It does sound very different than Davis' other works, which was surprising.
As ususal, you need corroboration.
No. Walt's rules of eveidence do not apply. I provided transcibed/scanned page(s), and complete citation. It is documented, and Burke notes it himself in chapter notes. Refute it if you can.
No. Walt's rules of eveidence do not apply.
They are not my rules.
Walt
"Jon Utzman cited the oft-heard statement from Salmon Chase about "secession is not rebellion," etc., and he cited Burke Davis's book, _The Long Surrender_ as his source. I've finally gotten around to looking at this in detail.
Davis uses a very imperfect system of citation for his book. He doesn't have footnotes or endnotes (as most folks would understand them), but instead has brief discussions of his sources in an end-section titled "Bibliographical Notes." The chapter containing the Chase quote lists four items dealing with the trial in its notes section:
(1) George Shea, SHSP vol. 37, pp. 244-252;
(2) George Boutwell, SHSP vol. 38, pp. 347-349;
(3) Roy Nichols, American Historical Review, January, 1926, pp. 266 ff;
(4) "The Trials and Trial of Jefferson Davis," read before the Virginia Bar Association in 1900, and published by the VBA.
Note: Shea was associated with Davis's defense, Nichols is a highly respected historian of this period -- and Davis has the citation to his article incorrect, BTW. I don't know who Boutwell was.
We have the Nichols article on microfilm and I read it this afternoon; not only does it not contain the Chase quote, but it contains enough detailed information to make clear the reasons that Davis was never tried, and I would suggest anyone interested in the subject should start their reading there. The Shea and Boutwell pieces are readily available on CD, and neither of them contains the Chase quote, either. By elimination, that convicts the VBA article, unless Burke Davis made the whole thing up (unlikely) or failed to list his source for it (not impossible).
Given that Nicholls does not mention the statement; that the scheduling of Cabinet meetings makes it unlikely that Chase was present when he supposedly made the statement; that the Chase Papers, recently published, make it unlikely that Chase would have held the sentiments ascribed to him in this famous quote; and, finally, that the Virginia Bar Association is an unlikely (but not, I admit, impossible) source for historical nuggets like this, I am compelled to suggest that the quote is bogus.
Jim Epperson"
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
You need corroboration.
Walt
"Chase's papers were recently published by Kent State University Press. There was no indication in them anywhere that I could find of the statement Mr. Utzman attributes to him. It is not consistent with anything he is known to have written. For example, on Nov. 30, 1860, he wrote, "I abhor the very idea of a dissolution of the Union. If i were President I would indeed exhaust every expedient of forbearance consistent with safety. But at all hazards and against all opposition the laws of the Union should be enforced, through the Judiciary where practicable, but, against rebellion, by all necessary means."
Yet we are told that, in 1865, Chase opined that secession was NOT rebellion."
[end]
You need corroboration.
Walt
More:
"Burke Davis would never be my choice for "meticulous scholar of the year," but I would think that he would provide the source for such an important statement. I didn't see it in the Nichols article, Wayne didn't see it in the Blackford VBA article, and I couldn't find it in the SHSP articles. That is the sum total of what Davis cites on the subject.
Does the VBA article point to any other sources that might contain the Chase statement? I'm confidant Chase never said this, but I am curious as to *where* the story started.
Two other comments: Burke Davis attributes one of the SHSP articles to George Boutwell, but in fact it is an unsigned article pulled from the Richmond newspaper, and I have been told that Boutwell is an unlikely person to have authored such an article.
In a previous go-round of this subject, I mentioned, courtesy of the Jeff Davis Papers site, that Chase had somehow communicated his view that the 14th Amendment punished Davis for his acts, therefore a trial would be double jeopardy. Wayne questioned this, and all I could do is say that the Jeff Davis Papers site believed it. The Nichols article explains what happened, saying that Chase told George Shea. I'm not sure if Shea was one of Davis's attorneys or just an associate of theirs. I didn't take notes on Nichols's citation of this, but I am confidant that I read it correctly.
Oh, yes, Burke Davis has the citation information for the Nichols article incorrect. He says it is in Volume 3 of the American Historical Review, and it is in Volume 30-something. I found it using the year, which is listed correctly.
Jim Epperson "
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
You need corroboration.
Walt