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.
fyi, i was BORN in Camp County, TX & raised in that area.
there is LITTLE or NO proof that ANY such thing ACTUALLY happened, though there is a GREAT DEAL of gossip, 3d/4th-hand accounts, legends & "urban myths" to that effect.
free dixie,sw
fyi, i was BORN in Camp County, TX & raised in that area.
there is LITTLE or NO proof that ANY such thing ACTUALLY happened, though there is a GREAT DEAL of gossip, 3d/4th-hand accounts, legends & "urban myths" to that effect.
free dixie,sw
The source is the South Carolina State law cited in full. The link to where I got the text is here.
"The claims were resolved in the legislation previously cited:" Says who? Source? Come on dude. Quite asking me to do what you don't.
Says the law that was passed by the state of S.C. on Dec.31st, 1836: "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."
Now, I have given you the full text of the SC statute that supports my contention. Where is the full text of the 1805 law your Dixiepedia article cites? The Dixiepedia link tries to suggest that an 1805 law that they pull partial sentence fragments from refers to a fort whose site wasn't even above water in 1805, wasn't ordered built until 1827, and was held up by SC legislative process until construction could resume in 1841 was somehow in violation of an "agreement" that it be completed and garrisoned "within three years", by 1808. I call B.S.
Do you have alternative numbers? Do you have some more credible source than the University of Texas and the Texas State Historical Association have? By all means, tell us.
SORRY, but we are ALL on to your game.
do your own RESEARCH & PROVE your post is NOT bilge, or stop prattling on about things that you neither KNOW nor UNDERSTAND.
a subtle hint: a look at the COUNTY TAX RECORDS will prove you are clueLESS & that the "data" you are relying on is NONSENSE!!
free dixie,sw
In other words, the University of Texas is wrong. The Texas State Historical Association is wrong, and only you know the truth. Unless you've got better numbers, the 180,000 stands. (By the way, other estimates go higher--up to 250,000--not lower).
you are evidently one of those naive DUMMIES, who believes ANYTHING that is written down someplace.
fyi, THIS is written down (as i am posting it) & you CAN believe it: "peddle your south-HATING nonsense & BILGE elsewhere. NOBODY here believes you."
btw, i note you didn't tell everyone WHICH of the BANNED DY lunatics that you once were.
free dixie,sw
Apparently the Secretary of War later interviewed Merryman and ordered him turned over to the marshal. Merryman spent 49 days in prison before his release. He was never tried.
No. For instance, you've written lots of things, and I believe very little of it. However, I do give the University of Texas and the Texas State Historical Association more credence than I do you, especially in the absence of you doing anything but shouting that their numbers are no good. By how far off are those numbers? 10%? 20%? 50%? Were there any slaves in Texas at all? Is it possible that there were even MORE slaves in Texas than 180,000? Bad numbers can go the other way, too.
who will after i've done the work, will then say, "i don't accept that as a source".
Too funny. By the way, I just love that you're now trying to claim that the Great Hanging at Gainesville is just a myth.
So Taney's ruling was followed. But the question of the underlying constitutionality is still open.
From the majority decision:
"Did Texas, in consequence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?"
"It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States."
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"
Well here is a website that gives the wording and sources it. It is a third party confirmation of the wording and also sources it, so your snide suggestion that Lex made it up is at least shown to be false. Now, provide an independent source showing the wording of your claimed 1805 agreement and then we have a basis for comparison.
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?
Also covered in the website. Short answer is that Laval's claim was shown to be without merit and the area the fort was built on became the property of the United States free and clear.
Congress convened in July, 1861. During that session, Merryman was released on July 12. Coincidental timing? The release of Merryman might have been intended to blunt criticism Lincoln was receiving in Congress over his suspension of habeas corpus.
I have no idea what decision you're reading. When Chief Justice Chase wrote, "Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union" that doesn't seem to me to allow much room for misinterpretation. The acts of secession were illegal, period. No questions. No hints at legality.
This case in no way supports your assertion that Virginia did not properly its reserved right to withdraw from the United States.
You have absolutely no concept of how the court works, do you? When the court ruled that Miranda was not informed of his rights in Arizona that impacted every police department in every state. When the court ruled that the Georgia death penalty law was unconstitutional, that also meant that similar laws in every state were unconstitutional. And when the court ruled that the Texas acts of unilateral secession were illegal then that meant that all southern acts of unilateral secession were illegal. That's how it works.
Or it could have been meant as a birthday present?
I thought this passage of that page was particulary interesting:
It is important to note that then - and now - the government refused to accept property where there was any other restriction. The state gave up all rights it might have in the property. Otherwise Congress would refuse to appropriate the necessary funds to build the installation. The States bent over backwards to make certain they got their share - and then some - of the Federal budget, including quickly removing impediments to the government acquiring title.
"Virginia agreed to abide by the Constitution..." NS
That is where you are so wrong. Virginia conditionally agreed to join. Those conditions are as real and meaningful as the other parts of the ratification. They are part of the essence of that agreement. You cannot just wish the conditions away they exist. These conditions were accepted and acted upon with drafting of the BOR. These conditions were an essential part of Virginia's contract withthe federal government.
"That's how it works" - NS
No, that is not excatly how it works.
When circumstances are different, the rulings apply differently. From your own example the death penalty is legal in many states, even though the state of Georgia's death penaly was ruled unconstitutional.
Virginia joined the union in a very differnt way than all other states save New York. You cannot legitimately ignor the conditions in the ratification agreement.
"That's how it works" - NS
No, that is not excatly how it works.
When circumstances are different, the rulings apply differently. From your own example the death penalty is legal in many states, even though the state of Georgia's death penaly was ruled unconstitutional.
Virginia joined the union in a very differnt way than all other states save New York. You cannot legitimately ignor the conditions in the ratification agreement.
So much excitement was caused by some of these arrests that the House of Representatives in special session, July 12, 1861, asked for information regarding them, and for a copy of the opinion of the attorney-general sustaining the right of the President or his subordinates to order such arrests.
I'm searching for verification of Merryman's release date, but I'll have to postpone my search for a while. I'm headed out the door on a trip. Talk to you later.
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.