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."
pointing out that "chattel slavery" was NOT the MAIN/ONLY/MAJOR cause of the WBTS is KEY to understanding:
1. that you've been LIED TO & made a FOOL of by the northeastern elitists &
2. the TRUE reasons that made it necessary for the south to declare her independence.
from the unionist point of view, the WBTS was ONLY about keeping the union intact & the south SUBSERVIENT to the north & from the southern view it was ONLY about FREEDOM from OPPRESSION.
free dixie,sw
On what do you base this remarkable assertion?
By the end of the war, slaves had been freed by state action in all Union states except Kentucky (about 20,000, if I remember correctly) and Delaware (at most a couple hundred). Which northern slaves were the DY elitists going to KEEP. There weren't any.
Then for some reason the DY elitists passed constitutional amendments against slavery and in favor of black equality, forcing southern states to ratify them. Why do you think they did that, if they were planning to keep the slaves they had already freed?
Anywho, I would imagine DY elitists were a little thin on the ground in the border states, the only part of "the North" where slaves remained when the war started, much less when it ended.
DYs of the time may indeed have been hypocrites, but you can't prove it by their actions. They said they would preserve the Union, and they did. They said they would free the slaves, and they did.
How exactly is this hypocritical?
Point of reference is an invalid argument. That makes everybody right all the time.
The only valid argument is that man has a God given right to be free. It is the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of a Constitution written specifically to limit the powers of government.
When oppressed, one has the right, even the obligation, to seek a remedy, regardless of what a man-made law states.
So black slaves had a right and obligation to rebel, and those who would have opposed them were in the wrong?
A word of caution. It isn't possible to make a case that slaveowners fought in defense of liberty. Unless you wish to assert that their slaves weren't really men, as the US Supreme Court ruled was the law of the land.
Of course they did! They had a God given right to freedom. But the law of the land at the time protected property rights that extended to slavery. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this very fundamental point? You're mixing up legality and morality again.
Let me help you out. Everybody knows that OJ Simpson killed two people. I know it, you know it, he knows it but a jury in a court of law said he was not guilty. So, even though he's not legally guilty, one day he'll face his Maker and will have to atone for his moral guilt.
Let me give you a word of caution. If you post any more of your couched statements accusing me of being a racist I'm gonna start banging the abuse button.
Thanks for the clarification. The bottom line being we still fight over the reasoning or lack there of for the “Civil War”. In my research of my Family Tree I find both Yanks and Rebs. I also find some on either side of the lines not taking up arms. A lot of people did not participate but were preyed upon by both sides as do some Iragis. Aside: have a look at “www.footnote.com”
I am in no way arguing any of your points! Have a good day....
1.frequently the ONLY thing that the union army freed the slaves from was BEING ALIVE. THOUSANDS of slaves in dixie were raped,assaulted,tortured & murdered by the invading union army. this was especially true if you happened to be a "comely, light-skinned, female slave" who was "available" to the invading yankee soldiers (generally NOTHING was done by the union high command to rapists/robbers/looters/murderers, IF the victim(s) were NON-white/poor/Jewish/"Chinese"/Latino/Roman Catholic/Quaker/"lower class"/uneducated/a slave.===> NOTE: my family had at least 92 members = mostly elderly men,women & children under the age of 10YO, as the able-bodied men/older boys were "away with the forces", robbed/raped/looted/assaulted/tortured/murdered just because they were NON-white/poor/available to the "filth in blue that flowed down from the north".),
2. MANY northern slavers sold their slaves (both in the north & in dixie) SOUTH to "the islands", rather than freeing them,
3. there are several documents from prominent "antislavery individuals" (who actually OWNED slaves), which clearly states that the owners had NO interest in freeing the slaves that THEY owned, but that they SAID that they planned to free those slaves, who were in SOUTHERN hands &
4. there is a letter from MG Benjamin (THE BEAST) Butler to Secretary Stanton that clearly states Butler's intent to use the "former bondsmen" for "volunteer, forced, labor under military discipline" (NICE OXYMORON, don't you think???) if such slaves came under the control of the union army until such time as "other arrangements could be made for their new owners", as Butler believeed that the "natural condition of the bondsman" was to BE a slave FOREVER. (the reply of Stanton to "the beast's plan of action" is UNKNOWN.)
fwiw, your question (unlike that of MOST of the unionists/DYs here at least shows a few signs of "brains".)
free dixie,sw
it is my belief that (while i will not, at my age, live to see it) dixie will be "Free at last. Free at last. Thank GOD ALMIGHTY, FREE AT LAST".
free dixie,sw
What you said was that you’d hit the abuse button and report me to the moderators if I responded to any of your posts. I have seen no evidence that you’ve followed through on those threats, probably because you’d be laughed at when you complain that a simple response constitutes abuse under FR’s TOS.
On what page?
That’s true of most of the Civil War threads. I’m always amused when he finds one a couple of hundred posts in, and you have to scroll by twenty consecutive, repetitive posts of his as he catches up.
Or until he tuckers his poor little self out and goes to sleep it off again...
You have made dozens of posts claiming confederates fought for liberty. It is my position that anyone who claims to be fighting for liberty while simultaneously denying it to others, is a hypocrite and does not deserve his freedom. Please note my tagline.
To a lesser extent I also believe that anyone who chooses to be an apologist for those who claim to fight for freedom while denying it to others is a hypocrite. Feel free to include yourself in this group, if you like.
The position to which I object can be defined as being in favor of freedom for all men while still enslaving some. This is, of course, logically defensible. However, to defend it absolutely requires a redefinition of those enslaved as “not men,” and therefore not deserving of freedom. Or, as the great Chief Justice put it, persons of African descent do not have and can never acquire any “rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”
All men can be free and still have slaves. We just have to redefine “men” to exclude anyone we wish to enslave. If you cannot see in this ideology a foreshadowing of the master race theory that led to such horrific crimes in the last century, I suspect it’s because you don’t want to see it.
Feel free to turn me in. I’m perfectly willing to explain my position to the admin people. If you don’t like being implied to be a racist, I suggest you reconsider your ardent defense of those who chose war to entrench a master race ideology.
Ahh, but you are ignoring the issue.
You claimed that northerners planned to free southern slaves while keeping their own. When I pointed out that this was a truly ludicrous assertion, proving it with numbers and chronology, you promptly go off on a rant about northerners killing and pillaging. Even assuming these claims are 100% correct, they still do absolutely nothing to prove that DYs ever intended, much less tried to put into action, a freeing of southern slaves while retaining northern ones.
BTW, how hard do you think southern generals were on southern boys who had a little fun with a cute black wench?
To which “islands” are you referring? AFAIK, the only island retaining slavery after the US was Cuba, a rather restricted market. I assume you have documentation of the number of “northern slaves” sold to Cuba during the WBTS. You certainly wouldn’t toss out such an accusation without proof to back it up.
I’m interested. What were the circumstances that led to the massacre of your family members?
In the 1860 census there were 488,000 free blacks in the entire United States. Apparently every free black man in the country sneaked into the South so he could fight for the good old CSA.
There were doubtless a good many slaves who went along with their masters to battle, and probably a good many of them were allowed to arm themselves and fight, and were perhaps even accepted by other men in the regiment on an informal basis. However, it cannot seriously be contended that a slave can genuinely volunteer for anything.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080105170123AAN9tDl
Based on your righteous position, this country is illegitimate because the Founders fought for liberty while denying liberty to others and then protecting the institution of 'servitude' in the Constitution.
In other words, the Founders were hypocrites that did not deserve freedom.
The position to which I object can be defined as being in favor of freedom for all men while still enslaving some.
That includes the Founders. Right?
Feel free to turn me in. I’m perfectly willing to explain my position to the admin people. If you don’t like being implied to be a racist, I suggest you reconsider your ardent defense of those who chose war to entrench a master race ideology.
Your problem is that you have taken a major, and false, leap.
I've always defended secession, never slavery. You obviously don't have the intellectual agility to reconcile the difference and be able to debate the merits of secession in it's own right.
Or, you're simply trying to spin the debate so that you can have your 'racist' and flame him too. It's a trick your mentor, non-sequitur, is equally unable to master even though you have both had plenty of practice.
Good luck. He has trouble keeping that story straight. To start with, he's put it in two different states in different tellings, with extensive details for both versions.
1. the women/children/elderly men of our family as AIs made "convenient targets" as they were UNARMED (readers of this post might think on that= being UNARMED is: choosing to make oneself a TARGET for criminals!!!),
2.many whites HATED Indians (in fact, MANY whites desired nothing less than EXTREMINATION of EVERY Indian.) &
3. the WAR CRIMINALS obviously KNEW that NOTHING would be done to them for their crimes. (sadly, i must tell you that what was done to our family was FAR from unique. if you were defense-LESS/poor/Non-white/of a"minority religion"/a recent immigrant/etc you were a "target of opportunity" for every one of Sherman's bummers. otoh, southern "plantation aristocrats" frequently were PROTECTED by the union army, as all too many were collaborators with the enemy.)
as for "how hard" southern officers would have been on a dixie soldier who "took a comely wench" = MUCH harder, if only because (if she was a slave),the slave was the property of another person (usually a RICH/politically-connected one!) OR (if she was a "freeperson of colour") that the officer did not want a family of ANGRY Blacks in "his backyard". (fwiw, you saying essentially that "you guys were no better than ours" is a WEAK & SILLY argument that makes you LOOK dumb,that's like telling your mother that, "Billy does it so i should be able to do it too."= your mom wouldn't have "bought that argument"- neither will i,).
may i gently suggest that you look at a map of the Caribbean to see the islands i'm talking about (as well as several of the Central/South American "land-side" nations)? Cuba was NOT the only one. Hispaniola, Martinique & many other smaller islands had slavery (whether lawful or not. in some places, slaves were called "servants", "laborers" and/or "bondsmen", but they WERE slaves.)
as for "rants", i note that EVERY time any of us southerners start talking about the commission of WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY & HYPOCRASY of the DAMNyankees, that the unionists here call it "ranting".====> laughing AT that SILLY attempt to "cover up" what was done in the prostrated south by the invaders. (for example, EVERY TIME i "bring up" the assaults against, torture of, starving, denial of food/clothing/medical care & outright MASS-murders of/to the CSA POWs in the hands of the DAMNyankees, at least ONE DY says: it was NO worse than Andersonville. the TRUTH is that the union operated DEATH CAMPS, which were DESIGNED to cause harm/death to CSA prisoners, while Andersonville (at it's worst & the conditions were TERRIBLE. even members of the guard force starved to death at Camp Sumter!!!) was a case of NOTHING TO GIVE the US POWs- even the USPOWIC admits that NO WAR CRIMES and/or INTENTIONAL abuse was EVER done to POWs at Camp Sumter!!!)
the TRUTH is: The union army raged through the prostrated south like a herd of rabid swine, gleefully raping,torturing, robbing,looting, pillaging the poor, the non-whites (both slave & free),the Jews, Quakers, Asians & the Latinos without either MERCY or NECESSITY. this was the most awful & needless of actions of the Civil War, in that it was war for FUN & PROFIT;furthermore, these CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, like all such excesses, caused a LONGER, MUCH more bitter war than otherwise would have happened AND that bitterness lingers today. the commission of atrocities by an army ALWAYS causes a LONGER, more cruel & bitter war, as the opponents always "dig their collective heels" in after such UN-lawful actions.(no quotation marks, as i'm far from my home/books, but this is CLOSE to the quote.)
free dixie,sw
fwiw, NOBODY, with the possible exception of "x" or "the name-LESS shunned one"(who continues to post TO me even after he was told that i would NEVER read and/or respond to his LIES, stupidity & HATEFULNESS again. that CREEP gives new meaning to STUPID/IGNORANT & "has no life".) is considered LESS intelligent and/or more clue-LESS than you are.
PITY that you three do NOT know that other readers here see you to be: STUPID/ignorant/arrogant/clue-LESS/FOOLISH & to be BIGOTS. it is my belief that IF you "had a clue" as to your image on this forum, that the three of you would leave FR forever in tears of humiliation.
laughing AT you, DUMMY.
free dixie,sw
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.