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."
No, I mean “that’s not a good start” at getting over it.
As it turned out, it was the U.S. Constitution that prevented him being tried at all, leading to his release into well-deserved obscurity.
The nolle prosequi entered by the government in his case is a clear admission that they couldn't successfully convict him of treason, a de facto acquittal.
Hardly. Nolle prosequi is a decision not to proceed. It is not an acquittal, and the government could have proceeded again had they chosen to.
Was he or was he not the Commander in Chief.
Did the confederacy or did the confederacy not initiate the war by bombarding Sumter? It was their war, the death and destruction is on Davis's head.
Hey kettle, you still calling the pot black?
Of 182 replies on this thread, non-sequitur has posted 49 replies; over 26%.
(Just another example of yankee hypocrisy......ya'll.)
Yeah but you're the one bitching and moaning and pitching a fit over the outcome of your rebellion.
This makes an even 50 right?
The limits of your denial have no bounds.
Southern reason for secession: States rights.
northern reason for initiating hostilities: Politics.
Let that be a lesson to you then. Do not start a war unless you're willing to live with the consequences.
Up till now, the South has never started a war, but we've shown that we won't back down, even in the face of overwhelming odds. We're still like that, so, tread lightly.
Like I've told you before, you yankees should be thanking us for remaining in the union, otherwise, the north would be flying the Hammer & Sickle.
Injustice should never be 'gotten over'.
Political corruption should never be 'gotten over'.
Should we just 'get over' Roe-v-Wade'? What about amnesty for the border jumpers? What about gun control? The attack on Christianity? The gay agenda? The global warming agenda?
Some things just need to be set right, regardless on time line or the politically correct environment.
So, I'm gonna keep hammering away and if that bothers you, then please, with all due respect, disappear.
That statement is almost as ridiculous as your statement that the South never seceded and that there never was a Confederacy((((!!))))
into well-deserved obscurity
It's hard to imagine how you could top the above statement but you've somehow managed to do so.
From Google:
Results 1 - 10 of about 747,000 for jefferson davis confederate president
Results 1 - 10 of about 640,000 for abraham lincoln president
It is not an acquittal, and the government could have proceeded again had they chosen to.
I said a 'de facto' acquittal, which it was. Nolle prosequi was a nice tidy way for the corrupt yankee government to extricate themselves from the tangled web they had woven and to not have to face the court of world opinion with a public trial.
Did the confederacy or did the confederacy not initiate the war by bombarding Sumter? It was their war, the death and destruction is on Davis's head.
It has been shown on this thread (see post #66) that Lincoln purposely violated agreements with SC in order to commence hostilities. The war, the death and the destruction is solely on disHonest Abe's and the northern sheeples collective heads.
A typical offensive attack to try to deflect the question of why you can't just 'let it go'.
This makes an even 50 right?
Yeah. Does this mean that you're done?
Freeing the slaves was not "injustice."
Quite the opposite.
Allow me to rephrase.
And all for the political ambitions of disHonest Jeff.
For Davis it was not about liberty, states rights or anything other than slavery and the expansion of that institution as far as possible. To him, the Union meant little or nothing. Expanding slavery was everything.
Davis issued the first order to fire, not Lincoln.
And I am forever amazed at you people ignorant of our own history who attempt to turn it on its head to keep some idiotic sense of regional pride.
Davis and the the slaveocracy who put him in charge lead this nation to war in 1861. They were a highly profitable enterprise in human suffering who would have destroyed the nation for personal profit --- but you turn that fact into Lincoln being some evil genius for preventing them from doing so.
Learn some real history, including the economics that drove people like Davis to treason before you start tearing people like Lincoln apart.
The Great Slaver Rebellion of 1861 met a glorious and righteous end.
Descendants of the defeated don’t seem to like that.
As the old saying goes, they had a tiger by the tail. To keep making profits from slavery, they had to keep expanding or the tiger would have eaten them. Their only problem with Lincoln, was his opposition to expansion.
I try not to be judgmental of people when studying history. In my studies of the period and the disputes leading to the Civil War, I found that loyalty to the Union was of little concern for the small percentage of very wealthy people who faced the destruction of their way of life if slavery had been contained as Lincoln advocated.
They rebel leaders acted rationally (if not morally) from their economic circumstances and morals. I can rationally understand that, but sorry, I can't admire it.
I don't hate Jeff Davis, but I do 'disrespect' people today who ignorantly try to elevate him to some patriot status over some idiot notion of regional pride or perverted notion of states rights.
That is just stupid. Davis was no hero. He was just another actor on the stage.
Here’s a little more honest comparison.
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,000,000 for “jefferson davis”
Results 1 - 10 of about 8,530,000 for “abraham lincoln”
Everybody at the time believed this, on both sides of the issue.
I'm not so sure. There was no particular reason slavery couldn't have gone on being economically profitable in the South, at least if they changed some of their farming practices that essentially mined the soil.
Plantation agriculture wasn't going to expand much into the territories anyway. Tough to grow cotton in Nebraska.
That's why for the real pro-slavery guys secession was only the first step. After breaking away from the Union, they intended to conquer Latin America and impose slavery on nations most of which had already outlawed it.
They also planned to start the African slave trade up again. Of course, the Royal and US Navies might have had some input on the practicality of that idea.
Freeing the slaves was not the reason Lincln invaded the South. If Lincoln and the yankees had been so self-righteous about freeing the slaves, why didn't they emancipate all slaves north of the Mason-Dixon line before beginning their illegal and unjustified war against the Confederacy? That would have provided a wee bit of credibility to the 'war to end slavery' crap that you've swallowed.
Have you ever read the Emancipation Proclamation?
It was nothing but a political tool designed to provoke a general uprising in the Confederate States of America by slaves, which was actually damned reckless on Lincoln's part because an uprising may have resulted in the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of slaves.
Of course, disHonest Abe had probably figured that the slaughter of scores of slaves would have benefited his political agenda and aspirations, as well, so either way was fine with him.
By injustice I mean the invasion of a sovereign nation, the waging or war on women and children and the subsequent military occupation.
If freeing slaves is justification for military invasion, why aren't we invading Africa, Asia and other countries that are known by our State Department to permit slavery?
Southron spin makes me laugh out loud.
Lincoln took the same position as George III when it came to secession.
History is written by the victors. The victors always see themselves as the 'good guys'.
Not subscribing to your 'rewritten' version is not ignorance and I will submit to you that the opposite is true.
including the economics
Do you actually know anything about that?
Do you want to discuss the "Tariff of Abominations" in the 1820's and/or the Nullification Crisis of the 1830's?
people like Davis to treason before you start tearing people like Lincoln apart.
Davis was never even tried for treason so I don't think that the likes of you can convict him here or anywhere else.
On the other hand, Lincoln’s war against the Confederacy and Southern civilians was all for money, company profits and government tariff revenues. A simple case of political pay back in return for the Northeastern manufacturing interests that supported the Republican Party and his campaign for the presidency. These special interests would have suffered serious financial loss if a low tariff Confederate States of America were allowed to peacefully, democratically and constitutionally secede from the United States in lawful state constitutional conventions of secession which were identical to the ratification conventions when they had joined the Union. The real reasons for the death and destruction of Lincoln’s War were covered up and hidden by historians who continue, even today, to deny the truth.
There you go. Economics.
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.