Posted on 12/20/2010 3:43:37 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
Exactly 150 years after South Carolina became the first state to leave the United States, a group whose purpose is to preserve Confederate history is holding a dance in Charleston.
The NAACP plans to protest Monday night's "Secession Ball." Leaders of the civil rights group have said it makes no sense to honor men who committed treason in order to maintain a system that kept black men and woman in bondage as slaves.
But organizers of the ball say their intention is to honor men who were willing to die to protect their vision of states' rights and what this nation was supposed to be.
The Secession Ball is happening just blocks from where 169 men voted unanimously 150 years ago to leave the United States.
A protest rally is scheduled for 4:30pm at Emanuel AME Church on Calhoun Street and the group will march past the Gaillard Auditorium to Morris Brown AME Church on Morris Street.
Meanwhile, a new historical marker will identify the site where South Carolina delegates signed the Ordinance of Secession. The marker was unveiled Monday in downtown Charleston, where Institute Hall once stood.
The marker identifies what was Charleston's largest pre-Civil War public space, with seats for 3,000 people. It hosted the 1860 Democratic national convention, which split when Southern delegates wanted to adopt a party platform protecting slavery.
(Excerpt) Read more at wistv.com ...
Well, since it's Larone Bennett, Jr., my first point to you is that you can't spell. But, I won't hammer on that one b/c mine isn't much better:) Second, I didn't quote anything from his book, just mentioned the book. Seems to bother you that even a black liberation theologist debunked Lincoln. Truth must be painful to you. Now, as to what I was saying to Ditto, it's self explanatory. Copied below for your convenience so perhaps you can grasp the concept if you read it again.
I'm perfectly willing and capable of doing same today if my 'fellow American' be it some Bill Ayres revolutionary type or a native born Mohammad Jihad were attempting insurrection. Trust me, if they take up arms against the Constitution and I'd blow big holes in them with no remorse whatsoever! (Ditto)
Yet, Ayers and company are running the show right now and you aren't doing anything about it. The cabal of leftist revolutionaries are running everything, but I don't see you blowing big holes in them. (Sunshine)
Oh, and again copied below for your convenience, tonka_truck, I had already let Ditto in on the fact that Ayers and company had already engaged in insurrection with this post:
Pssst....I'll let ya in on something....Ayres and company already did. (Sunshine)
Glad to know you check on me. Can't say as I do the same for you. You just pop up on threads, stomping and trashing around, seemingly looking for attention. Can't see what other purpose you serve b/c you are determined to add nothing but scowls, howls, ill-will, and bile to these threads. I believe the last time I encountered you, you were off to study the Klan to prove a connection to a Freeper's family. How's that research coming along? Finished it up and ready for the presentation or did the Federal Government cut off your funding before you could complete one of the stupidist studies ever?
You're correct and it wasn't the purpose. Power and money were the purpose. Enslaving us all was the purpose. For some reason the Blue Avengers fail to recognize (or choose to ignore) that Lincoln himself said the war wasn't to end slavery and the Congressional Resolution failed to mention that the war was to abolish slavery. Some of them can't even bring themselves to accept the fact that four of the states that seceded did so due to Lincoln's demand for troops. It's similar to those who cannot accept what you are correctly pointing out about Maryland.
The myth that the war was to end slavery was concoted by the government to brainwash the unsuspecting into ignoring what really happened and what the truth was/is.
I enjoyed your post about visiting the caves and hollers. Have any interesting links or books to recommend on the subject? I'd love to read more about it:)
I was trying to remember the names of the books my parents had on the subject. I hope my brother took those books home with him when they died. I didn’t find the books on a Google search.
The capital of Mayland was either Kim’s Thicket or Bakersville, NC. I believe it was the former.
Ah, favorite Non-Sequitur and Clintonista meme: "It was all about slavery."
No, it was about bad faith when interests diverged.
If you want to contemplate a conundrum, try this one: Northern Abolitionists didn't want Southern slaveowners to recover runaways anywhere, especially in States where the Abolitionists could influence policy outcomes; but then they didn't want blacks migrating to "free" States, either -- as witness the black codes.
So how much of anti-slavery sentiment was principle, and how much was dog-in-the-manger, beggar-my-neighbor hostility to the South's cotton prosperity?
[Me, correcting you] You've been reading Non-Sequitur; that's his theory. For which there is no historical or constitutional support. He also agrees with Adolf Hitler, that the States are mere creatures of the Congress, and in no way sovereign.
[You, refusing correction] It's irrelevant what the FR-late Non-Sequiturs may have believed.
No, it isn't, not when his position agreed 100% with yours. And was shown to be fascist.
What matters is, that's what historical figures such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln, amongst many others, all believed.
No, they didn't. Lincoln said he believed it -- to oppose the Southern States, which were right, and within their rights.
Madison's opinion about the problem of factional abuse of the federal government, of using the General Welfare clause to enact repressive and tyrannical legislation, varied. He never solved the problem of faction, by the way, and neither did his student, John Calhoun.
Madison advocated against secession for "light and transient" causes -- but his political sentiment never was written into the Constitution,
because the other Framers disagreed with his position and wanted to leave the secession option open.
That is why the Constitution contains no language on secession.
Sixteen, counting the illegal rump state of "West Virginia".
Only one slave state chose to remain in the Union: Delaware.
The others were suppressed, crushed by military force and tyrannical decrees, and their governments deposed and imprisoned, by Lincoln. That ain't "choice".
[You] Not in the least.
Actually, yes, in the most.
I'll remind you again that the South effectively controlled the Federal Government from its founding all the way up until it walked out in secession in 1861.
Not true. The South didn't stop the "Tariff of Abominations" from being passed by John Quincy Adams's Federalists in 1828.
In 1860, the divided Buchanan "unity" National Democracy cabinet was taken over by Northern factionalists, who ginned up prosecutions of two Southern cabinet members. One of the Northern cabinet men was a stalwart Abolitionist, former seminary student with the Beechers in Ohio, a future Black Republican, and Lincoln's future Secretary of War: Edwin Stanton.
That is not the South "controlling" the U.S. Government.
Neither was building the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, or the Erie Canal. Neither was the Northwest Ordinance, which excluded slavery from the old Northwest Territories. Neither, in the end, did the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Popular Sovereignty work for them: John Brown and his supporters simply killed slave owners who moved to Kansas.
Moreover, the South was looking at complete loss of any influence on the national agenda with the election of Lincoln, because the Northern States, adeptly polarized into white-hot South-hatred by the Abolitionists and the Interests, held a majority in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, the house was evenly divided between North and South -- but with the installation of Lincoln's man, Hannibal Hamlin, in the Vice President's chair, Lincoln was assured of winning everything he wanted -- and the first thing he'd want was the Morrill Tariff, followed by Kansas statehood, dominated by John Brown's fellow-factional Jayhawkers.
Now we can see why CA is dead and aggressively trying to entice the rest of the nation to provide a heart transplant. Her wicked heart is the problem, what CA needs is a brain and the understanding of acrual history instead of the PC version now taught.
Our founders told us the work we must do would be to KEEP a republic. It is only the enemies of our Republic that keep talking about changing it because “times” are different. No, man is still the same as he was in the days of Jeremiah when he followed a wicked corrupt government and ignored God.
The founders, begining with Washington, warned against of the danger of a standing army. They said nothing about disbanding the means of self protection. It is simply the liberal mind that assumes only government can do it. When the colonies seceded from Great Britain there was no standing army. There was a militia- men who accepted their own responsibility to protect the family, farms, and neighbors from invaders. They did not sit around crying for the nanny state to come save them. Today we need that same militia. It is each man’s patriotic duty to arm himself- not for hunting alone- but for war in order to deter tyranny. But then personal responsibility has never been popular with those who find it easier to let someone else do it for him.
Yes, you did quote from Bennett and you also seemed surprised to learn he was a black liberationist. Oh, you quickly made some excuse about it, but you clearly didn't know the source you were quoting. Frankly that told me all I needed to about your grasp on the subject and the depth of your intellectual curiousity.
Coupled with your inability to present facts in a concise manner, the confusing disjointed way you cut and paste other people's comments into your own posts, and the motley crew of revisonist yard apes you hang around with, I pretty much just ignore your stuff. You kinda remind me of a little girl who got into her momma's cosmetic kit and is trying to play grown up, but doesn't quite know how.
Y'all have a nice day now.
If you remember the names of the books, please let me know. And, I should have typed Mayland, not Maryland (I see you read typo very well:)
Have you ever heard of Two-line, New York? The story has it that they seceded from the Union and didn't rejoin until sometime in the 1940's.
“Yes, you did quote from Bennett...”
Bzzzt. False statement.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2541838/posts?q=1&;page=151
Would you like to retract your false statement?
You mean attempted insurrections were foiled. The most important of those states, Kentucky, voted to stay neutral. Then the Confederates invaded them and drove the state firmly into the Union camp.
Two-line, New York = Town-line, New York or also Two-Rod. Sorry for the typos. Need more coffee!
The North did not go to war over slavery. The South went to war over slavery, or more correctly, the expansion of slavery.
They only care about CONTROL. Power. That’s it."
What is your real problem, pal?
Why do you throw out false and reckless accusations, as if the real truth made no difference to you?
Don't you understand that every serious Freeper is here because we agree with Jim-Rob's philosophies and the sign on the "front door"?
"Welcome to Free Republic! America's exclusive site for God, Family, Country, Life & Liberty constitutional conservative activists!"
You're not talking to flaming liberals here -- you're talking to people who agree with you on just about every subject, except the South's secession, rebellion and Civil War.
And none of your false accusations logically follow from that disagreement.
patriot preacher: "In 1865 — they WON. They thrashed their opponents, pillaged his burgs and looted his goods, and have ever since maintained to one degree or another DOMINANCE over both the States AND the People."
You seem to be disoriented and confused.
The people who maintain, in your words, "DOMINANCE over both States AND the People" are not Lincoln's Conservative Republicans, they are YOUR Progressive Liberal Democrats -- beginning with Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.
Your Southern Democrats voted for these Progressives, and many more, in overwhelming numbers, and they are the ones who destroyed the Constitution as it was known before.
Only in recent years, as the South's prosperity has hugely grown, did the South change from flaming economic Liberal Democrats to now solid Conservative Republicans.
Naturally, all true Conservatives welcome the South to our ranks -- we're glad you're here, and what took you so long?
But we don't think it's really "appropriate" that you should be blaming all ills on us, when there's also plenty of blame for the South to own up to.
patriot preacher: "The “Union minded Big Government conservatives” just want to spend $1.5 TRILLION or so."
No serious Free-per supports that kind of nonsense, so you're aiming your weapons at the wrong targets, pal.
We're not your enemies, we're your fellow Free Republic Conservatives.
We just don't like being accused of ridiculous nonsense.
patriot preacher: "Oh, one thing y’all did get right — it IS about slavery.
It’s about the enslavement of every “citizen” in the nation TO the Federal Government in Washington DC — and YOU FREAKING MADE IT HAPPEN!"
Ridiculous nonsense.
The Democrat South made it happen just as much as (if not more than) anyone.
Amen Brother.
No, I never heard of Town-Line. Interesting. I’ll see if I can find those books.
I can't defend Non-Sequitur, but highly doubt he (she?) would admit or claim to be a fascist -- or might somehow not understand the fundamental difference between a European fascist (National Socialist) and an American Conservative -- especially a member of the Free Republic.
But having seen your arguments here, I'm not so certain lentulsgracchus wouldn't happily falsely accuse anyone you disagree with of whatever word flits into your mind, right?
lentulusgracchus: "He also agrees with Adolf Hitler, that the States are mere creatures of the Congress, and in no way sovereign."
I can't imagine why Hitler might comment on this subject, but that argument was most notably made by Lincoln in 1861.
I doubt if Lincoln's views were influenced by Hitler, who would have been rather young then.
And Lincoln's argument was technically correct, since Congress issued the Declaration of Independence, which officially turned Britain's colonies into the United States.
So, Lincoln said: Congress, the Union, existed before there were states, and the action of Congress made the colonies into states.
Further, it was the Union under Congress' appointed General Washington which won War of Independence.
Therefore, Lincoln said: the states had no independent existence outside of the Union.
I'd say Lincoln's argument is a bit of a stretch -- that it's more a case of which came first, chicken or egg -- but the argument is a good antidote to the poison of states' unilateral secessionism.
lentulusgracchus: "No, they didn't. Lincoln said he believed it -- to oppose the Southern States, which were right, and within their rights."
Well, I'm amazed at your, what is the right word, "clairvoyance"? -- that you can read a dead Honest Abe's mind and know that he was lying when he said what he believed.
That is truly amazing, you must be one special person, lentulusgracchus.
Personally, I think Lincoln was telling the truth, and I agree with him.
lentulusgracchus: "Madison advocated against secession for "light and transient" causes -- but his political sentiment never was written into the Constitution, because the other Framers disagreed with his position and wanted to leave the secession option open.
That is why the Constitution contains no language on secession."
Madison's opinions were actually more influential that you want to admit.
For one thing, his letter to New Yorker Alexander Hamilton stopped New York from adding conditions to their ratification of the Constitution.
Madison's key words were: "The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States."
So, only Virginia's ratification might be called "conditional," because of its withdrawal language.
However, if you look carefully at Virginia's ratification, its language is nearly identical to that expressed by Madison himself, years later.
Madison said:
"compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties" or
"by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.".
Virginia's language says powers may be resumed: "whensoever they should be perverted to their injury and oppression."
So according to both Madison and Virginia, we're only talking about justified secession in the events of Federal usurpations, abuses, injury and oppression.
And not one of those conditions existed (any more than in 1830 or 1800) in 1860 when South Carolina first seceded.
So, in Madison's words, the Deep South began seceding "at pleasure."
It then attacked Federal forces and eventually declared war on the United States.
The rest is history.
Fifty senators, 100 representatives, Larry Noble. Kevin Koester is my representative, in case you were wondering that as well.
Now, why didn't Francis Pickens give any reason other than slavery as motivation for secession in his inaugural address?
Actually it's neither Lenore or Larone, it's Lerone Bennett. And if you share is dislike of Lincoln do you also agree that he's right in his demand for slavery reparations?
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.