Replies

That suggests a definition of a statesman: somebody who doesn't simply think as the media do, somebody who doesn't let journalists define and limit his options, somebody who looks for the wiggle room to get things done.

Jefferson Davis was no statesman. The papers told him Lincoln's speech meant war, and Davis made sure that it did, apparently because he didn't have much imagination or artfulness or real desire for peace.

That suggests a definition of a statesman: somebody who doesn't simply think as the media do, somebody who doesn't let journalists define and limit his options, somebody who looks for the wiggle room to get things done.

You talking about Lincoln, or Quincy Adams, or both?

The Framers thought it anathema that the federal government should, pro bono some faction or other, seek to coerce a State or States. They made it clear in the Federalist. Quincy Adams's contribution was to think about doing just that, successfully, letting prospective success perfume the exercise after the fact.

Fact is, he ginned up a theory to "permit" the government of a federal Union to occupy and reduce to marches, several States of the Union, and deprive them utterly -- indeed, by extension of the logic, all the States -- of sovereignty, by the magic of "reorganizing" their governments. Ipso facto the States become creatures, inferiors, pawns and playthings of the new Sovereign -- you. Because if you own the Government, you want it to be an omnipotent Government and you need brook no impediments like a mere constitution. Right?

Jefferson Davis was no statesman. The papers told him Lincoln's speech meant war, and Davis made sure that it did

I'm sure he had his shortcomings as a war leader, or any kind of leader. He was quite competent as a cabinet officer and senator, but I think historians have made the case that he wasn't capable of standing up to Lincoln. Too bad. We lost -- we all did -- and liberal-arts-college and Ivy League snots won.