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.
Whoop to do. A letter is not a legal document, the states' ratifications are. Three states EXPRESSLY reserved the right to resume their delegated powers at will, that stipulation being accepted. Unless of course, you can point to some LEGAL document rejecting their ratifications.
Whoop de do. The ratification documents are not the Constitution, and are not supreme over the Constitution. In every rarification document, including the three from the misguided states, was language stating that they addented to and ratified the Constitution as passed out of convention Septembre 17, 1787. And according to the Constitution they were not free to walk away at will. So sorry that they were dumb enough to believe otherwise.
Like greasy food for instance....
I suppose that means that Chief Justice Taney was slapped/overruled by the states proposing/ratifying the 13th?
It DID...:)
But they are LEGAL documents, unlike Madison's letter.
In every rarification document, including the three from the misguided states, was language stating that they addented to and ratified the Constitution as passed out of convention Septembre 17, 1787.
And each ratified only with the understanding that each state could resume those same delegated powers. Perfectly legal. No one rejected their ratifications.
And according to the Constitution they were not free to walk away at will.
What clause PROHIBITS secession?
So sorry that they were dumb enough to believe otherwise.
Let's see, that means that you believe John Jay, James Madison, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, Melancton Smith, Gov. Randolph, James Taylor, Henry Lee, Bushrod Washington, George Wythe, and George Clinton among others were idiots. BWAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha!
Overruled? Yes. Slapped? Not even close. Chase et al issued their decision and almost immediately the 11th was proposed and ratified. Taney et al issued their decision, yet it was over a decade before it was overturned.
Well since it required an amendment to the Constitution, you must agree that the the ruling was correct and true to the Constitution when he made it. Similar with the 13th outlawing slavery did not mean slavery was unconstitutional before the 13th.
But I remind, you that nothing in the 11th "overruled" Jay's very informed pronouncement that the Constitution was a document "of the people" and not of the states.
Madison affirmed 30 years later that the Constitution was between the People and the Federal government long after the 11th was ratified.
The "states" reserved no such rights.
WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.
The ratification of the Constitution had nothing to do with the "State of Virginia"... it was a direct contract between the Federal government and the people of Virginia working through delegates specifically elected by the people for one and only one purpose -- to accept or reject the Constitution. But once approved, that contract was between the People and the Federal government and it bound that state of Virginia to the Union, whether the government of that state liked it or not. It was a decision of the people not of the government.
BTW. I am always amazed with the adoration that the neo-confederate types shower on state governments when from an historical standpoint, state and local governments, both North, South East and West, since the founding until today have been the biggest and most egregious offenders of liberty in this land.
I know we all get paranoid about the Federal alphabet agencies, but odds are overwhelming if your civil rights are every violated, it will be by some state or local thug.
Not when the "enemy" was an old woman and her cow.
Foul. Indian and Egyptian cotton production were taken in hand by British interests only because of the interruption of Southern cotton supplies.
Whatever the case, the average US citizen probably only paid a dollar or two per you in tariffs.
Prove it.
Even considering inflation, that is not what they would have gone to war over.
Oh, really? What would they have gone to war over, in your opinion? What could they possibly have wanted to defend, in your opinion? Let's see if we can guess!
Yeah, tell me what those 60,000 Texans, most of whom never owned a slave in their lives, went to war over. Tell me what the big plebiscitary majorities in Virginia, Texas, and Tennessee were motivated by -- all those "pro-slavery" votes, and so few slaves owned! Talk to me! Tell me how Virginia and Tennessee turned around their anti-secession votes, and went out of the Union, over slavery, and how it somehow wasn't on the table the first time they voted, but it was on the table when they voted again!
Yes, it did. Absolutely it did. You are going to have to learn a little more English or something......you don't seem to understand the nature of the State, as opposed to the state government.
The State is a People and the People are the State. The State isn't a geography exercise, it's a polity. It's people. The People of that State, are the State. You just don't want to admit it, because you know the recognition of it will cause you polemical difficulties in defending your hero.
.....it was a direct contract between the Federal government and the people of Virginia....
Wrong again! It was a compact among the People(S) of the United StateS, to compact together in a Union.
Period.
This is a transaction at the People-to-People, Sovereign-to-Sovereign level. Governments, legislatures, Congress, courts, Presidents, governors -- they aren't even in the picture, they aren't even in the room in this scenario. They're out in the lobby fetching coffee or bringing hot towels around or something, making themselves useful while the People decide things and do all the work. The "federal government" was not a party to the Constitution; it is a creature of the Constitution!
Jeez, Louise.
It was a decision of the people not of the government.
At least you got that part right.
Ratification that confirmed and clarified that "as passed out of convention" allowed secession.
Yeah, they would. With one of Lincoln's own cabinet appointees, one of the hottest, most non-deliberative, totally-committed partisan spear-carriers presiding.
You've got your perfect dictatorship. Overawed the Congress (what was left of it -- all in his corner), slapped down the courts until he could get control of them by the appointive power -- Lincoln was your perfect tyrant, covered all the bases.
No wonder his courts whitewashed ex post facto his illegal and unconstitutional actions. He owned them. And if they didn't like what he did, they were going to do what, exactly? Sit in house arrest, like those Washington judges, and the Maryland legislature?
Hey Stand, why don't you tell us how things were in the South during the war?
I am sure Jeff Davis was very tolerant of dissent.
Lincoln believed that the Black man should be free and allowed to keep the fruit of his own labours, while the Confederate Constitition believed that the Negro should be enslaved.
Now, who was the real tyrant, Lincoln or Jeff Davis?
Which flag stood for freedom, the American flag or the Confederate one?
I know it was upsetting for the Confederates to give up their slaves, but you would think after almost 150 years they would stop whining about it.
We the People makes us one People, not different people in various states (Southern people, Northern people, Western people).
The state legislatures were bypassed and the Constitution was passed by direct appeal to the people in the states, not their representatives.
Thus, while a person may be a resident of a particular state, he is above all an American and can move freely from state to state without that changing.
There is unity in diversity.
As for W.Virigina, that was an exceptional case that would not have occured had not Virigina took the unconstitutional act of secession.
And, of course, congress rejected letting the South leave - until very recently no country would allow a state or province to leave by choice.
Exactly correct, no nation could survive with secession built into it.
That doesn't mean that John Locke was wrong when he talked about the right to judge the government and leave if the people felt the government had failed and could not be reformed.
That is the right to revolution as stated in the Declaration.
Lincoln never denied this basic individual right of self government.
The South however wanted to leave because they had did not way things were going politically, not because there freedoms were being threatened.
They had no justification for revolting since they still had recourse to political actions.
They were still a force in the Senate and could regain the Presidency.
Remember that only a portion of the British Empire declared they had left the empire. If that was a legitimate choice then I submit that a decision of some of the states to leave the United States was also legitimate, even while it was sad and tragic.
No, the two cannot be compared.
Under the British the Americans were regarded as colonies with no rights.
The Americans felt that as British subjects they were entitled to the same rights as other Englishmen.
They rejected the notion that they 'were second class citizens', because they lived in the colonies.
They had no other recourse, after 20 years of trying to get the British to see that they had those rights, but to finally realize that the British meant to rule them as a colony and not see them as British subjects.
The Slave states had full representation in the Congress.
Lincoln pledged that all of their constitutional rights would be protected.
He said he had an oath to uphold the Constitution and that meant those portions he didn't like, even the fugitive slave act.
The Slave States had no legal right to secession and they had no moral right to revolt.
If some people want to cease to be Americans, they have either leave America, as did a number of Confederates who went to Mexico, or remain a non-citizen, as did some ex-Confederates, refusing to take the oath of alligance.
Ofcourse, you would still have to obey all the laws of the land.
And that State would be part of the Union.
The vote to ratify the Constitution was a one time deal, that made all people of the various states one People-Americans.
Now anyone who doesn't like to be an American can always give up their citizenship and call yourself whatever you like.
Show me where there is a right for a state to leave the union-you can't.
However, since The Articles of Confederation were meant to be for a Perpetual Union, it can be logically deduced that the Constitution forming a more perfect Union, not a less perfect one, would also be perpetual.
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.