Article of Secession South Carolina 1860

[stormrider]

150 years ago today, some brave people in SC dared to stand up to a growning empire. They were really peed when the Morrill Tarriff passed Congress which raised export tarriffs to 50%.

http://mises.org/daily/952

All we do is gripe and complain.

[Smokinjoe-VRCCDS#0005]

Saw it on ABC News tonight http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/civil-war-150th-anniversary-south-carolina-secession-gala/story?id=12441116

I had to sit for ( 4 ) loooooooooong days a couple months ago doing " diversity and sensitivity " training...What a crock of s**t and waste of time and money.This one dude get's up and claim's he's  still " struggling " with slavery ...WTF ....I was thinking sit your goofy ass down that was 150 years ago and you've been sittin' here all week on your ass makin' probably $85,000 plus a year .

[ricoman]

Maybe it's time for all of us (no matter the color) to let it go.
There is enough going on now in this country for all of us to correct and be concerned about (scared actually) without living in the past.

[hubcapsc]

Saw it on ABC News tonight http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/civil-war-150th-anniversary-south-carolina-secession-gala/story?id=12441116

If I hadn't used up the last day of leave I had this year going down to Savannah, I'd be at the Secession
Gala... don't get me wrong, I'm glad about the choice I made  ... anywho, about the Ordinance of
Secession... they've been displaying (under armed guards) the original around the state lately... it
was here at Clemson not long ago. When it was drafted, they made a bunch of exact duplicates,
lithographs, enough so that all the signers could have one... Here's a news story about one of
the lithographs going up for auction...

http://www.heraldonline.com/2010/09/11/2443442/civil-war-secession-document-up.html

We had one of the lithographs at my SCV meeting the other night...



That's the new camp commander holding it, we swore in the new officers at the last meeting, check
out the guy on the farthest left  ...



Here's South Carolina's Declaration of Cause...

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

...On the 4th day of March next, [Lincoln's] 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.

So, now you have some faces to put on the "mint julep sippers" and the "crab dip
nibblers" that have the NAACP so bent out of shape...

-Mike

[Jess from VA]

The thing is, once you get past the slavery issue, which has been resolved for 100 years or so, the remaining issues of personal liberty, States Rights and freedom from an overreaching Federal government are every bit as valid today as they were in the 1860's.  And they are valid nationwide, not just in the South.  Though clearly the South (and SC particularly) has the tradition.  

And Joe, it was that overreaching Federal government, that mandatorily put me in days and days of that politically correct BS (brainwashing) training every year (and I had to make up quota work requirements on the weekend out of my own pocket for time lost from productive work). 

[fudgie]

I had to sit for ( 4 ) loooooooooong days a couple months ago doing " diversity and sensitivity " training...What a crock of s**t and waste of time and money.This one dude get's up and claim's he's  still " struggling " with slavery ...WTF ....I was thinking sit your goofy ass down that was 150 years ago and you've been sittin' here all week on your ass makin' probably $85,000 plus a year .

I hear ya. I had to take it a few years ago. I started getting pissed 10 min into it. Thank heavens I had a  EMS run cause I was about to get up and leave. It was a waste of time.

[Smokinjoe-VRCCDS#0005]

Saw it on ABC News tonight http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/civil-war-150th-anniversary-south-carolina-secession-gala/story?id=12441116

 

 



 
-Mike

I see Robert E. Lee made the meeting as well ( far right )    .Folk's can say what they will however I can say without a shadow of doubt if things had been different no way would we have a man in the whitehouse named Hussein that's pissin' this country away even better than George Bush did and that's saying alot.

If The South Woulda Won	powered by Aeva

[f6gal]

Lincoln and the Civil War demonstrate revisionist history at its best... well, worst actually.

[Willow]

Lincoln and the Civil War demonstrate revisionist history at its best... well, worst actually.

"At its worst" is a bit overstated.  While I agree that there's a fair amount of misrepresentation regarding the War between the States, it takes place on both sides.  I've spent enough time in both the North and the South to recognize that there are widespread examples of both sides' views of history that are painfully distorted.

[stormrider]

When a close examination of the facts is done, as in the case of the two books by Thomas J DiLorenzo; "The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked", there is no other conclusion than that the war was waged against the South to gain power and control over us all.
The Federal government became the exact same type tyranny that our founding fathers had fought so galantly to "SECEDE" from.
If you don't agree, then answer this question, how could one man take all the gold being used for barter and exchange from the American people and be given a piece of paper in exchange for that gold. They were told the exchange rate would be set at $35. per oz. How much is gold today?
Food for thought. And btw, that piece of paper was taken away and people were given another piece of paper backed by nothing. Hummmm, kinda sucks don't it?

http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html

[stormrider]

Lincoln and the Civil War demonstrate revisionist history at its best... well, worst actually.

"At its worst" is a bit overstated.  While I agree that there's a fair amount of misrepresentation regarding the War between the States, it takes place on both sides.  I've spent enough time in both the North and the South to recognize that there are widespread examples of both sides' views of history that are painfully distorted.

Well Carl, what does painfully distorted mean? Would it be that if the ideas or understanding or written history of another doesn't line up with what you deem to be "real history", would that be distorted?

Or Could it possibly mean that if we've been lied to by the victor, then when we find the truth, that if can be painful to admit the truth? Or worse yet, to deny the truth?

There are those on both sides of this issue who will make wild claims, yet the truth has been exposed. Now what?

And for those who don't know me, like I always say, "follow the money!"

[Willow]

When a close examination of the facts is done, as in the case of the two books by Thomas J DiLorenzo; "The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked", ...

Wow, Steve, you illustrate my point so beautifully.

Incidentally, when I choose to do a "close examination of the facts" I normally don't select a source with so obvious an agenda.

Just so you understand where I'm coming from and so this doesn't degenerate into an argument of your viewpoint versus mine, although I like you at times as a person I completely disrespect your potential for an objective political opinion.  I'm entirely disinterested in a discussion or exchange of ideas. 

[Marcel]

Mistake #1, Lincoln should have let South Carolina leave the Union.

Mistake #2 ,Went to War to bring them back, when all he needed to do was wait it out.

Well the rest is history.

Slavery cause was used as a way to break the back of the plantation south, end of story.

They really cared nothing about freeing any slaves whatsoever.

Anybody who really believes the North was all about freeing the slaves is misinformed.

President Johnson could have cared less about the slave issue.

North knew this act would forever bring the south into line with Federal Government Policies.

So ths PC Traing Joe spoke of is a bunch of Bull Manure, another way to give all we have to the have

 nots  and make us feel good about it.

they know best ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,not.


We all need a good Mommy and they are it.

 

[fudgie]

I heard/read where freeing the slaves was not on the agenda till later in the war.

[Garfield]

I heard/read where freeing the slaves was not on the agenda till later in the war.

True, but Lincoln was also an abolitionist who did not care for slavory.

[hubcapsc]

I heard/read where freeing the slaves was not on the agenda till later in the war.

True, but Lincoln was also an abolitionist who did not care for slavory.

Abolitionist is a buzzword that describes only a small group of people, Lincoln wasn't one of them.
The Wiki isn't the last word on facts, but is a handy place to point to...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism[/url]

The majority of Northerners rejected the extreme positions of the abolitionists; Abraham Lincoln, for example. Indeed many northern leaders including Lincoln, Stephen Douglas (the Democratic nominee in 1860), John C. Fremont (the Republican nominee in 1856), and Ulysses S. Grant married into slave owning southern families without any moral qualms.

-Mike

[Bobbo]

Saw it on ABC News tonight http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/civil-war-150th-anniversary-south-carolina-secession-gala/story?id=12441116

I had to sit for ( 4 ) loooooooooong days a couple months ago doing " diversity and sensitivity " training...What a crock of s**t and waste of time and money.This one dude get's up and claim's he's  still " struggling " with slavery ...WTF ....I was thinking sit your goofy ass down that was 150 years ago and you've been sittin' here all week on your ass makin' probably $85,000 plus a year .

I’ve never been to a diversity or sensitivity training class.  What was it about, and why did you consider it a waste of time and money?

[f6gal]

Lincoln and the Civil War demonstrate revisionist history at its best... well, worst actually.

"At its worst" is a bit overstated.  While I agree that there's a fair amount of misrepresentation regarding the War between the States, it takes place on both sides.  I've spent enough time in both the North and the South to recognize that there are widespread examples of both sides' views of history that are painfully distorted.

That's exactly meant by at it's worst.  The misinformation pervades every part of our country, without exception.  For confirmation, just pick up any "history" textbook that covers this time period in the North, South, East, or West.  History books should be non-fiction.

[hubcapsc]

History books should be non-fiction.

History books struggle along, but the newspapers are plumb stuck in the twilight zone...

Many in the crowd are members of "secession camps," small groups of Civil War history buffs collected under the banner of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122105645.html

You'd be real disappointed if you came to South Carolina (or anyplace I know of) hunting "secession camps"...

There are a lot of SCV camps, they have numbers and assume names. I'm a member of camp #40,
The McGowan Camp, named after General Sam McGowan. Camp #4 over in Charleston is Camp Secession.

What I typed is pretty boring. That there are a bunch of mysterious (and perhaps sinister?) secession
camps out there somewhere is pretty cool, though, eh? 

-Mike

[stormrider]

When a close examination of the facts is done, as in the case of the two books by Thomas J DiLorenzo; "The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked", ...

Wow, Steve, you illustrate my point so beautifully.

Incidentally, when I choose to do a "close examination of the facts" I normally don't select a source with so obvious an agenda.

Just so you understand where I'm coming from and so this doesn't degenerate into an argument of your viewpoint versus mine, although I like you at times as a person I completely disrespect your potential for an objective political opinion.  I'm entirely disinterested in a discussion or exchange of ideas. 

But you do Carl. Look at who wrote the history books you've read on the subject matter.
Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He wanted colonization for blacks, slave and free. He wanted them to move to Libyria, Haiti or Panama. Read some of his speeches from when he was a state legislator in Illinois.
He wanted a centralized federal government that would extract taxes from it's subjects to spend on "internal improvements" such as railraods and canals and to do so through a national bank.
But your're right Carl. We can't have an objective discussion on this subject because you have your mind made up from all the "study" you've done on the subject.
Answer one question for me, are we more free since the War for Southern Independance, considering Lincoln got what he wanted; high taxes, property taxes which are fascist, we pay out 30-50% of our income in taxes for "internal improvements" and to carry out Empire building around the world.....and of yeah, we've allowed the murder of more thaan 50 million babies since 1973 and we are more than $13 trillion in debt? Well, that may be more than one question wraped up in that.

Can anyone out there explain to me how we are better off because of a war that claimed the lives of 620,000 Americans, 100,000 of which were innocent civilians? All the finiancial loss on both sides, the loss of life, productivity, etc?
All over the world slavery was being peacefully ended but not with Lincoln, he wanted to "perserve" the Union. At the end of a barrell. Now how is that considered freedom? We are not free when forced into an involuntary union. Shotgun wedding mean anything?

And as for seccession, here's a list for North America,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_North_America

And I dare anyone who wants to know more to read Major Genreal Smedley Butler's book, "War is a Racket". 
http://warisaracket.org/

Gotta go for now. More truth revealed later.

[Willow]

  I'm entirely disinterested in a discussion or exchange of ideas. 

But you're right Carl. We can't have an objective discussion on this subject because you have your mind made up from all the "study" you've done on the subject.

Apparently you either don't believe me or you consciously have chosen to ignore my preference.  I will humor you with these two comments and then this discussion between you and me is closed.

I'm right, Steve. We can't have an objective discussion on this subject because you have your mind made up from all the "study" you've done on the subject. 

Discussion between us is nonproductive because I truly don't believe you would recognize the truth were you to be drowning in it.  It's obvious that your view of we who don't accept your myriad and fluid conspiracy theories is similar.

[Black Pearl's Captain]

We are not free when forced into an involuntary union.

You were not forced into an involuntary union. Your leader choose it for you. Lee surrender to end the war, I guess he could have fought until everyone was dead then you would have been free but dead.

You do realize the South lost the war when the south's General surrendered?

[donaldcc]

   Wasn't this over 150 years ago??

[Marcel]

Lost, well , if we had fought on as Sherman did with no honor or question about who he was killing,

men woman, and starving the children.

The confederates just wanted to leave because of the encroaching misguided values of the North.

Indentured slavery was OK, North allowed this, but if it helped the south then by all means it

was evil.

It was a bad war with no good that was accomplished but save the Union was preserved.

We are all better off together, but Steve is right about the taxtion.

However skewed you think his argument is.

God save the United States of America and bless her according to her deeds.



Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.
Abraham Lincoln

[Wingman]

I am a southern man, as was my father and his father before him. I wore the uniform of the United States Armed Forces as did my father and his father before him. I had an ancestor that (my grandfather's grandfather) fought gallantly for the Confederacy. He wasn't fighting for slavery or state's rights, he wasn't educated in the ways of politics.. he was fighting to defend his home. My great-great grandfather was not a plantation owner, he was a share cropper. That war was fought and decided; I think things would have been different for me if the South had won the war; for better or worse, but that isn't what happened...

I was born a citizen of the United States of America and I volunteered to defend her to the death, I took that vow seriously. I grow weary of those that constantly complain of the way things are and how they could have been. My guess is that if the Confederacy had thrived, these same negative thinking individuals would find some other thing to be "experts" on and the incessant complaining would continue. We would still be dealing with bad policy decisions and rampant unemployment!
Some people aren't happy even if you put whipped cream on it!

I spend no time worrying about things long past, my concerns are now. We have heavy industry leaving our country because things can be made cheaper elsewhere. We boast of new service sector jobs when soon we will have no one to "service". These are problems that must be solved if we are to continue as a nation. We must bring manufacturing jobs back home if we are to survive, wages will be lower in the years to come, but in the end, it will be better than no jobs!

The energy of those complaining would be much better spent in trying to solve these very real issues!

If anyone read this far, thanks for your time! 

[hubcapsc]

...I wore the uniform of the United States Armed Forces...

If anyone read this far, thanks for your time! 

Thanks for your service!

-Mike "and Merry Christmas to all  "

[Marcel]

That is one reason you fought, so complainers like me can complain, have greavances, and

vote the right people in.

You are right on all accounts, and I salute your opinion and bravery.

Well Spoken and I did read it all.

God Save the United States

But no matter what, BLESS OUR TROOPS and The Families that support their effort to serve.

Merry Christmas to all.

[Willow]

Thank you, Al and Joe, for your well articulated responses.

I try to stay out of political discussions.  My views are strong and polarizing.  It doesn't serve my responsibilities well to become entangled.  However, I guess that's what this thread is and I am, so I'll contribute a bit.

Background is that I was born (in Texas) into a family mixed of Northern, Southern, European, and Choctaw ancestors of the mid nineteenth century.  I have ancestors who served both in the Union and Confederate armies.  Interestingly, some of the Union veterans (one dead) were residents of Arkansas who never traveled north of the Mason Dixon line.  I grew up sympathizing with the cause of the Confederacy.

Then I spent three years in Georgia.

My view is that the right thing to do would have been for the young seventy-year-old country to simply let the southern states go.  that said, if that had happened I'm sure that world history, most especially WW II and the Cold War, would have been very different.  I'm also certain that technological advances and the wonderful culture, including great byways on which to ride our Valkyries, would be very, very different.

I think the institution of slavery was just wrong for an advanced civilization.  I do think that the business practices involving indentured servitude were wrong also.  Whether equally or not is open to debate.

To claim the War between the States was not over slavery is contradicted by the South Carolina Article of Secession.  To say it was only about slavery is an oversimplification.

To believe all the wrong was on one side or all the nobility on one side is not defensible.  I live in Kansas.

Anyone who believes that the sixteenth president of the United States somehow manufactured the conflict simply has not bothered to study the history of the first half of the nineteenth century.

I find myself in strong agreement with My brother from Sylvester.

My perspective is that much of the good, the affluence that we enjoy is the direct result of the strong federal government that we so often resent or hate.  It interests me that good results can come about as a derivative of evil actions.  The world in which we live is a pool with eddies of swirling good and evil.  I guess it's realistic to say that it is both at once.

One last thing, I find it extreme hypocrisy for the same person to thank me for my service in the U'S. armed forces and to advocate violent revolt against that same U.S. government.  Who do they think they'll be shooting when the time comes?

That last remark, Mike, is not directed at you.  Your words did remind me, but I don't believe the qualifying sentiments to be yours.

[hubcapsc]

One last thing, I find it extreme hypocrisy for the same person to thank me for my service in the U'S. armed forces and to advocate violent revolt against that same U.S. government.  Who do they think they'll be shooting when the time comes?

That last remark, Mike, is not directed at you.  Your words did remind me, but I don't believe the qualifying sentiments to be yours.

Hi Willow. I don't advocate violent anything. My daddy puked his way to Europe on the troop ships in
WWII, and my Great GrandDaddy was an artillery man in Charleston during Abe Lincoln's war. I identify
with both of their flags. I came of age after the Vietnam draft was over and before it was required to
sign up for selective service, and I've lived a spoiled blessed life in a land of peace and Valkyries...

-Mike

[Marcel]

I am not sure Mike, you look fairly dangerous.

Especially after you have eaten GRITS.

LOL

[stormrider]

I spend no time worrying about things long past, my concerns are now. We have heavy industry leaving our country because things can be made cheaper elsewhere. We boast of new service sector jobs when soon we will have no one to "service". These are problems that must be solved if we are to continue as a nation. We must bring manufacturing jobs back home if we are to survive, wages will be lower in the years to come, but in the end, it will be better than no jobs!

The energy of those complaining would be much better spent in trying to solve these very real issues!

If anyone read this far, thanks for your time! 

Read it all. As for complaining, may sound like it but it's like where do we go from here? You know, jobs, economy that sucks.....


I read somewher to prevent the mistakes of the past from being made in the future we have to study the past. If our understanding of the past is distorted then trying to build a map for the future will likewise be distorted and we will find ourselves right back in the same wallow.
Our country went through a violent change in the 1860's. Do we want to see the same for our or the next generation? When government runs amuke what recourse is there. How many of you have voted during your adult life? Overall, has things gotten better or worse in our country? And yes, we have some great roads on which to ride, but think 10-20 or even 40 years down the road. What will it be like for your grandchildren or theirs? Do we want to leave them this mess or make things better for them.
Lincoln's party, the Whigs, then the Republicans advocated spending borrowed money from the national bank to make internal improvements, many of which became boondoggles. One example I've seen recently is the canal across Florida. Partially built many years ago, it was a great expense and didn't get completed. I had heard about a similar project in Texas. It happened quite often in some of the northern states prior to the war, taxpayer funded railroads, canals, and Lincoln was a lawyer for the railroads. And several states had laws and or resolutions banning the federal bank from being in their states.
Salmon P Chase was the secratary of the treasury under Lincoln. He later became the chief justice of the supreme court and he along with other members of the court ruled that secession was un-constitutions. How convenient. Chase Bank. Follow the money.
Kinda like the fox watching the hen house. 76 years earlier some very brave and wise men fought to secede from a tyranny. They feared a strong central government for the exact same reasons southerners decided to peacefully secede. But someone wanted the wealth to remain in the union.
The union was a voluntary union before 1865.
The cotton combine would have made slavery obsolete. Yet if we are honest about it we are all slaves to the system that has been created from being made subjects. YOu pay taxes don't you? And you never own your land, just don't pay the taxes and see what happens.
And as for jobs going overseas, thank Jimmy Carter for setting up the tri-lateral commission.
And did anyone look at the site on Smedley Butler?
If you want to see things improve, then get involved by learning how we got here and helping reshape the way we do business.
And Carl, I don't advocate a violent overthrow, just peaceful resolution, but if that doesn't succeed, then the people have in the Tenth Amendment the right to make the changes needed.
At least that is what the founders intended.

[Walküre]

I spend no time worrying about things long past, my concerns are now. We have heavy industry leaving our country because things can be made cheaper elsewhere. We boast of new service sector jobs when soon we will have no one to "service". These are problems that must be solved if we are to continue as a nation. We must bring manufacturing jobs back home if we are to survive, wages will be lower in the years to come, but in the end, it will be better than no jobs!

The energy of those complaining would be much better spent in trying to solve these very real issues!

If anyone read this far, thanks for your time!  

No, thank you for  yours!! And in my opinion, the most thought-out and responsible post in the whole thread...

As for some of the OTHER statements, what a shuck of hooey. I dare say there isn't ONE person on this forum, who was around, that can tell us the "truth" from first-hand experience. So, we are left to just exactly WHO we want to "believe", and who represents what we believe before we even begin to research. That has always been, and always will be...

As for the statement:

Lost, well , if we had fought on as Sherman did with no honor or question about who he was killing,

men woman, and starving the children.

several things come to mind...the atomic bombs over Japan - how many civilians were killed? And the drone bombings in Iraq/Afganistan? How many civilians were/are being killed? And while we are at it, how many civilians were killed in villages in Viet Nam? Somehow "hooey" comes to mind...

Our "past" is exactly that - our "past". If we stay in argument of the past, we will never progress to the future. And if things continue the way they are, we won't HAVE any future. And by blaming any one person, or party, or philosophy, you think it will change anything, I'd relish watching you explain how.

R