Posted on 08/31/2006 9:07:31 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
On Sunday afternoon at Old Union Cemetery in southern White County, over 180 people gathered to pay a debt owed nearly 80 years. The group included members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, family and friends, all there to memorialize the service of Pvt. Henry Henderson, a black Confederate soldier.
Henderson was born in 1849 in Davidson County, NC. He was 11 years old when he entered service with the Confederate States of America as a cook and servant to Colonel William F. Henderson, a medical doctor. Records show Henry was wounded during his service, but he continued to serve until the war's end in 1865. He was discharged in Salem, NC, age 16.
After the war, Henry married Miranda Shockley, of White County, TN. The couple raised five children.
"We're here to honor him," said his great-grandson, Oscar Fingers, of Evansville, IN. "I think he would be proud his family has come this far and to know all we have done." Several other family members made the trip with Fingers from Indiana for Sunday's ceremony.
Sons Dalton and Lee received Henderson's first and last Tennessee Colored Confederate pension check upon their father's death in September 1926. The check provided enough funds to bury their father, but not enough to buy a headstone for his grave.
The 60,000-90,000 black Confederate soldiers are often called "the forgotten Confederates," but through the concerted efforts of the Capt. Sally Tompkins Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy along with the Sons of the Confederate Veterans, several graves have been found in the Upper Cumberland and have been or will be marked.
Pvt. Henry Henderson's service was finally recognized and his grave officially marked on Sunday, all to the snap of salutes from the grandsons of fellow Confederates, volleys of gunfire and cannons shot toward the distant hillsides of his final resting place.
Official U.S. government grave markers are available to all Confederate veterans. For additional information, contact Barbara Parsons, 484-5501.
Good points.
Some comments: The voice that the other states have regarding a states desire to withdraw, is that automatically to come at the point of a gun? Or should a special vote take place? There is no method spelled out in the Constitution for this, so that would be subject to debate.
Lincoln chose to end the debate by invasion of the south. Yes, yes, the south fired first, I know. But a more rational approach could still have been considered.
I believe that Texas, expressed in its admission to the USA the right to withdraw, as well as the right to divide itself into multiple states (a good idea!! see below ) should it choose to do so. I am not 100% certain on that, as I have never seen proof of that)
Why Multiple Texas'? -- If Texas divided into three or four states, we no doubt would have more Republicans in both houses of Congress!!
AMEN
in about 1980, there was a suggestion that we Texicans do just that.
the 5 state suggested capitols were to be:
1. North Texas: Dallas
2.Central Texas: Austin
3. South Texas: Corpus Christi
4.West Texas: a NEW CITY located near or within Loving County.
5. East Texas: Paris
because of the ALAMO, San Antonio was to be an "OPEN CITY" belonging to NO state, but located within the boundary of South Texas.
free dixie,sw
Is that gun to be pointed at those states remaining? Again, don't they have rights to be respected and protected?
As for the means I believe that the Constitution provides the implied method for accomplishing secession. A majority vote in Congress is required to join the Union, I believe a majority vote in Congress should all that is required to leave as well.
Lincoln chose to end the debate by invasion of the south. Yes, yes, the south fired first, I know. But a more rational approach could still have been considered.
What is rational about bombarding a fort for 24 hours and trying to kill every man in it? If all the rationality was on the Northern side then what difference would that have made with the irrational South? The line was crossed when the South chose war to achieve their ends. Lincoln merely reacted to their actions.
I believe that Texas, expressed in its admission to the USA the right to withdraw, as well as the right to divide itself into multiple states (a good idea!! see below ) should it choose to do so. I am not 100% certain on that, as I have never seen proof of that)
The Constitution makes it clear that no single state can have rights denied to other states. Texas can no more withdraw unilaterally than Illinois or Alabama can. The Supreme Court made that clear in their 1869 decision in Texas v White. As for Texas partitioning, that option was open to them prior to their admission to the Union. If they want to partition now then they must follow the procedures laid out in Article IV, Section 3.
Why Multiple Texas'? -- If Texas divided into three or four states, we no doubt would have more Republicans in both houses of Congress!!
Not necessarily. Five times as many Texas' wouldn't mean 5 times as many congressmen. You would partition the current number among the 5 states, and some may lose congressmen in the next census. You would have 5 times as many Senators, which is the biggest reason why such a plan would never make it through Congress.
How was the North exploiting the South? Defenders of the Confederate cause often like to talk about how few southerners actually owned slaves. How did the North exploit all these subsistence farmers any more than they would have exploited the similar farmers in the Midwest? What's the difference between a yeoman in Michigan and one in Georgia?
The truth is that in their arrogant self-centeredness, the slaveowning class thought of their narrow class interests as the interests of the South. The bulk of southerners had no real conflict with the North except that which was whipped up by the slaveowning elite.
Secondly, Lincoln's success in keeping the Union together placed our country on a path that has led to the government being the omnipotent force that it has become. Lincoln started it, FDR took it to new heights and LBJ solidified that the federal government is the all powerful, all knowing, all everything to everyone.
That's like blaming George Washington and the founders for big government today. Blame Woodrow Wilson another Southern Democrat. I guess blaming Lincoln for 20th century events somehow cloaks a revolt of slaveowning politicians with noble purpose, but Davis's regime was unmatched in despotism in American history. If that gang had won, no telling what type of leviathan would have grown in Richmond.
Hehe! Better duck my friend, advocating the right to secession is quite dangerous around certain of the "Yankee Wackos" on this board. They begin to spout, accordingly: "Quack, Perpetual union, Quack, Perpetual union, etc."........................:)
Maybe that's becuase the 11 year old slave whose Confederate master took him to war, DIDN'T fall in battle as you would have us believe. He was mustered out of the Confederate army, got married, and lived a full life.
You ought to try READING the stories you get paid to post on here.
please give me a break
{BR}
Well times change. The Confederate groups have recently been trying to rehabilitate the image their symbols have across the country with mixed success. I personally don't see the harm with honoring the grave of this black man who served his master in the CSA army as a child.
However, it is only a matter of time before this grave marker and others like it are used as evidence that thousands of black men willingly fought side by side with their white counterparts to protect their homeland and way of life.
The propaganda artists on this forum have already begun the process by implying the boy was killed in action.
It is useful to remember that Lee's horse was honored by these same groups decades before they sought to honor any black Confederates, as you pointed out earlier.
Nonsense. What evidence do you have that this was taking place?
History books.
You really should pay closer attention and read what is written before you reply. I never stated "More Congressmen", I stated: "More Republicans". That remains a valid projection of the probable voting pattern of the good people of Texas.
Actually what you stated was "...more Republicans in both houses of Congress" and I was, quite rightly I think, pointing out that splitting Texas into five states would not mean more Congressmen so wouldn't necessarily mean more Republicans in the House, nor would it mean that the Democrats that Texas has would lose their seats. And could actually mean a loss of seats at the next census.
You really need to pay closer attention to what you write as well.
The Confederacy was far more centralized and tyrannical than was the U.S. Government at the time or even now.
I just do not have an interest in explaining history to someone who did not understand it the first time around.
The reality is this: The fantasy that the North fought the war for the singular purpose of freeing the slaves is about the same as some who seem to believe that tens of thousands of slaves lined up to enlist for the CSA.
The term for what I refer to is precedent. The SCOTUS thrives on it and Presidents have also used it for guidance.
That tends to happen when you are fighting a war for your very survival. The 'tyranny' of Lincoln had been previously unmatched by any previous President (the draft, his actions in Maryland, suspension of Habeas Corpus).
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.