Posted on 03/28/2008 12:15:10 PM PDT by cowboyway
Over the last few months, celebrations for Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday have drawn attention to the Kentucky native's life and his legacy as president. But the 200-year anniversary of another Kentucky president's birth, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, is receiving mixed reviews.
"I'll say it this way - winners write history," said Ron Bryant, a Lexington historian writing a book on Davis. "We need heroes, we need villains. Lincoln became a hero and Davis a villain."
Davis was born in what is now Todd County, Ky., in 1808, one year before Lincoln. Davis served as the only president of the 11 southern states that seceded from the Union between 1861 and 1865. The Confederate States of America surrendered in 1865, and Davis was locked in prison the same year.
Despite being denounced by many civil rights groups, signs of Davis' legacy can still be found throughout the state.
In Southwest Kentucky, a structure resembling the Washington Monument stands in memory of Davis. At 351 feet tall, the Jefferson Davis Monument is the fourth largest freestanding obelisk in the world, according to Kentucky State Parks.
Although Kentucky never seceded from the Union, a statue of Davis stands in the rotunda in the state's Capitol building.
"The Civil War is still very much alive in many places," said Cliff Howard, a Jefferson Davis impersonator. "Kentucky was on both sides of the fence. It still is."
Having heard of Kentucky's reputation for "being a little backward," integrated strategic communications senior James Davidson Jr. was not surprised about Davis' statue in the Capitol building.
Davidson, first-vice president of UK's chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said a statue of Davis leaves a bad impression.
"What is Frankfort saying to the rest of Kentucky with it being there?" Davidson said. "I respect everyone's heritage and Southern tradition, but given the history, I think it shouldn't be there."
The statue of Davis, installed in 1936, is one of five statues in the Capitol building. Lincoln is the largest in the center, and Davis stands in the corner behind his right shoulder. Former Kentucky Congressman Henry Clay, physician and drafter of the state constitution Ephraim McDowell and former Vice President Alben Barkley also stand in the rotunda.
The last time Davis' statue came into debate was 2003, when a coalition of African-American groups protested its presence in the Capitol building. A state advisory committee left the issue up to former Gov. Ernie Fletcher, who took no action during his term.
Gov. Steve Beshear does not plan to remove the statue because Davis is a historical figure who represents part of Kentucky's cultural history, a spokeswoman said.
Student Government President Nick Phelps said his feelings on the statue in the Capitol building resembled how he felt during a controversy two years ago about a 46-foot mural in Memorial Hall depicting the history of Lexington and its surrounding area. The mural, which some said stereotyped American Indians and blacks, was not removed.
"I was not in support of removing the mural, so I would not support removing Jefferson Davis," Phelps said. "I don't think we should remove history. I think it removes the question, 'Who is he?' "
Many students might ask the same question about Davis.
In Kentucky, the Civil War is part of the middle school curriculum. Unless students take an advanced placement history course in high school, that's usually the last time they focus on 19th century American history, said Nayasha Owens-Morton, a U.S. history and African-American history teacher at Bryan Station Traditional High School.
William Campbell has taught a class on Lincoln at UK for about 10 years as an English and honors professor. Students going into his class know little about the confederate president, he said.
"About Jefferson Davis, Kentuckians tend to know that he was from our state, that there's a memorial dedicated to him somewhere in the state, and that he was the president of the Confederacy," Campbell said. "Of Lincoln's writings, most have read only the Gettysburg Address. Of Davis's writings, most have read nothing."
My point was that, Lieber and Southron myth sites to the contrary notwithstanding, a trial of Davis would not have determined secession to be unconstitutional. Especially since one of the two judges who would have heard the trial later ruled the confederate acts of secession unconstitutional in Texas v. White.
Oh, and Andrew Johnson's Attorney General was Henry Stanberry, not Henry Stanburg. What else did Conner get wrong?
Yeah, really.
No, not so much.
Where exactly in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America does it prohibit secession?
Jeff Davis was a poor choice to lead the confederacy.
Which is exactly the reason why they didn't pursue the trial.
But that's not what you were implying. By your quotes you were trying to imply that the trial of Davis didn't proceed because he couldn't have been convicted because secession wasn't illegal. Any such acquittal would have done no such thing. The question of the constitutionality of the southern acts of unilateral secession was settled separately in Texas v. White. And the justice that wrote the majority opinion in that case was the same Chief Justice Chase who would have sat in judgement at a Davis trial.
Depends on your point of view. From the Union's standpoint they could hardly have hoped for a better opponent.
Making up history again, eh.
His was charged unjustly with crimes for which he demanded trial in vain, and after two years of imprisonment which disgraced his enemies was released on bond. A nolle prosequi was entered in his case in 1869, and thus he was never brought to the trial which he earnestly demanded.
After he was released, he traveled to Europe on a couple of occasions and other Southern states. He also wrote a couple of books.
If you don't like him or what he stood for, that's one thing. But making up lies simply reinforces the Southern opinion of yankees.
It's not an implication. The yankee lawyers wanted no part of this case because secession would have been found to be legal and Davis would have been acquitted.
A nolle prosequi was entered in his case and his disgraced enemies set him free.
If only we could have had the good fortune of a Honest Abe leading the Confederacy.................
/sarc
Or so your Southron myth site say. You might want to look at some reputable sources. There were a lot of reasons why he wasn't tried, but fear that secession would be found legal wasn't one of them.
A nolle prosequi was entered in his case and his disgraced enemies set him free.
Because one of the two judges in the case, Chief Justice Chase, made it clear that he would throw out a conviction on 5th Amendment grounds. The 14th Amendment having been ratified, Chase believed that the clause in that amendment prohibiting the rebel leadership from ever again holding a position of trust in any government represented punishment for their treason. A further trial and conviction would violate Davis's protections against double jeopardy.
You might have won.
Buell's orders to Anderson, dated Dec. 11, 1860, gave him the authority to move his forces to whatever of the forts he deemed most proper.
The "Rhoda Shannon." I think it's usually attributed to trigger happy South Carolinians and a ship's captain who didn't know the situation he was sailing into and made the mistake, after the first shots across his bow, of raising the Stars and Stripes.
One of these factors may have been protective and other tariffs. I'm sure you will also agree that it is human nature to blame your problems on factors caused by others rather than on your own failures as an individual or society. So when southerners thought of their problems they certainly had an incentive to blame it on the North.
Nevertheless, if a federal (or confederate) government were to be maintained, funds would have to be raised. Most of the apologists for the South seem to assume that tariffs could be dumped and the government run on air. Tariffs on imports are easily collected and require minimal intrusion on the lives of those who eventually pay the tax.
Since southerners objected to the tariff, I assume they had other proposed mechanisms for raising money. Perhaps a direct tax imposed on each slave, the single largest category of property in the South? LOL
It is quite obvious that the South had dominated the copuntry up through 1850 by allying itself with the agrarian northwest against the industrializing northeast.
They they went too far. The Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision caused the considerable majority of folks in the northwest to ally themselves with the northeast against the south. The northwest viewed freedom as even more important. IMO the south viewed maintaining the absence of freedom as equally important.
Sectional aggrandizement and partial legislation favoring the North were listed as causes for secession in at least the Texas and Georgia cause documents.
Agreed. However, I believe all or almost all of the state documents listed threats to the institution of slavery as their primary reason.
Using your numbers above, the South apparently viewed paying $20M/year in "tribute" to the North as a greater problem than even a potential threat to accumulated capital worth well over $2,000M.
I just finished Foote’s book. LONG.
If I remember correctly, he says that when the Davis camp was attacked by Union cavalry he grabbed a rain cape and attempted to escape into the woods. In the confusion, it appears he grabbed his wife’s cape rather than his own. The northern papers had great fun with this and exaggerated it greatly, as they did in the early days of Lincoln’s presidency with stories that he had sneaked into DC in disguise.
I suspect Clemenza was referencing Davis’ betrayal of the USA, not the CSA.
Yes, he did travel to Europe and even received visitors form the continent in Biloxi (including Oscar Wilde). Nevertheless, his writings did much to rehabilitate his reputation.
Okay, I partially misspoke, to use a recently popular expression.
On reviewing information about the Convention, it appears that provisions both specifically allowing and specifically prohibiting secession were discussed and rejected.
In the preamble, they then tried to have it both ways.
“We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
They cited the people of the states, acting as sovereign and independent bodies, as establishing the constitution, rather than the People of the United States as a body, as in the US Constitution. This is obviously an attempt to make states more important and central than in the original.
They they tried to take it back by saying that they were establishing a “permanent federal government,” which had not been spelled out in the original. Surely if the government is to be permanent then states cannot secede whenever they feel like it. Otherwise the government is an alliance, not a federal union.
The issues embedded in this contradiction continued throughuot the war and played some considerable part in its loss.
We did win.
See, that's what I mean when I say you've got to stop getting all your information off Southron fairy tale sites.
I wonder when they were going to get around to that, since their fight seemed to be based upon a blatant and oppressive lack of justice?
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.