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
No, your fantasy world is on a whole different level. In your world, Lincoln was as pure as the driven snow, the people of the lands encompassing what is now the continental US, sans the South, were clamoring for an oppressive centralized government, the population of the Confederacy were all 'little eichmanns', African slaves were all 'noble savages' fighting for freedom and everybody had free bubble-up and rainbow stew. (How many votes did you cast for Obama?)
few people on the plains or in the Rockies were crying out in 1860 for slaveowners to deliver them from what was a relatively weak federal government.
I can think of a "few people on the plains or in the Rockies" who would disagree with your "weak federal government" assertion.
Concurring bump.
I notice the author of that clumsy attempt to paint the pre-presidential Lincoln as a capitalist tool is now slinking away from the remark.
No surprise here.
The term "conservative" can be misleading without context. Leonid Brezhnev was a conservative in maintaining the regime founded by Lenin. Lincoln and the Republicans were conservatives in maintaining the ideals of Declaration of Independence. The secessionists were conservatives in maintaining the slavery and oppression based values of the Assyrian Empire.
And what government is "bigger" than a government of a regime with a cornerstone of slavery?
I can't think of anybody who would have wanted to live in a slave state unless they had a strong attachment to the idea of being a slave owner. I guess that's what Stephen A. Douglas figured popular sovereignty conceded nothing to slavery. He knew the slavery ethos could not compete with American ideals on a level playing field.
That is ridiculous. Although Bedford Co. had a pretty high ownership rate, 69%, none of my relatives had slaves. Not only did they want to live there, they were willing to die to ditch the Yankee FedGov™.
I meant the territories. I would have expressed my thought better by saying that most people would rather migrate to free soil territory than a slave territory. Had things been left alone, that preference would have been the eventual death of slavery. The fear of that result caused the secession.
No cowgirl, that's still your fantasy. I don't think anybody in politics is "pure as the driven snow," wouldn't describe Lincoln's America as an "oppressive centralized government," don't use the "little Eichmann" expression, and don't feel the need to refer to Nazism every time I have an argument.
Many American slaves did fight for freedom. I wouldn't call them Africans or savages, noble or not. Right there, using that expression is an insight into the way you think. I also don't know what bubble-up and rainbow stew are and didn't vote for Obama. So you and I are sort of opposites.
I can think of a "few people on the plains or in the Rockies" who would disagree with your "weak federal government" assertion.
In 1860? There were few enough people out there in those days, and the federal government had little to do in those days. Maybe Indians would object to the US government, but I doubt they would have had any more love for the Confederate one either.
The South's Secession Commemoration
I'm pinging mo-joe to this because he hates it when I link to Jon Stewart.
I couldn’t care less about Stewart, he’s irrelevant to me and take me off of your ping list. I told you before to not ping me. I have no interest in spending my Friday night taking your bait. Go look for a fight elsewhere troll. DO NOT PING ME AGAIN!
You may feel more comfortable over at your old stomping grounds, DU and Daily Kos. They all love Jon Stewart.
“We don’t focus on that aspect of it john. It’s a celebration of that slave rebellion’s music, food, period dress, and proudly flying our flag”
What’s not to love?
Yeah you're just pissed because Wyatt Cenac hit too close to home with that "Nobody's saying that the South invented slavery, but you hung on to it like a motherf*cker."
Yeah you’re just pissed because Wyatt Cenac hit too close to home with that “Nobody’s saying that the South invented slavery, but you hung on to it like a motherf*cker.”
___________________
You seriously need help. I have no clue what you are talking about. Believe it or not troll, I don’t spend my life rehashing the CW like you do. What happened to you? I think you have a brain tumor. Now go FYS.
A few weeks ago, a “preeminent journalist” for the NYT, Katharine Q. Seelye, wrote that Georgia’s “Secession Ordinance” said that “the state seceded in response to the election of Abraham Lincoln, who was ‘anti-slavery.’”
Well, that’s... baloney. The state’s Secession Ordinance is a two-paragraph legal document dissolving Georgia’s ties to the United States. It doesn’t mention Aby-Baby at all.
What Seelye MEANT, obviously, was Georgia’s “Declaration of Causes of Secession,” which is a much longer document, and details Georgia’s grievances with the US — and it had to do with much more than slavery and Lincoln.
Did Jon Stewart or any blogs (besides mine) have a sidesplitting laugh over this yankee journalist’s ignorance?
Doubtful.
We all understand why, don’t we?
You can read my comments about the NYT article here:
http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2010/12/planned-lies-about-history-well-see.html
Second sentence: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." There it is right there. Everything else in there is window dressing. The fact of the matter is that take away slavery and leave every other reason you care to name and the South doesn't rebel. Leave slavery and take away every other reason and the South does. Simple as that.
If you really want to know why the South rebelled read Robert Toombs' farewell to the Senate and Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech.
Did Jon Stewart or any blogs (besides mine) have a sidesplitting laugh over this yankee journalist’s ignorance?
No. Probably because she was correct. Southern revisionism to the contrary notwithstanding.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! You are the last person on this forum to accuse someone else of that.
States rights was the issue. Whether or not you LIKE the reason or not is of no importance. The cause was self determination and Independence from an ever growing Federal Maw. Again, as usual, the Neo-Yankee statist confuses cause and effect.
Post #607 = Weak
A state's right to do what?
The cause was self determination and Independence from an ever growing Federal Maw.
If there was a Federal Maw it's because Southern politicians had created it. They held a disproportionate level of influence over the government for the 80 years prior to the rebellion. So you want us to believe that they were rebelling against their own creation? That didn't bode well for an independent confederacy, did it?
Again, as usual, the Neo-Yankee statist confuses cause and effect.
More like Lost Cause revisionist pap.
A) There was NO 'rebellion'. There was NO attempt to overthrow the United States government. There was NO plan to overthrow the United States government.
B) The South DID secede. The Southern states DID form a government. The Southern states DID form The Confederate States of America.
The above are irrefutable facts. Now that we've established that, let's have a go at that absurd statement of yours above. Slavery hasn't existed in the US since the end of the War of Northern Aggression yet there's been continuous talk of the South seceding again since then.
Find the word 'slavery' in THIS article about secession.
There you have it.
BTW, I'm assuming that, in addition to Jon Stewart, you watch and admire Bill Maher and Michael Moore. You and those three stooges have a lot in common. You all hate white, Christian, pro-life, Southern rednecks, but that is pretty much a liberal standard.
"Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson
"Free Dixie!"--standwatie
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.