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.
"The source is the South Carolina State law cited in full. The link to where I got the text is here."
Well, that's just it. You are quoting someone who is quoting a supposed law. I can do that all day long and is the exact thing you critisized me for. Show me an official History and Archieve site with said info and you will have lived up to the standard you are holding me to. I can show countless references of 87% of tariffs and Sumter served as tariff collenction point -- but I can't provide you with iron clad historical record sites. I'm hold you to the same standard.
You can't because there aren't any historical references showing any such thing. The 87% is a made up lie from the Neo-Confederate nut cases and simple common sense should have told you that it was an impossible number to believe.
I disagree.
If Southerners didn't feel he was a tyrant, then it isn't your place to call him one. Now Lincoln on the other hand caused plenty of problems for the South, and it's future.
Disagree with what? What do you see in their ratification document that allows the State of Virginia some right beyond those of other states?
No, I critisized you for citing a secondary source that didn't show all of its citations. I don't doubt there is some 1805 statute. I just think it says nothing close to what Dixiepedia claims it does about Sumter, and that is why it is using out-of-context snippets. Context is everything. You can read the entire statute at my cited source and decide for yourself what it means and if you agree with the secondary author's conclusions. You cannot do that at the Dixiepedia site.
I can show countless references of 87% of tariffs and Sumter served as tariff collenction point -- but I can't provide you with iron clad historical record sites. I'm hold you to the same standard.
I'll accept primary source data, quoted in full in a secondary source. If you can produce a source that shows a citation of your 87% number in a period work, you would have credibility. If you can produce evidence that an unoccupied fort, still under construction, served as an actual collection point, then fine. But opinion and rhetoric are not facts. Free floating percentages without the method and data from which they spring are meaningless.
Show me an official History and Archieve site with said info and you will have lived up to the standard you are holding me to.
Okay. This is the SC archival data. With this info, you can order photocopies here.
I didn't say historical. Please try to keep up.
I believe that to see where you are in error is to change your perspective.
The Federal -- not national -- government did not create the States. The States created the federal government. It was a voluntary union. If one cannot secede from a voluntary union, how voluntary is it?
If a woman cannot divorce her husband (or vice versa) then the marriage is a farce. To be voluntary, one must be free to leave when that 'long train of abuses become intolerable.'
The Union of the several States is no different.
"Okay. This is the SC archival data."
LOL! Here the site you sent me to. http://www.archivesindex.sc.gov/search/details.asp?index=32550&table=LegislativePapers&tableLook=LegislativePapers
There nothing there but title info -- no details no verification, nothing. Pretty weak dude.
36 of the 37 States created after the original 13 were created under the auspices of the Federal Government. That's a fact.
The one exception was Texas, which of course was independent. However, they have the worst case for secession of any State, as the Nullification Crisis had happened well before 1845 and Texas could have asked for the right to secede. They didn't. Tough Luck.
As for most of the original 13 states, they were created by the British Government as colonies. The Declaration of Independence referred to the united States of America. In other words, they revolted as a group, officially.
The idea that these states were independent nations is absurd. The idea that secession is a viable option in 2006 is beyond absurd. Any such attempt at an illegal secession would be ruthlessly crushed, and rightfully so.
Pro-Confederate means Anti-USA. I have no use for traitors.
The War of 1812 had shown the gross inadequacy of the coastal defenses of the United States. The crowning indignity had been the burning of Washington. Accordingly, Congress now answered President Madison's call by setting up a military Board of Engineers for Seacoast Fortifications to devise a new system of national defense. Brig. Gen. Simon Bernard, the famed military engineer of Napoleon, was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers and assigned to the Board. Under his unofficial direction, the Board began surveying the entire coast line of the United States in 1817. The South Atlantic coast, "especially regarded as less important," was not surveyed until 1821. One fortification report, covering the Gulf coast and the Atlantic coast between Cape Hatteras and the St. Croix River, had been submitted to Congress earlier that year. Thus, not till the revised form of this report was submitted to Congress in 1826 was the possibility that the "shoal opposite [Fort Moultrie] may be occupied permanently" officially broached. This was the genesis of Fort Sumter.
As far as troops being stationed there during the Nullification Crisis of 1832 to collect tariffs, here's what was on the site in that year:
A ring of rocks.
Huh????
I can show countless references of 87% of tariffs and Sumter served as tariff collenction point -- but I can't provide you with iron clad historical record sites. I'm hold you to the same standard.901 posted on 12/07/2006 11:52:57 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
They left in 1860 because they lost an election they freely took part in. The original Sore Loserman - The Southern Democrats of 1860.
If by abuse you mean that Northern States resisted enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law -- well, ok. Then again, SCOTUS decided to take an activist position and throw out the Missouri Compromise AND the Ordinance of 1777 which banned slavery in the Northwest Territory, including Illinois.
Oh, but slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War. Wasn't even a minor factor, to hear the Confederate apologists tell about it. No sir. It was about "States' Rights" -- i.e. the right of States to enslave some of the people living in their state (and Illinois, per SCOTUS).
Oh, but blacks weren't people -- SCOTUS said so.
Union 1, Confederacy 0. War's been over for 141 years. Turn the page already.
Since the federal government was in effect for over sixty years before Wisconsin was made a state, obviously the federal government created Wisconsin. Whatever the situation of the states before the constitution was enacted, the union eliminated them. Now I ask you what kind of country do you have if every state is a sovereign country? What does the idea of a union mean to you? If every state is at bottom a sovereign country, you do not have a union or The UNITED!!! States. You either have a union or you don't. No halfway thing.
"That's an awfully simplistic way to characterize the issues surrounding the war. Especially considering that many individuals (white, free black men and former slaves) all chose to fight rather than "make slavery illegal."
Could it be as simple as the free speech argument that says:
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
Most southerners did not hold slaves, but nor did they consider it their business that others did. It was live and let live. But when the North invaded, then *that* did become their business and they took up arms to defend their State, their homeland.
You are mistaken. The Framers were very clear that the Federal Government was a creation of The People, not the States.
I'd also remind you that the original 13 states were creations of the British, not "the people". The following 37 states were total creations of the United States Congress.
You asked for the official archive. That is the official archive data from which you can obtain photocopies of the original documents, direct from the State of South Carolina's archives. If you wish to maintain that the text previously quoted is inaccurate, you can prove it by getting the copies.
Now, I contend that the snippets of text of the 1805 law are clearly incomplete, and thus worthless for judging accuracy. If you can second source a complete quotation, I'll be content to stipulate the accuracy.
I've shown you my text in full and shown you where you may verify it. Let's see you do the same for the 1805 law.
Me: I can show countless references of 87% of tariffs . . .
You: You can't because there aren't any historical references . . .
See. There's no "historical" in front of "references."
This really isn't that hard.
Accepting title with restrictions would be unconstitutional if you think about it. Article I, Section 10: "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings..." How does one exercise exclusive control if you don't have sole title?
No no no no no . . .
I provide you with a photo copy and you provide me with the begining of a wild goose chase. Ain't gonna happen. I've documented and proven MY position. Now you try and do the same.
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.