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.
It's implied in Article IV, Section 3 and Article I, Section 10.
So? How does this relate to secession? You would have us believe that the founders didn't consider secession important enough to say how it should occur? They voted down using force to keep a state in the Union
It relates to the fact that they agreed that the Constitution and the laws made under it was the Supreme law of the land and that it overrode any local constitution or laws. As the Supreme Court found, unilateral secession was not allowed under the Constitution.
Add the proviso that their rulings apply to states that haven't seceded, and I'll agree.
Qualify to say that it doesn't apply to states that have seceded legally and I'll agree.
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. Could the states have imagined, when they entered into a union, and retained the power of diminishing, extending, or destroying the powers of the federal government, that they who "created and could destroy," might have this maxim turned upon themselves, by their own creature; and that this misapplication of words was able both to deprive them of sovereignty, and bestow it upon a union subordinate to their will, even for existence. I have no idea of a sovereignty constituted upon better ground than that of each state, nor of one which can be pretended to on worse, than that claimed for the federal government, or some portion of it. Conquest or force would give a much better title to sovereignty, than a limited deputation or delegation of authority. The deputations by sovereignties, far from being considered as killing the sovereignties from which they have derived limited powers, are evidences of their existence; and leagues between states demonstrate their vitality. 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.
States can "annihilate the union" but can't surrender their sovereignty to it? That's not a convincing proposition in and of itself. The union is "conventional," "possesses no innate sovereignty," and is "of course subordinate to the sovereignties by which it was formed"? That's a lot of asserting going on. What if Americans were creating a federal union, not a loose alliance of states? Certainly Washington thought he was creating and serving a country.
"Could the states have imagined, when they entered into a union ... that they who "created and could destroy," might have this maxim turned upon themselves"? There's a lot of assuming going on there. Others who were in a position to know have said that it was the people of the country, acting through the states that ratified the constitution. That's why state legislatures didn't ratify, but popular conventions.
"I have no idea of a sovereignty constituted upon better ground than that of each state ..." Of course he doesn't. If he had an idea that went against his system he'd have to examine his conclusions, not just take them as true.
"Conquest or force would give a much better title to sovereignty, than a limited deputation or delegation of authority." Scary. Be careful what you wish for.
"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." The states didn't "perish" -- Taylor is setting up a false opposition, but they didn't explicitly reserve a right in the Constitution to break with the union. Some may have in their ratification statements, but that wasn't in the Constitution itself.
I'm not saying Taylor was wrong. Just that he had way too much arrogant belief in his own conclusions. For all I know he may have been right, but one can't rely on such conclusions as much as Taylor thinks one can.
It's also worth noting that Robert Yates was an anti-federalist who left the convention early, did not sign the Constitution and campaigned against it. The earliest record of Yates notes had been tampered with by Edmond Genet to discredit Madison. By the time Taylor was writing the full record had been published, but the irregularity should be noted.
Calm down carton, I got it, I got it.
Just an understandable thing that does not deserve the acrimony directed to Southerners and our ancestors by individuals that would have acted in exactly the same way if they were cast into those circumstances. Persons in the present looking back through a myopic lens from the Twenty-first Century can't seem to comprehend that women were also treated as de facto chattel with no right to vote and no lenience to act on their own behalf as a woman does now. Social class was still very much a guiding influence. The privileges of birth still stratified society even in New England.
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"?
I think it's obvious that hot blood and angry hearts had been festering for at least a generation since Thomas Jefferson wrote of his fears for the Union after the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Jefferson clearly understood that the "line in the sand" would destroy the Union. Both sides attempted to stack the deck in their favor.
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?
Clearly that should have happened. I only wish that our leaders had not been so intransigent. We sure could have used a Daniel Webster or an Everett Dirksen back in 1861.
Come to think of it, we could sure use Senator Dirksen right now! Can you imagine how he would have tempered and mediated this Amnesty Bill?
Mis-ter - Pres-i-dent, it - is - now - very - clear - that - the - Bord-er Fence - must - be - built - be-fore - this - Bill - can - ever - be - passed. As - a - prom-is-sory - ges-ture - I - pro-pose - we - plant - Mar-i-golds - on - the - South-ern - fa-cade - of - the - Fence - so - that - our - dear - a-mi-gos - in - the - Ci-ty - of - Mont-e-zu-ma - will - know - that - we - still - hold - their - good-will - in - very - high - regard. Just - as - we - have - in-di-cated - our - de-sires - in - de-bate, - with-in - these - august - chambers, - so - will - we - strive - to - ar-rive - at - a - most - e-qui-ta-ble - sol- u-tion - to - this - im-passe.
Oh, absolutely. One needs to merely look at how vigorously certain economic sectors are trying to protect their business models based on cheap, illegal labor. It is not uncommon to hear them describe the exploitation of desperate 3 worlders in glowing terms of how compassionate their system is.
The one where he stated: "But the union possesses no innate sovereignty, like the states; it was not self-constituted;..."? Perhaps he somewhere explains how the States were "self-constituted" in some manner that did not involve the consent of their people, in much the same way that the ratification of the Constitution did. Before that, the States were mere colonies with no sovereignty at all.
He argues that the States created the Nation. They did not. The Constitution was ratified by conventions of the People within each State, who each directed the actions of the State to join in the Union. It was not the States which exercised the "highest act of sovereignty", but the conventions in each, thus one of those powers reserved to the people for the first 13 members.
unilateral secession is PERMITTED, unless it is SPECIFICALLY ceded to the central government.
Cool. That means I can secede from California. Does that also mean that South Texas can secede and rejoin Mexico without permission from the rest of Texas?
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.
Radical Republican Charles Sumner argued that secession had destroyed statehood alone but the Constitution still extended its authority and its protection over individuals, as in the territories. Thaddeus Stevens and his followers viewed secession as having left the states in a status like newly conquered territory.
His biographer characterizes him as, "The Great Commoner, savior of free public education in Pennsylvania, national Republican leader in the struggles against slavery in the United States and intrepid mainstay of the attempt to secure racial justice for the freedmen during Reconstruction, the only member of the House of Representatives ever to have been known, even if mistakenly, as the 'dictator' of Congress."
Re-admission to the union
Tennessee - July 24, 1866
Arkansas - June 22, 1868
Florida - June 25, 1868
North Carolina - July 4, 1868
South Carolina - July 9, 1868
Louisiana - July 9, 1868
Alabama - July 13, 1868
Virginia - January 26, 1870
Mississippi - February 23, 1870
Texas - March 30, 1870
Georgia - July 15, 1870
There are a lot of parallels. It was called a revolution, a rebellion and a civil war by both sides. Many - not all - of the American-European settlers who came to Texas were slave owners. And many of those who didnt own slaves still believed in slavery. Mexico had outlawed slavery. By the way, many of of the American immigrants were illegal - fancy that! Mexico - specifically, Santa Ana felt Texas was slipping out of their grasp. Also, one of the sparks that triggered Texas fight for secession from Mexico was the fact that Mexico scrapped the Constitution of 1824. Most of the power went back to Mexico City and the locals believed their rights were being usurped.
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.
The "evidence" you provided doesnt seem to back up the legitimacy of West Virginia as a state, then......
Yep, Wlat was a liberal, and didn’t deny it. I was suprised it took so long to ban him.
On the contrary, the South Carolina forces had given ample warning to the Unionists to vacate the premises which was no longer under the jurisdiction of the USA but instead was property of the CSA. After patiently waiting 2 days, the Unionists didnt heed their warning and the rest is history.
UNPROVOKED? Sir, the unionists who were illegally occupying Ft. Sumter were given ample warning to vacate, yet they refused. You need to study your history. Besides, the Unionists only casualties were due to their own ineptitude. So the Yankee army that invaded Virginia was over-reacting way big time
On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. At 2:30 p.m., April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day. The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the opening engagement of the American Civil War. Although there were no casualties during the bombardment, one Union artillerist was killed and three wounded (one mortally) when a cannon exploded prematurely when firing a salute during the evacuation.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/ftsumter.htm
There is no doubt about it - as far as Texas history goes, we legally seceded from the Union in March 1861 and became a part of the CSA for about 4 years. Northerners/Yankees may believe otherwise - but our state history recognizes six flags that flew over this territory/republic/state. One of them happens to be the Stars 'n Bars.
otoh, the STATES are sovereign entities & thus are PERMITTED by the 10th Amendment to SECEDE, change the FORM of the union,MODIFY that union or ABOLISH the union entirely.
face it, Lex, the STATES & the citizens of those STATES created the union, rather than the union the states.
btw, you/i may well live to see the secession of AZ,CA,CO,NM,NV,OR, & WA to be LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS de AZATLAN.
to ALL: for those readers,who say that this would NOT be "allowed", let me ask you a question:
YOU, Mr/Ms.______________ have just been elected POTUS in 2016 AD & you on the day of your inauguration are faced with the secession of SEVEN western states.
will you make WAR on them to prohibit the exercise of their RIGHTS and IF war is your CHOICE, how many MILLION Americans will you willingly KILL/INJURE to prohibit secession???
1 million??
10 Million??
100 MILLION???
EVERYBODY in the USA??
it's really no more complicated than that, Mr/Ms President. (lincoln, the GREAT Spiller of Blood CHOSE war & a MILLION died for his ego & lust for power/money.)
the clock is ticking. what is YOU decision, Mr/Ms President???
free dixie,sw
actually, i miss having "Wlat" around to "beat on", attack & ridicule.
free dixie,sw
I find Taylor tough to slog through myself, but I agree with the quote I provided.
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists had greatly different views of the Constitution. John Taylor is a leading Anti-Federalist theorist. If you favor Federalist interpretations, you'll disagree with Taylor.
Speaking of assertions, Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the Constitution had been not been created by the states but by one American people. That view is not correct, as was earlier pointed out by Madison in his 1799 Report on the Virginia Resolutions.
Here is another example of flawed Federalist thought. Federalists such as James Wilson argued against the need for a Bill of Rights saying, for example:
Hence, it is evident, that in the former case everything which is not reserved is given; but in the latter the reverse of the proposition prevails, and everything which is not given is reserved. This distinction being recognized, will furnish an answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights a defect in the proposed constitution; for it would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested, either by the intention or the act that has brought the body into existence. For instance, the liberty of the press, which has been a copious source of declamation and opposition -- what control can proceed from the Federal government to shackle or destroy that sacred palladium of national freedom?
What indeed! Federalists quickly violated the First Amendment with their Sedition Act and put a number of their press opponents in jail. Perhaps largely for that reason, Federalists got voted out of power in the 1800 election. They subsequently withered away politically except for their long-lived members of the judiciary.
States can "annihilate the union" but can't surrender their sovereignty to it?
Who are the ultimate sovereigns but the people of the states who delegated certain tasks to the federal government in the US Constitution and others to state governments by their state constitutions. I don't believe the people ever delegated their ultimate sovereignty away nor perhaps could they, which is a point Taylor is making.
Certainly Washington thought he was creating and serving a country.
George Washington left a judiciary largely filled with members of his own party, the Federalists. It is no wonder that we got court rulings that reflected their views and wishes, which weren't necessarily what was passed or promised at the convention or during ratification.
Federalists pushed for a national rather than a federal government. They lost at the constitutional convention but later used a largely Federalist judiciary to write their views into law.
The states didn't "perish" -- Taylor is setting up a false opposition, but they didn't explicitly reserve a right in the Constitution to break with the union. Some may have in their ratification statements, but that wasn't in the Constitution itself.
What happened to the Federalist argument that what was not expressly delegated remained with the states? If some of the Federalists had had their way, the states might have largely disappeared.
Here's John Marshall in the Virginia Ratification Convention on June 16, 1788:
The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.
Nevertheless, Marshall as chief justice later rejected the argument that things needed to be expressly delegated. Basically, he gave Congress broad powers that the careful framers of the Constitution had not. That's a slippery slope, IMHO. I don't trust a Congress whose powers are not effectively constrained by a carefully worded Constitution. But that is just old unsophisticated me who can't understand the nuance, I suppose.
Attacking it was an act of treason as well as war.
Stop trying to defend criminal acts by traitors.
It was no more of an 'over-reaction' than was Washington leading an army into Pennsylvania to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
You just have to consider the source. He's revealing how well he handles logic in making that leap.
That was exactly your stance when you tried to associate approving freeing slaves with the British act of freeing slaves, and then stating that it was 'anti-American'.
It seems that all you have left, unable to justify the evil system that the Confederacy sought to defend, slavery, as is typical of all you Pro-Confederate apologists, is a final recourse to ad hominem comments.
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.