Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Secession ball stirs controversy
The SunNews.com ^ | 12-3-2010 | Robert Behre Charleston Post

Posted on 12/03/2010 4:39:40 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 881-891 next last
Hard to justify a celebration of a maniipulating political elite who tried to destroy the work of George Washington to aid the institution of slavery.
1 posted on 12/03/2010 4:39:43 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
"It's amazing to me how history can be rewritten to be what you wanted it to be rather than what happened,"

The left does it every day.

2 posted on 12/03/2010 4:41:54 AM PST by GreenHornet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreenHornet

Today’s leftists and yesterday’s secessionists have a lot in common. The Democratic Party is still plagued by some its defects of 1860.


3 posted on 12/03/2010 4:45:00 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Then I guess you won’t be attending.


4 posted on 12/03/2010 4:47:06 AM PST by PLMerite (Fix the FR clock. It's time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Mad that they didn’t invite you?


5 posted on 12/03/2010 4:50:22 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

So if the war was just about slavery, why did the North wait until after Gettysburg to free the slaves, and then only the slaves in the South? Could it be that there was more to the CW than slavery?


6 posted on 12/03/2010 4:56:23 AM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

‘The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People plans to protest the event’

Screw them.


7 posted on 12/03/2010 4:56:42 AM PST by BigCinBigD (Northern flags in South winds flutter...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

They should sneak a real article of secession in there and camouflage the real governor have him sign it in front of everyone and make it “real”......


8 posted on 12/03/2010 4:56:47 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va; PLMerite

My SCV camp, the William T. Sherman Camp of the SCV, did not get an invitation.


9 posted on 12/03/2010 4:58:33 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
So if the war was just about slavery, why did the North wait until after Gettysburg to free the slaves, and then only the slaves in the South? Could it be that there was more to the CW than slavery?

You are right about the war. The war, especially at the first, was not all about slavery. But the first wave secessions that triggered the whole affair were almost 100% over slavery.

10 posted on 12/03/2010 5:00:58 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

I let my SCV membership lapse. Don’t know if the John Wilkes Booth Camp was invited either.


11 posted on 12/03/2010 5:04:47 AM PST by PLMerite (Fix the FR clock. It's time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Are you sure about that? After all, while the richer Southerners may have owned slaves, the vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves. Those majorities made up the armies that the North eventually crushed when they invaded the South. I’m sorry, but men don’t fight and die for something that doesn’t concern them, and slavery didn’t concern the majority of the South despite the efforts to revise our history. Their fight was over the rights of the States to determine their own future.


12 posted on 12/03/2010 5:07:24 AM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
If you were to be in a debate with Glen McConnell it'd be like a one legged man in a butt kicking contest. The argument that Massachusetts did more to destroy the Union has just as much validity.

On the Today show, Glen McConnell destroyed the best that the NAACP could put forth in a nationally televised debate. The NAACP will not debate McConnell publicly because they know they will not win.

13 posted on 12/03/2010 5:12:17 AM PST by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs

There were a lot of reasons for Southern states’ secession; some legitimate; some completely immoral. One of those causes has not changed in 150 years—Democrats who could not accept the fact that they can’t always get their own way.


14 posted on 12/03/2010 5:13:26 AM PST by Opinionated Blowhard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Secession was the right path back then, and it is the right path now. The federal government is a tyranny which removes the powers rightfully granted to the states by our founding fathers and by our constitution. Our union of the several states was destroyed by Lincoln and replaced by a nation state controlled by Washington DC. I say this as a lifelong Yankee.


15 posted on 12/03/2010 5:14:04 AM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
But the men who did the fighting were not the ones who engineered the secession. The Confederate soldiers had a tough choice to make and often were only motivated by a desire to defend their land. On the other hand, the secessionists' motives were generally much less honorable. I think a Tennessee politician of the day, Oliver P. Temple, had the secessionists figured out:

"The most powerful (motivation for secession), as it always has been, in revolutionary movements, was personal ambition. There was something peculiarly facinating to bold, ambitious men in the thought of forming a great slaveholding confederacy, embracing fifteen states over which they would bear sway; with an aristocratic class to support their authority; with cotton, the greatest wealth-producing staple the world has ever known, as the basis of unparalleled prosperity, and with an obedient, servile race to perform all labor, and minister to the comfort and wants of this superior class as long as governments should last. Of course this motive was concealed..."

16 posted on 12/03/2010 5:14:14 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs

With one exception, the ancestors of mine who actually owned slaves did not fight yet those who did not own slaves fought in the Confederate Army.

If the war really was about slavery, then why did one third of the the slave states remain in the Union? Those states were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and West Virginia. The latter was part of Virginia but left in order to remain in the Union.


17 posted on 12/03/2010 5:18:32 AM PST by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Secession was the right path back then, and it is the right path now. The federal government is a tyranny which removes the powers rightfully granted to the states by our founding fathers and by our constitution.

The Obama way is indeed a path of expansion and unconstitutional usurpations, but I don't see any tyranny from the mere 1860 election of a president. As a poster said above, it's just that Democrats have always had a hard time when they don't their way. The Founders assumed a public mature enough to accept adverse election results. The South Carolina secessionists proved unequal to that assumption.

18 posted on 12/03/2010 5:20:38 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Don’t worry, you will be allowed to protest with the NAALCP.


19 posted on 12/03/2010 5:26:16 AM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

I find this quote from the article interesting:

“Asked whether there could be good Sesquicentennial events, Randolph said, ‘If there were a dialogue to sit down and discuss that event 150 years ago and how it still negatively impacts the lives of so many people in this state and around the country, that would be a good discussion, but not an event to sit down and tell lies about what happened and glamorize those people who thought America was so sorry and so bad that they wanted to blow it to hell. That’s what they did — that’s what they attempted to do, and we want to make that honorable?’ “

In other words, “If you want to have a dialogue to make it about race, that matches our view of history, and gives us an opportunity to shake down some even organizers, then we’re all for it.”

The NAACP doesn’t have the right to not be offended. Maybe they’re just pi$$ed because they weren’t invited. Whateva!


20 posted on 12/03/2010 5:29:07 AM PST by Babalu ("Tracer rounds work both ways ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 881-891 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson