Duty. Honor. Confederacy.

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.

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 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.

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.”

there would be no US today, with at least two independent and quite possibly hostile countries occupying its territory.

Well, now I believe your wrong. But I guess that's easy to do in the realm of what might have been. I think had the war ended after say Gettysburg, with the south gaining it's independence the U.S. and C.S.A. would shortly have become sister countries with each having the others back. The south would have been forced to deal with an end to slavery, cause that genie was out of the box never to return. But as for how long the two countries would have remained close allies I cannot imagine. The U.S. without the south's stabilizing influence to offset the communist tendency's of the Northeast goes beyond my poor ability's to imagine.

Unilateral secession is unconstitutional. The Court said do.

And the court says that we can kill babies from conception until just before breech.

I'm not impressed with your blind allegiance to a small group of elitists. (Our country was founded on the premise of not trusting government. I guess people like you would be considered 'progressive'.)

Fortunately I give the court more credit for basic intelligence than I do, well, than I do you.

Get real, NS. The fact that FOUR of the five justices recently voted that the individual does not have the RKBA doesn't bother you?

Keep sipping that Kool-Aid, NS. Vladimir Lenin loved people like you.

So I'm not worried that I'll ever be faced with a decision like that.

That's it, NS. Don't answer the question. Thats typical of you. When faced with a tough question, you duck and run.

One justice away from a de facto repeal of 2A and these people have your dying loyalty. One justice and perhaps an Obama appointed one at that. And you know what Schumer, Brady, Pelosi, and all the gun control idiots are going to do then, don't you? Is this another court decision that you will blindly adhere to?

Will a future posting from NS go something like, "Give up your guns, cowboyway. The Supreme Court is more intelligent that all of us put together, and, they are the law of the land. And always right. Always. And never politically motivated. Never, never, never. I'm taking mine down to the gun drop off center today. It's right on the way to the re-education center, so I can kill two birds with one stone."

But you go right ahead worrying yourself sick over it.

Some of us have to bear the burden for the head-in-the-sand, useful idiots.

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.

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.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

The phrase "most of us" implies that "some of us" Americans don't feel that way.

Then you should have rephrased it to something like, "The majority of Americans are happy with the way things are going, in my opinion."

I've reviewed the history on this, and you've made no real attempt to prove my analysis wrong.

You must have done your research in the Library for the Politically Correct.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

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?

Interesting analogy. Let me try to put it in context of the War of Northern Agression.

The USA was sick. The South recognized the sickness and attempted to remove itself from the infected area. But old Doc Abe interceded and refused to let the South cut out the infected areas thereby making the entire body of the USA sick and eventually killing the form of government created by the founders.

There. Fixed it.

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.

I have considerable respect for Walter Williams, but the column you point to is a considerable disappointment.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates.

Of course Douglass accused Lincoln of wanting to do bad things. He was campaigning against Lincoln, that's what politicians do in campaigns. As I'm sure you realize, an accusation does not constitute proof of guilt, it is merely an accusation.

BTW, Lincoln and Douglass never debated in a presidential debate. Their debate was during a senatorial campaign in 1858. Also, Douglass fully supported Lincoln once he won the election. This doesn't seem likely if he truly believed Lincoln was an evil man.

I've never quite understood how those who believe Lincoln was a power-mad maniac manage to square this image with his actual life. He served a few terms in the state legislature, a single term in Congress, was unable to run for re-election because he stuck by principle rather than bowing to public opinion, then dropped out of politics entirely for almost 10 years. He didn't re-enter politics until he saw a looming threat that needed to be faced, the advance of the slave power and its threat to American ideals.

This is hardly the resume of a person focused entirely on gaining political power for himself.

And the court says that we can kill babies from conception until just before breech.

Yes they did. And you and I may disagree with that decision until the cows come home and that isn't going to make abortion illegal. Now is it?

I'm not impressed with your blind allegiance to a small group of elitists.

My God! Cowboyway is not impressed. How will I ever learn to live with a stigma like that?

One justice away from a de facto repeal of 2A and these people have your dying loyalty.

Where the hell have you been? The Supreme Court has limited gun ownership rights for decades. And the Heller decision is certainly not the all encompassing ruling on free and open firearm ownership that you seem to think it is. If you read the decision you'll note that Scalia endorsed the idea that 2nd Amemdment rights are not unlimited, and that the government can prohibit ownership of certain types of weapons. So where are we better off than we were before? So D.C. can't outlaw handgun ownership completely. They can, and will, impose laws that will limit it as much as they can. Scalia's ruling is a joke.

But for all that, it is still a valid Supreme Court ruling and it is binding, until D.C. figures out ways around it. But Scalia could have protected gun ownership rights far more than he chose to do, with his narrowly defined decision.

Will a future posting from NS go something like, "Give up your guns, cowboyway.

I doubt it. Future postings to you will probably be a lot like past postings to you - pointing out just how silly your opinions are.

I think had the war ended after say Gettysburg, with the south gaining it's independence the U.S. and C.S.A. would shortly have become sister countries with each having the others back.

Oh come on. You all lost the war and 143 years later you're still pissed. Why do you think the North would have been any more adult about losing? A separation as a result of the war would have left two hostile countried staring at each other. And most likely would have led to future wars.

The south would have been forced to deal with an end to slavery, cause that genie was out of the box never to return.

With all due respect I think that's nonsense. Having fought a costly war to create a country where slave ownership was protected, I don't see the South rushing to get rid of it. What would they have replaced it with?

The U.S. without the south's stabilizing influence to offset the communist tendency's of the Northeast goes beyond my poor ability's to imagine.

So you see a drift towards socialism in the North, and I think the South's rush towards totalitarian fascism would have been rapid and irreversable. Not a pretty picture in either case.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates.

Someone might want to point out to Williams that there were no presidential debates in 1860.

You must have done your research in the Library for the Politically Correct.

And where do buffoons like you and Williams do your research on the rebellion.

Oh, and I fixed your picture for you.

Confederate kool-aid would be grey.

You all lost the war and 143 years later you're still pissed. Why do you think the North would have been any more adult about losing?

More adult, hardly. But the North would have lost nothing but size and pride. The South lost their country and their independence.

where slave ownership was protected, I don't see the South rushing to get rid of it.

The number of slaves at that time "off the reservation" so to speak, was substantial in many area's of the south. Humpty was too broken to put back together except by using those men that were in the CS army, and I doubt very seriously they could have been forced to fight to get back another man's property when they didn't believe they were fighting for that against the Lincolnite's. They would have simply replaced slavery then the same way they did 143 years ago.

I think the South's rush towards totalitarian fascism would have been rapid and irreversible.

Hardly, a study of the inner struggle of the Confederate states is one of resistance to federal authority. As Shelby Foote wrote they had no Supreme Court cause they did not need one as State's Rights still took precedence, hence Davis proclamation that if the Confederacy should fail, inscribe on her tombstone; "Died of a Theory".

I have considerable respect for Walter Williams, but the column you point to is a considerable disappointment.

Why? Does the truth bother you?

If it was a baseless accusation, I would agree.

But politicians often have to expose the agenda of their opponent to define the difference between the two. For example, if McCain had any balls, he would accuse Obama of being a Marxist.

Do you agree that Obama is a Marxist?

And you and I may disagree with that decision until the cows come home and that isn't going to make abortion illegal. Now is it?

But it doesn't make the court right either, does it.

How will I ever learn to live with a stigma like that?

Just keep drinking your Kool-Aid and you'll be fine.

The Supreme Court has limited gun ownership rights for decades.

Yes, the court, the presidents and the congress have been slowly stripping away our liberty for many years thanks to disHonest Abe, you damn yankees and the centralized authoritarian gubmint.

If you read the decision you'll note that Scalia endorsed the idea that 2nd Amemdment rights are not unlimited, and that the government can prohibit ownership of certain types of weapons.

So I can't have a boomer sub with nuclear capability. Hell, I couldn't afford to crew the thing even if I got a good deal on a used boomer.

But that's not the point and you know it. Restricting ownership of certain types of weapons by individuals is altogether different from repealing the 2A. Repealing the 2A will be the catalyst for registration and confiscation and massive gun control legislation from your beloved central politburo.

Future postings to you will probably be a lot like past postings to you - pointing out just how silly your opinions are.

Ha! This coming from a man(?) with his head buried so far up his ass that he can see his own tonsils.

Someone might want to point out to Williams that there were no presidential debates in 1860.

Perhaps you can offer your services to Mr. Williams since it is widely known that keyboard kommando, non-sequitur, is the foremost authority on all subjects.

And where do buffoons like you and Williams do your research on the rebellion.

Being called a buffoon in the company of Walter Williams by a fat, sloppy, basement dwelling, narcissistic keyboard kommando is a compliment. Keep em coming.

Oh, and I fixed your picture for you.

Thanks. But its your Kool-Aid so drink up.

But the North would have lost nothing but size and pride.

I agree with NS that we would have had more wars if the South had gained her independence as an outcome of the War of Northern Aggression because, if not for the Southern red states, the north would have become a communist country allied with the USSR, Cuba, et al, and we Southrons would have to fight them for our freedom.

Hell, we're fighting the damn yankees (Schumer, Obama, Kennedy, Kerry, Franks, etc.) for our freedom now and if Obama wins in November and the congress continues to be controlled by the damn yankee liberals, NS and his pals will finally see their dream of a socialist/communist USA come true.

Perhaps you can offer your services to Mr. Williams since it is widely known that keyboard kommando, non-sequitur, is the foremost authority on all subjects.

Probably not. I've found that you southron types will cling to any myth, no matter how often it is disproved. But of course you could end the conversation right off the bat by identifying just when these presidential debates that Williams spoke of took place. Can you do that?

Being called a buffoon in the company of Walter Williams by a fat, sloppy, basement dwelling, narcissistic keyboard kommando is a compliment. Keep em coming.

You do more every day to demonstrate the level of your buffoon-ness than anything I could say. So continue posting and you'll do that for me.

Thanks. But its your Kool-Aid so drink up.

No, no, no, it is the confederate kool-aid. Enjoy.

But it doesn't make the court right either, does it.

In your opinion. And I might even agree with you on this one case. But your disagreement or mine doesn't change the fact of the matter. And you can continue to claim that the southern actions wer legal as well. That doesn't make them so.

Yes, the court, the presidents and the congress have been slowly stripping away our liberty for many years thanks to disHonest Abe, you damn yankees and the centralized authoritarian gubmint.

Yes you southron types will blame Lincoln for everything up to and including a rainy day.

More adult, hardly. But the North would have lost nothing but size and pride. The South lost their country and their independence.

The south lost something they didn't have in the first place. The U.S. would have lost lives and territory and property and a war. But look back through history at conflicts between countries, where 'nothing but size and pride' was lost and tell me how they got along. France and Germany. Israel and Egypt. England and Argentina. An end to the conflict would have left hard feelings between the two countries. And those hard feelings could easily have led to future conflicts and even more hard feelings.

The number of slaves at that time "off the reservation" so to speak, was substantial in many area's of the south. Humpty was too broken to put back together except by using those men that were in the CS army, and I doubt very seriously they could have been forced to fight to get back another man's property when they didn't believe they were fighting for that against the Lincolnite's. They would have simply replaced slavery then the same way they did 143 years ago.

Slavery was too ingrained into their culture and society. They rebelled to protect it, their economic livelyhood depended on it, and their society was built on it. It was not an institution that they would have given up lightly, and an independent confederacy would most likely have taken whatever steps necessary to protect it, and to replace the lost slaves through other sources.

Hardly, a study of the inner struggle of the Confederate states is one of resistance to federal authority.

A history of the confederacy was an example of how quickly a people give in to a central authority. During the war, the Davis government tossed the whole concept of states rights out the window. They seized the state's authority to control their militia by forcibly extending enlistments and instituting conscription. It stripped the population of their civil rights by suspending habeas corpus, instituting martial law throughout the country, seizing property for the war effort without compensation, requiring people to get government permission to travel, and in countless other areas. The population accepted these restrictions as a part of winning the war. And once the war was over, the Yankee bugaboo doesn't just go away. Now you have a wounded and pissed off North just waiting for revenge, and it would have seemed very prudent to continue the restrictions, for safety's sake. After all, there was no supreme court around to tell the government it couldn't. And if an independent confederacy had followed what you suggested and done away with slavery? Well, then there were all those suddenly free blacks to keep in line. You couldn't have them suddenly going where they wanted, living where they wanted, having the same rights as the white folk did. So restrictions would have had to continue, certainly on the blacks and to a lesser extent on the whites, to make sure none of them stirred up trouble. It is easy to see how an independent confederacy could have, and probably would have continued on the repressive path that marked its 4 years of existence. There was nothing that might have stopped it.

It stripped the population of their civil rights by suspending habeas corpus, instituting martial law throughout the country,

When the Confederate Congress voted to give Davis a 6 months suspension of habeas corpus, several states immediately voted to nullify that heinous act in their state, it nearly brought down the Confederacy from within. The amount of none cooperation between the Governor's of the states and the Davis administration was unparalleled in American history, and actually shortened the war.

But the North would have lost nothing but size and pride. The South lost their country and their independence.

That statement is loosely taken from a note by General T. J. Jackson to his adjutant Sandy Pendleton telling him [Should the Republicans lose their war they go home fat with war profits to their big homes. But should we lose, we lose everything our country and our independence.] I hardly think had that war ended with a armistice or negotitated peace, it would have been Damn near impossible to talk either side into resuming hostilities for a long long time.

When the Confederate Congress voted to give Davis a 6 months suspension of habeas corpus, several states immediately voted to nullify that heinous act in their state, it nearly brought down the Confederacy from within.

But it didn't, did it? The suspension remained throughout the the war. The habeas corpus commissioners still threw people in jail. Martial law was still in place hundreds of miles away from the fighting. Travel passes were still required. And judicial protections still were non-existent. And somehow the confederacy stumbled on and the people accepted the loss of rights as necessary to protect them from the Yankees. And the likelyhood that the government would have continued to use those restrictions to protect the country from future threats from the defeated foe cannot be discounted.

The amount of none cooperation between the Governor's of the states and the Davis administration was unparalleled in American history, and actually shortened the war.

It didn't interfere in the conduct of the war as much as you would have us believe. The Davis government held sway over the confederacy. They had the army and their habeas corpus commissioners to ensure control. That didn't change in too many areas until the federal government restored U.S. control.

Should the Republicans lose their war they go home fat with war profits to their big homes. But should we lose, we lose everything our country and our independence.

Yes, well Jackson was a man with his own predjudices, and that sentiment is not supported by any evidence I am aware of. The Union soldier was fighting to restore his country. He wouldn't have written off defeat as mere lost profits. Any separation as the result of battle would have left the North embittered, as embittered as the defeated South was.

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.