Dance, protests to mark 150 years since SC left US

WIS TV ^ | Dec 20, 2010

[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.

[raygun]

Methinks thou protesteth WAY too much.

Per post #41 on this thread

...you'd be better off bypassing the factual arguments, which obviously will not have an impact on these nutjobs, and simply ridicule these people. I mean it. Alinsky had that part right. You could go back and forth with these nutballs until Judgment Day, but they will simply ignore any facts you cite, or lie outright to refute them. It is a waste of time. However, if you denigrate and ridicule them, it gets them where they live. Leftists, above all else, need to feel superior. They need to feel like they are the smartest people in the world. Ridicule is the one thing they cannot tolerate. Debating them only feeds their egos. Ridicule deflates them.

The nature of the ridicule that I recommend goes like this: "Wow - I can see from your pathetic post that you don't know a thing about the 20th century, or the world in general. Do you get all of your information from books with big, colored pictures in them? Maybe ones with flying superheroes or talking animals?" Whenever they cite a "fact", simply reply "LOL!! Off your meds again? Not everything the voices tell you is true!" You get the idea. And if you have the stomach for it, keep at it until they stop, but don't waste any time, energy, or frustration on these idiots. Just chuck these insults out there, and enjoy yourself until they self-destruct.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2645516/posts?page=199#199

The question posted remains unanswered. Why is it that your kind have such prediliction to answering simple questions with epithets, ridicule, sophistry (or at best specious reasoning)?

Let the record reflect the question was asked and the witness refused to answer. It is petitioned to the court that the witness be recorded as hostile.

You disgrace and bring ignomny upon all those who died for your privleleged & principled ideals. Confederate-rebel 'president' Davis was an idiot and everybody knew it; the results of the peace initiative of 3 Feb 1865 prove it; what lead up to those events is the guage of the man.

[patriot preacher]

Not at all. Just responding to your last post. :-)

[central_va]

I mostly ignore the questions I get from statist Federal Boot Lickers, what's the point in dialog with a brainwashed idiot?

Admonishments not withstanding, I will thus dane to entertain this one quip....

Was slavery a growing or dying institution?

The only reason the Illinois Butcher™ pretended to end slavery after Antietam was that he was running out of Irish FOB's to put between D.C. and the Army of Northern Va. He was in desperate need for fresh meat for his cleaver and the "freed" slaves would do just fine.

[raygun]

The ones that scream the loudest about indignation concerning servitude and yet do NOTHING concerning taking from the dole make me sick.

I bet the whole sum total of the rebel-Confederate's haven't returned one Lincoln penny of revenue-sharing or welfare appropriations on account of principle.

So much for how far indignation - or fighting for principle for the hoi polloi - gets one.

Spare me the indigestion of moral rectitude and all that; I see how ya are. Sie könnten Mir ehrzälen das Sie euren Hosen mit Bieszahngen anzieht.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks for the ping. These types of threads usually devolve into P!$$!IN@ contests; neither side gaining an inch of ground. I hesitate to pore over this one but probably will as time permits.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

[raygun]

It matters not one whit whether at the time the Confederate-rebel's decided their insurrection if slavery was increasing, steady or decreasing. That'd be akin to Dillinger inquiring whether credit card fraud would be more profitable than crime.

I tell you this, and I don't say this lightly, or just as a matter of course: You're bloody lucky that I wasn't Ruler of the Northern Aggressors and that there weren't Nukes floating around for me to push buttons to. Because if so, YOUR country would still be a wasteland (and would remain so for billions of years).

But first I'd rape all your women and then pillage your children. You know why? Children grow up to become big vermin (women breed more of the little wriggly one's I'm trying to exterminate).

There is only only one point to vermin: food or extermination; I choose the latter without prejudice.

You go your way; I'll go mine (you had best pray that never the twain shall meet). That's what I think of your principles.

[raygun]

Roger that.

[central_va]

I tell you this, and I don't say this lightly, or just as a matter of course: You're bloody lucky that I wasn't Ruler of the Northern Aggressors and that there weren't Nukes floating around for me to push buttons to. Because if so, YOUR country would still be a wasteland (and would remain so for billions of years).>

But first I'd rape all your women and then pillage your children. You know why? Children grow up to become big vermin (women breed more of the little wriggly one's I'm trying to exterminate).

Wow, sooner or later the psychotic venom comes out. If one day we did meet I would hope it would be on the battlefield. You Neo-Yankees have some real anger issues.

PS: Most of the land based ICBM are in red(grey) states. Don't worry, If push cam to shove the plan would be to on whip your asses in the good 'ole conventional way.

I wish you a Merry Christmas. Try not to go "Falling Down" (ala Michael Douglas) during the holidays. I recommended a vacation.

[Idabilly]

Merry Christmas...squirt gun!! Hopefully.. my gift to you will take those bad thoughts and fire breathing dragons away!

Merry Christmas!

[central_va]

Good Ole Rebel By Major Innes Randolph CSA.

Oh, I'm a good old rebel
Now thats just what I am
And for this yankee nation
I do no give a damn.

I'm glad I fit (fought) against 'er (her)
I only wish we'd won
I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done.

I hates the Yankee nation
And eveything they do
I hates the declaration
Of independence too.

I hates the glorious union
'Tis dripping with our blood
I hates the striped banner
And fit (fought) it all I could.

I rode with Robert E. Lee
For three years there about
Got wounded in four places
And I starved at Pint (Point) Lookout.

I coutch (caught) the roomatism (rheumatism)
Campin' in the snow
But I killed a chance of Yankees
And I'd like to kill some mo'. (more.)

Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in southern dust
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us.

They died of southern fever
And southern steel and shot
I wish they was three million
Instead of what we got.

I can't take up my musket
And fight 'em down no mo' (more)
But I ain't a-goin' to love 'em (them)
Now that is serten sho. (certain sure.)

And I don't want no pardon
For what I was and am
I won't be reconstructed
And I do not give a damn.

Oh, I'm a good old rebel
Now that's just what I am
And for this Yankee nation
I do no give a damn.

I'm glad I fought against 'er (her)
I only wish we'd won
I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done.

I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done...

[Drennan Whyte]

...I think the Supreme Court WAY overstepped it’s bounds in allowing ANY Governmental entity (Municipal, State or Federal) TAKE from one PRIVATE concern and transfer it to ANOTHER PRIVATE concern for the sake of “economic growth.”

I think you badly misstate the facts of the case. What the Supreme Court did was uphold the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court, which was the one which said that the New London could use eminent domain to acquire private property for whatever they defined as the public good. And isn't that what you are advocating? That states should have the right to make their own decisions on how to run their own affairs free from restrictions placed on them by the federal government? Now we can dispute the wisdom of the lower court decision all we want, but you of all people should be cheering on the Kelo decision. The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to step in and impose a solution on the people of one of the sovereign states, and they refused. They allowed Connecticut the freedom to run their own show, for better or worse. And isn't that what you are advocating?

I don’t necessarily like the reasoning (the 14th Amendment has a problematic history and is a ‘Pandora’s box’ of Constitutional havoc), I do think the correct decision was made.

In other words, a tyrannical and overbearing government in DC told Illinois and the city of Chicago what they could or could not do. Again, we can argue the underlying merits of the case but at the end of the day a state went their own way and decided that they wanted to place restrictions on gun ownership. And the federal government in the form of the Supreme Court said that they couldn't do it. A solution was imposed on them by D.C. How can you support that?

[patriot preacher]

:-)

Considering the complexities of these two cases, and attempting to draw direct relation to the issues we’ve formerly discussed here is — creative. Pray, tell me, WHICH of these two scenarios do you think were decided correctly — or were either?

I think in arguing these issues between two primary entities (in a judicial setting) — State v. Federal — one misses the MAIN focus of “liberty” or “rights.” The individual. The individual is not a pawn of the State, or the the Federal Government. Yet the Judicial system — Government itself — has come to regard the individual as just a cog in the machine.

Tell me, how does the “individual” figure into your scenario? Into your views of these two cases? Who are the BEST guardians of the rights and liberties of the individual?

Something to chew on, given the two cases your presented...

[Drennan Whyte]

Incidentally, neither did Generals “Stonewall” Jackson nor Robert E. Lee.

Can you quote either man on that?

The questions that CAN be rationally discussed are — could slavery have been peacefully ended WITHOUT war? And, how prominent was slavery in the South in 1861? Was slavery a growing or dying institution?

The answer to number one would be how many years would it take before the South would no longer be willing to secede to defend their institution. Conceivably it could have been decades before the South would be willing to do away with it peacefully. The answer to the second was very prominent. And the answer to the third was that it was growing.

[Drennan Whyte]

Considering the complexities of these two cases, and attempting to draw direct relation to the issues we’ve formerly discussed here is — creative. Pray, tell me, WHICH of these two scenarios do you think were decided correctly — or were either?

I believe both were decided correctly.

Tell me, how does the “individual” figure into your scenario? Into your views of these two cases? Who are the BEST guardians of the rights and liberties of the individual?

The question is actually where the state, as opposed to the federal government fits in. That was the claim made and that which I'm trying to get clarification on. You seem to believe that the state is primary, yet you take positions on two Supreme Court decisions that contradict that.

[ForGod'sSake]

The answer to number one would be how many years would it take before the South would no longer be willing to secede to defend their institution.

I have a letter on my hard drive I don't want to take the time right now to dig out BUT, were you aware the Confederacy approached France to ally with them against the North? Not necessarily news but what is news is the South had agreed to abolish the institution of slavery IF France would join them in defeating an overbearing feral government? The South wanted out from under the thumb of the dictators in the North at ANY cost; including abolishing the "curious institution". Question is, was slavery just a focal point and not the KEY to the real problems the South had with the North, which had been casually $H!TT!NG on the South?

BTW, I'll try to find the document I mentioned in a day or two and post the relevant parts. I only returned to this thread responding to a ping from central_va with something I think may shed some lignt and don't intend to get caught up in the debate. It usually goes nowhere.

[Drennan Whyte]

I have a letter on my hard drive I don't want to take the time right now to dig out BUT, were you aware the Confederacy approached France to ally with them against the North?

The Confederacy approached both France and Britain. The French were willing but would not make a move without the British. The British wouldn't recognize the Confederacy without substantial proof that they were going to win. That faded when the Union won at Antietam, and died completely when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation.

Not necessarily news but what is news is the South had agreed to abolish the institution of slavery IF France would join them in defeating an overbearing feral government?

Where did Jefferson Davis get the authority to end slavery in the Confederate States? I've read the Confederate Constitution and nowhere do I find such powers vested in the Chief Executive or the Confederate Congress. So Davis was obviously promising something that he had no authority to grant. In effect, he was lying through his teeth.

Question is, was slavery just a focal point and not the KEY to the real problems the South had with the North...

A careful reading of the speeches and writings of Southern leaders prior to secession and early in the wary makes it clear that slavery was THE reason for secession. Hollow promises made 4 years later don't change that.

[BroJoeK]

patriot preacher: "Unilateral secession was never the issue..."

Merry Christmas, and now that Santa has departed and hopefully raygun is dunking his head in water, to wash the cr*p out of his brain...

Unilateral secession-ism is the key point of debate in all these threads.
Many posters, and not all of them Lost Causers, agree that the Deep South acted Constitutionally in 1860 and early 1861, in unilaterally seceding without "mutual consent" or from "usurpations" and "abuses" by the Federal Government.

The issue is whether our Founders considered their new Constitution to be a binding contract that could not just be dissolved "at pleasure"?
Quotes from Madison and others clearly show the Constitution was binding and "forever."

Of course, Lost Causers have their own quotes, but who are those?
People like Patrick Henry who did not help write the Constitution, and indeed, voted against it, precisely because they thought it provided the Federal Government with too much power.

So the Constitution was never intended to be some sort of social club that you might join one month and quit the next.
It was more like a marriage, which could only be broken for the most serious of reasons, and then only after all other recourses had failed.

But in 1860, none of these conditions existed, and the Deep South began seceding "at pleasure".

But they didn't just secede.
They also immediately began forcibly seizing dozens of Federal properties -- forts, ships, armories, customs houses, a mint -- and firing on Federal forces and ships.
Fort Sumter was only the most memorable of those incidents.
In Texas for example, Union troops were surrendered and treated as prisoners of war.

And all of this was before the South declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
And it was before a single federal force had crossed a single Confederate border for any military purpose beyond defending Federal forts.

And once the South declared war, there was no alternative and no turning back -- it had to be defeated, unconditionally.
And while they were at it, the reason for the South's secession had to be destroyed -- slavery.

patriot preacher: "the issue was the Constitution — and who was the greatest arbiter of the powers delegated by it to the governments (federal and state), and the rightful heirs of liberty (the people)."

And that, of course, is the Big Lie -- the Lie that all true Southerners tell each other, that mothers tell their babies, that fathers tell their sons -- the Big Lie of Southern Innocence.

And it's totally untrue.
In truth, the Deep South first unlawfully breached the Constitutional contract (beginning in December 1860), then illegally seized Union properties and attacked Union forces (January thru April 1861), and then declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861).
Eventually, the South raised or sent its own forces into every neighboring Union state and territory, beginning in Missouri before even their declaration of war.

patriot preacher: "the bottom line is still that what passes for “conservative” in Washington, and in most elections are offered up as “conservatives” are not really all that Constitutional or Conservative."

True enough -- while only 20% of Americans admit to being "liberal", meaning they want bigger, more expensive and more controlling government;
And over 40% say they are "conservative," meaning they want smaller, less expensive and less controlling government.

And yet, for about 100 years now, bigger government "progressives" and "liberals" have steadily defeated smaller-government conservatives magnifying the Federal Government from less than 3% of the economy in say, 1900, to now headed for 30%.
Government at all levels is well over 40% of GDP.

At the same time the national debt and unfunded but legal obligations are up in the $trillions so high that nobody can really count them all.

In short, the country is being driven into the ground and most Americans understand it, and want it stopped.

How truly "conservative" are most Americans? Impossible to say --

• Some would be satisfied to stop Federal growth at today's levels: 25% of GDP.
• Most want the government reduced, back to the levels of say, Presidents Eisenhower through Bush Junior: under 20% of GDP.
• But why not Franklin Roosevelt, before World War Two: 10% of GDP?
• Better yet, the last pre-Progressive President, Calvin Coolidge: 5%.
• Or maybe that supposedly first Progressive President Teddy Roosevelt: 3%.
• Of course, once we're at 3%, why not go all the way back to our Founder's Federal Government: 2% of GDP?

Personally, I think Calvin Coolidge was a great president, and 5% of GDP seems like enough to cover the military.
So I'd be pretty pleased if we ever got that far.

But the total reality is: that's not going to happen, not in our life-times. Instead, the battle-lines today are here: how do we stop the already obese Federal Government from growing beyond today's 25% to over 30% in a few years?

That's practical politics today.
Everything else is grand theory and will have no bearing on our lifetimes.

patriot preacher: "The nation is headed for some sort of catastrophe — or collapse. What then?"

It won't happen if the adults (conservatives, Republicans) can take over government soon enough, and strongly enough, and send the children (liberals, progressives, Democrats) for a "spanking" in the woodshed.

Then our country will soon enough return to doing what it does better than anyone: providing many opportunities for people willing to work and achieve.

patriot pastor: "Now, to be consistent — would you support Barack Obama, or whoever was in command in Washington, D.C., to “preserve the Union?”
Can’t have the States threaten to go their own way, can you?
Not even for the sake of Liberty, or to preserve the Constitution...."

Here's what you don't understand: states today already have far more power than they have been willing to exercise.
How is that?
It's because the states have been bought-off and corrupted by the overwhelming size and wealth of the Federal Government.
When the Federal Government is handing out billions and trillions of dollars, what state can refuse to line up at the Federal trough?

If the states were willing to stand up against the Feds today they could help reign it in.
And a significant example of that could turn out to be Obamacare.

One state acting alone can make a small difference.
Many states acting together could make a big difference -- especially if those states consistently elect Representatives and Senators who share a strongly conservative view of the Federal Government.

And if they wish to secede, then that's a matter for Congress to debate and decide, just as it was in 1860.

;-)

[rustbucket]

However I could find no reference anywhere to a place called "Mayland".

Maybe Rustbucket has a newspaper source on that.

I have a vague memory of a Mayland but know nothing of its "secession." I don't remember seeing it in one of the old newspapers. I checked the online wartime Richmond Dispatch newspaper and found no reference to it.

In checking on Google, I see there is a Mayland in Tennessee (about halfway between Nashville and Knoxville), and there is a Mayland Community College in Spruce Pine, North Carolina up in the mountainous area near the state line with Tennessee. I've driven through both towns. I wouldn't doubt that both areas might have not wanted their states to secede.

[patriot preacher]

DW - your answers demonstrate you don’t know your history.

[patriot preacher]

Here’s what you don’t understand: states today already have far more power than they have been willing to exercise.
How is that?
It’s because the states have been bought-off and corrupted by the overwhelming size and wealth of the Federal Government.
When the Federal Government is handing out billions and trillions of dollars, what state can refuse to line up at the Federal trough.

If the states were willing to stand up against the Feds today they could help reign it in.
And a significant example of that could turn out to be Obamacare.

One state acting alone can make a small difference.
Many states acting together could make a big difference — especially if those states consistently elect Representatives and Senators who share a strongly conservative view of the Federal Government.

And if they wish to secede, then that’s a matter for Congress to debate and decide, just as it was in 1860.

---

One who believes the oppressor must gain the permission of the despot to throw off the chains of tyranny has no understanding of the intent of of our Founders or our nation’s early history. Neither the Declaration nor the Constitution could ever be cited to justify such an idea. Though it is true that many in the States have been bought by Washington, as you mentioned, and I do agree that the States have far more power than they are asserting. But if they ever try to assert them, the Feds will close them down or circumvent them in a second. That’s they way they roll.

Hope you’ve had a happy holiday season :-)