Bad dog, Bad!
Posted on 01/25/2002 8:41:32 AM PST by Publius
Even a CSA apologist like Shelby Foote can't make Jefferson Davis into an honorable man.
"Conscription dramatized a fundamental paradox in the Confederate war effort: the need for Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. Pure Jeffersonians could not accept this. The most outspoken of them, Joseph Brown of Georgia, denounced the draft as a "dangerous usurpation by Congress of the reserved rights of the states...at war with all the principles for which Georgia entered into the revolution." In reply Jefferson Davis donned the mantle of Hamilton. The Confederate Constitution, he pointed out to Brown, gave Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and to "provide for the common defense." It also contained another clause (likewise copied from the U.S. Constitution) empowering Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."
Brown had denied the constitutionality of conscription because the Constitution did not specifically authorize it. This was good Jeffersonian doctrine, sanctified by generations of southern strict constructionists. But in Hamiltonian language, Davis insisted that the "necessary and proper" clause legitimized conscription. No one could doubt the necessity "when our very existance is threatened by armies vastly superior in numbers." Therefore "the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object...if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional."
--Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson P.433
Hmmmm......that sounds like something Abraham Lincoln might say. Maybe Lincoln had read this:
"The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, as far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done by confining their choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of Congress to adopt any which might be approprate, and which were conducive to the end...to have prescribed the means by which the government, should, in all future times, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code...To have declared, that the best means shal not be used, but those alone, without which the power given would be nugatory...if we apply this principle of construction to any of the powers of the government, we shall find it so pernicious in its operation that we shall be compelled to discard it..."
From McCullough v. Maryland, 1819, quoted in "American Constitutional Law" A.T. Mason, et al. ed. 1983 p. 165
Maybe Davis read it too.
Guess he lost his copy after the war.
Davis was a bum and a traitor.
Walt
In your reality, is there some equivalence here?
Do you have some report of Jefferson Davis having burned Seattle to the ground?
Or, for that matter, of him having made war on women and children anywhere in the North?
Do you have some report of Jefferson Davis having burned Seattle to the ground?
Or, for that matter, of him having made war on women and children anywhere in the North?
Such evidence exists.
"People who want to start wars should think seriously about where the war might be fought. It is generally unpleasant to have the war fought on your own territory. Secessionists were particularly unthinking in this respect, the ACW being fought almost entirely in the South, with few minor and short-term exceptions such as Lee's failed Maryland incursion in 1862, Morgan's failed Ohio raid in 1863, Lee's failed Pennsylvania incursion in 1863, and Early's arsonist raid on Chambersburg, PA in 1864.
Thus the Union had far greater opportunity to misbehave in Secessionist territory than the reverse. But Rebel forces, in the few opportunities available to them, violated the same rules and useages of war that were breached by the Union.
Thus, we Southerners are a bit hypocritical when we condemn the Union for depredations in the South --- because the Secessionists were the first of the belligerent parties to propose and glorify a Total War policy to be applied against enemy cities, populations and private property.
Both Jeff Davis and Louis Wigfall, before resigning from the US Senate to go south, threatened the burning of Northern cities and the plunder of their populations as punishment (US Senate, CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE,10 Jan. 1861).
Stonewall Jackson urged the adoption of this policy (Henderson, STONEWALL JACKSON AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, London, 1898), adding that Confederate troops should fight under the "Black Flag" - no quarter, kill all prisoners - and proposing to Virginia Governor Letcher a week after Virginia's secession that he, Jackson, should set the example (Columbia, SC, DAILY SOUTH CAROLINIAN, 6 Feb. 1864). Letcher proposed in early 1862 that the Confederacy should attack Northern civilians and their public and private property, not simply to affect the enemy's armies but to punish its population for supporting the war (Letcher to Pickens, 28 April 1862. L&D Box 5, Clements Library. U. of Mich.).
From the very beginning of the war, the Secessionists' Total War policy was triumphantly endorsed by newspapers across the South, some of which were later to howl the loudest about Sherman's jaunt through Georgia. For example, thinking incorrectly that Lee was about to run rampant through Pennsylvania in 1862, the Richmond newspapers crowed "We hope that the (Confederate) troops will turn the whole country into a desert", (RICHMOND DISPATCH, 17 Sept. 1862). This sentiment was also widely reflected in Secessionist oratory and correspondence of the early-war period.
Lee's troops plundered and burned extensively in the 1863 invasion of Pennsylvania, committing acts of violence against civilians and personal property, including housebreaking, theft of money and food, and destruction of personal property. Lee's second order forbidding these practices was issued after the fact - and was again widely ignored by his troops (Royster, DESTRUCTIVE WAR, pg. 37; Knopf, 1991).
Early's burning of Chambersburg, PA, on 30 July 1864 predated Sherman's burning of Atlanta, GA. The main difference between the two events was that Atlanta was a fortified and strongly defended town holding a vast number of military installations, munitions factories and army supply depots, whereas Chambersburg was an unfortified, virtually undefended town holding nothing of any military use or value. Confederate troops left Chambersburg after more than 300 of its houses had been burned and many of its citizens robbed (Pauley, UNRECONSTRUCTED REBEL: THE LIFE OF GENERAL JOHN MCCAUSELAND CSA, Pictorial Histories Publ., 1992). Atlanta burned four days later.
In short, Grant and Sherman adopted the Secessionist policy of Total War, applied it more effectively than the Confederacy ever could, and thereby shortened an increasingly hateful and hated war. Yes, Sherman made Georgia and South Carolina howl, but for the second time. The first time Georgia and South Carolina (and Virginia) howled was for the same kind of violence to be applied against Northern cities, populations and private property. "
--From the AOL ACW forum.
Walt
Yea, the Civil War was all about slavery, the North didn't want it, the South did blah blah blah blah blah........
Now, Redbob, you know good and well that didn't happen. The north was here to free us all from the 'slaveocracy'. They didn't hurt one woman or child. They didn't rape the servant girls. The documents that the US government put out after the War stating these facts were dreamed up by hateful southerners< /sarcasm>
My apologies to Publius and others who beat me to J.C. Davis.
He doesn't know too much 'bout the "unpleasantries" of the 1860's now, does he?
Bad dog, Bad!
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.