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.
note to all: DAMNyankee social/educational/financial/business elites, out of the northeast, have FOREVER been SELF-righteous, sanctimonious, HYPOCRITICAL, SELF-serving & arrogant. "do as i say but not as i do" has been their motto since they arrived on "Plymouth Rock".
btw, "ftd", when are you DAMNyankees going to get around to DESEGREGATING your northern schools??? after all it's only been a little over a HALF CENTURY since Brown v. Board of Education mandated DESEGREGATION. should we southerners send you some FREEDOM RIDERS to help with school integration??? (we have plenty of the children of "the freedom riders" & "lunch counter denizens", who DESEGREGATED the southland 40+ years ago. they'll be PLEASED to come help the north NOW! it's "the neighborly thing" to do.)
free dixie,sw
I have noticed that.
In the end it was not logic, the courts or the congress the congress that settled the issue, it was the medieval practice of trial by combat and the position held by the prevailing party became the law of the land.
But that implies that the Constitutionality of the issue is still open when it is not. Unilateral secession is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court has ruled as such. People may disagree with the court's position on that, or any other ruling, but it doesn't change the situation or make constitutional what the court ruled unconstitutional.
You just have to consider the source. He's revealing how well he handles logic in making that leap.
LOL! Makes as much sense as anything you have said.
You know enough about the law to know that whatever the SCOTUS giveth, the SCOTUS can taketh away. I don't have an opinion either way, I am just reciting the arguments of the period. Better legal minds than our have argued and never agreed on this point and hundreds of thousands on both sides of the argument have felt strongly enough to kill and be killed for it. In the end it was settled more so by the Army of the Potomac than the founders, the congress, the legislatures, and the courts combined. There is nothing so convincing as the point of a bayonet. That doesn't make good precedent, but it is effective.
Pretty much the same logic used by those who say that anyone not supporting the confederate cause are liberals, commies, Clintonistas, etc.
The Supreme Court once ruled that tomatoes were vegetables rather than fruit. Does that make it so?
Show me where in the Constitution secession is prohibited. You can't, because it isn't. Secession is supra-constitutional.
Given the comments of the New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island ratification conventions at the time, I strongly doubt whether the Constitution would have been ratified if it had included a clause that once a state ratified it, it could not leave the Union regardless of the sovereign voice of its people.
And Texas had agreed to abide by the Constitution, which said that it was supreme to state Constitutions.
Your uber-nationalist streak is showing.
Under the Constitution, the people of the states delegated certain tasks to the federal government. As long as the states stayed in the Union, the Constitution was supreme over the state constitutions only in those powers and functions that had been delegated to it. The power of the states to secede was not delegated away from the states, therefore secession remains a power of the states and the people of those states. In fact, as 4CJ has pointed out, the power of the federal government to prevent secession by force was voted down in the 1787 Constitutional Convention.
Once states revoked their ratification of the Constitution, they no longer had to abide by the document they had revoked. They fought to the death for four years over that principle, and the issue was decided only by force. But might doesn't always make right.
And you Yankees wounder why we left?
free dixie,sw
as i've openly said that i'm only HALF Tsalagiyi (and half German/Scots), i'd guess that you think that Tiger Woods isn't legitimately BLACK??? or Colon Powell (who is only 1/4 Black) isn't Black either, for that matter???
my guess is, that given your OBVIOUS bigotry, as expressed in your posts, that if i was 1/2 Black rather than 1/2 AI, that you'd call me a word beginning in "N"!
you belong on DU, imVho, with the other EX-members of the "DAMNyankee coven of lunatics, HATERS,"useful idiots",bigots, LEFTISTS, nitwits, REVISIONISTS & haters", who are on DU.
btw, Whiskey Papa (a former "prominent leader" of "the DY coven" on FR) is ONE of "the leaders" on DU & marched WITH the A.N.S.W.E.R. creeps at the last "antiwar rally" in DC. (that in itself should tell you something about the "patriotism" & "good sense" of "the DY coven"!)
frankly, you elitist, DY,lying, creeps make me GAG.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
You mean tried to leave, don't you?
We did leave, it took the War of Northern Agression to conquer us back.
I'm going to have to ask you to cite that particular case before I sign on to such a whopper.
Show me where in the Constitution secession is prohibited. You can't, because it isn't.
True. But unilateral secession is prohibited. As Chief Justice Chase pointed out in his decision.
Secession is supra-constitutional.
Total nonsense. You might make the case that rebellion or revolution are supra-constitutional but you'd have a hard time painting those as legal.
Given the comments of the New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island ratification conventions at the time, I strongly doubt whether the Constitution would have been ratified if it had included a clause that once a state ratified it, it could not leave the Union regardless of the sovereign voice of its people.
What if the sovereign voice of its people say that the state must have a king? Or the state must split in two regardless of what Congress says? Or that the state must adopt the Euro as legal tender? Or that negro slavery wasn't so bad after all and must be re-estabished? Or burning and quartering should be the capital punishment of choice? Can any of those be done? No, because the Constitution forbids them. The sovereign voice of the people still must comply with the Constitution. Even in secession.
The power of the states to secede was not delegated away from the states, therefore secession remains a power of the states and the people of those states.
The power to do so unilaterally was. Or so the Court found in 1869.
Once states revoked their ratification of the Constitution, they no longer had to abide by the document they had revoked.
Most states didn't join by merely ratifying the Constitution. They were allowed to join only with the permission of the other states. They were, in effect, created by act of Congress. Uncreating them requires the same.
They fought to the death for four years over that principle, and the issue was decided only by force. But might doesn't always make right.
Nor does your saying it. The Founders fought for 7 or 8 years and won. The confederates fought for four years and lost. Who apparently wanted it more?
No, you tried. But then you lost the War of Southern Rebellion and your attempt failed. Legally the confederate states were never outside of the U.S.
Start signing (and eat your bacon, lettuce, and vegetable sandwich). NIX v. HEDDEN, 149 U.S. 304 (1893)
But unilateral secession is prohibited. As Chief Justice Chase pointed out in his decision.
ipse dixit
You might make the case that rebellion or revolution are supra-constitutional but you'd have a hard time painting those as legal.
The words of John Taylor of Caroline, a ratifier, come to mind:
In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation. But the union possesses no innate sovereignty, like the states; it was not self-constituted; it is conventional, and of course subordinate to the sovereignties by which it was formed.
The sovereignties which imposed the limitations upon the federal government, far from supposing that they perished by the exercise of a part of their faculties, were vindicated, by reserving powers in which their deputy, the federal government, could not participate; and the usual right of sovereigns to alter or revoke its commissions.
What if the sovereign voice of its people say that the state must have a king? Or the state must split in two regardless of what Congress says? Or that the state must adopt the Euro as legal tender? Or that negro slavery wasn't so bad after all and must be re-estabished? Or burning and quartering should be the capital punishment of choice? Can any of those be done? No, because the Constitution forbids them.
It forbids them as long as those states want to remain members of the Union, but not if they secede and are no longer members of the Union.
The sovereign voice of the people still must comply with the Constitution. Even in secession.
This must have been written in invisible ink on the back of the document. Oh, wait! Maybe I'm confusing your claim with a recent Nicolas Cage movie.
Most states didn't join by merely ratifying the Constitution. They were allowed to join only with the permission of the other states. They were, in effect, created by act of Congress. Uncreating them requires the same.
If a major thing like secession were prohibited, you'd think that it would have been clearly spelled out in the Constitution and not left to latter-day centralized power revisionists to claim it was prohibited.
A right is a justification for doing something; a power is the ability to do so. They are related, but not synonymous. You have the right to spout your opinion, you do not have the power to dictate facts.
The ratification process of the constitution was implicit in a right of secession. Two states, NY and VA, specifically included verbiage in their ratification stating this. The manifest evidence of this is the immediate adoption of the Bill of Rights. These 10 amendments were the quid pro quo for ratification. Had these not been added the parties that insisted on their inclusion would have rescinded their ratifications and effectively seceded.
So, do you think it a good thing or a bad thing that the South fought to preserve that "economic engine"? And how does wanting to limit the expansion of that economic model into the territories equate with ending it "in one fell swoop with no remuneration"? Why not the model used in several Northern states when they ended slavery: prohibit new slaves being purchased, prohibit new slaves being born into it, and give a set period to manumit the existing slaves over a number of years?
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.