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.
Which is fine, since the very topic is totally subjective. But you mentioned inept. Have you read of George Washington's missteps which if not for the greater ineptness of the British, should have ended the RW in their favor in its earliest days?
As President Washington (as great as he was) presided over a relatively peaceful and grateful new nation. Of course he had to deal with the Whiskey Rebellion, but by most standards, it was not a serious challenge either to the Nation or to the President.
We could look at each of the early presidents and the challenges they faced. Certainly the War of 1812 was fought rather ineptly, but really ended quite predictably. Perhaps the early Indian wars in Florida and Georgia? Again, rather low level challenges.
Lincoln faced the greatest challenge any president of this nation has ever faced, and I include every war since the Civil War. Yes, he had little administrative and military experience. But as the war moped along with almost no progress, something in him that speaks volumes about his greatness took hold. Yes, he was and continues to be heavily criticized for his treatment of constitutional issues, and yes, he would have done anything to preserve the Union including setting aside his desire to put an end to slavery forever. But by September of 1862, with the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, he had completely cast his lot for freedom.
He was not a racist. He despised slavery. One need only read some of his earlier speeches to know that. But before the war, he tried desperately to hold the Union together. Before Ft. Sumter, he had watched as Florida, Georgia and even Texas took over fort after fort, and even the New Orleans mint, all federal property.
From 1862 on, his tough single minded leadership was the principal thing that held together our Union.
It was the only serious challenge to our Union ever, and President Lincoln met that challenge head on. In this effort, he also freed the Southern slaves, the darkest mark on our great history. For it he paid with his life.
And many of the slave traders were running tall ships out of Boston and NY contributing to the slave trade. No ones hands are clean. I think that the South's greatest tragedy was reconstruction which would have been much different had Lincoln lived. As a unreconstructed Southerner, I would have fought for the South but believe that preserving the Union was the best and correct outcome. It will always be Dam* Yankees for me, unless you play on the NY Yankees. You can have Atlanta.
I doubt it will, as the socialists have control of the news media (distort today's reality), the entertainment media (distract and distort perceptions), and the education media (indoctrinate tomorrow's citizens). With the socialist indoctrination cheering on liberals like Lincoln, there's little hope for true conservatism to restore the Republic...without violent revolution. I fear that all we can do is attempt to slow the descent.
Despite the fact that I am no fan of much of what Lincoln did, I can agree with this. Had Lincoln wavered, I could easily imagine Great Britain jumping off the fence and casting its lot with the Confederacy--which at the least would have prolonged the war, and at most could have made it into something ultimately far worse.
}:-)4
You asked the question and answer it in the same sentence. Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex, but when we fought the NAZIS FDR rightly called it the Arsenal of Democracy. When we confront threats to our nation, we raise taxes, we raise defense spending, and we raise a large military. These things do expand the federal government; its footprint expands. It's pay roll expands and those dependent on it for their wage expand. Look at how many bases we had during WW II. The numbers were huge. We still maintained a great many during the Cold War. Doesn't that make sense? My point isn't that it was wrong; it's that it was a result of a exigent threat.
The statement that the Union did not fire the first shot does not mean that the South did not reach a point of having to protect its assets, thereby firing the first shot and allowing the Union to say that the South had started the war.
Research Fort Sumter and how the entire battle plan was formed for the Union to provoke the South into firing the first shot.
Here's a good starting point:
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_sumter.html
You tell'em, goldy. You learned everything you know about Honest Abe in 4th grade, and you still believe it.
Over 65,000 southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 saw Combat.
geocities.com/11thkentucky/blackconfed.htm
It's likely that the Confederacy would have entered into a protracted war with Mexico, though as for British hegemony, they were pretty busy in other parts of the world. Both Britain and France may well have tried to take advantage of the void left. Nor is it out of the realm of possibility that the Confederacy could have entered into treaties with the North, both for protection as well as trade.
I think much would have depended on the new territories and states in the West. They would have had serious leverage.
It is considered common courtesy to ping a FReeper if you talk about him or her in your post.
I just realized that I posted the wrong author for my prior post. Thanks for politely pointing it out. As you stated correctly, the author of "The Real Lincoln" is Thomas diLorenzo and not Thomas Sowell.
Sorry about the incorrect posting.
:)
Oh?
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."--Abraham Lincoln; September 18, 1858; Charleston, IL
"[L]et me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south.
When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact." --Abraham Lincoln; October 16, 1854; Peoria, IL
Very true. Confederate ambassadors attempted to negotiate with the British, and it got very serious for a short time. Many in Britain though wanted no part of the it in spite of the potential, as it would likely have brought France into the fray also. So they wisely backed off. And yes, I believe part of it was the strength they saw in Lincoln and his administration.
Lincoln managed to do what King George III failed to do, put down a rebellion by force. Killing 600,000 Americans in the process is a small price to pay for greatness.
You have to break some eggs to make an omelet, to quote another great believer in central government power.
But I thought the Confederacy was a some wonderful Paleocon paradise where they minded their own buisiness who believed in high tariffs (never mind the South wanted low tariffs for the cotton)... Oh well....
....without provocation?!?!
So if you're in my house and I tell you to get out, I have no right to expel you? You're welcome to allow the troops to share your bed if you want...it's your right....but I consider Federal occupation of a sovereign state to be provocation.
I could have sworn that Honest Abe sign an amendment protecting Slavery for all time. But I guess GoodWin forgot to put that in her book
Well said.
Don't confuse people with reality...it's easier for them to stay in their 4th-grade fiction. Since that amendment didn't pass, the 13th amendment became something else entirely, and now nobody dare mention Abe's original propositions.
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.