Posted on 12/03/2010 4:39:40 AM PST by 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
Sunshine, you left out a verb somewhere so it's impossible to figure out what you're saying. The point isn't that there's something wrong with wealth. It's that some of you are forever railing against the evil rich Yankees -- as though we were all rich and you were all poor -- that you forget that you had your own upper class and that it had its own callous and brutal side.
Considering where we've been and where we are......I'd say it's evident there's been a mistake somewhere. Ever hear the saying, "you break it, you own it"? Well, the Confederacy didn't break it.
Ah, but they did. If there was some superior Old Republic lost in 1860, it was secession that broke it. Whatever came afterward was bound to be different. You can't pin it all on Lincoln. You had your Jeffersonian Republic and it wasn't enough for you, so you tried to shatter it, and now we have what we have.
I'm not so sure early 19th century America was as perfect as some people make it out to be. It certainly had its virtues, but it wasn't better than modern-day America in every way. In any case, a crowded country of 300 million people is bound to be different than a nation of 3 million and not necessarily worse in every way, either. Had your Confederacy triumphed the result would be different than what came before as well, and hardly better.
But my point here was that those Ohioans don't have a political ax to grind, and are relatively consistent in their thinking: they aren't complaining about present-day elites and glorifying a past elite that was no better -- and in many ways worse -- than what we have today.
I guess he didn't like a lot of things, like controlling his men under command to not violate every convention the US Army had concerning treatment of civilians. If alive today, Sherman would have been court martialed for trying in Iraq the same things he did in 1864 Georgia.
Were slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and lynching all the fault of the evil "yankees"?
I get it. Your history is more than that. Those things are all a part of our common American heritage -- North as well as South. You want to be proud of your ancestors.
Fine, but why the whitewash and why all this sniping at the North? If you share the values you expressed in your post why would you put up with all the boastfulness about the superiority of the South to the North?
Marching under the rebel flag? Surely you jest.
You've almost got it x. Now, think real hard and reread the above statement.
I didn't say that there wasn't any snobbery. What I was saying is that (I'll type this part slowly) a Southern snob is a mere boy scout compared to his counterpart from the northeast.
Here's an example for you: Senator DeMint vs Senator Kerry. I'll let you pick the snob between those two.
Here's another example closer to FR: non-sequitur vs cowboyway. Who do you think the snob is between these two and be honest?
As I stated, I don't look down on people based on their skin color, education or income level. Conversely speaking, I don't admire people based on their skin color, education or income level. I challenge you to say the same thing about northeast yankees where income level and posessions seems to be what defines a mans character, in their eyes. (FWIW, I was married to a Jersey girl for over 10 years so I have empirical data to back up my assumptions.)
So would Robert Lee, for his actions in Pennsylvania. But that's another story.
I don't think he does. What better cover for one of those klan retards than being a Reb basher/South hater on a high profile conservative web site? Non-sequitur, the Grand Kleagle of Kansas! It even fits your web name: non-sequitur!
CVA, I think you've hit the Grand Kleagle of Kansas' cone on the point!! Bravo, sir, bravo!
“Who do you think the snob is between these two and be honest?”
Pokie - hands down.
Just to set the record straight, Lee's orders were to not pillage MD and PA, did some foraging take place yes. OTH Sherman condoned raping, pillaging, burning and looting. It was in his standing orders.
Are you kidding clownboy?
You are constantly comparing yourself, and your posessions to everyone else on this forum. You've posted numerous comments about your job, your income, your house, your truck, your animals, your guns, etc, etc. ad nauseum. When you're not bragging about what you have or what you've accomplished you're either sniffing someone else's crotch or putting them down for not having what you supposedly have.
Seriously, its time to take the log out of your eye boy.
My God, the worst of the worst....
Well said. I will invite you to my next cocktail party just as soon as I get an OK from the NAACP.
You're right, that should read:
Something wrong with wealth? Are you saying it's ok to have the privileged and elites as long as they're your privileged and elites?
The point isn't that there's something wrong with wealth. It's that some of you are forever railing against the evil rich Yankees -- as though we were all rich and you were all poor -- that you forget that you had your own upper class and that it had its own callous and brutal side.
Never escaped me. The very wealthy still make up only a very small minority of our general population.
Ah, but they did. If there was some superior Old Republic lost in 1860, it was secession that broke it. Whatever came afterward was bound to be different. You can't pin it all on Lincoln.
LOL! Let's see, it was Dixie that dismissed congress while he made arrangements for war. What a hoot! Congress had not approved enlarging the military nor had they approved some of the spending Lincoln did while they were out of session. Lincoln dismissed them for recess, but before they adjourned, he was asked if there was anything he would like to share with them and responded in the negative. Congress goes home and Lincoln continues with plans to make war. He gets what he is looking for at Fort Sumter. Congress comes back and retroactively approves his actions.
And the South broke it?! LOL!
You had your Jeffersonian Republic and it wasn't enough for you, so you tried to shatter it, and now we have what we have.
Hmm, several states secede and they end up being invaded. Sounds to me like somebody wasn't ready to let go of some money. The war was about power and money. Those who have the political power control the money. Dixie seceded to keep her money and was invaded for charity? Huh, imagine that.
I'm not so sure early 19th century America was as perfect as some people make it out to be.
I have to agree with you on this one....they didn't have coffee makers and microwaves:)
But my point here was that those Ohioans don't have a political ax to grind, and are relatively consistent in their thinking: they aren't complaining about present-day elites and glorifying a past elite that was no better -- and in many ways worse -- than what we have today.
You sure nobody in Ohio is fussing about the money being spent by the elites in DC? I'm guessing they're as tired of it as I am. I suspect they know about Pelousi's jet expenses, the ohaha's (lower case intended) lavish vacations, etc. When the folks in Ohio have their ball and dress in period attire, ya think they'll be glorifying a past generation of paupers?
Still failing to preview....arghhhh!!!
Should read: Lincoln dismissed them for recess, but before they adjourned, he was asked if there was anything he would like to share with them and Lincoln responded in the negative.
And yet I can't think of a single yankee poster who has boasted about his job or put up as many pictures of his guns, his horses, his farm, his vehicle, or any other possession as you have.
To set the record straight, Lee took everything that was not nailed down that might have been helpful to his army. That included free blacks that wandered into rebel clutches.
OTH Sherman condoned raping, pillaging, burning and looting.
As did Lee.
It was in his standing orders.
No, it was not.
Somehow I think the robes and flags fit you better than me. After all, it's all about heritage with you guys, right?
Quite a hoot. Dixie did "dismiss" Congress and the rest of the US and make its plans for war. Davis and his crew broke the union and what was left of "the Old Republic."
Congress goes home and Lincoln continues with plans to make war. He gets what he is looking for at Fort Sumter. Congress comes back and retroactively approves his actions.
But he "had" Fort Sumter. It was Davis who was looking for it -- and presumably, for war -- and got both.
Hmmm, several states secede and they end up being invaded.
Well, say the country broke up and we had two or three or four or five or six armed and hostile nations or confederations nervously maneuvering against each other. Was that Washington's vision for his country? Would that have been what we went through the Revolution for? Would those competing countries really have been freer than what came before?
Sounds to me like somebody wasn't ready to let go of some money. The war was about power and money. Those who have the political power control the money.
Doesn't exactly say much for the idealistic vision of the Confederacy. Reading between the lines: a cabal of slave-owners wanted to keep their ill-gotten gains and went to war for it.
You sure nobody in Ohio is fussing about the money being spent by the elites in DC?
I'm pretty sure they are fed up with what's going on in Washington now. I'm also sure they don't have a century-and-a-half-old victimization complex.
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.