• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Memo To South Carolina: Your Secession Is Nothing To Celebrate

It was 150 years ago today that the State of South Carolina formally seceded from the United States, setting in motion the course of events that would lead to the bloodiest war in American history. Today, the Palmetto State’s largest newspaper reports on the controversy surrounding how some are choosing the mark the occasion:

Members of South Carolina’s NAACP will march in protest of a “secession ball” in Charleston later this month which will commemorate the 150th anniversary of South Carolina’s secession from the Union.

State NAACP leaders held two press conferences Friday, spreading the word they will protest the ball and any other sesquicentennial events that they deem disrespectful.

“We are not opposed to observances,” said Lonnie Randolph, state president of the NAACP. “We are opposed to disrespect.”

NAACP members and supporters plan to hold a peaceful march in downtown Charleston the day of the ball, on Dec. 20, followed by a meeting and question-and-answer session focusing on slavery. Participants will watch segments of “Birth of a Nation,” a 1915 silent film that portrayed Ku Klux Klan members as heroes.

Nearby at Charleston’s Gaillard Municipal Auditorium, ball attendees, who will pay $100 a ticket, will don formal, period dress, eat and dance the Virginia Reel as a band plays “Dixie.” The evening’s highlight will be a play reenacting the signing of South Carolina’s Ordinance of Secession 150 years ago, which severed the state’s ties with the Union and paved the way for the Civil War.

“This is nothing more than a celebration of slavery,” Randolph said of the event.

The truth of that statement can be found in the Declaration of Immediate Causes released by the leaders of South Carolina a few days later, in which they set forth the reasons for secession:

We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

And then there are the words of Alexander Stephens, who went on to become the Vice-President of the Confederacy:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

There were many factors that led to the Secession Crisis of 1860, but at the root of it all was the institution of slavery, and it’s protection and expansion.

After a bitterly contested four-way race between Lincoln, Stephen Douglas, John Bell, and John Breckinridge. Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States. He got almost no support in the Southern United States and won no states south of the Mason-Dixon Line. The Southern vote, in the meantime, was split between Breckinridge and Bell, with Douglas winning only Missouri. Ironically, those three candidates won a higher percentage of the popular vote (60%) even though Lincoln won the Electoral College.

It was immediately after the election results were certified, and even before Lincoln took the oath of office, that South Carolina seceded. In fact, the entire Deep South had seceded by February 1861.

The South opposed Lincoln not because he vowed to lead a charge to eliminate slavery. In fact, he had repeatedly said that he would not do that What Lincoln did oppose, though, was the expansion of slavery into the western territories and that was enough for slavocracy in the South, many of whom realized that their way of life would eventually die out if it was limited geographically to the South United States.

But what, you might ask, about that concept of “state’s rights”? This was the final argument used by the seceding states, and the one most often cited by Confederate apologists today.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the states did retain some degree of sovereignty under the Federal Constitution. The question is whether there was a sufficient threat to that sovereignty in the wake of the 1860 election to justify rebellion. For the reasons addressed above, the answer is no. Lincoln had said nothing, and certainly in the months prior to his Inauguration, had done nothing, to indicate that such a threat existed. Moreover, if the South had stayed in the Union and sent its Congressmen and Senators to Washington in 1861, they would have represented a voting bloc large enough that they would have been able to block any legislation they didn’t like, especially in the Senate.

They choose instead to rebel against their nation. And it was the men who gathered in Charleston who set the nation down that path 150 years ago today. There’s nothing to celebrate today. Instead, we should be mourning the horrible mistake they made and the 600,000 men who died because of it.

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Brett says:

    This is why they should have hung the “fire eaters” after the Confederacy’s surrender. South Carolina got off much too lightly, especially when you consider that the state had been a hotbed for secession decades before the actual American Civil War.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  2. schooner says:

    When did celebrating treason become acceptable?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  3. sam says:

    “This is why they should have hung the “fire eaters” after the Confederacy’s surrender. ”

    That wasn’t going to happen, no matter what some northern fire-eaters wished. After all that killing and destruction, at a level no one in their worst nightmares could have imagined, people just wanted it over and to begin to try to put the nation back together again. The only person ever tried in a US court after the war for actions in the war was the superintendent of Andersonville prison. People were stripped of their citizenship and indicted for treason. But none of them, neither Lee, nor Davis, nor any of the others were ever brought to trial. Thinking about that will tell you something about how folks felt when the war was over. The US Civil War might be unique in history in that the victors did not exact vengeance on the leaders of the defeated.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  4. PD Shaw says:

    I always thought it was interesting that Grant heaped most of his scorn on Virginia, not South Carolina. He thought South Carolinans were ignorant because of their leadership and press, but that the Virginians knew better.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  5. michael reynolds says:

    It was wise to let Lee off the hook for essentially the same reason we let Hirohito go. By the end of the war Lee was the moral head of the Confederacy, far more than Jeff Davis. So long as Lee did not countenance a continuing guerilla resistance such resistance was unlikely to grow very large. (Lee was an aristocrat and would never have countenanced an uprising by the rabble.)

    Of course the slaver and war criminal Nathan Bedford Forrest did manage to do some lasting damage. Thankfully Jackson died in the war or he’d likely have been shoulder to shoulder with the nascent klan leader.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. michael reynolds says:

    PD:

    Sherman did his best with South Carolina. People talk about his march through Georgia, but it was SC that took the worst of it. One of the reasons I’ve always liked Sherman despite his rather unenlightened views on race and a free press.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  7. ponce says:

    History has always been tricky for Americans.

    There are still lots of them who truly believe we won in Vietnam…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  8. PD Shaw says:

    I might disagree with Doug on this” “if the South had stayed in the Union and sent its Congressmen and Senators to Washington in 1861, they would have represented a voting bloc large enough that they would have been able to block any legislation they didn’t like, especially in the Senate.”

    I think part of the conflict stemmed from a realistic perception that the South had been made irrelevant at the federal level. Lincoln would have won the Presidency without the split opposition. The Republicans controlled the House, and held a plurality of the Senate. I believe the Senate would have eventually gone Republican so long as slavery was a major issue.

    I think it was a major realignment election(s) in which the slaveholder control of the Democratic Party was broken, and the Republicans were able to put together a national coalition that included a growing immigrant population (and excluded nativists).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. rodney dill says:

    When did celebrating treason become acceptable?

    1776 or thereabouts, not that the British would agree.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Wayne says:

    It is wrong to believe that believing in States right to succeed is the same thing as believing in slavery.

    If succession is rebellion and\or treason, then wouldn’t many of the New England states have been guilty of it in 1812. Maine and I believe some of the others state propose and came close to succeeding. Were they acting traitorous? Perhaps it is the old liberal philosophy that it is OK for them to do it but not others.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. michael reynolds says:

    Maine and I believe some of the others state propose and came close to succeeding. Were they acting traitorous?

    Yes. They were.

    But of course they didn’t. Which sets them apart from South Carolina.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. An Interested Party says:

    “The US Civil War might be unique in history in that the victors did not exact vengeance on the leaders of the defeated.”

    And yet we still see people whining about “The War of Northern Aggression”…

    “I think part of the conflict stemmed from a realistic perception that the South had been made irrelevant at the federal level.”

    Still not a legitimate reason to support treason, of course…

    “1776 or thereabouts, not that the British would agree.”

    Hmm…the first was about “taxation without representation” and the second was about the right to keep other human beings as property …yes, the two are just so similar…

    “Maine and I believe some of the others state propose and came close to succeeding.”

    And yet they didn’t…otherwise, they would deserve the same scorn as the treasonous Confederates…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. sam says:

    “Still not a legitimate reason to support treason, of course…”

    One to the interesting aftermaths of the war was that when the charge of treason was leveled against the Southern leadership, no less a fire-eater than Horace Greeley argued very strongly that the Southerners were not guilty of treason: trying to secede from the Union was not an act of treason:

    By that time [seven months after Davis’s capture and incarceration awaiting trial], prominent Northerners — especially those in the legal profession — had seen the weakness of the government’s case against Davis and the handful of Confederates yet being held. One who saw it was the Chief Justice [Salmon P. Chase] who would rule on their appeal in the event one was needed, which he doubted. “If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North,” Chase had warned his former Cabinet colleagues in July, “for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion.” As for the rebel chieftain, the authorities would have done better not to apprehend him. “Lincoln wanted Jefferson Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason. Secession is settled. Let it stay settled.” Charles O’Conner, the distinguished New York attorney who had volunteered his services in Davis’s behalf, was convinced that he would eventually be freed. “No trial for treason on any like offense will be held in the civil courts, ” he predicted … Horace Greeley had come over, early on, and was saying in the [New York] Tribune that Davis should either be tried or turned loose without delay. Even so stalwart an Abolitionist as … Gerrit Smith, a back of John Brown, was persuaded that an injustice was in progress and was wiling to sign a petition to that effect, as were others who wanted liberty for all men, black and white by due process of law.

    Shelby Foote, The Civil War, Vol. 3, pp. 1035-1036

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. phoebes-in-santa fe says:

    And for all you ONION fans, an all-time favorite about the South…

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/south-postpones-rising-again-for-yet-another-year,377/

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. PD Shaw says:

    IMO Greeeley was too much of an inconsistent gadfly to be given much weight, but he is correct that Lincoln generally wished Davis to dissapear and never be heard from again. I don’t think we can know Lincoln’s wishes had he survived and Davis been captured. At one point Lincoln indicated that he wished to hold over political leaders of the South the threat of punishment for their crimes as a means of dispersing them. I could certainly see a situation where Lincoln approved the execution of Davis for treason as the least bad means of gaining peace, it would silence other Southern leaders and silence the radicals on his own side.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. mannning says:

    Rehashing and speculating about old wars is an honored tradition, and to the degree that we gain from lessons learned, all to the good, but, to the degree that we merely fan the flames of half buried, or mostly buried passions on both sides of this war, all to the bad.

    Have we not milked the causes of the civil war to exhaustion yet, or is a new generation resurrecting it for political gain on the one side, and nostalgia for a long lost way of life on the other? We have buried the dead, healed the nation, and moved on, or at least some of us have after nearly a century and a half. Rememberance of things past is one thing, but willful agitation is another, more nasty objective..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. schooner says:

    “1776 or thereabouts, not that the British would agree.”

    Which is why they don’t celebrate July 4th.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. An Interested Party says:

    re: sam Monday, December 20, 2010 13:50

    It makes sense why some wanted to forgive and forget figures like Jefferson Davis as this was thought of as a way to heal the wounds of the nation that had just been through a horrible conflict with so many deaths…

    “,,,but willful agitation is another, more nasty objective..”

    Indeed, like a “secession ball”…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. tom p says:

    “If succession is rebellion and\or treason, then wouldn’t many of the New England states have been guilty of it in 1812. Maine and I believe some of the others state propose and came close to succeeding. Were they acting traitorous? Perhaps it is the old liberal philosophy that it is OK for them to do it but not others.”

    Wayne, I hate to be the one to point it out, but there is a BIG difference between “succession” (is that even a word?????) and seccesion… if you can not tell the difference, maybe it is best to keep quiet?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. tom p says:

    >”Have we not milked the causes of the civil war to exhaustion yet, or is a new generation resurrecting it for political gain on the one side, and nostalgia for a long lost way of life on the other? We have buried the dead, healed the nation, and moved on, or at least some of us have after nearly a century and a half. Rememberance of things past is one thing, but willful agitation is another, more nasty objective..”

    For once, Manning and I agree… (Tho I suspect, they are for entirely different reasons)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Wayne says:

    “The US Civil War might be unique in history in that the victors did not exact vengeance on the leaders of the defeated.”

    Not exact vengeance? Ever heard of carpet baggers? Ever hear of the Reconstruction era and the North imposing control over Southern government? For that matter the North forcibly took over the South. The official claim for going to war was not that States didn’t have right to succeed but the attack of Fort Sumter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. […] Memo To South Carolina: Your Secession Is Nothing To Celebrate […]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. sam says:

    “Not exact vengeance?”

    The observation was directed at the lack of prosecution of the political leadership of the Confederacy, on the leaders of the defeated.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. sam says:

    “The official claim for going to war was not that States didn’t have right to succeed but the attack of Fort Sumter.”

    I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean, but what would you have the government to do when its territory is attacked? btw, it’s ‘secede’ not ‘succeed’.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Dino says:

    I don’t quite understand who would want to celebrate a failed attempt at seceding that happened over a hundred years ago. Now, saying, “This is nothing more than a celebration of slavery.” like Lonnie Randolph I think is going a bit far, but the celebration of this is ridiculous none the less.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. […] Quite frankly, this is a fact that we don’t like to dwell on.  In fact, we tend to treat the entire history of it with a great deal of denial.  We like to wave our hands and say “we fixed it” and so we can move on now.  It is the say sort of hand-waving that allows some people in South Carolina to pretend like the Civil War was about something other than slavery. […]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. jean allen says:

    Yes, indeed, secession is something to celebrate. The issue was state’s (not states’)
    rights all along. Our rights come from God. The South had the right to be independent from
    the Yankee nation. And, we shall be free because the matter is not yet settled.
    If YOU want to be the slave of a federal corporation that is soon to be a European
    corportation….then get your Yankee butt out of Dixie. Leave the rest of us alone. We want
    to be free; and by cracky, we will!
    You can belong to the cult of Ape Lincoln all you wish. I will be true to my kith and kin…
    my present kin and my Scots-Irish ancestors. Yes, I celebrate secession! Yea, I celebrate
    it; and you need a few history lessons. Why don’t you start with DiLorenzo and his books
    about Lincoln. You comments are born of Yankee, Unitarian trancendentalist Progressive hogwash!
    Jean Allen
    Tuscaloosa Alabama

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  28. Cronus says:

    I deeply deplore slavery in all its manifestations, including those that are common today – AND – I equally deplore any organization that insists its members cannot withdraw from membership.

    Non-affiliation is a basic human right of individuals and groups – and its abrogation, as demonstrated by the United States in the Civil War, is a blatant violation of that right – no less egregious than slavery itself. I think the founders of the US knew that and expected membership in the Union remain voluntary indefinitely.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. An Interested Party says:

    “Yes, I celebrate secession!”

    Are there other lost causes and failures that you celebrate?

    “Non-affiliation is a basic human right of individuals and groups – and its abrogation, as demonstrated by the United States in the Civil War, is a blatant violation of that right – no less egregious than slavery itself.”

    Oh yes, absolutely! Fighting to maintain the Union is just as evil as slavery…the connection is just so clear…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. Joe Tittiger says:

    I rarely see so many biased uniformed opinions in one place.

    Saying that the Sovereign countries that formed what was supposed to
    be a Federalism could not leave this voluntary association created by them
    is like saying that it would be OK for the community gardening association
    that you created tell you that they are going to kill you if you dare leave.
    Or the babysitter that you hire to watch your kids tell you what she is going to
    be paid, when you are to return, etc.

    The stupidly of the American people is boundless have not any of your read the
    Declaration?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Jeff V says:

    I’ve seen enough ignorant spewing about how the south seceded in order to preserve slavery. The south seceded for a variety of other reasons as well. But because most fools cannot see past the slavery issue, let me remark about how the institution of slavery played into the secession question. As far as slavery is concerned, the south did not secede in order to preserve the institution. They seceded because the north repeatedly violated the Constitution regarding slavery. There is a difference. The north violated the law and the south wanted the law upheld. Proof of this can be found in the declaration that Judge Salmon P. Chase made when before a Peace Congress held on Feb. 6, 1861:
    “Aside from the Territorial question- the question of Slavery outside of Slave States-, I
    know of but one serious difficulty. I refer to the question concerning fugitives from
    service. The clause in the Constitution concerning this class of persons is regarded by
    almost all men, North and South, as a stipulation for the surrender to their masters of
    slaves escaping into Free States. The people of the Free States, however, who believe
    that Slave-holding is wrong, cannot and will not aid in the reclamation, and the
    stipulation becomes, therefore, a dead letter.”
    Here we have from Lincoln’s future choice for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, an undeniable admission of treason on part of the north.
    A full month before Judge Chase admitted northern treachery, Senator Robert Toombs, of Georgia, admonished before the Senate on January 5, 1861:
    “Senators…my countrymen have demanded no new government….they have demanded
    no new Constitution…they have not demanded a single thing, except that you shall
    abide by the Constitution of the United States…”

    So, it isn’t difficult to see that the south was merely trying to uphold the Constitution. When southern efforts failed, they decided it would be better to separate from a people who would not honor their sacred oaths to uphold the Constitution. This means that the people of the north were the traitors; not the south. AND THIS IS ONLY REGARDING THE SLAVERY ISSUE! But why don’t we talk about the other issues, such as the Morrill Tariff or Lincoln’s illegal suspension of Habeas Corpus? Or what about invasion of the southern states?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Joe Tittiger says:

    An important point that everyone seems to miss is that even if it were about slavery the North had no right to invade an independent and sovereign nation (the were sovereign even before succession)

    If you want a good history of the period read this written by a contemporary black man:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. […] bad” is a problem and why we don’t need to be commemorating the sesquicentennial  of secession nor Jefferson Davis’ swearing in.  (It is also why the Confederate battle flag is […]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Maxwell says:

    History is written by the victors. Maybe some/all of you should research the 14th amendment a bit deeper. The war did not “free slavery” per se, but rather enslaved us all into debt slavery. Nice trick they pulled, yes. Research Freemasonry, Zionist [mostly Jew] Intlernational banking, and therein you will find the true power behind this all. US Constitution has been dead for a long time, replaced with UCC/Martime-admiralty law. That why theres so many taxes. Wake up people, you really think there should be an inheritance tax, an IRS ?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. Joe Tittiger says:

    We agree that the 14th was and is not what it is presented as being.

    It created a new class of citizens with no God given rights, only civil rights granted by government that at the time was applied to the newly freed blacks and later unfortunately to all of us.

    Financial slavery has been implemented in other many ways but as far as I can see out side of the 14th.

    This if one of the best analyses of the 14th that I have come across:

    http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  36. W Williams says:

    “When did celebrating treason become acceptable? 1776 or thereabouts, not that the British would agree.” Thanks, Rodney Dill, for a bit of sanity in this debate. Schooner, don’t equate “secession” and “treason”; learn the historical meaning of those words before you use them so stupidly. And no, Schooner, the British do not celebrate July 4th; in 1776 they denounced the American Declaration of Independence as “treason.”

    Brett weighs in: “South Carolina got off much too lightly. . . .” Has this Brett ever read about what Sherman and his Union army did to South Carolina, that is, to the PEOPLE of SC, including the slaves? Did the raped women slaves of South Carolina get “off much too lightly”?

    It gets much worse with Michael Reynolds: “Sherman did his best with South Carolina. People talk about his march through Georgia, but it was SC that took the worst of it. One of the reasons I’ve always liked Sherman despite his rather unenlightened views on race and a free press.”
    This man actually LIKES Sherman for doing his “best with South Carolina.” Reynolds has a fondness for a Union general whose military tactic of terrorism was the occasion for pillaging, burning, raping, and thieving. Reynolds, take some time to read about the burning and sacking of Columbia, SC. I’m sure the experience will only increase your sick fondness for such a monster. And don’t expect most readers here to now “admire” you for your so very delicate “distancing” yourself from the sorry likes of Sherman — that anti-semetic racist and avowed enemy of constitutional rights. But just in case: Reynolds, if you really do like Sherman for his torture of SC civilians and slaves, you might want to get some psychological help. And soon.

    Amazingly, PD Shaw speaks of General Grant’s scorn as if anyone in his right mind would give a damn about what such a man scorned or valued. True Virginians have never lost a moment of sleep worrying about what that corrupt drunk thought of them.

    Memo to “Bead Assortments”: YOUR memo is not worth reading. Sincerely, SC.

    Reynolds again: Yes, New England contemplated seceding from the Union. And no one denounced this as potential “treason.” The point here is not that New England did not secede, but that these northeastern states believed in the right to secede. Just like South Carolina did later.

    In general: take some time to study the War Between the States, what led up to it, how it was fought, and what happened afterward. Pay careful attention to actions of the Union Army as it invaded different parts of the Confederacy: what happened in Missouri to silence sympathy for the South, Yankee atrocities in Tennessee, the pillaging of Fredericksburg, VA early in the war, the savage sacking of lovely Athens, AL, New Orleans under General Butler, Union actions in Tucker Cty, WV where the policy was “Their houses will be burned and the men shot,” the shelling of Charleston, Gen. Banks raids in LA, and, of course, the escapades of Sheridan and Sherman (and so much more). THEN, Yankees and Scalawags just might BEGIN to understand why South Carolina wants to celebrate the anniversary of secession.

    W Williams

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  37. Joe Tittiger says:

    From all the enlightened comments here I can see that the
    government indoctrination camps and the lobotomy box has certainly done it’s job.

    I am not sure if the posters here are soviet citizens or Americans, They sure do not have a clue as to what the Federation and republic are all about.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0