Jefferson Davis: beyond a statue-tory matter

The Courier-Journal ^ | July 27, 2003 | Bill Cunningham

[thatdewd]

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.

[thatdewd]

The south was practically a police state by mid-war

LOL. Lincoln turned the north into a police state before the war really even started. He arrested legally elected legislatures and many many thousands of ordinary citizens, often on just the suspicion of a suspicion, very often with no charges ever being filed against them.

[4CJ]

There is no proof that Lincoln ever made such a statement.

The picturesque hills of New England were dotted with costly mansions, erected with money, of which the Southern planters had been despoiled, by means of the tariffs of which Mr. Benton spoke. Her harbors frowned with fortifications, constructed by the same means. Every cove and inlet had its lighthouse, for the benefit of New England shipping, three fourths of the expense of erecting which had been paid by the South, and even the cod, and mackerel fisheries of New England were bountied, on the bald pretext, that they were nurseries for manning the navy. The South resisted this wholesale robbery, to the best of her ability. Some few of the more generous of the Northern representatives in Congress came to her aid, but still she was overborne; and the curious reader, who will take the pains to consult the "Statutes at Large," of the American Congress, will find on an average,-a tariff for every five years recorded on their pages; the cormorants increasing in rapacity, the more they devoured. No wonder that Mr. Lincoln when asked, "why not let the South go?" replied, "Let the South go! where then shall we get our revenue?"
Admiral Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, During the War Between The States, Baltimore: Kelly, Piet & Co., 1869, p. 59.

That's one.

When asked, as President of the United States, "why not let the South go?" his simple, direct, and honest answer revealed one secret of the wise policy of the Washington Cabinet. "Let the South go!" said he, "where, then, shall we get our revenue?"
Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Is Davis a traitor; or, Was secession a constitutional right previous to the war of 1861?, Baltimore: Innes & Company, 1866, pp. 143-144.

Two.

Another effort was made to move Abraham Lincoln to peace. On the 22nd, a deputation of six members from each of the five Christian Associations of Young Men in Baltimore, headed by Dr. Fuller, and eloquent clergyman of the Baptist church, went to Washington and had an interview with the President. He received them with a sort of rude formality. Dr. Fuller said, that Maryland had first moved in adopting the constitution, and yet the first blood in this war was shed on her soil; he then interceded for a peaceful separation, entreated that no more troops should pass through Baltimore, impressed upun Mr. Lincoln the terrible responsibility resting on him - that on him depended peace or war - a fratricidal conflict or a happy settlement.
"But," said Lincoln, "what am I to do?"
"Let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the Southern Confederacy," answered Dr. Fuller, "and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense and war may be averted."
"And what is to become of the revenue?" rejoined Lincoln, "I shall have no government, no resources!"
Robert Reid Howison, "History of the War", excerpted in Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. 34, Issue 8, August 1862, Richmond, VA., pp. 420-421.

Three.

"But," said Mr. Lincoln, "what am I to do?" "Why, sir, let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the independance of the Southern States. I say nothing of secession; recognize the fact that they have formed a government of their own; that they will never be united again with the North, and and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense, and war may be averted."

"And what is to become of the revenue?" was the reply. "I shall have no government - no revenues."
Evert A. Duyckinck, National History of the War For the Union, Civil, Military and Naval. Founded on official and other authentic documents, New York: Johnson Fry & Co., 1861, Vol. I, p. 173.

Four.

In 1861, if the erring sisters had been allowed to go in peace, was not the disturbing question of the hour: Whence is to come national revenue? Had not this very consideration much to do with the policy of coercion?

"Thus," said Mr. Lincoln, "if we allow the Southern States to depart from the Union, where shall we get the money with which to carry on the Government?"
James Battle Avirett, "The Old Plantation: How We Lived in Great House and Cabin Before the War", New York: F. Tennyson Neely Co., 1901, p. 18.

Five. And lastly this meeting was written up in the Baltimore Sun 23 Apr 1861 edition.

[an amused spectator]

I thought the post was quite clear for a Constitutional board.

I saw from your earlier exchange with GOPcapitalist that if a man posts facts to the discussion, you simply ignore them.

I've seen plenty of that in my years here.

[stainlessbanner]

What is a "President Jefferson Davis"?

Harvey Milk HS education, right?

[an amused spectator]

I've studied the War Between the States for many years now.

Something struck me the other day when I was watching Gods and Generals.

Would the South have invaded the North to its furthest reaches in order to subjugate it totally had the Confederates been victorious?

We know that the North did just that with the prostrate South, but the evidence is that the South desired no such thing, and in fact the nature of its rebellion actually precluded a total invasion and subjugation of its opponent.

[GOPcapitalist]

The next batch of Islamic insurgents apprehended should hire you as their defense attorney.

Thanks but no thanks. I don't work for mohammedans.

[an amused spectator]

He didn't know what a Founder was, either - and he's been on a Constitutionalist board for 2 and a half years.

Sharp as a box of rocks, that one. ;-)

[4CJ]

Would the South have invaded the North to its furthest reaches in order to subjugate it totally had the Confederates been victorious?

Nope. They just wanted to be left alone.

[thatdewd]

the nature of its rebellion actually precluded a total invasion and subjugation of its opponent.

Absolutely. To be left alone to practice the Original Principles of Government established by the Founders were all they wanted.

[rustbucket]

No, they [runaway slaves] were not criminals in any way. There were no federal criminal penalities on the slave for running away --- I guess Calhoon didn't think of that one.

Slaves broke state law by escaping. I figured from the start this was so, but it took me a good while to find a statement on the web to confirm it.

Now is it a federal criminal offense for me to give your dog some food, water and a warm place to sleep for the night after he runs away from an abusive owner? There could be some civil liability, but a federal criminal offence --- especially in a day when there were literally only a handful of federal criminal offences on the books.

The FSA was a federal act, and it was constitutional. The Supreme Court upheld it in 1859. And yes there were punishments for breaking this federal law. The Supreme Court ruled that the enforcement of the FSA (possibly the earlier one?) was a federal responsibility. If you broke runaway slave law and were convicted, you got punished. Simple as that.

The FSA certainly trumped state laws that tried to prevent the return of runaway slaves. However, it didn't stop Northern states from nullifying or trying to nullify the fugitive slave part of the Constitution, mentioned as one of the causes of secession of Southern states.

Thanks for the offer to help my dog. Unfortunately, your offer won't do much good. My dog died at age 15 after several years of being both blind and deaf. When he got to where he couldn't walk either, we finally had to put him to sleep. A Simon Legree I'm not.

[Non-Sequitur]

Secondly the Cornerstone speech itself is questionable at best. I've seen enough information that it was probably never said.

That would come as a hell of a surprise to Alexander Stephens who has admitted making it.

[Non-Sequitur]

But just as you are free to attempt an off topic hijacking of this thread, I'm of just as much of a right to call you on it.

Whatever you say, Marse GOP. You're the boss. But can we at least agree that Davis was a constitution-trashing racist?

[Non-Sequitur]

To be left alone to practice the Original Principles of Government established by the Founders were all they wanted.

At least for two-thirds of the people...

[nolu chan]

LINCOLN ADOPTS ANTI-SLAVERY

Antislavery leaders had been trying unsuccessfully since the Compromise of 1850 and passage of the Fugitive Slave Law to arouse the North by stressing the threats to Negro rights and the basic guarantees of the Constitution. But the vast majority of Northern Whites, Lincoln above all, remained remarkably unconcerned about Negro rights and the threats to the Constitution until Douglas came forward with a double-edged gift that seemed to be a direct threat not to Blacks but to White farmers lusting after Western land and big entrepreneurs chafing under the restrictions of the slave power.

It was at this precise moment that a new phenomenon in world history, the antislavery Abraham Lincoln, made his debut, coming as usual, late to the struggle and talking, as usual, on both sides of the issue. Lincoln was a down-on-his-luck Illinois politician who had blown his one big political chance in Congress and who was widely believed to be in the rigor mortis stage of a once promising political career (HW 47-8). For five years, ever since he left Congress in disfavor, he had been sniffing around the edges of the arena, trying to find or manufacture an issue that would get him back in the game. By 1853, it was clear to him, Donald W. Riddle says, that there was only one issue that could help him recoup his political fortunes (246-7). That issue was the antislavery issue, which was churning up constituencies all over the country. The only problem was that Lincoln had never been identified with that issue. No matter. Riddle and others, including the author, believe that Lincoln deliberately used the antislavery issue to get back in the game and to salvage his personal career. "Never before [the Kansas-Nebraska Act] had Lincoln run for office on the slavery issue," Riddle says, "but never afterward would he run on any other" (252).

Citations:

HW = Herndon's Lincoln, by William H. Herndon and Jesse W. Weik. Cleveland, 1930.

Riddle, Donald W., Congressman Abraham Lincoln. Westport, 1979.

Forced Into Glory,, Lerone Bennett, Jr., 1999, pp. 300-1

[Non-Sequitur]

Glad you showed up, nolu chan. Here is your chance to detail the anti slavery positions of Jefferson Davis, as well as examples of his racial tolerance and support of diversity. Have at it.

[an amused spectator]

At least for two-thirds of the people...

This is the best that Non-Sequitur can muster on the toxic question of the intent of the Federals versus the intent of the Confederates - a weak slap at dead people who appear to be the true heirs of the Founders. This is presuming, of course, that the peculiar institution would have continued to the present day.

We know what the present day looks like in the North of the Civil War. At least four-fifths of the heirs of the Federals in the Northeast are slaves to Fat Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. Vote fraud is rampant on the great Democrat plantations in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois, where the black slaves receive their sinecure, but no education, for increasing the number of Democrat votes yearly. ;-)

[Twinkie]

It amazes me that those words spoken by Lincoln are
just ignored. He seems to have made himself perfectly
clear as to what he REALLY thought.

[Twinkie]

In yo' Yankee dreams.

[ought-six]

Your hero seems to have come to the idea of freeing the slaves rather late in the the War. But he did make no bones about the wholesale supremacy of the federal government over the states, which the Southern states certainly took issue with. Abe didn't become a real abolutioist until later in the War, when the North feared defeat.

[WhiskeyPapa]

But he did make no bones about the wholesale supremacy of the federal government over the states, which the Southern states certainly took issue with.

President Lincoln was not the first person to assert the supremacy of the federal government over the states. Far from it:

The big four court cases-- Cohens, McCullough, Martin and Chisholm from early in the nation's life make this plain. In all of those cases, the nature of the government is emphasized:

"Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a state to govern themeselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner.

By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national Government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc."

--Chief Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia 1793

"In the case now to be determined, the defendant, a sovereign state, denies the obligation of a law enacted by the legislature of the Union...In discussing this question, the counsel for the state of Maryland deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the Constitution, to consider that instrument as not emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. It would be difficult to maintain this position....

--John Marshall, majority opinon McCullough v. Maryland 1819

"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government and in that character, they have no other. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and in many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory.

The constitution and laws of a state, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of of the United States are absolutely void. These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empiure--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate." --Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the majority opinion, Cohens v. Virginia 1821

"The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the constitution declares, by "the people of the United States."

-Justice Story, Martin v, Hunter's Lessee, 1816

Walt