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.
Becuase it was required by an Act of Congress written by John C. Calhoon and fully supported by the South Carolina deligation. Those forts were there to protect against invasion from the sea -- as happend in Baltimore and Washington during the war of 1812 and Charleston itself in 1780. They were part of what was known as the Coastal Artillery and forts like those existed all along Americas coasts until the 1950s.
They had nothing to do with tariff collection.
Constitutionally the House and Senate set their own rules for things like quorums, and I doubt that meeting them was any challenge at all. When they began their rebellion the representatives of the Southern states either resigned or, in several instances, were expelled. The quorum was made from the remaining members. There is nothing wrong or illegal in that since nothing in the Constitution requires a state to send it's representatives to Congress.
Which is why I prefer the much more accurate War of Southern Rebellion.
Repeat: "The Civil War" wasn't over slavery. Repeat that until you can flush out that public school bouldercrap you've been stewed in.
Maybe you need to talk to the people who were actually there?
"What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?" - CSA senator from Virgina, Robert Hunter, 1865
"The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South... This war is the servant of slavery." - Rev John Wrightman, South Carolina, 1861.
What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. -- Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Secession Convention
History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. -- Address of George Williamson, Commissioner from Louisiana to the Texas Secession Convention
While I did mention secession,(which you corrected), the real point of contention between us is on what the 10th Amendment was primarily for, limitation of Federal power as opposed to the states or limitation of Federal power as opposed to the individual.
"....limitation of Federal power as opposed to the states or limitation of Federal power as opposed to the individual."
I will grant the point that by limiting Federal Power, the individual has more freedom. In the case of the 10th amendment, it is twice removed.
first - federal power is limited - a good thing
second - powers are delegated to the state
The 10th amendment affects individual liberties to the extent that state powers are more accountable to their citizens.
So in the end, the 10th Amendment does result in individual freedoms being increased, but it is not direct, which is my point.
So, the conclusion is that the 10th Amendment's primary goal is to limit federal power (not increase individual liberty, even though that ultimately is one of the results).
Sumter.
When your exposition is full of phrases like, "Of course Lincoln intended to provoke the War, there aren't many Lincoln apologists who even bother to dispute that. They usually just admire his cleverness in provoking the South into firing the first shot, so that he could rally the north into supporting the war he wanted," and, "Fort Sumter was a fort for the collection of tariffs," it is quite clear that spin is precisely the term.
"Mom, Johnny Yank made me hit him first!"
Gee, and we hardly knew ye (since you were literally "born" yesterday).
Byeee! Toodleoo! Bon Voyageee! Careful of the doorjamb.
Show me where the Constitution says that we are in a "Perpetual Union"....You can't.
Once they seceded, the states weren't bound by any Constitutional "prohibitions"......
Since Davis didn't rule Yankees, you have no basis for calling him a tyrant.
Well, then let it lay. We are NOT going to agree.
So, then might makes right in your book?
A moral power punishes the guilty of BOTH sides.
And the Kangaroo court that tried Wirtz was a travesty of justice to begin with.
And had the South won, I doubt if they would have been able to do anything about it.
Show me where Lincoln had the Constitutional right to disband a
state legislature, and imprison it's members without a trial.
"No, because there is no such thing as the 'Southern people' there is only the American people."
OK, let me rephrase the question conforming to your silly logic. "Nice attempt to dodge the real issue, though."
Interesting. So "the people" joined the union, not the states. Well, that opens up a whole new line of argument, doesn't it. So if "the PEOPLE" who happen to live in the South had just decided to leave the union instead of their state governments that would have been OK. And here I thought states were the people.
>>Not the whole court, no. Then, as now, Supreme Court justices headed a federal circuit court district. But then, unlike now, the Justices actually sat a bench and heard cases. Chief Justice Taney issued his ruling while in his role as a circuit court judge. The entire court has never taken up the matter of who may suspend habeas corpus and who may not.<<
Thank you - I totally missed that in my reading and/or I skipped school that day. :)
Quote your primary source in full and in context, and not in selected partial sentences. There is no way of judging the interpretation of the Dixiepedia article from the fragments you provided.
That aside, I would ask you to read the stipulations of your posted legislation below and answer these question. What did the AG report? Were the claims resolved? What was the appraised value of the land? What actions did the legislature take after the report?
Laval made a claim on the land in 1834, after construction of the fort had already begun, by direction of Calhoun, SecWar. The title was unclear, since the land was entirely below low tide until the site of the fort had been built up on the harbor shoal. Laval's claim was based on a vague description of the area, but land under water could not be claimed under the law.
The claims were resolved in the legislation previously cited: "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." The only question remaining for the AG were if Laval et al had title, in which case the State of SC would pay under eminent domain, or if the claim was invalid. Either way, title passed to the Federal government.
From the National Parks Service website: "It was not until January 1841 that work was resumed on the site of Fort Sumter. Laval's claim was invalidated by the State attorney general under act of the South Carolina Legislature, December 20, 1837. But the harbor issue [was the Fort a navigational hazard?] remained and was complicated still further by a memorial presented to the legislature by James C. Holmes, Charleston lawyer, on that same date. Not before November 22, 1841, was the Federal Government's title to 125 acres of harbor "land" recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina."
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.