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.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Secession was not an enumerated right, nor specifically prohibited, therefore, by default, it was a right reserved to the states.
Slavery was LEGAL.
The North had no business interfering in the economics of the Southern States. Other countries ended the practice of slavery peacefully, and it would have been done so eventually in the South as well.
Nope, only the gullible believe that. Justice Grier in dissent, wrote, 'Politically, Texas is not a State in this Union. Whether rightfully out of it or not is a question not before the court.
The issue before the court was the reclamation of the bonds. Chief Justice Chase had to determine whether or not the court had jurisdiction. If Texas has seceded, the court did not have jurisdiction. Justice Chase, believing the NEW union of states to be perpetual and indissoluble. Chase just invented it ignoring the absence of any language to that effect, ignoring the fact that the word 'perpetual' used 5 times in the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union was never placed into the Constitution, ignoring the fact that the convention refused to delegate the federal government the power to prevent secession (8-3 against). Ignored the framers rejection of the attempt to consolidate the states into 'one' amalgamated people.
The issue at bar was the reclamation of the bonds, to prevent payment to White & Chiles. The issue was not the legality of secession.
In his ruling, Chase, a member of the cabinet that had conducted the war against the South for four years, asserted but not proved that secession was unconstitutional. What, did you expect such a person to find otherwise? Basically, it was an ipse dixit ruling. [ipse dixit]
The US had accepted the Texas Constitution of 1845 that said:
SECTION 1. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times the unalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient.
Nope. The Constitution states it requires the 'Consent of the Legislatures [plural] of the States [plural] concerned as well as of the Congress.' In this case only one legislature gave consent. The legislature could not be the legislature of both states.
The power to admit a state and to approve any change in their status after being admitted is a power reserved to the United States, specifically Congress. The power to act in a unilateral manner where the interests of other states may be negatively impacted is a power denied to the states. Implied in both of these is the fact that unilateral secession is illegal.
He could probably say the same about you as well.
I will defer to your expertise in what the gullible believe, and point out that Justice Greer was writing for the minority. The majority agreed that the question of whether Texas was rightfully out of the Union was a matter before the court and the majority agreed that Texas was not.
The issue at bar was the reclamation of the bonds, to prevent payment to White & Chiles. The issue was not the legality of secession.
Yes it was. The defense argued that Texas had seceded and had not completed Reconstruction and that therefore she had no status as a state and no right to take the case to the Supreme Court. Given that arguement the question of the legality of secession was a matter before the court and the court decided that the acts of secession were invalid.
But a ruling that a majority of the court agreed with, and it's binding. Unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern states is unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional in 1861, it is unconstitutional now, and it will remain unconstitutional until the Constitution is amended or the Texas v. White decision is modified or overturned by a future court. Regardless of how you feel about it.
The US had accepted the Texas Constitution of 1845 that said...
And Texas had agreed to abide by the Constitution, which said that it was supreme to state Constitutions. Just because the Texas constitution said it doesn't mean it was legal.
In this case only one legislature was involved, that of the Commonwealth of Virginia. And the Virginia body recognized as the legitimate legislature of the commonwealth gave consent.
free dixie,sw
Back to you in New York, Peter.
A delegated power is loaned, or temporarily vested in an agent, not surrendered permanently.
We certainly disagree on other parts of the Constitution and who is entitled to protection under it, but I agree with you that governmental powers are not limitless. I agree that implied powers expound on other powers explicitly granted. And I don't think I'd moved from that position.
Kudos to you sir.
What we disagree on is what those powers are.
And who wields them.
A state may not change their border by a fraction of an inch without Congressional approval. Congressional control on matters like these affecting a state's status is complete and explicit. Given the explicit control granted Congress by the Constitution then it's no great stretch to conclude that implied in that is the need for Congressional approval for the ultimate change of status, leaving entirely.
The power is to admit NEW states. The consent of the states desiring to form NEW states is for the states' protection. Roger Sherman stated in convention, '[t]he Union cannot dismember a State without its consent.' James Wilson added, '[w]hen the majority of a State wish to divide they can do so. The aim of those in opposition to the article, he perceived, was that the Genl. Government should abet the minority, & by that means divide a State against its own consent.' Gouverneur Morris argued that 'If the forced division of the States is the object of the new System, and is to be pointed agst one or two States, he expected, the gentleman from these would pretty quickly leave us.'
In other words, all the debate was over the admission of NEW states. The consent required of states was to prevent the federal government from dismembering them, not of them dismembering themselves. The entire debate in convention regarding Article IV §3 was the admission of NEW states. NOTHING, absolutely nothing was said about a state leaving.
But on that note, there was that motion by Madison that was voted down 8-3, which would have granted the federal government the power to use military force to prevent the departure of a state.
The difference in our position is that your assert that Congress' power over a states' withdrawal exists IMPLICTLY, while facts prove that EXPLICITLY Congress has no power to prevent withdrawal.
IF they intended to prohibit PEACEFUL withdrawal from the union, they would have written that PROHIBITION in, as what is NOT written as "prohibited" is ACCEPTABLE!
furthermore, as i said earlier, NO state would have FREELY joined a union from which they could not just as FREELY withdraw!
frankly, you look SILLIER with every post you spew out onto the forum.
PITY that you don't know that you are considered one of the WORST of the FOOLS that infest the "DAMNyankee coven of idiots,LEFTISTS, haters, BIGOTS, nitwits, REVISIONISTS & empty-heads".
free dixie,sw
fyi, that is your reputation on FR. (the TRUTH is that those who do not ridicule you, feel sorry for your obvious lack of brains.)
i, otoh, just laugh AT you. bigots/haters deserve RIDICULE & nothing more.
free dixie,sw
yeah, you want fries with that?
NOTHING he posts is worthy of anything other than RIDICULE.
free dixie,sw
That’s all she wrote! The fat lady has sung!
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.