are heading up to the range for a little target practice.
Posted on 07/27/2008 7:52:45 AM PDT by cowboyway
MONROE – At first glance, it’s an unlikely combination. A black family seated under a tent facing a line of Civil War re-enactors, proudly holding Confederate flags and gripping their weapons.
But what lies between these two groups is what brought them together: An unmarked grave about to get its due, belonging to a slave who fought for the Confederacy.
Weary Clyburn was best friends with his master’s son, Frank. When Frank left the plantation to fight in the Civil War, Clyburn followed him.
He fought alongside Frank and even saved his life on two occasions.
On July 18, the city of Monroe proclaimed Weary Clyburn Day; an event that coincided with the Sons of Confederate Veterans convention in Concord.
The N.C. Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans (James Miller Camp 2116) honored Clyburn, who died March 30, 1930, with a memorial program at Hillcrest Cemetery in Monroe and unveiled a new headstone for his unmarked grave.
“It’s an honor to find out we have a gentleman who served ... with loyalty and devotion to his friend,” said Commander Michael Chapman of the local SCV chapter.
“I’m happy to be here. It’s a glorious day,” said Mary Elizabeth Clyburn Hooks of New Jersey. “I just think it’s beautiful these people chose to celebrate my grandfather’s bravery and courage. It’s just overwhelming.”
Missing from the event was the woman who helped bring the pieces together, Mattie Clyburn Rice of High Point, who remembered the stories her father shared with her as a child.
Rice was hospitalized the morning of the ceremony.
Rice remembered being at her father’s funeral, said Earl Ijames, a curator at the N.C. Office of Archives and History. “He told her stories, and being able to verify those stories brought this event together,” he said.
Ijames met Rice when she was at the state Archives Office looking for her birth certificate in August 2005. She was in the wrong department and he struck up a conversation with her. Ijames asked Rice her name and upon hearing Clyburn, asked if she had ever heard of Weary Clyburn.
“She looked straight at me and said, ‘That’s my daddy,’“ he said.
Ijames has been researching “colored Confederates” for the past 14 years. According to Rice, he said, Clyburn’s father sharecropped and painted after the war. He moved from Lancaster County, S.C., and eventually settled in Union County. Rice moved away but relocated to North Carolina three years ago to take care of her nephew.
An impressive crowd gathered at the gravesite to pay tribute to Weary Clyburn. Civil War re-enactors, dressed in full regalia, came from overseas and states as far away as California and Pennsylvania to the program.
“We’re here to honor Weary Clyburn, but really, the honor is ours,” said N.C. SCV Commander Tom Smith. “The Sons of Confederate Veterans honors our own and he’s one of our own. We need to do more of what we’re doing now."
Weary Clyburn was one of thousands of slaves who served in the Confederate Army, Ijames said. There’s no way to quantify the number of slaves who served. “But it’s in the thousands, easy.”
People today often wonder why slaves fought for the Confederacy. Ijames said the only course they had to freedom was through the Confederate Army. “Why not go and defend what they know versus running away and going to the unknown,” Ijames said. “A lot of us automatically assume the war started to free slaves. That’s not true. It was a war to preserve the Union as the way it was.”
Slaves were not allowed to fight in the federal army, Ijames said. Those that made their way behind Union lines were still considered slaves.
Clyburn escaped the plantation and made his way to Columbia, S.C., where he met up with Frank in boot camp. “They were best friends,” Ijames said.
Felicia Bryant, Clyburn’s great-granddaughter, agreed. “They were really good friends and that trumped everything else.”
Do you deny it?
The last refuge of the Southron scoundrel is accusing his opponent of being black. I expect that at any moment.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Typical NS. Can't defend his illogical position so he weakly attempts to feint.
Pathetic.
are heading up to the range for a little target practice.
Yes.
Hey, did you ever figure out that “quotation marks around a google search” thing?
Considering his performance in office, Davis was the dictator wannabe.
And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.
A right claimed by one is worthless if it violates the Constitution. As unilateral secession did.
Your historical basis for blaming Lincoln for the present overweaning federal government is weak.
You are absolutely correct that the federal government grew enormously during the War. That’s what governments do during Wars. Those governments that don’t grow during wartime lose their War and go out of business.
The federal government deflated greatly after the Civil War. Although it never got as small as before the War, it was minimally intrusive on American society up to 1900, when TR started an expansion that was continued by Wilson, and which once again became explosive during WWI.
After WWI, we had a return to “normalcy” during the 20s, with a federal government bigger than ever before but still miniscule by today’s standards. It was the New Deal that started the continuous expansion of the government that has now apparently achieved critical mass and is independent of outside factors.
Blaming Lincoln for today’s federal government makes no sense. There is nothing even vaguely resembling evidence that he planned to continue his invasions of civil rights after the war ended and they were no longer necessary.
NS is quite capable of speaking for himself, but I doubt he claims that the southern states never seceded de facto. I suspect his claim is that their secession was not constitutional and therefore was never in effect de jure.
Or at least that's my position.
What is teh google?
Ask him.
Wake up and smell the tyranny, Sherman.
It ain't just the size of the government, dude. It's the control they exert.
"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."---Vladimir Lenin
Right now, we're controlled by 545 people in the little town of Washington, DC thanks to disHonest Abe and people like you and NS and the rest of the damnyankee coven.
bump,,,, well said
Finally, if that's the way you really feel, why aren't you out blowing up federal buildings and assassinating government officials? Come on, this is intolerable tyranny! What are you waiting for?
"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."---Vladimir Lenin
You have a gun. Or are you just another internet blowhard?
I'm sure sovereignty has a number of definitions, but here's one to work with, "supreme authority within a territory." By this definition dual sovereignty is an obvious oxymoron. Two entities cannot both be supreme.
I do understand what you're getting at, I think, the idea that the two sovereignties existed simultaneously but not in competition because they applied in different areas. That could work, and did for 80 years. But it wasn't Lincoln who destroyed the system. It was those who attacked the federal government, quite literally, in its own area of sovereignty at Sumter.
The dual sovereignty could exist only as long as one of the two "supremacies" didn't challenge the other. The southern states challenged and lost. I believe they bear by far the greater responsibility for its destruction. The federal government acted in self-defense of its own sovereignty when it was attacked.
Right now, we're controlled by 545 people in the little town of Washington.
True enough, although you're a tad hyperbolic here. We're a long way from totalitarianism, or we wouldn't be having this discussion outside prison.
Nevertheless, if the American people ever decide to, we can replace each and every one of those 545 people in six years.
We don't do it. Why not? Because most of us rather like the way things are going. Don't blame that on the present government, much less Lincoln.
The system of government you, and quite possibly I, might prefer is not wanted by a considerable majority of Americans. To get such a government you and I would have to impose it on them by force, which sort of defeats its own purpose, doesn't it?
BS. I supported Bush on Iraq but I don't buy his amnesty for illegals.
But one must assume that since you're an all or nothing kind of guy and since you support the Iraq campaign then you must also be for amnesty for illegals. Is that correct or are you just a hypocrite?
why aren't you out blowing up federal buildings and assassinating government officials?
Do you advocate blowing up federal buildings and assassinating government officials?
Come on, this is intolerable tyranny!
The Founders would agree.
You're pulling out your drama queen act to make it seem as if everything is OK and its not. We're on the cusp of another major change in our form of government and its idiots (the useful type) like you that will enable the Obamas, Reids, Waters, Clintons, Pelosis, et al, to complete their socialization plans.
Have fun in your 're-education' camp, idiot.
Bubba Ho-Tep = NS in drag
You have a gun. Or are you just another internet blowhard?
A gun?
Or are you just another internet blowhard?
You make the most absurd statements of anybody on the interweb. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
Did you ever study American history? Read the Federalists Papers?
But it wasn't Lincoln who destroyed the system.
It absolutely was Lincoln and honest historians will agree.
The dual sovereignty could exist only as long as one of the two "supremacies" didn't challenge the other. The southern states challenged and lost. I believe they bear by far the greater responsibility for its destruction. The federal government acted in self-defense of its own sovereignty when it was attacked.
Dude, you must have had too much to drink when you wrote that. The dual sovereignty of which we speak was between the individual states and the federal government that was established by the Founders. The Founders wrote the Constitution to LIMIT the federal government. The Southern states didn't challenge the sovereignty of any of the northers states or the federal government. They simply withdrew from that union the same way the colonists withdrew from the British crown. The Confederacy didn't challenge the sovereignty of the United States any more than the colonists challenged the sovereignty of Great Britain.
The federal government acted in self-defense of its own sovereignty when it was attacked.
Quite drinking the Kool-Aid, dude.
True enough, although you're a tad hyperbolic here.
Well I'm in good company then. Heres a couple of examples:
Oklahoma Joint Resolution 1089
We're a long way from totalitarianism, or we wouldn't be having this discussion outside prison.
Really? Are you familiar with a recent Supreme Court ruling on an individuals right to keep and bear arms?
Do you realize that we were one freaking vote away from a de facto repeal of the Second Amendment? Think about it. One supreme court justice vote away from registration and confiscation. Do you know why the Second Amendment is even in the Constitution?
Because most of us rather like the way things are going.
Ah yeah. Joe Sixpack. As long as the beer is cold and the signal is clear, every think is just hunky dory. A little loss of liberty here and there doesn't bother Joe.
Jeez.
If you really do like the way things are going, towards socialization (which entails a huge loss of liberty) then you're not even close to being a conservative and I think the mods ought to consider giving you the ban hammer.
Don't blame that on the present government, much less Lincoln.
I blame Lincoln for starting the centralization process as much as I give credit to Jefferson, Washington, et al for creating a form of government based on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The system of government you, and quite possibly I, might prefer is not wanted by a considerable majority of Americans.
That's because we're reaching that dangerous point where 50% of Americans can vote themselves a raise. This couldn't happen if not for a Lincoln initiated centralized government.
The issue isn't support for President Bush, but belief in DiLorenzo's absolutist libertarian philosophical grounding, from which he arrives at his positions. You can't accept his conclusions without accepting his premises.
Do you advocate blowing up federal buildings and assassinating government officials?
No, but then I'm not the one prattling on about the intolerable tyranny of the federal government. You are.
The Founders would agree.
Then what are you waiting for? Someone else to go first?
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
This from the man who doesn't understand the use of quotation marks in a Google search.
You’ll need to explain de facto and du jure to him. Poor lad can barely limp along in English.
Honest historians like Tommy DiLorenzo?
They simply withdrew from that union the same way the colonists withdrew from the British crown.
Not quite. In both instances there was a rebellion. But the Southern states lost their's.
In the area of Lincoln, he's absolutely right. But let's get something straight, mini-NS, you don't make the rules. That's a good thing because you yankee commie bastards would have us all living in a collective.......except yourselves, of course.
No, but then I'm not the one prattling on about the intolerable tyranny of the federal government. You are.
Are you so stupid that you can't distinguish the difference between a debate and a terrorist act?
Then what are you waiting for? Someone else to go first?
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."--Claire Wolfe
This from the man who doesn't understand the use of quotation marks in a Google search.
So your baseline for intelligence is how adept one is on teh google?
You're stupider than I thought.
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.