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.
That's nice, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the question.
Based on what you've come up with that can't be correct.
Based on your inability to comprehend I could be right.
Simply to eliminate the confusion and remove the change made by the Committee of Style.
Madison bypassed the state authority and went to the people of the states themselves.
For about the billionth time, no one claims that LEGISLATURES ratified. The people, in convention, ratified severally and independently. Morris' motion to submit ratification to an amalgamation of people wasn't even seconded.
Bump
Funny nobody ever called the "Northern" until they refused to go along with an insurrection. Before that they were always considered to be southern states, and in fact, the Confederates had stars for two of them on their flag.
But since you ask. You can do a very direct correlation to the percentage of slaves in any given state and their degree of support for insurrection. Those four states had the lowest percentage of slaves of the 15 slave states. Slavery was not important enough for them to fight over.
IF you bother to go do any ACTUAL research from PRIMARY sources on the "great hanging", i feel sure you can find at LEAST 4-5 DIFFERENT versions of events, each of which DISagrees with the other versions.
SOMETHING (evidently terrible)happened, but exactly WHAT, i couldn't say & i dare say the actual facts are known to NOBODY, who is ALIVE now.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
I see your typing skills have improved SW....
Needless to say, NOT ONE of the Significant Confederate Leaders continued to fight the war after they LOST IT.
Maybe people should take a hint from that.
OR when the "enemy" was a bunch of UNarmed, defenseLESS, POOR, AmerIndian/Black (both SLAVES & FREE persons)/Asian/Jewish/Catholic/Quaker, women/children/elderly men. (the HORROR STORY of what happened to MY family was COMMONPLACE!)
it seems like every day that passes, someone else in dixie finds DOCUMENTED PROOF that his/her INNOCENT, civilian, family was treated in a similar manner to our family's losses, by the "heroic forces in BLUE".
furthermore, the DAMNyankees were REALLY GOOD at abusing/torturing/starving/RAPING/MURDERING helpLESS Prisoners of War/civilian detainees by the TENS of THOUSANDS.
the DAMNyankees "fought" those "enemies of the state" REALLY WELL!.
ALL the DAMNyankee HATERS can be/should be REALLY PROUD of those "BIG, BRAVE battles"! (sarcasm button: ON!)
free dixie,sw
Any 1st year law student learns about contractual agreements - the terms offered/accepted are valid when agreement is reached.
In this case the terms and conditions of the Constitution had been agreed to in convention. All the state was doing was agreeing to abide by the Constitution itself. There was nothing left open for negotiation.
The states weren't amending the Constitution. They simply ensured that their delegated powers could be resumed. If you doubt the legality take it up with Madison, Marshall, Jay et al - they accepeted their state ratifications which recognized that right.
But if they had, and latter got all huffy when they couldn't crown you Emperor for Life then they still wouldn't have any grounds to claim breech of contract, because that clause wasn't legal in the first place.
Their reservation was for that they could resume their delegated powers at will, not that there must have been a breech.
You mean other than Texas v White? What is needed other than that? The whole issue of secession was indeed before the court because the defense had argued that since Texas had seceded and had not yet completed reconstruction then it was not a state and did not have the right to sue in the U.S. Supreme Court. So the whole issue of the legality of secession was a matter before the court and the court ruled on that.
The issue before the court was the disposition of the bonds. Texas had already been a state in the union after the war with a functioning republican goverment until replaced the military rule enacted by depostic yankees.
As Chase wrote, '[i]f, therefore, it is true that the State of Texas was not at he time of filing this bill, or is not now, one of the United States, we have no jurisdiction of this suit, and it is our duty to dismiss it.' He asserted that the court did have jurisdiction - just as was the case in Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators - it was not dediced in dicta. In this case he rules states can't secede, in the prior case the court held they could secede unilaterally.
My Dear Rush, You haven't heard much of anything, yet! You are showing an utter lack of knowledge here. So, my suggestion is to lose your foolish pride and READ THE FACTS! Mr. Lincoln did NOT end slavery. He was a racist, and a bigot who had absolutely no need for the black people, or hispanics, or Jews, or any other color, race, creed, or motto other than his own. How could your mind conclude that a man who lived in a state, which forbad black people to inhabit the premises any longer than a few days would ever, even think of ending slavery? This is a HUGE leap of the imagination!
First of all, get your premise right. If Lincoln refused to end slavery peacefully, like many other nations of the time, what was his problem. He began his tenure of office with VERY, VERY, VERY incorrect thinking. The most obvious question you should ask yourself is, "Why would a President of the United States war against an entire population"? Isn't this kind of action the same as the pipsqueak, holocaust denying, nukeman of Iran?
"ftd", you are a PRIME example of a clueLESS,brainwashed, "true believer".
PITY.
the TRUTH is that President Davis was an HONORABLE/DECENT, if tragically flawed, national leader. (being a military hero and/or Senator does NOT necessarily make a GREAT President. he simply did his BEST & was frequently "less than sucessful" at his job, but it was NOT for lack of effort. since i'm an old teacher,as a "letter grade", i give him "a B-".)
the OTHER (UNcomfortable for "true believers" like you) is that "lincoln, the TYRANT" was the SAME sort of AMORAL, cheap, scheming politician as "wee willie klintoon" was.
BOTH lincoln & wee willie would do ANYTHING to "get ahead" or "to make a buck". ANYTHING! (i find it "interesting" that the "mainstream press" LOVED & idolized BOTH. i assign the "letter grade" for BOTH lincoln/klintoon as: "F".)
free dixie,sw
as for continuing to fight the war, i for one will stop only when dixie is FREE.
free dixie,sw
They knew that the People and not the states had ratified the Constitution and were correcting it in their own
Madison bypassed the state authority and went to the people of the states themselves. For about the billionth time, no one claims that LEGISLATURES ratified. The people, in convention, ratified severally and independently. Morris' motion to submit ratification to an amalgamation of people wasn't even seconded.
And the purpose of bypassing the state legislative was to have the Constitution of the people, not the states.
Besides the practical reasons for not allowing state legislatives the chance to reject the Constitution, a more fundamental justification required giving the decision directly to the people. As Madison noted, if state legislatures ratified the Constitution, it would be like a treaty among sovereign states. If any state subsquently violated any of its provisions, the others would be able to dissolve the compact. Accordingly, Madison urged that the Constitution be submitted to the 'supreme authority of the people themselves'. If the new Constitution emanted directly from the people, it would not be a creature of the states (emphasis added) and would become the nation's fundamental charter of government. (James Madision, and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights, Richard Labunski, p.16)
The Constitution was a compact among the people of the United States, not the States.
The Congress forwarded the document to the states and they were prohibited from debating on them or amending them.
They were only to to provide elections for men, who would represent the people and who would serve in the conventions to accept or reject the document.
The nation's legislative body was being told that it would serve only as distributing center, receiving the Constitution and forwarding copies to the states. State legislatives had previously ratified the Articles of Confederation, the nations first Constitution. Now they were being informed, in effect, that they could not be trusted to render a fair judgement on that new plan of government (Ibid, p.14)
I didn't ask you about his character, I asked you about how he handled dissent in the Confederacy.
Was the Confederacy more free than the North during the war.
A simple question,one that someone with your superior intellect should have no problem answering.
Ofcourse it does.
The American People are found in all fifty states.
You and how many others you can convince to agree with you, can cease to be Americans anytime you like.
The states will not cease to exist and neither will the American people.
If you decide to remain in the states you have to obey the laws of the land.
If you refuse, you are in rebellion-period.
So, what do you do when you pledge allegiance and have to say, 'one nation-indivisible', do you reject the pledge of allegiance entirely, or just skip the parts you don't like.
As opposed to the end of the United States as a country.
Sounds like the lesser of two evils, to me.
This from a grandson of a one time sheriff of Neshoba County, Mississippi, with an uncle (who died in childhood) named Jefferson Davis, with relatives on both sides of the war, with a relative whose unfair treatment (execution as a spy even though he was captured in uniform) by the Union and Lincoln in particular many historians credit as the direct inspiration for Booth to kill Lincoln. I'm not blind to the flaws in Abraham Lincoln, his conduct of the war, in fact the arguable mishandling of the issue of abolition that led to the war, or any other issue related to this question.
Abraham Lincoln is one of the five greatest Presidents this country has ever had. He is, in fact, one of the greatest leaders in the history of western civilization.
You gotta give the man his due.
Placeholder.
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.