Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by Aurelius
Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'
Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."
Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?
At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."
Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.
Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???
Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.
i DISPISE lincoln and all his many works, as a LYING, cheap politician, who is remembered today only for "the lincoln myth". lincoln, the TYRANT & WAR CRIMINAL, would have said anything & done anything to promote himself.
as i've said numerous times, he was no better as a leader than wee willie klintoon.
free dixie,sw
I am not your research assistant. If you are too dumb to know the answer, look it up. When you figure it out, come back and let us all know.
'ole WP not only posts long,meaningless, boring, off-point drivel, but frequently dos NOT seem to understand the bilge he posts.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Sounds like something Davis would say, doesn't it?
SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING LINCOLN ACTUALLY DID SAY.
I can see where he could confuse us with each other or anyone who possesses sufficient intellect (not much required) to see through the lincoln myth.
Once again you are spreading false information. That snippet which you are so fond of quoting was in Lincoln's papers. It stands alone, without any reference before or after it. We have no idea if Lincoln meant it for a speech, was quoting something Stephen Douglas said, was quoting someone else altogether, or expressing his real sentiments. Without context, however, one wouldn't know that. And since you have a problem with context when it comes to Abraham Lincoln I'll help you out on this one.
But was Jefferson Davis a racist? You seem to have an opinion on everything else under the sun. Don't you have an opinion on that, too?
As I said before, I personally don't believe that the two should be compared. But since you're begging for an answer then I would rate the holocaust as worse. In retrospect we recognize slavery as wrong, but the roots of slavery were not grounded in an attempt to exterminate an entire people. The holocaust was pure evil, an attempt at the systematic destruction of a people believed inferior by a government and a people, and in a time where we should have known better. How's that?
You had me worried there for a moment. I thought I might have misdirected my comments. But nope, they went to nolu chan as intended. And I believe exactly what I said in the post.
But why not devote a fraction of your efforts at what you laughingly refer to as your 'research' to the question of whether Jeff Davis was a racist? You have a basis for your opinions on Lincoln, just apply the same standards to Davis. I'm not asking for anything different or anything harder than that. Based on his quotes and his beliefs and his actions, and using the exact same standards you judge Lincoln by, is Jeff Davis a racist? Yes or no?
No, I confess that I wasn't aware of that. But since you obviously believe that you know the views of Jefferson Davis on a subject like abolition, then certainly you can tell us if you thought that Jefferson Davis was also a racist. How about it?
you'll also note that first, in post #2015, N-S says that slavery was the worst crime in history;in #2048, he states the holocaust was worse than slavery.
as usual, the damnyankee apologists can't get their stories straight;all they do is bow & grovel before the statue of their clayfooted saint, lincoln the TYRANT.
please note that lincoln's crusade to re-conquer the southland resulted in about a MILLION killed & HALF of those were innocent civilians.that's quite a price to maintain "a union of the UN-willing".
one wonders how many MILLION innocents the damnyankees will willingly kill, rape,maim & rob to keep the southland from obtaining her liberty NEXT TIME????
free the southland,sw
TRUTH IS slavery's demise was pre-ordained by the coming of the Industrial Revolution AND "freeing the slaves" was just another in the LONG history of lies told by the self-serving, racist,anti-semetic,imperialist,self-righteous elites of damnyankeeland to promulgate their selfish agenda.
the damnyankee elites, by and large, then & NOW dispise & FEAR NON-whites and want them FAR AWAY from their "oh so wonderfully lilly-white" lives.
free dixie,sw
Abraham Lincoln 1859 [Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol III, pp 399, Basler, ed.]
[Non-seq] Once again you are spreading false information. That snippet which you are so fond of quoting was in Lincoln's papers. It stands alone, without any reference before or after it. We have no idea if Lincoln meant it for a speech, was quoting something Stephen Douglas said, was quoting someone else altogether, or expressing his real sentiments. Without context, however, one wouldn't know that. And since you have a problem with context when it comes to Abraham Lincoln I'll help you out on this one.
I think he was quoting Non-Sequitur.
No, wait. Maybe Lincoln meant it for a beer commercial.
Wait. Maybe it was a secret speech of Stephen Douglas.
No. Somebody forged it in Lincoln's hand and surreptitiously put it in with Lincoln's other notes for speeches.
Wait, maybe Jeff Davis had the Confederate Secret Service do it.
Maybe you are too stupid to know whether it was for a speech or not, but what does the page of the Collected Works say?
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 3.
table of contents | view text | add to bookbagFragments: Notes for Speeches
free dixie,sw
he was however really good at DIShonesty, self-promotion & disembling; the USA wouldn't see his like again until wee willie klintoon appeared on the scene.<P.free dixie,sw
I believe the wishy-washy Non-Seq fails to consider just how many human beings had their lives ROBBED during the centuries of slavery. They spent their entire life as nothing more than someone else's piece of property.
Sorry. I should have added "dripping sarcasm" to it.
Below is what Lincoln wanted -- deportation of Blacks and White paradise.
THE LINCOLN GAMEPLAN DRAFTED BY JAMES MITCHELL
[Image file from the Library of Congress, Presidential Papers of Abraham Lincoln]
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.