To the chagrin and mortification of many liberals, Rolling Stone magazine had to apologize for its “lack of accuracy,” otherwise known as a lie, in a highly publicized article. In ‘A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA,’ this left of center magazine first reported a total falsehood and for weeks defended their story. After the alleged rape was exposed as a total fraud, The Boston Globe opined that it did not matter that the rape story was not true because “a bigger one [story or issue] is.”
It seems that to liberals and other left of center types, the “narrative” always trumps facts when in pursuit of the leftist agenda. This pattern of action did not go unnoticed by Rush Limbaugh in a recent (January 2015) issue of his Limbaugh Letter. As Limbaugh correctly points out, “truth or falsehood” is not important to the left but rather the “party line” is all that matters. It does not matter if the story was incorrect as long as the story promotes the radical left’s fetish for “women’s issues.” All that matters is that the enemy of the left is skewered by the story and the leftist agenda is advanced—on these points, Limbaugh got it right. Yet when applied to Southern issues, Limbaugh and other “conservatives” of Yankeedom act and sound like their liberal nemeses.
When speaking to the issues of slavery, Lincoln, or Federal power, Limbaugh and associates toe the “party line” and seek by any means to skewer the South in total disregard of the facts. How many times have we heard Limbaugh and associates declare that the war (Civil War as they incorrectly name it) was fought by brave Yankees to end slavery? Of course if Yankees were fighting for freedom what were Southerners fighting for? Spoken or unspoken Limbaugh’s message is clear; the South was fighting for slavery! The fact that slavery existed in Massachusetts for sixty years LONGER than it existed in Mississippi; the fact that the thirteen colonies/states of the original states to these United States were all slave states, just like the thirteen Confederate States; the fact that Southerners at their own expense freed more slaves than Northerners or any European nation; the fact that the Confederate Constitution unconditionally abolished the African slave trade, whereas, the United States Constitution under the influence of Yankee slave traders, protected the African slave trade for twenty years; these and many more such facts are disallowed because it does not fit their narrative, i.e., Yankees fought for freedom, Southerners fought for slavery!
Limbaugh’s salivating at the intoning of the name “Lincoln” proves to most Southerners that like Pavlov’s dogs, neoconservatives are well conditioned to protect the Lincoln narrative. Lincoln as savior of the Union is a “narrative” that is sacrosanct to Limbaugh and his leftist adversaries. Here again, the narrative and the facts are antagonistic to each other. The Union as defined by Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolve of ‘98 and the Union as defined by Madison in the Virginia Resolve of ‘98 are 180 degrees in contrast to Lincoln’s Union. Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” and Jefferson, the virtual author of the Declaration of Independence, describes a union where “we the people” of the sovereign states, not the Federal government, are the ultimate judges of how we are to be governed. Jefferson and Madison describe a totally different union than the one imposed upon “we the people” of the South by Lincoln—but these facts do not fit the Yankee narrative! Constitutional scholars, William Rawle of Pennsylvania and Saint George Tucker of Virginia both describe a union where “we the people” of a sovereign state alone determine how long we remain in any union. Again, this does not fit the narrative that Lincoln saved the Union and of course the South fought to destroy the Union. But facts don’t matter if you are dedicated to a narrative, just ask the folks at Rolling Stone or The Boston Globe. As pointed out by Forrest McDonald, a contemporary Constitutional scholar, after witnessing Lincoln’s many unconstitutional acts; many Northerners began to wonder if Lincoln’s war to save the Union “would result in its destruction.”
Limbaugh lamented that in modern P.C. society it is the exercise of force and power that determines what is and is not “truth and fact.” The very same point is easily made when dealing with the War for Southern Independence and its consequences for modern Americans. At Appomattox it was the army that supported Federal supremacy that defeated the defenders of Jefferson and Madison’s union. Since that time state’s rights have morphed into state’s privileges. Ask Arizona if they can enforce laws on emigration; ask California if they can define what is and is not a legal marriage; ask Alabama if they can display the Ten Commandments in their courthouses; these and other such actions are now under the supervision and authority of a supreme Federal government—states can only do that which their Federal masters “permit” them to do—this is not the Union as described by Jefferson and Madison. But since these facts do not fit the narrative, don’t expect Mr. Limbaugh to pontificate on the deleterious results of the lost of REAL state’s rights.
Until the Federal government fears “we the people” of the sovereign states MORE than we fear the Federal government there is little hope of reclaiming our lost liberty. But how can the Federal government be made to fear “we the people?” Only by making a radical change in the way this post Lincoln Federal government is organized and function can the Union of Jefferson and Madison be restored. When told that only by returning to real state’s rights, where interposition, nullification and secession are fully recognized, will we see a nation as free as that given to us by our founding fathers, Limbaugh and his associates (on the Right and Left) recoil as if handed a live snake. “Methinks” it is time for Southerners to become full-time snake handlers.
