Photo from "The State"
Posted on 03/17/2003 4:23:55 AM PST by aomagrat
An early symbol of South Carolina's independent streak has been returned to the state after more than 160 years.
An 1833 flag from a militia group called the Abbeville Dragoons has been donated to the Confederate Relic Room and Museum by a Mississippi woman whose great-great-great-grandfather left South Carolina with the flag in 1859.
Officials probably will send the banner to a Maryland flag conservation company for preservation, then put it on display in the museum in about six weeks.
The hand-painted silk banner, 20¼ inches by 25¾ inches, shows a palmetto tree and the state seal on the front. Its back features storm clouds, the phrase "Millions for Defence, not a Cent for Tribute'' and the date, 1833, all apparent references to the Nullification Crisis, in which South Carolina threatened to secede in the early 1830s because of Northern-backed tariffs.
"I've been here since the late 1970s, and I've never seen a flag like it,'' museum curator John Bigham said. "It's a gem of antebellum South Carolina militia history.''
The Relic Room has about 75 flags, but the Abbeville Dragoons' banner is the oldest it has ever received. The Abbeville flag is believed to be the only known militia flag of its era in South Carolina, museum director Allen Roberson said.
The flag is in excellent condition, having been folded and stored in a trunk for more than a century. It could be worth more than $25,000, Roberson said.
Karen Taylor of Terry, Miss., donated the flag to the Relic Room last month. Her great-great-great-grandfather, Joseph John Dickson, is believed to have been a captain in the Abbeville Dragoons until he moved to Mississippi shortly before the Civil War.
"I've always wanted to find a place where the flag could be protected and displayed, and when I presented it to the Relic Room, I knew we'd really found a home for it,'' Taylor said.
Taylor said she never considered peddling the flag despite its value.
"I would never have thought of selling it; who knows where it would have ended up?'' she said.
Information about the Abbeville Dragoons is almost nonexistent, but militia groups were a mainstay in the United States for much of the country's early history.
Theoretically, all male citizens were members of the militia and were required to have certain equipment and to meet at stated times for drill, USC history professor Clyde Wilson said.
The Nullification Crisis arose during President Andrew Jackson's first term in office. As industry in the North expanded, it looked toward Southern markets, rich with cash from the lucrative agricultural business, to buy the North's manufactured goods.
However, it often was cheaper for the South to buy goods abroad. In order to protect Northern industries, Jackson put a tariff on many of the imported goods that could be manufactured in the North.
South Carolina saw the tariffs as a threat to states' liberties and passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union. Jackson, a native South Carolinian who lived in Tennessee before his election, responded by ordering federal troops to Charleston.
"There was a great deal of militia activity in the state during the Nullification Crisis,'' Wilson said. "After all, the president threatened in December 1832 to attack the state.''
The crisis was averted when Congress revised the tariffs in February 1833.
Many militia units, including the Charleston Light Dragoons and the Richland Volunteer Rifle Company, went into the Confederate army three decades later, when South Carolina made good on its threat to leave the Union.
Taylor's great-great-great-grandfather died in 1879. He didn't serve in the Civil War, but his son died from wounds suffered at Petersburg, Va., she said.
A true southern patriot. Thank you.
Lincoln and his ilk would tolerate slavery but not the inability to collect tariffs. He didn't give his Congress in 1861 the chance to consider the problem.
He called for the blockade and brought war that killed 640,000.
This man deserves a memorial?
Photo from "The State"
As you well know, that is complete nonsense. Seven states had published secession documents even before Lincoln took office.
President Lincoln was always for compromise and concilation. That is why he supported the proposed 13th amendment guaranteeing the "domestic institutions of the states" in his first inaurgural. That is why he pursued compensated emancipation and colonization schemes all through 1862, and that is why he proposed as late as February, 1865 that $400,000,000 in bonds be made available to the so-called seceded states. He always favored a peaceful course of action.
What he would -not- compromise on was the 1860 Republican platform that advoated that slavery not be allowed to spread to the territories. That was enough to set off the slave power, and the war came.
The reason President Lincoln is rightfully revered today as one of the greatest Americans is because he was compassionate enough to offer the hand of felowship to the rebels and at the same time fight the giant nest of traitors that had embarked on treason and unwarranted rebellion against the lawful government.
You need to peddle your manure somewhere else. Your lies will get no free ride here.
Walt
Speaking of which ... what is the most commonly referral for aforementioned war?
Cival War?
War between the States?
Thanx
I believe it was Alexander Stephens who helped popularize the name, "War between the states."
But as the loyal Union men definitely took their orders from Washington, that doesn't seem a very apt name.
Walt
"The Congress' official records are called or contain the name, "war of the rebellion."
Which we all know is hogwash because it was a war to test the legality of secession. Lincoln was wrong ... period!
'And seventy-two years before, Edmund Pendelton and James Madison had openly conceded the right of a State to secede from the Union, and the Virginia Convention of 1788 had expressly ordained that the right of secession was reserved to each State. This invaluable constitutional right, far from being a rope of sand, had on repeated occasions been used as an instrument of reconciliation among the several States, and had brought strength to the Union.'
Here are some speeches by President James Buchanan ... Lincoln's predecessor!
" The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission, which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy (meaning Union of States)? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare war and make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress, or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not necessary and proper for carrying into execution any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressely refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution."
'It is an historical fact that, on two occasions during their deliberations, the framers in the Philadelphia Convention voted to deny Congress the power of calling forth the military forces of the Union to compel obedience of a State, and on two further occasions they voted to deny Congress the power of sending the Federal army or navy into the territory of any State, except, as allowed in Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, - to repel a foreign invasion or at the request of its legislature or government to deal with domestic violence.
And for your further edification -
'Of the supposed power to use force of arms against secession, He (Buchanan) stated to Congress,
"But if we possessed this power, would it be wise to exercise it in existing circumstances? The object would doubtless be to preserve the Union. War would not only present the most effectual means of destroying it, but would vanish all hope of its peaceable reconstruction. Besides, in the fraternal conflict a vast amount of blood and treasure would be expended, rendering future reconciliation between the States impossible. In the meantime, who can foretell what would be the sufferings and privations of the people during its existence?"
"The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force." - 'A Constitutional History of Secession' - John Remington Graham
The Supreme Court asserted this power in the Prize Cases(1862)
Walt
War of Northern Aggression.
"All these deaths of U.S. citizens --the death of EVERY U.S. citizen killed by Arab terror in the United States, can be laid directly at the feet of George Bush I." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=452#448
"I'll say again that based on what I knew in 1992, I would vote for Bill Clinton ten times out of ten before I would vote for George Bush Sr." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?q=1&&page=401#420
"As you doubtless know, the separation of powers in that Pact with the Devil we call our Constitution, gives only Congress the right to raise and spend money." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=432#432
"First of all, the AJC [Atlanta Journal-Constitution] is -not- an "ultra-leftist" newspaper, and you know it." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/13/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/784464/posts?page=70#70
"I feel that admiration for Reagan has rightly diminished over time, and rightly so." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=432#432
"I don't retract any of that." - WhiskeyPapa in reference to the liberal statements found above, 11/26/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/796067/posts?page=146#146
"If you non-U.S. citizens are wondering what the electoral college is and what bunch of ninnies thought it up: The US Constitution was written by rich white men like Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Randolph, and others. They wrote it for the benefit of rich white men like themselves. They didn't trust the common man --at all--, hence the college of electors, who didn't (and don't) necessarily have to vote for the candidate that carries their state. Here in Georgia, I didn't vote for Al Gore. I voted for nine Democratic Party hacks that promise to vote for Al when the college meets in December. Yeah, I know its crazy, but it works." - Walt, aka WhiskeyPapa, explaining the electoral college to Europeans, 11/12/00
SOURCE: soc.history.war.world-war-ii newsgroup
Walt's Wisdom:
"A tariff is not a tax." - WhiskeyPapa, 2/27/03
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/852576/posts?page=96#96
"Nationalism and socialism are opposites." - WhiskeyPapa,11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=570#516
You're a leftist troll who by your own admission voted for Al Gore.
I wonder what unit the son served with? My own g-g-grandfather was also at Petersburg, and was wounded there in the fight at the crater (26th South Carolina Infantry).
Col. Robert Gould Shaw leads the 54th Massachusetts Infantry in the attack on Battery Wagner, 7/18/63
Walt
My GGGrandfather was at Petersburg also, 17th South Carolina Infantry.
I'd vote for Gore again over Bush jr. It was a no-brainer that if Junior was elected, we'd have Senior running things, and I bet he is. Surely no one thinks that Junior has enough brains to get all this rolling. Cheney and Powell are going to run the war -- to clean up the mess they made 12 years ago.
You need to address what I say about the American Civil War.
But you can't.
Walt
War of Northern Aggression.
Actually, it was the north that was the aggrieved party.
"Had the south used her power prudently and acted wisely, she would have controlled the destinies of this Government for generations yet to come...But, flushed with victories so constant and thorough and maddened by every expression of opposition to their peculiar institution, they commenced a work of proscription and aggression upon the rights of the people of the North, which has finally forced them to rise in their might and drive them from power.
They commenced their aggressions upon the North in some of the southern states by the enactment of unconstitutional laws, imprisoning colored seamen, and refusing to allow those laws to be tested before the proper tribunals. They trampled upon the sacred right of petition; they rifled and burnt our mails, if they suspected they contained anything of condemnation of slavery. They proscribed every northern man from office who would not smother and deny his honest convictions upon slavery and barter his manhood for place. They annexed foreign territory avowedly to extend and strengthen their particular institution, and made war in defense and support of that policy. They refused admission into the Union of States with free constitutions, unless they could have, as an equivalent, new guarantees for slavery. They passed a fugitive slave bill, some of the provisions of which were so merciless, and unneccessary as they were inhuman, that they would have disgraced the worst despotisms of Europe. They repealed their 'Missouri compromise act,' which they had themselves forced upon the North, against their wishes and their votes; and after having attained all their share of the benefit, they struck it down, against the indignant and almost unanimous protest of the whole North, for the purpose of forcing slavery upon an unwilling people.
They undertook to prevent, by violent means, the settlement of Kansas by free-state men. They invaded that territory and plundered and murdered its citizens by armed force...Every new triumph of the South and every concession by the North has only whetted their appetite for still more, and encouraged them in making greater claims and more unreasaonable demands, until today they are threatening the overthrow of the Government if we do not give them additional guarantees for protection to their slave property in territory in which we do not now own." --Speech of Representative John B. Alley of Massachusetts, January 26, 1861 (quoted from "The Causes of the Civil War", Kennneth Stampp, ed.)
Walt
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.