Posted on 07/27/2003 5:08:19 PM PDT by thatdewd
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:46:56 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The writer is a circuit judge who lives in Kuttawa, Ky.
KUTTAWA, Ky. - The Courier Journal, at the behest of its columnist John David Dyche, has called for the removal of the Jefferson Davis statue in the rotunda of the Kentucky State Capitol. Such a supposedly politically correct viewpoint reflects a shallow, selective and even hypocritical understanding of history.
(Excerpt) Read more at courier-journal.com ...
Thousands? Got a source on that one, Partisan?
no CSA judiciary, etc.
False. Every state had a functioning judiciary and many of them heard and ruled in cases throughout the war. The CSA senate held up the bill to create a federal judiciary out of fear that it would usurp the existing state judiciaries and give more power to Davis, not less.
Not so. Lincoln had always supported colonization and believed in it till his dying day.
Buncombe. Slavery was already ancient when its morality was defined in Genesis and Deuteronomy. Describing your druthers in the here and now is one thing; prescribing them for people who lived in the distant past, who couldn't know how passionately you would feel about things later, is another, and folly. And that's if you're being sincere!
I Damn all the slave masters, past present and future. I damn their memory in this world, and I heartily hope that their souls are damned in the next.
Do you damn all pre-1980 scientists for failing to have invented the Internet? All preliterate societies for failing to invent some writing for us to discover? How about the wheel? Fire?
Judging people who lived in another world by the standards of our own may make you feel good or even satisfy your itch to push a beef, but it isn't a useful attitude to take in studying history.
And those who would defend them, deserve a seat next to them in the eternal fire.
How thoughtful of you.
Jefferson Davis had no anti-slavery positions of which I am aware. He headed a slave nation. As for diversity, I guess you mean something like Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.
Slavery was wrong.
Not as a moral question, but as a legal question, in 1861, in my opinion, slavery was legal and secession was legal. That does not make either one either moral or right. In 2003, abortion is legal. That does not necessarily make it moral or right. Many consider it infanticide.
Journalistic license can only stretch so thin.
Yes, but was Jefferson Davis wrong? In your opinion was he a constitution trashing racist in the same vein as Abraham Lincoln? If not then why not? Those are the questions on the table.
No, Davis was not a Constitution trashing racist in the same vein as Lincoln. He was not a Constitution trasher because Secession was legal and slavery was legal, and Davis did not violate the Constitution. On the other hand, Lincoln violated the Constitution at will.
Denial of the racism of Lincoln is just being a hypocrite.
Excellent observation. ;o)
Do you think he sat around the fireplace in Springfield back in 1858 plotting on how to do that?
It was a ship with no flag heading into Charleston harbor. A Revenue cutter fired a shot across the bow and then the ship raised the stars and stripes and was allowed to proceed. That was standard practice. Then and now, a ship must display a flag.
The first shot was actually fired a month before when Confederate batteries openned fire on the civilian vessel Star of the West as it entered Charleston Harbor.
But what about his own constitution? He did allegedly swear to defend that when he was sworn in. Yet in the very article this post was based on it says that Davis promised the European powers that in exchange for recognition that the south would end slavery. Davis did not have the authority to promise that. He could not, by the confederate constituiton, end slavery. The confederate congress could not end slavery. Only an amendment to the confederate constitution could do that but Davis didn't go there. He wasn't interested in that. According to Jefferson Davis the constitution meant what he wanted it to mean. "...the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended to ancd calculated to carry out the object...", Davis said, "If the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional" So he didn't need a court to tell him what to do. The constitution meant whatever the hell he wanted it to mean. Who needed a court system? So he didn't bother with that, either. So would Davis be within his power to end slavery? Did the constitution mean whatever Davis said it did? And if it was true for the Davis regime then why didn't Lincoln have that same power?
As for the second question, are you punting the issue of Jeff Davis being a vile racist or are you going to weigh in on that as well?
If you would be bothered to actually read some of the posts I wrote, 143 for example, I have no problem agreeing that when judged by the standards of today Abe Lincoln was racist. But you, on the other hand, seem to have a big hypocrisy problem of your own. Your condemnation of Lincoln as a racist has been shrill and continuous. Now, how about Jefferson Davis? Was he just as racist as Abe Lincoln? If not, why not?
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 3.
Speech at Carlinville, Illinois [1]
August 31, 1858
...Sustain these men and negro equality will be abundant, as every white laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave niggers.
...
Douglas tries to make capital by charges of negro equality against me. My speeches have been printed and before the country for some time on this question, and Douglas knows the utter falsity of such a charge. To prove it Mr. L. read from a speech of his at Peoria in '54 in reply to Douglas as follows:
``Shall we free them and make them politically and socially our equals? MY OWN FEELINGS WILL NOT ADMIT OF THIS, and if they would the feelings of the great mass of white people would not. Whether this accords with strict justice or not is not the sole question. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot safely be disregarded. We cannot then make them our equals.. . . Is it not rather our duty to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories?
You may then read the defense of James Mitchell by the your leader, the Brigade Commander of the Wlat Brigade, Wlat himself.
By the standards of the Wlat Brigade, James Mitchell is a "very loyal and capable Union man" and a "true patriot." Follow your leader. March with pride. Let the world see what the Wlat Brigade supports.
THE LINCOLN GAMEPLAN DRAFTED BY JAMES MITCHELL
[Image file from the Library of Congress]
Transcript of Lincoln Gameplan drafted by James Mitchell
[Wlat 1785] Now, Mitchell was a very loyal and capable Union man. If President Lincon would go out of his way to help rebels, what would he do for true patriots?
LINK
FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Drafted by James Mitchell
A letter of December 1864 shows Lincoln still fighting to keep this piece of human garbage around.
require a separation of the colored or negro race from us
Yet, terrible as is this civil war between men of kindred race for the dominion of the servant, future history will show that it has been moderate and altogether tolerable when contrasted with a struggle between the black and white race, which, within the next one or two hundred years must sweep over this nation,
the removal of the colored race to a proper locality . . . Surely this exercise of influence is a legitimate prerogative of the Chief Magistrate, the guardian of national peace, who, being convinced of impending danger to the country, has the undoubted right to notify the nation of its approach, and recommend the remedy.
Our danger in the future arises from the fact that we have 4,500,000 persons, who, whilst amongst us, cannot be of us - persons of a different race
The social and civil evils resulting from the presence of the negro race are numerous
the license of the races, which is giving to this continent a nation of bastards.
That political economist must be blind indeed; that statesman must be a shallow thinker, who cannot see a fearful future before this country, if the production of this mixed race is not checked by removal.
possibly the next great civil war will be the conflict of this race for dominion and existence.
this population is in the way of the peace of the country
Thus far we have found that their presence here disturbs our social structure. We come now to examine how far our civil structure is damaged by this population.
But there is one clause of this sacred compact which requires the Federal government to "guarantee to the several States a republican form of government." . . . When rightly construed it must and will require the gradual removal of such anti-republican elements and peoples as cannot be engrafted on the national stock
It is admitted on all hands that our mixed and servile population constitute the root of those issues and quarrels; what shall be done with them is the question of the hour.
this repulsive admixture of blood
the men of the Exeter Hall school, who, far removed from the scene of danger, see not the degradation of this admixture of race.
he does not choose to endanger the blood of his posterity by the proximity of such a population; that here is no command in the Word of God that will oblige him to place this race on the high road to such an amalgamation with his family
they rejected the black because they could not or would not amalgamate on legal or honorable terms.
Nothing but the authority of the Divine law will change his purpose to hedge himself in and erect legal protections against this possible admixture of blood,
Where men are truly moral and religious, the white and black races do not mix, so that the influence of religion will never effect fusion,
hatred of those who would engraft, as they say, negro blood on the population of their country
We must regard the extension of equal social and civil rights to this class of persons as distasteful to the mass of the nations; the majority will never submit to it
we cannot make republican citizens out of our negro population
a possible corruption of blood in future generations
The government of Great Britain is composed of a few thousand titled and privileged persons, located in a small island, who are born to rule and govern. From their isolated position it is not possible for them to come in contact with the numerous, heterogeneous, and inferior tribes and races under their rule. They are thus protected from possible admixture of inferior blood
How can such a people comprehend the necessity or use of removing the man of color?
to protect them against this repulsive admixture of blood
What is to protect us as a people from degenerating as a race, but the resolve to receive no blood from the other races but that which can be honorably and safely engrafted on the stock of the nation.
Let us then, earnestly and respectfully recommend as a remedy for our present troubles and future danger, the perfecting the proposed plans of the administration in regard to those two conflicting races, and the careful and gradual removal of the colored race to some desirable and convenient home.
Some affect to fear that the man of color will not remove to a separate locality. It is not to be expected that a race, which has hardly attained a mental majority, will rise in a day to the stature of the men who found empires, build cities, and lay the ground work of civil institutions like ours; nor should they be expected to do this unaided and alone. They should receive the kind attention, direction, and aid of those who understand such things; nor will the world condemn a gentle pressure in the forward course to overcome the natural inertia of masses long used to the driver's will and rod. Let us do justice in the provision we make for their future comfort, and surety they will do justice to our distracted Republic.
If they should fail to do this, there would then be more propriety in weighing the requirement of some to remove without consultation, but not till then.
We know that there is a growing sentiment in the country which considered the removal of the freed man, without consulting him, "a moral and military necessity" -- as a measure necessary to the purity of public morals and the peace of the country; and this unhappy war of white man with white man, about the condition of the black, will multiply this sentiment.
But we cannot go further now than suggesting, that the mandatory relation held by the rebel master should escheat to the Federal government in a modified sense, so as to enable his proper government and gradual removal to a proper home where he can be independent.
We earnestly pray that a perpetual barrier may be reared between us and that land of the mixed races of this continent - Mexico.
As Abraham and Lot agreed to separate their conflicting retainer and dependents, the one going to the right and the other to the left, so let those two governments agree to divide this continent between the Anglo-American and mixed races
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.