The Secession Ball's revisionist history
On Dec. 20, the group Sons of Confederate Veterans is holding a $100-per-person "Secession Gala" in Charleston, S.C. to celebrate the state's signing 150 years ago of the Ordinance of Secession -- the document whereby slave-holding states that would eventually form the Confederacy abandoned the Union and sparked the Civil War.
The NAACP plans to protest the ball, which is part of a series of events that heritage groups are holding to commemorate the war's sesquicentennial. NAACP South Carolina chapter President Lonnie Randolph likened the ball to celebrating the Holocaust:
"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."
Organizer Jeff Antley, a member of SCV and Confederate Heritage Trust, bristles at the comparison:
"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."
But Antley's claim that secession had "nothing to do with slavery" belies either ignorance or denial of historic facts.
It's true that the Ordinance of Secession -- the original copy of which (pictured above) will be on display at the gala -- doesn't mention slavery. But the brief document doesn't mention any reason for the decision to dissolve the Union, stating only that a convention of the people of South Carolina gathered in Charleston on Dec. 20, 1860 and voted to repeal the state's ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
For what was behind the decision, we have to turn to a document the same convention drew up and signed four days later titled "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina From the Federal Union."
Slavery is its major theme.
The declaration opens by tracing the history of how South Carolina came to ratify the U.S. Constitution and notes that "in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement entirely releases the obligation of the other."
Fourteen states, the declaration charges, "have deliberately refused, for years, to fulfill their constitutional obligations" -- specifically, the runaway-slave section of the Constitution's Article IV, which was superseded in 1865 by the 13th Amendment. That section says:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
Pointing out that the Northern states had enacted laws "which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them," the declaration charges that the compact has been broken and "South Carolina is released from her obligation." It continues:
"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 assumed 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 eloigning 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."
Observing that the North elected as President a man "whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery," the declaration says that
"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."
As the historic record shows, South Carolina's secession had everything to do with slavery. That SCV would deny this shows the group is unwilling or unable to honor the full truth of their lost cause.
- Email this story
Categories:
Comments
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
What perhaps we don't understand is history is not important to the events' promoters, but rather the events are designed to flatter and rally those who believe they and their ancestors are victums of injustice. Recognizing the loss and sacrifice of one's ancestors is honorable, but to misunderstand and misrepresent the sources of the tragedy is sure to lead to future conflicts and tragedies.
The Confederacy lost the Civil War, but won Reconstruction. The South lost the Civil Rights movement, but has retrenched and regrouped under new banners and myths, and is fighting back.
Unfortunately, much of the white population of the South, and many of those migrated to the north in the early and mid 20th Century, are stuck in the predominate attitudes and myths of Reconstruction and the glorious lost cause, now used, if not adopted and bolstered by the Political right, Christian right, and Tea Party arrogance and ignorance. Anti-Federalism is the front edge of a very anti-democratic and elite-fundamentalist (religious and economic) agenda.
To call their view or denial of history "revisionist" is a understatement, if not a misapplication of the term - an insult to legitimate, objective, and consciencous scholars of history. The organizer's account of history is fictional, and fraudulent if the authors and providers know it to be misleading or false.
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
My ancestors 4 Brothers came to America in 1776, to fight in Revolution War.
I have never had a problem with British folks.
In 1830 one brother moved to Georgia for free land.
One moved to NY and the other 2 I think went to Alabama.
They were 16 that were confededates and 12 Yankees that fought in Civil War.
During all this time everyone forgets who the losers were.
The American Indians- This Land and freedom should have been theres.
African Americans should be Thankful that there ancestors were sent over . Look at Africa Now.
PS I have never been to France to look up the sisters or uncles or mothers & dads of theses 4 French Men brothers.
You have to look at History way back before 1800's. This was the way the world was. Now everyone in America are Free to leave or stay. No body owes no regrets. We all must be Thankful for what we have now;and remember the past as what is mint to be .
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
Note, too, that the notion that secession was in defense of "states' rights" against an oppressive federal government is belied by the "Declaration." Virtually none of the complaints have to do with federal action. After all, the federal government had to that point been controlled by white southerners with their allies in the Democratic Party; the slavery policy of the federal government was embodied by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott decision, all of which placed the federal government on the slaveholders' side. Even the tariff (a favorite neo-Confederate "alternative" explanation for secession) was one highly favorable to the South, and most of the secessionists had in fact voted *for* it.
All the complaints, rather, are against the northern *states*, who had allegedly failed to uphold their end of the bargain with the southern states by protecting slavery. Those states had passed "personal liberty" laws that slaveholders didn't like; the people of those states had elected a president that slaveholders didn't like, and had allowed people to vote that slaveholders didn't think should vote. Never mind that Free Staters might reasonably think that they, too, had the right of "self-government," or that they had the right to vote for who they wished and decide for themselves who could vote in their own states. Secession wasn't a protest against an oppressive government; it was an attack on the people of the Free States. Small wonder that they didn't take it lying down.
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
No state would have signed onto the Constitution if they had been foretold that should they attempt to leave the Union, their state would be invaded killing thousands of citizens and soldiers, homes burnt to the ground and everything they owned stolen by the invading armies. The Union was supposed to be held together voluntarily and not by coercion. Lincoln had other ideas.
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
You seem to be ignoring two EQUALLY important (to slavery) facts of secession: (1) the imposition of Unionism on the South, and (2) one reason the US left the British Empire included that GB was interested in abolishing slavery -- indeed George III emancipated the slaves during the Revolution, often forgotten in our history books.
Incidentally, Unionism is frequently underrated as a cause of the War. In fact, in the 1860 election, lost the "representation" part of "no taxation without representation" that was a key clause of the Revolution. Basically, Unionism meant that the North could govern the South, a proposition to which the South, not reasonably, objected.
Slavery is often overstated as a cause for the War. And that's just a fact, not opinion. Indeed, the North and the South had been feuding since the 1600s, when the Puritans settled the North and the Cavaliers settled in the South. Those two extremists were feuding in England, and then they came over here and started the feuding right up again. With or without slavery, there was contention between North and South enough to start a war at any time. Especially when it came to commerce and taxes.
Finally, the importation of slaves was illegal LONG before the start of the war (though smuggling and piracy, of course, continued); the War wasn't started to end slavery (especially in border states) and the war didn't abolish slavery here, either.
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
I wish that "france" were better educated here in South Carolina.
The possessive pronoun is spelled "their," not "there."
Confederates is not spelled confededates.
1800's is spelled 1800s. Your ideas are interesting; it's a shame that they aren't presented in standard English.
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
Did you say African Americans should be thankful that their ancestors were sent over??? So all those people that died on the slave ships; all those people that were murdered; all those families that were seperated; all those people that were not allowed to educate themselves; and all those people that were forced to live under conditions, that your dog would be protected from today; should be thankful? This is a perfect example of how you Euro-centric savages think. You still believe that you are superior to everyone else! Your world is crumbling around you. May God have mercy on your soul.
P.S. You should brush-up on your grammar.
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
I looked at the other posts Sue Sturgis has posted, and I failed to see any condemning New York City for practicing the worst kind of slavery; working young men and women to death and then throwing their bodies in a pit to be built over. I did not see her condemning Brown University for continuing the tradition of naming the school after the worst slave trader in American history (John Brown of Rhode Island, not THE John Brown). I did not see her condemn Harvard and Yale universities for having buildings named after slave owners. I did not see where Sue condemned all of the Northeastern states with coast lines for creating the whole slave trading industry. I did not see where Sue condemned the Union government for not freeing the slaves in Union states after the Emancipation Proclamation. I did not see where Sue condemned the Union government for forcing supposedly freed slaves to work on Union army projects. Gee, I didn't see where Sue condemned the Union army for working thousands of black folks to death while building the Dutch Gap Canal and Grant's canal in attempts to change the course of the James and Mississippi Rivers. And, my goodness, I didn't see where Sue condemned Grant and Sherman for not allowing the black troops to march in The Grand Review. And, by golly, I didn't see where Sue condemned the Union government for not taking at least a handful of those freed 4 million slaves back up North with them after the white and black armies had destroyed the South's means of making a living during Reconstruction.
Sue, this lack of condemnation when white Northerners took advantage of black folks is curious. Could you explain it to us?
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
The secession of the southern states was over states' rights... no one can deny that. Even I, as a proud Ohioan, recognizes that. However, "states' rights" was only an issue because of slavery. The many attempts at compromise in the decades before the war whenever a new state entered the union only prolonged the tension, and it was this tension that ultimately culminated with the election of a Republican president in 1860. South Carolina seceded after Lincoln's election, out of the strong belief that he would do away with slavery. Did the southern states fight for "their freedom"? Yes. But it was for their perceived freedom to keep an entire race of people in bondage.
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
The history of the Civil War is simple: the Southern Aristocracy rallied its people around an abstract ideal of States Rights to hoodwink the masses into a war to protect their privileges.
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
Where was it again that you received your high school diploma? Most of them require a minimum proficiency in spelling and basic English usage.
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
I'm not Sue, but I can answer your question. It is irrelevant. None of the issues that you cited, even if they were entirely correct, caused secession and the CIVIL WAR, that followed, when,.....Confederates in Charleston, SC fired on Fort Sumpter.
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
Ditto. The only plausible explanation for this point view is stupidity, without which bigotry of this sort could not survive.
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
Rhetorical question: How can so many people be so crushingly inane as to continue to try to justify the historically documented position of the Confederacy?
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
Gosh Robert, this sounds somewhat current. The rich and well-to-do folks get the poorly educated, low on the economic scale, people to fight their battles for them to preserve their personal wealth. The people who should be sharing in this "Land of Opportunity", mindlessly go off and put their lives and minimal net worth on the line to support people who could care less about them and will never share their prosperity with those less fortunate then they. "The times they're not a' changing"
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
Slavery was probably the only issue facing the North and South that could not be settled peacefully. IF you paid 1000 dollars for a piece of farm equipment and then some liberal a-hole came along and said they wanted to liberate it from you, would you not fight too? That is what inferior negroes were and still should be-farm equipment, albeit obsolete farm equipment. So what if the gala glorifies slavery? Whites were smart enough to keep inferior negroes where they belonged-in bondage so they could not rape, rob and murder Whites as they do today in large numbers. Whites were NOT smart enough to keep negroes from this continent and as a result look what America is 150 years after South Carolina seceded-a multi-racial Second World cesspool of a socialist nation with a hardcore communist half-breed as its leader. No wonder South Carolina and the South seceded-to save the nation. Too bad they lost.
re: The Secession Ball's revisionist history
Be careful when you say "look at Africa now." I'll remind you that it was colonization by Europeans and the slave trade that created the current state of affairs. Please think more critically.
Share this article
