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."
Your analogy is not remotely comparable on many points.
So what's your real question?
Do states have rights? Not anymore. Thanks Abe. Thanks damnyankees.
Right here.
"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."
That's from the Texas v White decision. So if the Southern acts of unilateral secession were illegal and states did not cease to be states or their people citizens of the United States then it would follow that they did not secede and the so-called confederate states was a title adopted by a rebellious part of the United States and certainly not a sovereign nation in any respects.
Did you follow that?
Notice that I searched for "jefferson davis confederate president" to eliminate all the jefferson davis' that weren't the Confederate president. I was actually more lenient with disHonest Abe.
Maybe you shouldn't have been. Because when I apply the same standard and search on "Abraham Lincoln United States President" I get 1,820,000 hits. When I search on "Abe Lincoln President" I get 1,280,000 hits. Perhaps Abe isn't the dishonest one around here?
Just for fun, let's Google "dishonest abe lincoln".................Results 1 - 10 of about 176,000 for dishonest abe lincoln
Shazam!!!!
You know what's even more fun? Google "Jeff Davis's War". 2,050,000 hits.
And when are you going to start confronting us with the truth? Just curious.
It wasn't an analogy. It was a statement. Freely elected politicians acting in the name of the people in San Fransisco are interfering with a lawful Federal function. Since you support the South Carolina nullifiers and secessionists, I can only assume you also support the San Francisco commies.
They never did. As you refused to believe last week, governments have powers. People have rights. Anything to the contrary is mere sloppiness.
You never did come up with a court decision using the phrase, did you? I came up with two USSC decisions using "State's powers" in response to your challenge.
Very interesting.
Bob Barr was just on Hannity and they were discussing a possible run for POTUS on the libertarian ticket.
Hannity asked Barr what his position was on legalizing drugs.
Barr said that it was a "states rights" issue.
Bob Barr: "B.A., University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1970; M.A., George Washington University, Washington, D.C., 1972; J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., 1977; Central Intelligence Agency, 1970-1978; United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, 1986-1990; anti-drug coordinator for Department of Justice, Southeastern United States, 1986-1990; head, Public Corruption Subcommittee for United States Attorney General, 1987-1988; president, Southeastern Legal Foundation, 1990-1991"
What are your credentials?
Sure it is!
You're trying to draw an analogy between South Carolina in 1861 and San Francisco in 2008 with the intent on associating me with the people of San Francisco.
It is totally lame and another one of your pathetic attempts to spin the debate and reduce it to ad hominem attacks.
They had the right. They simply didn't have the ambition.
So any southerners who fought to put down a slave rebellion would have been in the wrong? After all, it's certainly wrong to fight to take away other people's rights.
And old John Brown was in the right? Then why did the rights-respecting state of Virginia hang him?
Seriously, this is basic political theory from Hobbes and Locke. Your inability to recognize it is bizarre.
I wasn't 'trying' to associate you with them. I did associate you with them because your philosophies are identical. Neither of you give a damn about the rule of law, you just want what you want.
When you type Jefferson Davis confederate president, you get a lot of pages at the end of your search that have "confederate" and "president" in them but not "Jefferson" or "Davis."
Ditto if I typed Abraham Lincoln united states president.
That gets me 1,930,000 pages, and the last of them probably have "United States" and "President" but not "Abraham" and "Lincoln" on them.
The fair search is between "Jefferson Davis" and "Abraham Lincoln."
If you want you can compare "Jefferson Davis Confederate President" and "Abraham Lincoln United States President."
For whatever it's worth, Lincoln beats Davis in both competitions.
You end a lot of these exchanges telling people to go away.
Looking over your own dismal contributions to the discussion that sounds like good advice.
If you want to take it, now would be a good time for it.
You're mixing up legal vs moral issues.
Is abortion wrong? Yes.
Is it legal? Yes.
So any southerners who fought to put down a slave rebellion would have been in the wrong? After all, it's certainly wrong to fight to take away other people's rights.
You're all mixed up. Again.
The slaves had a moral right to revolt. Slave owners had a legal right to squash a slave revolt. (As you know, slavery was legal in the Confederate States per the Confederate Constitution and it was legal in the United States until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in 1865.)
And old John Brown was in the right? Then why did the rights-respecting state of Virginia hang him?
Can one legally blow up an abortion clinic? No.
If you do, pro-lifers will write songs about you but the gubmint is still gonna hang your ass.
A legal right that is not based on a moral right is nothing but an exercise of tyranny.
I agree that the slaveowners had set up a legal system they used to squash the moral human rights of blacks that continued well up into the 1960s.
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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
While there is no question that the slave and Jim Crow societies had power and legal standing, they were not just powers because they were based on institutionalized violation of human rights.
Sure it does. What are your credentials?
Seriously, this is basic political theory from Hobbes and Locke. Your inability to recognize it is bizarre.
Hobbes: Man is not by nature a social animal, society could not exist except by the power of the state.
Hobbes: You conceded your rights to the government, in return for your life.
I'm assuming that you are a Hobbes disciple, being a Lincoln guy and all..............
That's almost a clever tactic. Almost.
Please be specific concerning 'philosophies'.
Neither of you give a damn about the rule of law, you just want what you want.
Exactly what are the folks in SF doing to break the law? They voted on a non-binding measure to ban military recruiters from public high schools. (Once again, please be specific.)
In addition, list what law I've broken and what law, specifically, was broken by the South.
FWIW, I wouldn't give a damn if SF fell off into the Bay with no survivors. Furthermore, I don't believe they deserve military protection.
But, I think that if SF and all of California wanted to leave the union and go it on their own, they should be allowed to do so. Otherwise, they're simply hostages.
Before I start, let me ask; Do you really want to go there.
The parallels to the asshats who run California now and the asshats who ran South Carolina 160 years ago are eerily similar.
If you really want this discussion, let me know, but you will not like the outcome.
As you have probably heard a million times, you cannot legislate morality.
I agree that the slaveowners had set up a legal system they used to squash the moral human rights of blacks that continued well up into the 1960s.
By 'slaveowners' you mean both north and South. Right?
While there is no question that the slave and Jim Crow societies had power and legal standing, they were not just powers because they were based on institutionalized violation of human rights.
Which is another good reason to keep this debate going. A man should not have the legal right to enslave another man. A government should not have the legal right to deny those 'self evident truths'.
There's no doubt that slavery was the albatross around the neck of state's rights. By wars end, the slaves had gained a measure of freedom but all the citizens of the newly reunited states had lost a great deal of freedom.
The fact is that he wasn't resigned to obscurity and is still the subject of debate both pro and con.
Refute that, x-girl.
Now, go away.
I'm already there.
The parallels to the asshats who run California now and the asshats who ran South Carolina 160 years ago are eerily similar.
Besides being carbon based life forms there's not much similarity at all.
If you really want this discussion, let me know, but you will not like the outcome.
I think that it's you that will not like the outcome, if you're intellectually honest throughout the discussion.
Here's a basic question: Where do rights come from?
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.