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

[central_va]

The concept of “Border States” was created by revisionist historians. These are the ones who claim the war was about slavery. They needed to explain away one major problem with their revision: if it was about slavery, then why was slavery legal in four Union states?

Clearly, the government brainwashing you received in public schools didn't take. Say 30 "Hail Lincoln, God of the Union".

[Non-Sequitur]

Because leaving is NOT addressed as something the feds should be involved with. Simple, huh?

Not at all. Since virtually every other change in status is then by implication leaving should require approval at all. After all, James Madison thought so and he was no slouch where the Constitution is concerned.

[dcwusmc]

Not so. Remember this?

[Amendment X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere is the power to approve/prohibit a State (or even SEVERAL States) from leaving delegated to the United States or prohibited to the States. Since the Federal Government was a CREATION OF THE STATES, why WOULD they delegate that sort of authority? Particularly when a number of the Original Thirteen had clauses in their ratification documents specifically RESERVING that power to themselves. As you well know, such having been posted here times without number! For Lincoln and FedGov to hold otherwise would legitimately be a violation of the contract they had with the States to be their agent in certain, VERY LIMITED matters. As the ratification documents were legally binding in setting up the Union, why ever would you think that the secession clauses should not be EQUALLY binding?

[rustbucket]

The NY, VA, and RI statements that they could resume their own governance are what those Founders said the Constitution meant. The Tenth Amendment passed by three quarters of the then states is the embodiment of such sentiment. As Madison said, “every thing not granted is reserved.” Where was the power given to the Feds or to other states to stop secession?

You seem to think that the Founders were wrong and that the Constitution means what you want it to mean and that the Tenth Amendment is meaningless. What exactly are the boundaries of your “living Constitution?”

[central_va]

What is a Confederacy?

By a Confederacy we mean a union of sovereign states which of their own free will and in virtue of their sovereignty come together and create a collective unit, ceding to that unit as much of their own sovereign rights as will render the existence of the union possible and will guarantee it. But the theoretical formula is not wholly put into practice by any confederacy that exists today. And least of all by the American Union, where it is impossible to speak of original sovereignty in regard to the majority of the states. Many of them were not included in the federal complex until long after it had been established. The states that make up the American Union are mostly in the nature of territories, more or less, formed for technical administrative purposes, their boundaries having in many cases been fixed in the mapping office. Originally these states did not and could not possess sovereign rights of their own. Because it was the Union that created most of the so-called states.

Therefore the sovereign rights, often very comprehensive, which were left, or rather granted, to the various territories correspond not only to the whole character of the Confederation but also to its vast space, which is equivalent to the size of a Continent. Consequently, in speaking of the United States of America one must not consider them as sovereign states but as enjoying rights or, better perhaps, autarchic powers, granted to them and guaranteed by the Constitution.

The above was written by a very famous person. Do you neo-yankees agree with it? Any one of you neo-Yankees could have written it.

[mstar]

But if it makes you laugh then I'll ignore any compassion that I may have for the coven and continue to ridicule them. :~)

woo woo girlfriend looks like you done got yourself your very own personal troubadour . . . you go girl. :)

Full day, gotta run . . . y'all have a good one.

[rockrr]

Good old pokie, always the coward. Make the threat and then slither away from it. How predictable.

Also predictable is your Liberal Projection:

What is it about you angry libtards always wanting to boss people around?

BTW, my spittoon needs a good cleaning. How bout you get cracking at that, boy.

I can't imagine your spittoon needing cleaning what with you drinking from it the way you do.

[cowboyway]

Make the threat

What threat? Why do you always feel 'threatened'? Is that the libtard way?

slither away

I didn't go anywhere, punk. I admit that you are an intimidatingly frightful personage and I have to muster all my courage to face an internet bully of your stature, but I'm still here!

I can't imagine your spittoon needing cleaning

Quit arguing with the boss and get your silly ass to work, boy!

"Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson

"I'm not half the man my mother was!"--rockrr

[bobjam]

The brainwashing didn’t take- probably because I did my Latin homework during US History.

The worst example of false history peddled in schools concerns the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Textbooks say Missouri’s application for statehood would throw off the delicate slave/free state balance. To maintain the balance, Maine was detached from Massachusetts and made its own state.

The problem is that in 1820, New York and New Jersey were slave states. There was no “slave/free” balance in 1820. The balance was between north and south, not slave and free. This fact is ignored by historians who equate South with slave and North with free.

[mac_truck]

Among other misstatements, I've noticed your repeated use of this Klan Reunion pin with an image of Lincoln as some sort of 'evidence' of pervasive northern involvement in KKK activity. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 1925 Gettysburg KKK Reunion the pin refers to was both southern in organization and attendance. Gettysburg was a popular destination for the families of CSA veterans and one local newspaper described the 1925 two day Klan event as good for regional tourism.

While there is no question that the Ku Klux Klan made an appearance in many northern states including Pennsylvania in the 1920s, it was both short-lived and focused primarily on anti-catholic immigrant agitation. Since the Pennsylvania KKK was nascent in 1925, there was no reason for it to hold a 'reunion' at the site of the high water mark of the Confederacy.

[central_va]

The 2nd Klan had between 3 and 6 million[1] members (peaked in 1920–1925 period)

The second Klan arose during the nadir of American race relations, in response to urbanization and industrialization. Massive immigration from the largely Catholic countries of eastern and southern Europe led to friction with America's longer-established Protestant citizens.

The Great Migration of African Americans to the North stoked racism by whites in Northern industrial cities; thus the second Klan would achieve its greatest political power not in any Southern state, but in Indiana.

The migration of African Americans and whites from rural areas to Southern cities further increased tensions. The Klan grew most rapidly in urbanizing cities which had high growth rates between 1910 and 1930, such as Detroit, Memphis, Dayton, Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston. In Michigan, more than half of the members lived in Detroit and were concerned about urban issues: limited housing, rapid social change, competition for jobs.[67] Stanley Horn, a Southern historian sympathetic to the first Klan, was careful in an oral interview to distinguish it from the later "spurious Ku Klux organization which was in ill-repute—and, of course, had no connection whatsoever with the Klan of Reconstruction days".[68] In an era without Social Security or widely available life insurance, it was common for men to join fraternal organizations such as the Elks or the Woodmen of the World to provide for their families in case they died or were unable to work. The founder of the new Klan, William J. Simmons, was a member of twelve different fraternal organizations. He recruited for the Klan with his chest covered with fraternal badges, and consciously modeled the Klan after those organizations.[69] Klan organizers, called "Kleagles", signed up hundreds of new members, who paid initiation fees and bought KKK costumes. The organizer kept half the money and sent the rest to state or national officials. When the organizer was done with an area, he organized a huge rally, often with burning crosses and perhaps presented a Bible to a local Protestant minister. He then left town with the money. The local units operated like many fraternal organizations and occasionally brought in speakers. The Klan's growth was also affected by mobilization for World War I and postwar tensions, especially in the cities where strangers came up against each other more often. Southern whites resented the arming of black soldiers. Black veterans did not want to go back to second-class status in the United States. Some were lynched, still in uniform, upon returning from overseas service.[70]

[mac_truck]

I was reminded of your ‘immigrant army’ rhetoric as I researched the rise of the anti-catholic immigrant northern Ku Klux Klan. The apple falls close to the tree,

[x]

Reckon the Union leaders were just some guys who got together over beers in a garage? Could they have possibly been (gasp!) ruling elites? Surely there weren’t any professional politicians among them! And surely not a slave owner among them ever, oh, the horror!

But y'all are forever going on about the evil Yanqui elite that oppresses you. You pretty much take it for granted that Lincoln was a tool of the railroads, banks, and manufacturers.

Your own Confederate leaders were also quite wealthy and privileged men, perhaps even wealthier than their Union counterparts, but some of you just don't see that.

I don’t find it necessary to try and psycoanalyse the folks having a ball in Ohio, I think they’re just honoring their past and having fun. Did it ever occur to you that it really can be just that simple?

Sure. For them it is. They're not the ones obsessing over the Civil War the way the secessionist klavern here is.

I doubt they think that everything that happened since 1865 has been a mistake, or that they have that strange mix of hyperpopulism and superelitism that y'all do.

[x]

Fourth, Southern planters, elites as you and x called them, did not share the same snobbish attitudes as yankee elites, which is true today. We don't look down on people based on their skin color, education or income level they way you yankees do.

That has to be either the stupidest, or the most insane, or the most mendacious thing posted here in a long, long time.

It's a Southern thing and you and x and ns and the rest of the coven just don't get it.

Apparently not.

I guess you have to be part of the klavern to understand.

[Idabilly]

Seccession was defeated in the legislatures of Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland.

State Of Maryland

Legislative Resolution

Whereas, The war against the Confederate States is unconstitutional and repugnant to civilization, and will result in a bloody and shameful overthrow of our institutions; and whilst recognizing the obligations of Maryland to the Union, we sympathize with the South in the struggle for their rights-for the sake of humanity, we are for peace and reconciliation, and solemnly protest against this war, and will take no part in it:-- Resolved, That Maryland implores the President, in the name of God, to cease this unholy war, at least until Congress assembles; that Maryland desires and consents to the recognition of the independence of the Confederate States. The military occupation of Maryland is unconstitutional, and she protests against it, though the violent interference with transit of Federal is discountenanced; that the vindication of her rights be left to time and reason, and that a convention, under existing circumstances, is inexpedient.

----------------------------------------------------

Maryland in the Civil War

Chapter VIII

Maryland Under Federal Military Power

Source: Confederate Military History, Vol. 2

Governor Hicks did not respond to the first call of the President of the United States for troops until he had delivered the State over to the Federal authorities, securely tied, handcuffed and gagged, and when habeas corpus was defied, freedom of speech made a crime, liberty of the press suppressed, trial by jury abolished, Butler holding down Baltimore under the prisons of Federal Hill and throttling the State government at Annapolis. Governor Hicks, who, at the meeting in Monument Square in the afternoon of April 10th, prayed his God to wither his right arm if ever he raised it against a sister Southern State, against Virginia and the South, had not complied with President Lincoln's first call for troops, but Butler's guns and the Federal control of the city recovered him from the panic into which he had been precipitated by the paving stones of Pratt St., and on the 14th of May, the day of Ross Winans' arrest, he issued a proclamation calling for four regiments of volunteers to serve for three months, "within the limits of Maryland, or for the defense of the capital of the United States, and not to serve beyond the limits aforesaid." In consequence of the delay, the short term of service and the ridiculous terms proposed for enlistment, the government refused to accept the home guards, guaranteed "never to leave the State except in case of invasion."

http://www.civilwarhome.com/marylandcmh8.htm

[rustbucket]

Official Records, Series I, Volume 2, Part 2, page 156 [Link]:

Resolved, That the President be requested immediately to communicate to this House, if in his judgment not incompatible with the public interest, the grounds, reason, and evidence upon which the police commissioners of Baltimore were arrested, and are now detained as prisoners at Fort McHenry.

Adopted, July 24, 1861.

........................................................

REPLY.

WASHINGTON, July 27, 1861.
To the House of Representatives:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 24th instant, asking the grounds, reason, and evidence upon which the police commissioners of Baltimore were arrested and are now detained as prisoners at Fort McHenry, I have to state that it is judged to be incompatible with the public interest at this time to furnish the information called for by the resolution.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

[Idabilly]

[Me]You have no claim on Missouri.. cityfied Chicago boy.

[You]And you do?

We've went over this before. My family made you Kansas red legs fear the black flag. We did find out that one of my uncles kicked the same dirt as Bill Anderson. Here are some of my relatives:

From The Journal ---------------, May 19, 1894 ...------------- the youngist of fathers Brothers brothers he married ------- in tennessee. he moved to missouri with my father

------, Jr. married Susen ------- in -------- Co. MO. He moved to Cedar Co.,MO and was there in the time of the war. Old Jahawker Jim lain [Lane] camed at his place and stole his cattle and corn, burned up his fence and made Anderson board several of his thieves 'til General Price made the old thief get on double quick. He broke Anderson up so he came back to MO in the time of the war.

----- 1864, February - MO, killed by Federal soldiers during visit home

A sketch or memorandom of old Mr. ----- the first ---- ever none [known] in america. ------- had 8 children 5 boys & 3 girls. ----- the oldest I cant remember hwo he married. he moved from east tennessee in early days to Kentucky and Died in Kentucky. ---- and ---- bouth moved from Tennessee to Schuyler County missouri and in time of the war thay went to Councel bluff and Died. ------ as he was generaly called he remained near the old homested and died thar in union co tenn. ---- the youngest son lived with his father and mother and I think all three Died on the old homested on -------. ---- the oldest daughter Seh [she] married ------. thay lived in the hickory vally one mile of whare the writer was born one mile west of ------ on ------ river Jan 29, 1814. ----- married --------. he was highly educated master of the english languag. he Died A war prisner in camp morten [Morton] indiana. report say thay feds starved him to death because he wouldent take the Devels [devil's] iron clad oath.

[mstar]

he Died A war prisner in camp morten [Morton] indiana. report say thay feds starved him to death because he wouldent take the Devels [devil's] iron clad oath.

I shared your ancestor's story just yesterday with my daughter. She was in full agreement this atrocity was beyond horrible.

[central_va]

I don't want no pardon for anything I've done.

I'm a Good Ole Rebel

O, I'm a good old Rebel,
Now that's just what I am,
For this "Fair Land of Freedom"
I do not care at all;

I'm glad I fit against it --
I only wish we'd won,
And I don't want no pardon
For anything I done.

I hates the Constitution,
This Great Republic too,
I hates the Freedman's Buro,
In uniforms of blue;

I hates the nasty eagle,
With all his brags and fuss,
The lyin', thievin' Yankees,
I hates 'em wuss and wuss.

I hates the Yankee nation
And everything they do,
I hates the Declaration
Of Independence too;

I hates the glorious Union --
'Tis dripping with our blood --
I hates their striped banner,
I fit it all I could.

I followed old mass' Robert
For four year, near about,
Got wounded in three places
And starved at Pint Lookout;

I cotch the rheumatism
A campin' in the snow,
But I killed a chance of Yankees,
I'd like to kill some mo'.

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 now no more,
But I ain't going to love 'em,
Now that is sarten sure;

And I don't want no pardon
For what I was and am,
I won't be reconstructed
And I don't care a damn. 

[mstar]

I'm a Good Ole Rebel

well that just about sums it up . . . now about that DC concept