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."
And reveals that the protection of slavery was the entire motivation for their actions. Not a word about tariffs. Not a word about economic domination or internal improvements. The entire second half of the document is exclusively about protecting slavery.
Help me out here: so the North declared war on themselves, and caught the South in the crossfire?
I think we'd have to know what that guy behind the gar is doing.
There is no question that many, many Northerners were utter hypocrites - benefitting indirectly from the slave trade in the slave states while opposing slavery in theory.
However, it speaks volumes that so many of these hypocrites, when the moment of truth came, supported the cause of the Union even though they knew it would cost them significant investments.
not even ONE slave ship was "out of" a dixie port. over 90% of ALL slaves brought to "the new world" were brought here by ships "out of" New England AND those "oh, so wunnerful, wunnerful & marvlus", SELF-righteous,sanctimonious, DYs.
There were some slave ships owned by Southerners, but many more by Northerners - but not 90%: most were British.
Of course, 99% of all slave trading after 1808 took place in the South between Southern parties.
And the slaveocracy was mostly funded (if not, as you point out, originally supplied) by Southerners.
They purchased the slaves: very few Northerners owned extensive farming land in the South - they were more interested in brokering cotton than growing it.
as they owned slaves,slave ships,plantations (in the south & in the "sugar islands"), etc. from the beginning of the "peculiar institution" to it's bitter end (long after Richmond fell.) further, MANY of the same northerners (who CLAIMED to be "antislavery") were INVESTED IN slavery (hypocrisy has FOREVER been a DY trait.), as they owned slaves,slave ships,plantations (in the south & in the "sugar islands"), etc. from the beginning of the "peculiar institution" to it's bitter end (long after Richmond fell.)
Actually, abolition societies in the North agitated quite successfully - especially in New England - to shame investors into disninvesting in slave enterprises at home and abroad.
And it should also be recalled that the abolitionist portrayed slavery as a national humiliation - which it was. They rightly pointed out that everyone in America, in some way or other, was implicated in the slave economy.
the FACTS are NOT on your side, so instead you post BLATHER/myths/SILLINESS/propaganda.
You post as if I had been saying that Northerners were simon-pure in the matter of slavery. I never said they were. What I did post, and which remains true, is that the primary concern of the secessionists was the preservation and expansion of the slave economy. By 1860 - and largely since 1838 - pretty much everyone in the North was of the opinion that slavery was an institution whose days were numbered.
The primary beneficiaries of the slave economy - the Southern landed classes and professional elite - did not generally believe this and maintained that slavery was still vital and could grow: that the federal territories required and could sustain the growth of the slave population, and that the annexation to America of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and possibly Central and South America would cement that future.
FACT: the south seceded from the USA because they feared that "lincoln, the TYRANT" & "his merry band of crooks & south-haters" would destroy LIBERTY
Everyone always accuses his political opponent of wanting to destroy liberty. When one is oneself a slave owner or an ideological supporter of slaveholding, such protestations are immediately rendered hollow.
Which liberties, exactly, had Lincoln threatened prior to February 8, 1861?
Just one "liberty" - the freedom to transport slaves into federal territory or the free states and still treat them as property.
That's all. That's the entire list.
As for every war measure later called "tyrannous" which was taken by President Lincoln after the South began waging war against the Union, the subject of this thread - Jefferson Davis - not only matched him measure for measure but even anticipated him.
The Confederacy was willing to sacrifice habeas corpus, civilian trials, freedom of the press, freedom from conscription and every other free institution to preserve slavery.
It was not until 17 days before Lee surrendered that the Confederacy, in desperation, finally allowed black men their right to bear arms - and only if they would use them to keep their own people enslaved.
So if I can show one slave ship registered in New Orleans or Charleston, you'll admit you're wrong?
over 90% of ALL slaves brought to "the new world" were brought here by ships "out of" New England
Laughably wrong. New England ships were small-time players in the slave trade compared to the Portugese and the British, who had been shipping slaves for decades before the first settlers even arrived in New England, much less established a shipping industry there. The Portugese alone shipped 4.5 million slaves--about 40% of the total for the Atlantic slave trade.
How about the The schooner Clotilde?
It was notorious because not only was it out of a “dixie” port, but it was the last known U.S. slave ship to bring slaves from Africa to America.
I hate using wacky-pedia, but it was the first to come up: http://tinyurl.com/4xovne
Of course swattie won’t believe it, preferring to plant his head firmly up his bum (where it sends most of its time), but facts are facts...
That's your problems, stand. You don't think. You don't think at all. Ever. Under any circumstances.
In Jack Hurst's "Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography" on pages 330-331, he details how Forrest himself in later life claimed he had bought an interest in the Wanderer, on which he and his partners had shipped over 400 slaves illegally into the U.S. He seemed proud of the fact that only a few dozen died on the trip. Forrest apparently bragged, "They were very fond of grasshoppers and bugs, but I taught them to eat cooked meat, and they were as good (negroes) as any I ever had." And Lord knows the man bought and sold hundreds, if not thousands of slaves in his time. He should know.
Speaking of what some professor said, which one of your professors said that "10,000 people" thing you're so fond of quoting on almost every WBTS thread?
I'm wallowing in good company (e.g. Ann Coulter) so I'm good with it.
I'll leave it at this:
From the Declaration of Independence
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.
From the South Carolina Secession Declaration:
Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the colonies, namely: the right of a state to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact that each colony became and was recognized by the mother country as a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.
Must be comforting for you to know that there were no yankee slave traders........
I don't hold any slave traders up as heroes. You do.
In other words, the Natural Right of Rebellion. Nothing there says that the British don't have the concurrent right to put down the rebellion.
It's hypocritical to think otherwise.
Nothing there says that the British don't have the concurrent right to put down the rebellion.
As long as they realize that success means that they've simply taken the rebels as hostages.
If that's the way you really feel, I look forward to seeing on the news that you've launched your rebellion. Until then, I can only conclude that you either:
a) don't think it's actually that bad, or
b) don't have the gumption to do anything about it.
It's not just the way I feel, it's historically evidenced.
The War of Northern Aggressions end required 10 years of Reconstruction enforced through martial law. Southerners were hostages during that period. Animosity between the two regions exist to this.
The British fought to subjugate the Irish for 500 years without success.
The US government waged war on the Indian tribes, openly attempting to exterminate bands that refused to surrender. Most Indian tribes are de facto hostages on reservations to this day.
I look forward to seeing on the news that you've launched your rebellion.
Are you blind? What do you think I've been posting? Submission to a form of government that is eating the soul out of the American people?
The Union that was formed by the Founders is dead and the death knell started at the hands of Lincoln.
Nice try but you can’t reason someone out of something he wasn’t reasoned into. These two have a terminal case of invincible ignorance.
I suppose that’s why they call them “lost causers”...
The "new world" includes the entire western hemisphere. Less than 5% of all slaves shipped across the Atlantic came to what is now the USA. Of that less than 5% the considerable majority were transported in British ships, the vast majority of those prior to independence.
The US importation of slaves was prohibited in 1808, quite literally the moment the Constitution allowed it to be. The 20 year delay in banning of the slave trade was a southern initiative, not a northern one.
So at maximum we had 20 years of northern slaving under the US flag.
In 1819 US law equated slaving with piracy, subject to capital punishment, although we had to wait till the presidency of the evil Lincoln to actually hang one of the bastards.
There's a public hanging I would cheerfully attend, and bring a sack lunch.
(note that FEW northern slave-owners ever freed THEIR slaves. instead they SOLD them to places where slavery remained profitable/lawful.)
Unfortunately true. Black populations in states that freed slaves dropped by a rock by the time of the next census, for the simple reason that slaves were sold south before emancipation went into effect. Emancipation in northern states consisted mostly of getting rid of slavery, not in freeing actual slaves.
But at least by their actions they implicitly recognized slavery to be an evil.
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness" - the prophet Isaiah. The Confederacy discovered the true force of this prophecy.
That's like saying the police should know that the bank robbers they've apprehended are simply hostages.
Rebellion is, by definition, an illegal act. Suppressing rebellion is halting the law breaking. Punishing the rebels is simply doing 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.