Secession ball stirs controversy

The SunNews.com ^ | 12-3-2010 | Robert Behre Charleston Post

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Event marks war's anniversary

CHARLESTON -- The shots are solely verbal -- and expected to remain that way -- but at least one Civil War Sesquicentennial event is triggering conflict.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans plan to hold a $100-per-person "Secession Ball" on Dec. 20 in Gaillard Municipal Auditorium. It will feature a play highlighting key moments from the signing of South Carolina's Ordinance of Secession 150 years ago, an act that severed the state's ties to the Union and put the nation on the path to the Civil War.

Jeff Antley, who is organizing the event, said the Secession Ball honors the men who stood up for their rights.

"To say that we are commemorating and celebrating the signers of the ordinance and the act of South Carolina going that route is an accurate statement," Antley said. "The secession movement in South Carolina was a demonstration of freedom."

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People plans to protest the event, said Charleston branch President Dot Scott. She deferred further comment to Lonnie Randolph, president of the state NAACP.

"It's amazing to me how history can be rewritten to be what you wanted it to be rather than what happened," Randolph said. "You couldn't pay the folks in Charleston to hold a Holocaust gala, could you? But you know, these are nothing but black people, so nobody pays them any attention."

When Southerners refer to states' rights, he said, "they are really talking about their idea of one right -- to buy and sell human beings."

Antley said that's not so.

"It has nothing to do with slavery as far as I'm concerned," he said. "What I'm doing is honoring the men from this state who stood up for their self-government and their rights under law -- the right to secede was understood."

Antley said, "Slavery is an abomination, but slavery is not just a Southern problem. It's an American problem. To lay the fault and the institution of slavery on the South is just ignorance of history."

Antley said about 500 people are expected to attend the ball, which begins with a 45-minute play and concludes with a dinner and dancing. S.C. Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, an ardent Civil War re-enactor, is among the actors in the play. The actual ordinance of secession document also will be on display.

Randolph said the state NAACP is consulting with its national office in Baltimore regarding the format of the protests, which also could extend to other 150th anniversary events. "There is not one event that's off the table," he said.

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?"

Charleston is receiving increased national attention as the nation's plans for the Sesquicentennial move forward. This was where it began, with the state becoming the first to secede on Dec. 20, 1860, and firing the first shot on April 12, 1861.

Most of the Lowcountry's Sesquicentennial events have been announced with little controversy -- many involve lectures by respected historians and scholars.

In its vision statement for the observance, the National Park Service said it "will address the institution of slavery as the principal cause of the Civil War, as well as the transition from slavery to freedom -- after the war -- for the 4 million previously enslaved African Americans."

Michael Allen of the National Park Service said he is aware of plans for the Secession Ball but noted that most Sesquicentennial events have found common ground among those with differing viewpoints.

"Now some people might be upset with some pieces of the pie. I understand that," he said. "I think that's the growth of me, as a person of African decent, is to realize that people view this in different ways."

Allen said other Sesquicentennial commemorations being planned will mark events that have a strong black history component, such as Robert Smalls' theft of the Confederate ship Planter and the 54th Massachusetts' assault on Battery Wagener.

"At least what's being pulled together by various groups, be they black or white or whatever, will at least be more broad based and diverse than what was done in 1961," Allen said. "Hopefully, at the end of the day, all Carolinians can benefit from this four-year journey."

Tom O'Rourke, director of the Charleston County Park and Recreation Commission, said Sesquicentennial organizers were fooling themselves if they thought the Confederate side of the story was going to be buried in the observances.

"I think there will be controversy, I think there will be hurt feelings, and I think that as this anniversary passes, we will question what else we could have done to tell the whole story," he said. "But I am OK with all of that. ... I think all discussion is progress."

Read more: http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/12/03/1847335/secession-ball-stirs-controversy.html#ixzz1737LSVRv

[ClearCase_guy]

You understand me perfectly. I believe my statement is logical and accurate. We just seem to totally disagree on this.

[Non-Sequitur]

Honestly, I do believe that most people in the South during the 1860’s didn’t care one way or another about the overall issue of slavery.

Again, some quotes from the period supporting that would be nice.

Seriously, why do you think they did? The vast majority were not slave owners, so why would they care one way or another about it?

People reaping the benefits of slave ownership were far more widespread than you are willing to admit.

I don’t want to see quotes from Generals or politicans, show me quotes from normal, run of the mill southerners.

It was those politicians who sent the average, run-of-the-mill Southerner off to war. Their motivation for doing so was almost exclusively over slavery.

[Non-Sequitur]

Umm, no. The south tried to seceed and SC only attacked Ft. Sumpter after Lincoln started calling for troops to march on South Carolina. Lincoln bungled a dangerous situation and started a war.

I think you need to look at your time line again. Lincoln issued no call for troops before the South initiated the war. Which they did by firing on Sumter.

[Non-Sequitur]

The right to seceed is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. It’s not prohibited by the Constitution either, so by the very text of the 10th Amendment, that right is reserved “to the States respectively, or to the people.”

No but the right to admit a state to the Union and approve any change of status once it's allowed in is a power delegated to the United States.

[TheBigIf]

Secession though would go against the first statement of the 10th Amendment being that it would usurp those powers delegated to the United Sates so your argument is illogical. The 10th Amendment cannot be used to destroy the 10th Amendment without corrupting the Constitution.

[myself6]

Any time one people disassociate themselves from another on this scale it is “legal” according to natural law. Men may try to mitigate their losses or stop them all together through use of man made laws and or arms but the only “court room” for this type of break up is the battlefield and the only “legal system” that matters is martial in its implementation. That is, if one side is determined to hold onto their slaves and the slaves are determined to be free.

As far as the conditions that existed before and during the civil war... Im not really that interested... Those men did their thing for their reasons good or bad, but now the only reason people bring it up is to try to spoil folks on the concept of actual secession. What we do, we do for our own reasons and the outcome will be different because of those reasons and justifications. We learn by history and apply its lessons to our present condition and future, but we NEVER let it shackle us to inaction and slavery.

[paladin1_dcs]

Some quotes disproving it would be nice too.

We have ample evidence showing that the majority of the population in the south didn’t own slaves.

We also have ample evidence showing that the vast majority of eligible southern men served in the CSA.

Do you have any proof that the average southerner was fighting for slavery? Why would they? They had no motivation to see slavery continue, so what would motivate them to risk their life?

[ClearCase_guy]

No but the right to admit a state to the Union and approve any change of status once it's allowed in is a power delegated to the United States.

I think it's your turn to paste in the actual text of the Constitution which covers a "change of status" of an existing state.

Hint: If the language is not explictly in the Constitution, as an enumerated power of the federal government, then such a "change of status" is a right reserved to the state, per the 10th.

[paladin1_dcs]

I agree that the power to admit a new State is a power delegaed to the United States, but where does this right to approve a chage of status come from and what right does this confer? Change of status from what to what?

[paladin1_dcs]

How does secession usurp the powers delegated to the United States? What powers, exactly, are usurped? You say that the 10th Amendment cannot be used to destroy the 10th Amendment, where do you find this in the USC?

You’re basing your argument on a faulty understanding of the Constitution.

[kalee]

ping

[TheBigIf]

Wrong. A mere majority control of a state does not give you the right to secession and to then rule over the citizens of the United States living in your state. That is nothing short of tyranny.

[TheBigIf]

So you are claiming that the Confederate were going to respect the powers deleegated to the United States? They did not though so why is that? There were obviously in direct violation of the 10th Amendment.

[paladin1_dcs]

I see one of your problems now.

Are we citizens of the United States or are we citizens of the individual States and Commonwealths that make up the United States?

[paladin1_dcs]

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. What powers were the CSA not respecting by seceeding from the Union?

[Bigun]

Article IV

Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

Section 3.

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

I don't see it. Perhaps it's in a penumbra or some such thing.

[wagglebee]

Ancient Greece was at best a loose confederation of democracies.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying that states lack the right to secede, I'm saying that the Confederate states failed to properly address the topic.

To illustrate, it is not typically understood that colonies have the right to declare their independence from a monarchy; however, in 1776 the Founding Fathers set out a declaration of reasons for the Declaration. The reasons Jefferson and the others identified were based on PAST AND PRESENT wrongs. South Carolina only identified wrongs that they ANTICIPATED in the future (and far too many of them were specific to slavery).

[BelegStrongbow]

respect the powers deleegated to the United States? They did not though so why is that? There were obviously in direct violation of the 10th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment reserves powers to the states and to the people, respectively, not to the United States, which as a corporate entity, is bound by the Amendment.

I've been following this discussion and thought to add a note of fact to the proceedings. I suspect I will just get flamed.

[TheBigIf]

No my problem isn’t with semantics so much as with the tyrannical idea that you can deprive someone of their United States citizenship merely by gaining a simple majority in a state based upon your argument. That is a distortion of natural law and what the Founders fought for.

And on another note, if you believe that secession is a right then what kind of a right is it to you? Is it only a group right (you need a mere majority at one point and time) or do you believe that is an individual right and that anyone can declare themselves and their land to no longer be under United States law? Please clarify your views on this.

[myself6]

Lol... what about the loyalists in the colonies? Were the founders submitting them to a tyranny?