its origin as a part of the territory of the State of Virginia. (Subdividing sates is forbidden by the constitution.)
Subdividing states is illegal without consent of Congress and the state legislature. There was a body of Virginia legislators who did not join the southern rebellion and which were recognized by Congress as the legitimate government of the commonwealth. It was that body which voted to partition. The Supreme Court gave a legitimacy to that action when it agreed to hear the Virginia v West Virginia case.
It's only forbidden if it's done without the consent of the state. However, in the case of WV, there were two rival state legislatures, one in rebellion and one not. The US government recognized the not-in-rebellion government, which asked to split the state.
Tyrant thy name was Jefferson Davis.
For the precedent they had to go on, I'd say the American reconstruction was very enlightened. No mass imprisonments. No war crimes trials and executions (save a well deserved one for Wertz). No mass confiscations (save the slaves) or crippling reparations extracted. Some spent about 10 years as political non-enteties, but were allowed to pursue what ever private endeavor they chose. All the seceded states were re-admitted within 5 years --- about the same time we allowed the Germans and Japanese to reassume self government. The biggest problem and complaint seems to be that Grant was forced to use Federal troops to enforce the provisions of the 14th & 15th amendments giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote. It would seem to me that the complaint there was that as long as blacks could vote, the old power structure that pushed for revolution could not re-assume power.
All in all, based on the historical precedent they had at that time, it was rather tame by comparison.
As Lincoln would say, they were "let up easy."
Big freakin' surprise there. But as I've pointed out many times the only interpretation that mattered was those of the 5 justices who voted in the majority in Texas v White.
Which is why the Constitution funded an army and a navy. Duh.
The several states in congress were delegated the power to admit new states, but departure is not admission.
Congess has the power to create states through the admission process. And once allowed in, Congress had the final say on states splitting apart, joining together, changing their borders by a fraction of an inch. And, by implication, leaving as well.
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!"
Please don't misunderstand me, sir.
I really have no dog in this fight. In fact the only dog I know of I might possess was a direct relative on my Mom's side who fought with a certain Nathan Bedford Forrest in the 3rd Tennessee.
I have no idea what his motives were. Nor do I find Forrest's actions after Fort Pillow any less reprehensible, if indeed they are true.
You Centralized Government types need to get your stories straight.
The Preamble has been held to "confer no law." I'm sure I can find a cite if your press me.
ML/NJ
The "decision" linked in your post is as far as I can tell a discussion of the decision, not the decision itself. Further, it is restricted to a discussion of Texas, no other state is mentioned, much less Virginia.
So, nice try, but you missed your mark.
If Virginia illegally seceeded, wouldn't there be a Supreme court decision making that finding?
People's perceptions have a lot to do with what they expect, and the leading ex-Confederates felt that they were entitled to more than losing sides in other wars got, so any restrictions were more deeply felt and complained about, all the more so, since there was no punishment for complaining.
A lot of people's thinking about Reconstruction goes back to the once-influential Dunning School" of historians. William Dunning himself, a professor at Columbia a century ago, didn't believe Blacks should have the right to vote or bear arms. Of course Dunning himself, a Northerner, wasn't the only source of the anti-Reconstruction view, but he was the main promoter in the upper reaches of the academic mainstream.
No need, our stories are straight as an arrow. Secession is not illegal or unconstitutional...if it is done within Constitutional guidelines. That is, with the consent of the states. All states should have a say since the actions of the seceding states impact them as well. And a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress should be all that is needed for a state to leave. The same way they are admitted.
Consider yourself pressed.
Had you bothered to look at the top of the page you would have found links to the majority opinion and the two minority opinions. No matter, here you go.
Further, it is restricted to a discussion of Texas, no other state is mentioned, much less Virginia.
No, the case involved the state of Texas but the decision impacted all the southern acys of secession. Supreme Court decisions are like that. Miranda v Arizona was not limited to Arizona, Brown v Board of Education ended 'separate but equal' nationwide, and Furman v Georgia overturned death penalty laws all over the country.
If Virginia illegally seceeded, wouldn't there be a Supreme court decision making that finding?
There is. It's called Texas v White.
Article I deals primarily with the powers of Congress. In British law on which much of the Constitution was based, the power to suspend habeas corpus remained with the legislature rather than the king. They didn't want the executive abusing his power, which British kings had a history of doing. They denied their executive that power.
Here are some words of Chief Justice Taney citing the words of Chief Justice Marshall concerning where the power to suspend habeas corpus lies [Ex Parte Merryman]:
Under the impression of this obligation, they give to all the courts the power of awarding writs of habeas corpus.' And again on page 101: 'If at any time, the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide; until the legislative will be expressed, this court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws.' I can add nothing to these clear and emphatic words of my great predecessor.
If Lincoln had the power to suspend habeas corpus (which he did not without authorization from Congress), then there was no need for Congress to indemnify him for his 1861 act (which they did). Congress later reasserted its powers by authorizing Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus. But that was a couple of years after his suspending it in 1861. If he had the power to do suspend habeas corpus or the privilege of habeas corpus, Congress didn't need to authorize him to do it. Congress though he didn't have that power.
The overriding concern is the defense of the country, so those lesser concerns which may conflict with it must of necessity be suspended. [your emphasis]
From Ex Parte Milligan [Ex Parte Milligan]:
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, [71 U.S. 2, 121] and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.
Primarily but not exclusively. Section 10 covers actions forbidden to states completely or without consent of Congress. Section 9, where the habeas corpus clause is, does not contain the words or 'House of Representatives' or 'Senate', and Congress is only mentioned in Clause 1.
Here are some words of Chief Justice Taney citing the words of Chief Justice Marshall concerning where the power to suspend habeas corpus lies .
Now if we had the votes of enough of the remaining justices to form a majority in a Supreme Court decision then you could quite correctly state that Constitutionally only Congress can suspend habeas corpus. But you don't have that, do you? All you have is Taney's opinion.
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.