Posted on 06/19/2007 8:12:22 AM PDT by BGHater
A Civil War enthusiast has identified the remains of three soldiers buried in Raleigh -- including one Yankee resting among Confederates.
Charles Purser spent thousands of hours scrutinizing hospital logs, regimental rosters and cemetery records to put names to the headstones at the Oakwood cemetery.
He recently identified Drury Scruggs, who marched to the Civil War from his home in North Carolina's mountains and later died at Gettysburg. There's also William P. Wallace, a farm boy from Montgomery County.
Both had been resting under anonymous headstones.
Purser also spent time working with New York-based historian Glen Hayes. Comparing notes, the researchers decided that John O. Dobson from North Carolina didn't exist. They agreed that John O. Dolson -- a Yankee from Minnesota -- had been shipped to Raleigh in his place.
Purser, 67, plans to hold a ceremony in September to honor the three soldiers with new headstones.
"It's three American soldiers getting their identity," Purser said. "That's what tickles me."
Purser, an Air Force veteran and retired postal carrier living in Garner, first helped rescue the Confederate cemetery from neglect in the early 1980s. He now has names for all but five of those buried at Oakwood, save 14 unknowns in a mass grave.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Texas had to fight and win a revolution in order to break free from Mexico. The parallel ends right there since Texas won their rebellion and the South didn't.
Yes and no. If most definitely found that unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern states to be unconstitutional and illegal. But the Chief Justice quite rightly confirmed that secession itself was constitutional if done correctly, that is with the consent of the states. I have no disagreement with that at all.
None of that would have had any impact on slavery as it existed in the Southern states, so how could that assure their economic destruction?
This is what the original poster claimed.
When you jump into a discussion you should know what the context is.
Most States had already seceded before any Army went into the South to suppress the Rebellion.
Our ancestors during the American Revolution, including my Great Great Great Great Grandfather Moses and my Great Great Great Grandfather Robert, fought against the oppressive rule of King George III, Lord North and Parliament. My Great Grand Father Matthew fought against the oppressive rule of the US Congress, the newly elected President and the Northern Power structure. The clear and certain proof that it was oppressive is the fact that Armies were raised and sent to the Southern States to beat them it into submission.
No, Armies were raised because the South had started a rebellion by firing on and occupying Federal property (owned by all the States) and that right to put down a rebellion is in the Constitution.
Washington used it to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
Now, just because most battles were fought in the South doesn't mean anything.
That is where the Rebellion was!
As for slavery, the Southern slave owners began defending that vile practice into a positive virtue and as that was the cause of the friction between the slave owning and free states.
The Southern slave owning States refused to make any concessions on slavery, equating them with their own 'property rights'.
As for your ancestors, if they fought for the United States they were right, and if they fought against her they were wrong-period.
The constitutionality of the right to secede has still never been established in a court of law. It was argued on thousands of battlefields and effectively determined at the Appomattox Courthouse with the surrender of the Confederacy. Had the south been victorious the validity of the right would have been decided differently.
Not at all.
You don't need a Court of Law or a battlefield to decide it.
Simple reason will tell anyone who reads the Constitution that the 'right' of secession is not written into the Constitution and thus, does not exist.
Madison called such the notion of secession, 'heretical nonsense'.
Had the South won on the battlefield it would have been interesting to see how long their own Confederacy would have survived if any of its states decided to just opt out when it felt like it.
They stated in their preamble that they were creating a permanent federal government
Did that make secession illegal for the Confederate States?
Actually, that post is correct.
Since the right to secede is not in the Constitution, you cannot use it to justifiy violating what is clearly written in the Constitution.
Had the Founders wanted the ability to secede for their States, they would have written it in the Constitution as such and made some legal mechanism for a State to leave the Union peacefully.
Article IV says that Congress and the legislature of the stat must approve. The partition of Virginia was approved by a section of the Virginia legislature not participating in the rebellion and which was recognized as the legitimate representatives of the Commonwealth by Congress.
Oh, so because you are wrong about what I posted, it is somehow my fault. I got it!
No, actually the reason we have a United States today is because of the moral strength of Lincoln.
But I know that is the real reason you hate him.
“As for slavery, the Southern slave owners began defending that vile practice into a positive virtue and as that was the cause of the friction between the slave owning and free states.”
What a CROCK!
The cause of friction were the Northern Abolitionist sticking their noses where they didn’t belong.
Great people (BARF), like Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote her fictional “Uncle Ton’s Cabin”, and she had never even set foot in the South.
It says that the Constitution is deriving its power from the People of the United States and if that power is abused, the people of Virgina have a right as people of the United States to reclaim.
That is the right found in the Declaration of Independence, the right of resistance against tyranny.
There is no right for secession and the States knew that when they entered into the Constitution as people of the United States.
So Lincoln sent in his army into Virginia - just cuz Ft Sumter got attacked?
Seems like a good enough reason to me!
Thats like asking if the only reason we nuked Japan was because they bombed Pearl Harbor.
What a CROCK! The cause of friction were the Northern Abolitionist sticking their noses where they didn’t belong. Great people (BARF), like Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote her fictional “Uncle Ton’s Cabin”, and she had never even set foot in the South.
The Abolitionists were right and the ending of slavery was long overdue.
As for the conditions of Southern slavery, it was as bad as any novel could depict.
In fact, so debase had the slave owners become that even though they were fathering many of the slaves being born, they still kept their own children as slaves.
For details, read the writings of Frederick Douglas.
I am sure he knew what slavery was like, having grown up under it.
Yes, you are wrong since the Army that attempted to suppress the Rebellion did not lead to Southerners resisting the North.
That was the context of the discussion.
The Army that was raised was because of an act of Rebellion by the South and did not cause anything.
That’s correct. The Confederate soldiers didn’t die under the American flag and they had renounced their citizenship.
They were traitors who died trying to kill American soldiers. They didn’t live to see the end of the war and make their pledge back to the United States of America.
They died in order to continue an obsolete and antiqued system of slavery.
They might have been very brave. They may have loved their God, country and families but they died for an unjust cause.
Sorry guy. The Confederates were exactly that. The term Americans describes a citizen of the United States of America. The citizens of the Confederate States of America are called Confederates.
“Drury Scruggs”
Folks aren’t naming their kids Drury so much anymore. 4real.
In your argument with whoever (and I really care about that argument at all for it had no bearing on why I responded to you) you said Lincoln did not have an army.
I posted... Who was with McDowell?
It really isn't that difficult of an answer. An army.
Really, I never heard them refered to as American troops. I always thought it was the Union army. Could you give me a reference?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.