Not quite. In both instances there was a rebellion. But the Southern states lost their's.
The withdrawal was the same. The outcome was different.
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.”
Not quite. In both instances there was a rebellion. But the Southern states lost their's.
The withdrawal was the same. The outcome was different.
No chance of either happening with you OR Tommy.
The withdrawal was the same. The outcome was different.
The REVOLUTION was the same. The outcome was different. The Founding Fathers, who you claim to revere, knew that their actions were illegal in the eyes of the crown. They knew that they would have to fight for their freedom. They were not under any illusions at all. The confederate leadership labored under the false impression that their actions were legal, and would up losing their rebellion.
In other words, you could care less about why someone believes something, as long as they agree with your regional bias, and its only an illegal war when it's your part of the country on the receiving end of it. Pretty much what I figured.
"but too early to shoot the bastards"
Then I guess it's not that intolerable after all, is it? Oh, by the way, as of 2005, Claire Wolfe says it IS time to start shooting the bastards.
So your baseline for intelligence is how adept one is on teh google?
No, what was funny was your adamant and repeated claim that returned Google results didn't have quotes around them, and that everyone was faking them--an entertaining combination of arrogance and ignorance.
Did you ever come up with any documentation on that?
It's a nice story, and I vaguely remember something about Custer having been taught a lesson by Confederate escort troops, but don't recall a Black unit in the story.
BTW, I never said I like the way things are going. I said most Americans are reasonably happy with things as they are and are therefore unlikely to vote for drastic change, especially a major restriction on governmental power.
I'll take my chance with the mods. If there are conservative principles, one of them is definitely a recognition of reality. I find it odd that one of your first reactions when questioned is to suggest that the questioner should be kicked out of the game.
I am probably in favor of much the same type of governmental system you are. I just don't delude myself that most of my fellow citizens agree with me (or you).
At this point in time, it appears that we will elect a liberal Democrat president, and probably significantly increase liberal Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. Which means that by 2012, our first real opportunity to reverse things, there will also be at least a 7 to 2 liberal majority on the Supreme Court.
What exactly is your suggestion for dealing with this? Pretend those who vote for such "change" aren't "real Americans?" Try to prevent them from voting? Start a violent revolution to force the people to favor of the system you prefer? How does one lead a revolution in the name of the people against the considerable majority of the actual people?
How do you deal with the dichotomy of your vision of what America is and what the actual country is like?
That's because the Founding Fathers (whom I do respect and admire for their courage and foresight) didn't make secession illegal.
From your post #114:
Because most of us rather like the way things are going.
When you say "most of us", that includes you.
I find it odd that one of your first reactions when questioned is to suggest that the questioner should be kicked out of the game.
I was perfectly clear in my statement. If you are happy with the way things are going, towards socialization, then you cannot be a conservative, indeed, you must be a liberal and liberals aren't allowed on FR.
it appears that we will elect a liberal Democrat president, and probably significantly increase liberal Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. Which means that by 2012, our first real opportunity to reverse things, there will also be at least a 7 to 2 liberal majority on the Supreme Court.
If that happens and the libs get even a 5 to 4 majority on the bench, the RKBA will be tested again and this time we'll lose. That will be the beginning. Once they've taken firearms away from the citizenry, they will be totally fearless and will not hesitate to give full amnesty to the border jumpers, nationalize Big Oil, raise taxes to unprecedented heights, essentially turning the United States of America into the United Socialist States of America.
How is this possible? Because the power base is centralized.
Who centralized it? disHonest Abe and the damn yankee coven.
What exactly is your suggestion for dealing with this? Pretend those who vote for such "change" aren't "real Americans?" Try to prevent them from voting? Start a violent revolution to force the people to favor of the system you prefer? How does one lead a revolution in the name of the people against the considerable majority of the actual people?
Quite frankly, if the far left succeed in taking over Washington, DC, the red states should secede.
True. But they didn't make unilateral secession legal. As the Supreme Court ruled.
That’s just sad.
When did you abandon reason in favor of hysterical emotion?
Although it is not part of our legal structure the opening of our Declaration of Independence, states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." That word unalienable means that these are God given rights and although they might be stolen from us, we do not have the right to give them away. In other words, it is our duty that we must resist with our lives if necessary any and all attempts of others to take these rights from us.
So I for one would definitely say that any majority or individual that acts in contravention to these principles is either UnAmerican or ignorant of what an American was and still should be. As for the question,How does one lead a revolution in the name of the people against the considerable majority of the actual people?
Educate, and motivate the real majority that has become so disillusioned that they no longer care.
That's kind of a strange standard -- vote by land masses rather than by voters. It may give desireable results, but it can't be justified nowadays.
It's pretty clear though, that the Lincoln vote in 1860 came from more than 5% of the country's land mass, if we go by counties. The Republicans did very well in Northern farming areas.
But will that really happen this year? For the Democrat to win, he'd probably have to win some rural counties from the Republicans, as Clinton did, and that makes the map look different than it did for Kerry or even Gore.
Also, I'd want to know whether you're concerned about tyranny of the majority in all cases, or only when you're in the minority.
The Supreme Court that decided Texas v White? You've drank too much of the Kool-Aid.
I suppose when Obama's Supreme Court decides that the Second Amendment does not provide for an individuals RKBA you'll be posting "The Supreme Court says that you can't possess firearms so you, like everybody else, have to surrender your firearms to the authorities. It's a Supreme Court decision from an unbiased body of highly intelligent men! It's ironclad!! It's absolute!!! They're gods!!!!! "--NS
Μολὼν λαβέ
Hardly. The Supreme Court did rule that unilateral secession was illegal. The fact that you disagree with their ruling is meaningless. Constitutionally, unilateral secession is not allowed.
And I should point out that the Supreme Court is not alone in their opinion on unilateral secession. James Madison ridiculed the idea as well. And I would think that he should know.
I suppose when Obama's Supreme Court decides that the Second Amendment does not provide for an individuals RKBA you'll be posting "The Supreme Court says that you can't possess firearms so you, like everybody else, have to surrender your firearms to the authorities. It's a Supreme Court decision from an unbiased body of highly intelligent men! It's ironclad!! It's absolute!!! They're gods!!!!! "--NS"
No, I leave asinine leaps like that to you.
Ah, the statement of a true yankee socialist. The individual is meaningless; the collective is all that is important and the collective better adhere to the the whims of the elitist ruling class.
Pathetic.
No, I leave asinine leaps like that to you.
So, if Obama's SCOTUS reverses the recent ruling on the 2A and the damnyankee gubmint issues a firearms confiscation order, what are you going to do? (assuming that even own a weapon, which I doubt given your leftist leanings)
Let's keep in mind everything that you've stated: individual opinion is meaningless, a supreme court ruling is always right and the union should be held together regardless of what form of government it may take.
You truly are a a desperate cuss, aren't you? Anyone who doesn't drink the confederate kool-aid is a liberal or a socialist or some such thing.
Your individual opinion on what is constitutional and what is not is meaningless. The Constitution does not say that something is constitutional because cowboyway says so. It gives that authority to the Supreme Court, and last time I checked you aren't a member of the court. So keep on dismissing the Texas v. White decision, it doesn't impress me at all. Unilateral secession is unconstitutional. The Court said do. James Madison said so. And I'll put their opinions way above your's on just about any subject you'd care to name.
So, if Obama's SCOTUS reverses the recent ruling on the 2A and the damnyankee gubmint issues a firearms confiscation order, what are you going to do?
Fortunately I give the court more credit for basic intelligence than I do, well, than I do you. So I'm not worried that I'll ever be faced with a decision like that. But you go right ahead worrying yourself sick over it.
(assuming that even own a weapon, which I doubt given your leftist leanings)
Yes, well we all know how seldom you get anything right.
Let's keep in mind everything that you've stated: individual opinion is meaningless, a supreme court ruling is always right and the union should be held together regardless of what form of government it may take.
And let's sum up your position: the Constitution means whatever an individual says it does, the rule of law is meaningless and the Constitution merely something to wipe your behind on, and some states have more rights than others.
Fine with me. I'm on your side in such efforts. I just really doubt they will work, and in fact suspect the trend of history is moving in the opposite direction. At best any such effort will be a long processs, and conducted in the face of direct resistance by the segments of our society best suited to "education and motivation," the media and education monopoly.
Tyranny is the default position of human society, once past the hunter-gatherer stage. Historically, freedom has been fragile and short-lived wherever and whenever it has existed. I see no particular evidence we've outgrown those tendencies.
Not necessarily. The "us" in this sentence referred to Americans as a group. The phrase "most of us" implies that "some of us" Americans don't feel that way.
Who centralized it? disHonest Abe and the damn yankee coven.
I've reviewed the history on this, and you've made no real attempt to prove my analysis wrong. The centralization of the Civil War was 90% reversed when the war ended. For decades after the war the government wasn't much more centralized or intrusive in American life than before the war. The Progressive Era, WWI, the New Deal, WWII, the Cold War and the Great Society have been far more important than the transitory centralization established by Lincoln.
In fact, all advanced societies have become more centralized during this period. There is no logical reason to assume the US would have been immune to this trend if Lincoln had never lived, except of course there would be no US today, with at least two independent and quite possibly hostile countries occupying its territory.
While Lincoln established a precedent that was not positive in all areas, by no stretch of the imagination is our present condition something he caused or would have approved.
Let me try an imperfect analogy. Let's assume I have gangrene. Left untreated it will kill me in short order. Antibiotics aren't working, so the docs cut off my leg.
Do you think it would be appropriate for me to harshly criticize the doctors who saved my life because now I am a cripple?
Secession was in the process of killing the United States. Lincoln employed harsh measures to save its life. Arguably some of those measures were overly harsh and some may not have been necessary. But the more I study the period the more I realize how very near a thing it war. The USA survived by the skin of its teeth, although it was a somewhat different society and government that emerged from the surgery.
I truly believe Lincoln was the only man who had what it took to save the USA from disintegration, and I am profoundly grateful that he did.
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.