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.
I'll let Madison answer for me. That's a little risky, I know, because Madison is not always consistent, but here is what he had to say on the subject:
The other position involved in this branch of the resolution, namely, "that the states are parties to the Constitution or compact," is, in the judgment of the committee, equally free from objection. It is indeed true, that the term "states," is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus, it sometimes means the separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each; sometimes the particular governments, established by those societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those particular governments; and, lastly, it means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity. Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconveniency is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty from the different applications. In the present instance, whatever different constructions of the term "states," in the resolution, may have been entertained, all will at least concur in that last mentioned; because, in that sense, the Constitution was submitted to the "states," in that sense the "states" ratified it; and, in that sense of the term "states," they are consequently parties to the compact, from which the powers of the federal government result.
By the way, the elected members of the Texas secession convention voted for secession. If the original ratification conventions of 1788 or thereabouts were the sovereign voices of their states, was not the 1861 Texas secession convention the sovereign voice of Texas?
To end all doubt that they spoke for the people, Texas put the secession question before the voters of the state. The ratifiers of the US Constitution did not take such an extra step to be sure that the sovereign people concurred.
To bad you do not do the same.
The South went to war to defend slavery, and wrote negro slavery into its Constitution.
It was a system that was built on a racial lie and it was a blessing to the world that it was destroyed.
Slavery was legal but not moral.
Abortion is legal but are we not allowed to speak out against it?
As for ending slavery peacefully, the slave owners had no intention of ever ending slavery and wrote it right into the Confederate Constiution.
Their Vice President stated that the Confederacy was going to be built on the 'reality' of racial inequalty.
And last I checked, free speech was still part of the Constitution.
Ofcourse, the Southern slave owning tyrants only thought they had any rights-including the right to enslave another human being.
They denied any other person's right to condemn the practice as immoral and even shut down free speech in Congress.
Now, what great representives of 'Conservative values' these guys were.
Fine...
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.
No, because secession was never a right to begin with and thus could not be retained.
The States had an opportunity to stand on their own if they so had chosen by rejecting the Constitution and becoming independent.
They chose to join the Union and thus, became bound to it.
Secession was not written into the Constitution, no provision was made for it and thus, it was no legal to do so.
And that was the view of Madison as well.
You guys take the same view as Liberals, looking for things not stated in the Constitution as for what is.
Try dealing with context.
The issue was when did most of the Southern states secede.
That was before the Army was raised, not after.
So the question was not whether a army was raised, but did it cause most of the Southern states to secede and the answer is no, most of the South had secede before the Army could be assembled.
So you are wrong for making an out of context comment.
Not what I asked. I asked who was following McDowell into Virginia.
That was before the Army was raised, not after.
Not what I asked. I asked who was following McDowell into Virginia.
So the question was not whether a army was raised, but did it cause most of the Southern states to secede and the answer is no, most of the South had secede before the Army could be assembled.
Not what I asked. I asked who was following McDowell into Virginia.
The problem is (as I see it from my computer) is that you think I asked that question because I was trying to blame the North for something. I was not. I read your post (and not the argument) and you wrote, what I thought, was the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time. That Lincoln did not have an army. (I wonder what those men ((all dressed in blue and calling each other Captain, Colonel, etc., in November, 1860)) thought they were a part of... a fraternity, a country-club, a debating society? Sorry, but even that has no bearing on the question I asked.)
I asked who did McDowell have with him?
Instead of just answering - an army - you go on the attack and try to explain to me that had nothing to do with the Southerns or States seceding from the Union.
I don't really care. Are you so agenda driven that you are afraid to answer a question as simple as the one I asked?
Did you think I was trying to trap you?
How sad is that?
Even in your last post, you won't answer the question. You just write another post ordering me to look at the context.
I get where you are coming from. North good, South bad. North not to blame. South-100% responsible.
So, I will try asking again. Who did McDowell have with him in July, 1861, all dressed in blue and heading toward Richmond? Perhaps you can find it in yourself to post the answer. (Hint, it was an army.)
I suggest you read the Reconstruction Acts. Those dates you listed were the dates that the Southern states had their Congressional delegations readmitted to Congress. No where in the Reconstruction Acts, or any other legislation, are the Southern states removed from the Union. At no time were they not states, even at the height of the rebellion. There is no legislation readmitting them as states, no new enabling acts, nothing like that. None was needed.
Whu doesn't it?
What rule of law made it confederate property? According to the Constitution only Congress can dispose of federal property. I'm not aware of any such legislation.
After patiently waiting 2 days, the Unionists didnt heed their warning and the rest is history.
Yes, the South started the war and the South lost the war.
As far as Supreme Court rulings goes, no you did not.
Not what I asked. I asked who was following McDowell into Virginia.
And your question was in relation to the question I was dealing with another poster that stated that most Southerners were fighting against a massive Union invasion.
So, once again, you are trying to avoid the context in which you posted that question to me.
That was before the Army was raised, not after.
Not what I asked. I asked who was following McDowell into Virginia.
And you asked that in relation to my comments to another poster on why most Southerners joined in the rebellion.
So the question was not whether a army was raised, but did it cause most of the Southern states to secede and the answer is no, most of the South had secede before the Army could be assembled.
Not what I asked. I asked who was following McDowell into Virginia.
What you asked was in relation to the other question.
The problem is (as I see it from my computer) is that you think I asked that question because I was trying to blame the North for something. I was not. I read your post (and not the argument) and you wrote, what I thought, was the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time. That Lincoln did not have an army. (I wonder what those men ((all dressed in blue and calling each other Captain, Colonel, etc., in November, 1860)) thought they were a part of... a fraternity, a country-club, a debating society? Sorry, but even that has no bearing on the question I asked.)
Well, it is clear you did not read the article I posted that stated that the American Army was small and scattered when the Southern States began to secede.
So, secession was not a reaction to any Union invasion threat.
Lincoln had to call up troops to battle the rebellion after most of the States had already seceded.
No one was stating that Lincoln did not eventually raise an Army, but that Army was not in existence when the secession crises began-now was it?
And that was the context of the discussion, not whether Lincoln eventually raised a great Army, but its relation in why the Southern States seceded.
So, once again, you have shown yourself unable to understand context.
I asked who did McDowell have with him? Instead of just answering - an army - you go on the attack and try to explain to me that had nothing to do with the Southerns or States seceding from the Union.
That the Union raised an Army had nothing to do with why most of the Southern States had seceded.
So your comment followed by 'hmmmm' was made as if that Army had been raised had been a factor in those earlier states in seceding-and it wasn't.
I don't really care. Are you so agenda driven that you are afraid to answer a question as simple as the one I asked? Did you think I was trying to trap you?
No, if you are going to ask a question that has nothing to do with an earlier one make it read as such.
If you want to step into a dialog as if what you are stating has some relevance to what is being discussed with some clever remark, then make sure that what you are saying has relevance.
Everyone knows that the Union raised a massive military machine, but that was not the question being discussed, what was being discussed was that massive military machine in relation to Southerners fighting for the Confederacy, and that machine did not exist in 1860-61, when 7 States left the Union.
How sad is that? Even in your last post, you won't answer the question. You just write another post ordering me to look at the context.
Yes, and it is sad that you will not admit that you were wrong in what you posted in relation to the question being discussed.
It is you who refuses to see that your 'question' (which was rhetorical) is a meaningless one by itself and in connection to what was being discussed, wrong.
The American Army was raised in reaction to an attack on a U.S. military installation and as such, it was raised to put down a rebellion already in progress.
I get where you are coming from. North good, South bad. North not to blame. South-100% responsible.
Hey, that was the most accurate thing you have yet posted.
And I did also get the implicit idea behind your comment, that the North was wrong-and it wasn't.
So you were wrong in all of your posts.
So, I will try asking again. Who did McDowell have with him in July, 1861, all dressed in blue and heading toward Richmond? Perhaps you can find it in yourself to post the answer. (Hint, it was an army.)
And (hint) so what?
It was an Army that was raised after the U.S. flag was fired upon.
And it was an army raised with the same purpose that the army was raised to put down another rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion led by Washington himself.
You do know that rebellion is illegal and unconstitutional?
So, once again, your rhetorical question (The North had an army at Bull Run) is meaningless in context.
We aren’t speaking of morality, we are discussing the the fact that the South had every legal right to their property.
And the fact that the Abolitionists brought about sectional hatred by interfering in a matter that not only didn’t concern them, but was some other section of the countries business! Regardless of what was in the Confederate Constitution, Slavery would have ended for economic reasons within about 20-50 years at the most. And they DID have a legal right to slavery, etc. That is the whole point here.
Free Speech doesn’t give you the right to cause trouble.
Yea, sure we do. (SARCASM) Slavery wasn’t prohibited either, but you will “howl” to the skies about that.
The fact that thousands of men on both sides died, to end a problem that would have eventually been solved peacefully, is not a blessing.
Hindsight is 20/20. When the South went to war to protect their institution I've no doubt that they all thought slavery would continue for generations.
Abortion is legal but are we not allowed to speak out against it?
Speak out, yes! Do you have the right or should any government have the authority to kill anyone that is in favor of abortion or practices an act of abortion?
First off "American" is not synonymous with residents of the USA...It does not happen as much these days, but I have been in other western hemisphere countries, and the residents identify themselves as Americans...South Americans, Central Americans, North Americans, Pretty much the whole new world and it's inhabitants are "American". Was a day that WH residents of countries other than the USA took great umbrage to USA citizens attempt at using the term American exclusively for themselves.
besides what didthe "A" in "CSA" stand for?
I was at a 4th of July picnic in a park in the highlands of South Carolina. The band played dixie and and some other southern treats...after a few my uncle stood up, between songs, cupped his hands and yelled:
"NOW PLAY ONE FOR THE WINNIN' SIDE"
I still LOL thinking about that.
I am beginning to tire over this "tastes great, less filling" king of debate. There are/were many who found/find constitutional precedent in the right secede and an absence of that right. The issue is extra-constitutional and was not unexpectedly settled outside the constitution.
In the context of the time, the voluntary union was sold as an experiment in the ratification process. Individual state (colony) legislatures were reluctant to cede power and control to the collective representatives of the other stated and were understandably concerned about clearly establishing by-laws as to what the union could and could not do. So called "extra constitutional" powers were absolutely not transferred to the federal government. This condition of ratification was specifically addressed in New York's ratification and the 10th Amendment is evidence of the acceptance of this condition. (It must be noted that had the Bill of Rights not bee ratified, multiple states would have rescinded their ratification, effectively seceding).
It seems your argument involves things extra constitutional and the default understandings of the time. Things that are universally understood to mean one thing today were clearly interpreted differently in 1787. In the 1787 debates in the constitutional ratification conventions of the various states, even those that did not make right of withdrawal explicit or implied in their articles of ratification were presented with a union that was anything but "inviolable." They looked to a union so well-made and so obviously mutually beneficial that it would prove inviolable. They did not make it so by threat of force.
In Pennsylvania, James Wilson, as the only member of the ratification convention who had also been a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, did the bulk of explaining and defending the new document. He equated the American states with the individuals in Johnathan Locke's Invisible Hand theory, giving up a part of their natural liberty in the expectation of more good and happiness in the community than they would have alone. "The states should resign to the national government that part, and that part only, of their political liberty, which, placed in that government, will produce more good to the whole than if it had remained in the several states."
And this implied the ability to take it back again. In the proposed Constitution, the citizens of the various states "appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." A Lockean principle, that any power given can be reclaimed again, echoes throughout the speeches. "If (the people) choose to indulge a part of their sovereign power to be exercised by the state government, they may. If they have done it, the states were right in exercising it; but if they think it no longer safe or convenient they will resume it, or make a new distribution, more likely to be productive of that good which ought to be our constant aim." Power resides in the people, divided into distinct communities of sovereign states.
Wilson told them again and again that, by accepting the Constitution, they were entering into an "experiment." "... I am sure that our interests, as citizens, as states, and as a nation, depend essentially upon a union. This Constitution is proposed to accomplish that great and desirable end. Let the experiment be made; let the system be fairly and candidly tried, before it is determined that it cannot be executed."
Would you agree, in a modern context, the constitution and the union it represents is a voluntary union? Would you further agree no state was forced to join against its will, the will of its people, or the will of the other member states? Would you agree that it defies logic to be forced to remain in a "voluntary" union?
Would you be interested in addressing any of the questions I directed to you in reply 466?
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.