South Carolina to Honor 150th Anniversary of Secession

By Jason Priestas on December 20, 2010 at 1:24a

Comments Show All Comments

Nik's picture

Glad I clicked on the link.  I was worried they might actually be dumb enough to throw something called a succession ball, lol.  I'm going to assume you wrote that as a joke :)

Jason Priestas's picture

Nope, they're having a succession seccession ball:

Two of the first events scheduled to mark the anniversary – a privately sponsored secession ball Monday in Charleston and an effort to display the original Ordinance of Secession – show just how divisive the Civil War remains.

Read more:

BigRedBuckeye's picture


And we'll drink to old Ohio, 'Til we wobble in our shoes! 

Jason Priestas's picture

Nailed it in the headline, brainfarted in my comment. Thanks-

NW Buckeye's picture
Yes they are throwing a secession ball - read the whole article. 
Monday — Secession ball and play, starting at 6 p.m. at Charleston’s Gailliard Municipal Auditorium. Sponsored by the Confederate Heritage Trust and Sons of Confederate Veterans. $100 a person includes dinner. More information at

Read more:

poguemahone's picture

Sweet. Now let's have a ball celebrating Sherman's March to the Sea across the street.

Johnny Ginter's picture

i could go on a long, long rant here, but instead i'll just point out that every idiot involved with this should get on their knees and thank the god of their choice that they never had to live through a war that cost 650,000 lives and created devastating psychological and physical scars to this country that lasted generations

Pam's picture

The war and the 100 years of Jim Crowe that followed kept the south educationally, socailly and economically behind the rest of the country.  Anyone who watched the footage of Katrina could see that not much as changed in that regard.  So.Car.loses millions of dollars every year due to boycotts by the NAACP and NCAA for their refusal to stop flying the confederated flag on the statehouse grounds. 

Sucession=Treason.  But they will tell you that it was about "state's rights" not treason or slavery.  Yes, it was about states rights, the right to own slaves. 

tomcollins's picture

Not going to argue about that specific case (there was a lot more at stake than slavery, of course), but equating Secession with Treason is hilarious.  I guess we are a treasonous nation that seceded from England in that case.

Johnny Ginter's picture

yes, we were. treason is literally what the signers of the declaration of independence were committing when they did so

tomcollins's picture

And there's nothing wrong with it.

Johnny Ginter's picture

sure, as long as you're not committing treason for something like preserving a way of life that enslaves literally millions of people

tomcollins's picture

I'm not so sure it would have lasted much longer.  Everywhere else in the western world had slavery end peacefully within 30 years of the Civil War.  Only in the US did we have to have 500,000 lives end along with the idea no state could ever leave the union.  Ending slavery was a great thing.  It would have been much better if it could have been done peacefully without such a great loss of life.  Not only the loss of life that happened at that time but also the resentment and mistreatment that happens today so commonly in the South can be directly tied to the war.  Slavery is hugely unprofitable which is why it failed so miserably in the rest of the world so soon after that.  Was 500,000+ lives worth getting it a few years early?

Pam's picture

So, the buying and selling of human beings into bondage wasn't reason enough to end it? Only if it becomes unprofitable or that machines were invented to do the same work as the slaves did?  Makes sense I guess, you don't feed chicken bones and pigs feet to machines or build shacks for them.  I guess the machine didn't need to be whipped into submission or hanged from nearest tree while smiling white men drank whiskey observing.  Better to continue the practice until it is no longer "profitable" I need a shower

btalbert25's picture

Seems to me that every major reason for going to war had it's roots in slavery.  State's rights, economic motivations, whatever cause you want to take a look at, if you delve into it, slavery is at the heart of it all.  It must also be known that Abraham Lincoln has said many times his motivation was to keep the Union together, not free the slaves.  All he cared about was preserving the Union.

At any rate none of this has anything to do with football, and I think we can all agree that an event like this proves how backward and ridiculous parts of this country can be.  Although I caution everyone not to judge too much, as there are probably some in our ranks who don't think this is such a bad thing.  I become accutely aware of this when I go into public somewhere in Ohio, Indiana, or Northern Kentucky and I see trucks with Rebel Flags, and people sporting Confederate Flag shirts with some prejudiced garbage written across it.  I remember the Video of the students in Happy Valley dancing like fools that was posted on here a few months back. A truck in the parking lot had a Rebel Flag proudly on display.   

tomcollins's picture

Sweet link- "Please log in".

Pam's picture

Sorry, I have an account and you need one to read this, so here goes:


ON Dec. 20, 1860, 169 men — politicians and people of property — met in the ballroom of St. Andrew’s Hall in Charleston, S.C. After hours of debate, they issued the 158-word “Ordinance of Secession,” which repealed the consent of South Carolina to the Constitution and declared the state to be an independent country. Four days later, the same group drafted a seven-page “Declaration of the Immediate Causes,” explaining why they had decided to split the Union.

The authors of these papers flattered themselves that they’d conjured up a second American Revolution. Instead, the Secession Convention was the beginning of the Civil War, which killed some 620,000 Americans; an equivalent war today would send home more than six million body bags.

The next five years will include an all-you-can-eat special of national remembrance. Yet even after 150 years full of grief and pride and anger, we greet the sesquicentennial wondering, why did the South secede?

I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I’ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery.”

I’ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.

But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery.

South Carolina: “The non-slaveholding states ... have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery” and “have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes.”

Mississippi: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. ... There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union.”

Georgia: “A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.”

Several states single out a special culprit, Abraham Lincoln, “an obscure and illiterate man” whose “opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.” Lincoln’s election to the White House meant, for South Carolina, that “the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”

In other words, the only state right the Confederate founders were interested in was the rich man’s “right” to own slaves.

It’s peculiar, because “states’ rights” has become a popular refrain in Republican circles lately. Last year Gov. Rick Perry of Texas wondered aloud whether secession was his state’s right in the aftermath of laws out of Congress that he disliked.

In part because of this renewed rhetoric, in the coming remembrances we will likely hear more from folks who cling to the whitewash explanation for secession and the Civil War. But you have only to look at the honest words of the secessionists to see why all those men put on uniforms.

Edward Ball, the author of “Slaves in the Family,” is writing a biography of the photographer Eadweard Muybridge.

tomcollins's picture

I'm sure all of those confederate soldiers gave their lives so that rich people could own slaves.  Nothing else can explain it.

Pam's picture

They gave their lives so rich WHITE people could own slaves. 

tomcollins's picture

The sad thing is, I think you might actually believe that.

Denny's picture

Just stop.


Luke's picture

This. Having an unpopular and/or contrarian opinion is one thing, but waxing venomous over semantics and patronizing your peers flirts dangerously with trolling.

Pam's picture

Save your condescension for someone else.  Like someone who has never studied history of the US.  They might interpret your smugness as you actually knowing what you are talking about.

Colin's picture

Hey hey it's not like things have evened out a little though, 200 years ago black people were worth 3/5 of a white person in voting. Now, a white football player is probably worth about 3/5 of a black football player...excluding QB's and kickers as special circumstances.

Not being racist just trying to lighten the mood.

yrro's picture

Of course we'll just ignore the fact that it was the North who invaded. Whatever reasons caused the split (horrific slavery, states rights, take your pick) it wasn't a war until Lincoln et al decided that sovereign states who entered into an agreement for union forfeited all rights to changing their minds and decided to back that up with military force. Everyone is taught about Fort Sumter, but were you told that it ended without bloodshed, and is the sort of international incident that is often ignored in these types of proceedings? 

If England decided to back out of the EU would you guys also consider it treason?

I grew up in Ohio, I think slavery was terrible and misguided, and will even admit that many times state's rights have been used to advanced a racist agenda. That said... Lincoln shot first. 

Denny's picture

Instead, let's get caught up in the details of history, and completely overlook that it's a completely moronic event!


Johnny Ginter's picture

hahah okay let's just ignore the south seizing arms depots and garrisons as soon as each state decided to break from the union. let's ignore the lousiana military academy (now LSU btw) essentially defecting from the US army to become a confederate outpost. let's ignore the south firing on fort sumter in response to their commander refusing to give up a US base to the confederacy. that is ended "without bloodshed" is completely irrelevant given that is helped kickstart the bloodiest war in US history.

the south fired first. they won virtually every major concession from congress, the presidency, and the supreme court that they asked for in the 1850s and the STILL decided that the legal and undisputed popular election of a president was justification to leave the union.

Luke's picture

Or that slavery was but one of four or five principle components in the reasons for the war and in many historian's regards pretty far from the core driving factor.

JoshAlum's picture

Good lord, edit that to Secession. It certainly didn't succeed the first time around.

RBuck's picture

"See the old folks

Tied in white robes

Hear the banjos

Don't it take you down home"


Long live the southend.

Bucksfan's picture

Slavery was most certainly at the core of the Civil War.  You can mask it with terms like, "state's rights," or "economic freedom," but at the heart of it all it was Southern dependency on slaves, and they did not feel they should give up their way of doing business.  There was a very lucrative slave trade, cotton farming and exporting, etc.  It was the crux of Southern wealth.

To deny this is absurd and inappropriately revisionist.  And it was absolutely 100% illegal to secede.

The South should be ashamed of their past, not proud.  They should be glad that they lost the Civil War so that they can share in the immense wealth of intellectual, human, and natural resources that the North and later Western States offered.

They are allowed to be proud, tough, as the government cannot tell you how not to express yourself.  That doesn't mean we as fellow citizens can't look upon the ignorant Southern mentality with disgust and scorn.

Bucksfan's picture

...and furthermore, to bring this back to the sport we all love, the current embodyment of North vs. South is in college football.  Football is a sport dominated by African American athletes, who I can assure you in no way fight for the same Southern "pride" that results in the holding of a Secession Ball.