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.
District? 10 miles? How about a link?
Then it was the present Constitution produced a new order of things. It derives its origin immediately from the people; and the people individually are, under certain limitations, subject to the legislative, executive, and judicial authorities thereby established. The States are in fact assemblages of these individuals who are liable to process. The limitations, which the Federal Government is admitted to impose upon their powers, are diminutions of sovereignty, at least equal to the making of them defendants.-- Chief Justice (and member of the Constitutional Convention) John Jay in Griswald v. Georgia 1793 that determined that a State could be sued by a resident of another state.
Perhaps, but how were the circumstances different? In every case the Southern state seceded unilaterally. The court ruled that such an action was a violation of the Constitution. So Virginia's acts of secession were just as illegal as those in Texas or Mississippi or any other rebellious state.
From your own example the death penalty is legal in many states, even though the state of Georgia's death penaly was ruled unconstitutional.
If you will read up on Furman v. Georgia you will see that even though the decision involved cases in Georgia and Texas, it invalidated death penalty statutes throughout the country, and required 37 states to rewrite their death penalty laws. Brown v Board of Education involved school districts in four states, but the decision struck down segregation laws throughout the country. Roe v Wade made abortion legal in all 50 states, not just Texas. In none of those cases did the court have to rehear a case from each individual state. The one decision was binding on all similar situations nationwide. Likewise with Texas v White.
"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 . . ."
So says some guy named Bob Huddleston. Where's the documentation?
Here's an original source reference the ownership conditions as established in 1805 -- not that it matters.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=055/llcg055.db&recNum=87
Now, do you still believe that 87% crap?
In a letter to Alexander Hamilton, this is what James Madison had to say on the question of 'conditional ratification'.
N. York Sunday Evening [July 20, 1788]
My dear Sir
Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand(1) & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and forever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
Js. Madison
[P.S.] This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.
Again, no surprise there.
And Lincoln is a tyrant just beacuse you say he is. Well, thanks for clearing that up.
In the Google search you suggested I counted 2, one the repeat of the other. I've no doubt that you can count that high, so how about the other bazillion references? Where are they?
What? You need a link to find a copy of the Constitution of the United States? Holy cow! Here.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Can't have you strain yourself, can we?
No, some guy named James Madison. Read the Constitution.
Here's an original source reference the ownership conditions as established in 1805 -- not that it matters.
In light of the 1836 legislation? No, it doesn't.
Post # 867, What are YOU refering to?
OK, I concede that point, with regard to those citizens who are not enemy combatants in a time of war.
For those cases, I think Ex Parte Quirin, a later decision, justifiably recognizes legitimate exigent circumstances when a citizen may be charged with a violation of the laws of war, subjecting him to the authority of military tribunals rather than trial by jury.
That the concept of "exigent circumstances" may be, and has been, abused by governments throughout history is clear. Just as clear, though, is the fact that real exigent circumstances do sometimes arise when the Constitutional protections ordinarily afforded a citizen should not apply. Quirin illustrates that well.
In that spirit, I believe Lincoln's heart was in the right place when he suspended habeas corpus, though he did not have the legal authority to do so at the time. Congress clearly agreed by granting him that authority after establishing the legal foundation for it. So, in practical terms, no harm, no foul.
And when Wigfall (there he is again), says that in 1805 the state of South Carolina paid to have the forts in question repaired, does that mean that Sumter was there decades before every other source indicates construction began on that shoal?
Or is it just possible that you're conflating the documents about Moultrie and the other forts around Charleston? Note that when Wigfall is speaking, in December of 1860, Anderson hadn't yet moved his men out to Sumter. He mentions removing the federal troops from the forts, but at that date there were no federal troops in Sumter. They were in Moultrie and Castle Pinckney.
everyone who has read your drivel on this thread is CONVINCED that you "know NOT & know NOT that you know NOT."
fyi, i got a PM from one of the "neutrals" (he's a "canteener" who sometimes comes "to read" but to my knowledge doesn't post here), who reference YOUR comments on this thread, asked me, "IS "Bubba Hotep" FOR REAL??? Or is he doing "some kind of comedy act", that only you civil war devotees understand? I don't think anybody who can read & write is that big of a DOPE!"
laughing AT you.
as for the so-called "great hanging" in Gainesville, there is a REAL question as to how much of "what everyone knows" is TRUTHFUL & how much is PHONEY as a 4-dollar bill.
free dixie,sw
And they called it "The District of Columbia"
Feel free to invite this person to actually post this publicly.
as for the so-called "great hanging" in Gainesville, there is a REAL question as to how much of "what everyone knows" is TRUTHFUL & how much is PHONEY as a 4-dollar bill.
I'll bet you know all about it, though, through sources you can't present, which have convinced you that it was all a big hoax, right?
Only to be slapped/overruled by the states proposing/ratifying the 11th.
Nonsense. You've documented Dixiepedia's position; you've proved nothing about what the 1805 law says. You've only proved what Dixiepedia CLAIMS it says. The actual documentation of the 1805 law provided by them consists of :
"...the United States... repair the fortifications now existing thereon or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein" and "void and of no effect."
The Dixiepedia site gives no indication of what they have elided from their citation. It gives no clue as to where "thereon" refers to, just their interpretation. It mandates NO repairs that the US does not find "expedient". It is even unclear if the "void and of no effect" refers to that clause, another clause, or even Santa Claus. It is even unclear that Dixiepedia drew the quote from the same source.
Elsewhere, you claimed that this was supposed to happen "within three years". You never bothered to source that contention, either.
In any case, the opinion on the Dixiepedia site is bogus, since they are in error in at least two ways from the start. First, Ft Sumter could not possibly have been part of the 1805 law, because the site was underwater and not even considered for a fort until 20 years later. Second, ten of the years it sat "unfinished and unoccupied" were due to the South Carolina legislative process, and the rest were filled with continuous effort to build up a fort from literally nothing, including the land it sat on. It wasn't as though it was an abandoned hulk.
Meanwhile, I have provided to you the entire text of the 1836 law that contradicts your position, and told you where you can get an archival copy of it for your very own.
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.