An INterview with President Jefferson Davis

Federation of StatesAN INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT JEFFERSON DAVIS ^

[Valin]

Judah Benjamin was a Jew. Before the war he was resented and hated by many in the senate, while the people of Louisiana were damned for electing a Jew as a US Senator. "Once on the floor of the US Senate, Ben Wade of Ohio charged Benjamin with being an "Israelite in Egyptian clothing. " With characteristic eloquence, Benjamin replied,
"It is true that I am a Jew, and when my ancestors were receiving their Ten Commandments from the immediate Deity, amidst the thundering and lightnings of Mt. Sinai, the ancestors of my opponent were herding swine in the forests of Great Britain."

LOL! I love a man who can turn a phrase.
And to all, THIS is the way to flame someone.

[Non-Sequitur]

But what reason is there why I should accept the version that you quote as "true" rather than Stephens' version.

Fair enough. Can you provide the relevent quote from the Stephens book in it's entirety? It would be intersting to compare the context of the two.

[Aurelius]

" "When asked by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stepehens at the 1865 Hampton Roads 'peace' conference what would become of the freedmen without property or education, Lincoln sarcastically recited the words to a popular minstrel song, 'root, hog or die.'"

"A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States,"Stephens , 1870, Philadelphia: National Publishing Co.:

The Great Emancipator

I have the book, so I will try to find the passage and provide any relevent larger context.

[Non-Sequitur]

I have the book, so I will try to find the passage and provide any relevent larger context.

If you don't mind. All you've provided so far is the same quote from the same website twice. All that website does is provide a third party version of the Stephens quote, something you felt free to criticize in reply 57. The link I provided at least gives some context.

[Aurelius]

I don't want to argue about this. But the website quotes from Stephens' book. Stephens was a first hand witmess and the Lincoln quote was reported as a response to a question by Stephens, so I don't know who is the third party. I gave you all I have at hand. I do have the book and will, as I promised, try to find the passage.

[Aurelius]

I have found the relevent passage in Stephens' book. The scholarship of the person who put up the "Great Emancipator" website leaves a lot to be desired.

The relevent material consists of one paragraph and a footnote to it. They are as follows:

Other matters were then talked over relating to the evils of immediate emancipation, if that policy should be pressed, especially the sufferings which would necessarily attend the old and the infirm, as well as the women and children, who were unable to support themselves. These were fully admitted by Mr. Lincoln, but in reference to them, in that event, he illustrated all he could say by telling the anecdote, which had been published in the papers, about the Illinois farmer and his hogs.* The conversation then took another turn.

_____________________________________________________

*Mr. Lincoln had a wonderful talent for illustrations of this sort. His genius for Anecdotes was fully equal, if not superior, to that of Æsop for Apologues or Fables. They were his chief resort in conveying his ideas upon almost every question. His resources for producing them, seemed inexhaustible, and they were usually exceedingly pointed, apt, and telling in their application. The one on this occasion was far from being entitled to a place on a list of his best and most felicitous hits of this character. The substance of it was this:

An Illinois farmer was congratulating himself with a neighbor upon a great discovery he had made, by which he would economize much time and labor in gathering and taking care of the food crop for his hogs, as well as trouble in looking after and feeding them in winter.

"What is it?" said the neighbor.

"Why, it is," said the farmer, "to plant plenty of potatoes, and when they are mature, without either digging or housing them, turn the hogs in the field and let them get their own food as they want it."

"But," said the neighbor, how will they do when the winter comes and the ground is hard frozen?"

"Well," said the farmer, "let 'em root!"

__________________________

The book is titled: "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States: its Causes, Character, Conduct and Results" by Alexander H. Stephens. The copy I have is a modern reproduction (Sprinkle Publications, Harrisonburg, VA).

The material quoted above is from vol. II, p. 615. The context is a discussion of the proceedings of the Hampton Roads Peace Conference of February, 1865.

Stephens' dedication in volume II is dated April 26, 1870, and there is what appears to be a copyright notice dated 1870.

The song "Root hog, or die" dates to 1856, according to what I found on the web, but as you can see, Stephens makes no mention of it.

[Non-Sequitur]

The scholarship of the person who put up the "Great Emancipator" website leaves a lot to be desired.

Why? Just because he included details omitted by Alexander Stephens in his account? Or because you disagree with his message? You have to admit that the Henry J. Raymond version of the story puts an entirely different slant on the story. You would have us believe that Stephens is concerned only about the slaves, but why should we assume that? Mr. Hunter's concern seems to be about southern society as a whole, of which the freed slaves were only a part of it. And I doubt that they were the important part. No work would be done, he says. Nothing would be harvested. People would starve. Lincoln's response, in this case, is quite obviously a slap at a society that is accustomed to having others do all their work for them. Lincoln appears to be saying to the southerners that your chattel is gone and not coming back. You want to survive then it's up to you to shoulder the load. It is the priviledged planter aristocracy who have to 'root, hog, or die' and not the newly freed slave.

It should be remembered that account is given by Henry J. Raymond, a close friend and ally of Lincoln. Why wouldn't Lincoln be honsest and open and candid to him? If anything, I would place more credence with the Raymond story that the Stephens version, not because it supports Lincoln but because the Stephens recounting is a small and insignificant part of his work. The tale has nothing to do with the subject of the two volume work, which was the constitutional support of secession. Why should Stephens provide the same level of detail as Raymond, who was recounting Lincoln's talents as a story teller?

[Aurelius]

"Why? Just because he included details omitted by Alexander Stephens in his account? Or because you disagree with his message?"

I was referring to the website where I found the quote I first posted. That was supposedly quoted from the Stephens' book. So, as there is no reference to the song there, I found the scholarship of the poster worthy of criticism. You seem perhaps to have misundersatood to what I was referring.

As for the disrepancy between the two accounts, I would tend to believe Stephens' account (you will say "of course" - but you attribute much less objectiviity to me than my relative indifference to this issue gives me) because: Stephens was an honorable man, he was writing at most 5 years after the event, and he had little to gain by misrepresenting the story. The other version would appear to have come out only 35 years after the event. Moreover, even if we do suppose McClure recollection of Lincoln's words was accurate, I can easily imagine Lincoln realizing the damage that might result if his candid remark got out and changing the story to make himself look better.

I really had not wished to debate further over which version is the truth. You had suggested that the original source of Stephens' quote should be consulted and since I had posted the questionable quote and had the Stephens' book, I thought it reasonable for me to post the relevent material. This was merely an effort to correct the record. But then you even take exception to my acknowledgement that the quote I originally poste proved to be in error. I don't understand.

[Non-Sequitur]

As for the disrepancy between the two accounts, I would tend to believe Stephens' account (you will say "of course" - but you attribute much less objectiviity to me than my relative indifference to this issue gives me) because: Stephens was an honorable man, he was writing at most 5 years after the event, and he had little to gain by misrepresenting the story.

I certainly don't want to imply that Stephens was not an honorable man. However, you must admit that he does not go into details on the story. I don't believe he is trying to hide anything, I believe that he doesn't go into detail because the story is not germain to the topic at hand.

The other version would appear to have come out only 35 years after the event.

Henry Raymond died in 1869. The story, therefore, must have been written down before then, before Stephens's account even.

Moreover, even if we do suppose McClure recollection of Lincoln's words was accurate, I can easily imagine Lincoln realizing the damage that might result if his candid remark got out and changing the story to make himself look better.

What damage would that be? What possible backlash would Lincoln have faced? Backlash from blacks? You're applying 21st century political correctness to 19th century society. The only possible backlash would have been if it appeared Lincoln was unfeeling or uncaring about the problems of the white population.

I really had not wished to debate further over which version is the truth.

I didn't expect that you would. Well, it's been as enjoyable as always.

[Aurelius]

"I didn't expect that you would. Well, it's been as enjoyable as always."

Snide as always. I only wanted to set the record straight. Why do you always have to be such an arsehole.

[Non-Sequitur]

Why do you always have to be such an arsehole.

It's a rare talent you have of bringing out that side of people.

[Aurelius]

"It's a rare talent you have of bringing out that side of people."

But why is it that I seem only to bring it out in you?

[PeaRidge]

4/7/1861 Major Anderson received a letter from Secretary of War Cameron informing him that based on Mr. Fox’s information, they had thought he might hold the fort until the 15th. Secretary Cameron stated that if he could hold until the 11th or 12th, that he would be re-supplied. It was also stated that if the expedition encountered resistance, that the fort would be reinforced with troops. He also told Anderson that if he encountered circumstances

“…beyond what, in your judgment, would be usual in military life…to save
yourself and command, a capitulation becomes a necessity, you are authorized to make it”.

Major Anderson immediately replied to Secretary Cameron. From his reply, it appeared that he was stunned at the cabinet’s decision to send the fleet. It was apparent that
the government was willing to risk war, which he had so skillfully avoided.

“I…confess that it…surprises me greatly…(that these orders) contradict the assurances of Mr. Crawford that Fort Sumter would be evacuated. I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country.

“It is, of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all concerned…Colonel Lamon’s remark convinced me that the idea (of re-supply), merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced.”

So, Ditto, it would seem that the idiocity began in Lincoln's head sometime after his inauguration.

Remember he said on March 4 that he would tolerate slavery but not the non-payment of the tariff. He could accept slavery if the South paid the Morill tariff, and he placed himself in the position of deciding the issue in favor of coercion if they didn't.

Of course, his enabling idiots included the governors of Mass., N.Y., Ill., Pa., as well as the shipping, insurance, and banking population of all the other Northern states.

If Ft. Sumter didn't happen, Savannah, Mobile, or New Orleans would have. Idiot Lincoln would have seen to it.

[Ditto]

Remember he said on March 4 that he would tolerate slavery but not the non-payment of the tariff. "

No. He said it was not within his power or authority to interfer with slavery where it existed but that he could not tollerate revolution against legitimate constitutional authority. Paying taxes is not and never has been an option that some states could just decide not to do -- George Washington demonstrated that fact 70 years eariler.

Re-supplying Anderson and his handful of men was no military threat even to the measly 7-state so-called confederacy of April 1861. The fact is that the longer Anderson and Sumter could hold out, the more silly the rebellion looked to the rest of the nation and the world and with each passing day diminished the chance their coup had of sucess. Only open warfare could provoke the upper south join with the radical fire-eaters and that is why Davis chose war. If he hadn't, his confederacy would have slowly evaporated.

You neo-rebels turn every fact of history on it's head to try to justify actions of treason and make yourselves look downright silly by doing it.

[PeaRidge]

Don't bother to roll out that Whiskey Rebellion rationalization like the other Lincoln apologists. That was a tax revolt in a state of the Union.
Lincoln was trying to impose a military solution to a political problem in states that were not a part of the Union. There was no federal authorities...they had all resigned from their jobs...only a few military types were left.

"He said it was not within his power or authority to interfer with slavery where it existed..."

He did say that. But his predecessor and the attorney general had said the same thing about secession five months earlier. A speech by Lincoln and his logic alone did not change anything.

The words you use are misleading you. There was no "coup". The states' leaders clearly followed their legislative rules in conducting the secession.

There was no "rebellion". The Southern Peace Commissioners had been in Washington for five months waiting on the government to agree to peace while a dozen plus formerly federal posts were occupied without the loss of one life.

There was no "open warfare" all during this time. People freely traveled from North to South and vice versa. Trade ships still sailed from Northern ports to Southern ports all during the balance of Buchanan's government, and 38 days of Lincoln's new presidency.

The firing on Ft. Sumter stopped an invasion. Whatever else it came to be was the result of the Northern press and the Lincoln government.

Jefferson Davis did not bring war to the North. He made the decision to defend the states that had agreed to join themselves in their own Union.

It was clear that Lincoln would tolerate slavery but not the failure to pay taxes. He couldn't. His government would fail without the tariff revenue from the production of goods from the South.

[Ditto]

Lincoln was trying to impose a military solution to a political problem in states that were not a part of the Union.

Sez who?

[Ditto]

His government would fail without the tariff revenue from the production of goods from the South.

LOL. Still confused about what a tariff is, aren't you?

[PeaRidge]

Well, here are a few:

11/1860 President Buchanan declared that he could find no constitutional authority for using force against any state that seceded.

11/20/1860 President Buchanan’s Attorney General J. S. Black issued his opinion on this date to support the President. He wrote that neither the President nor Congress had the authority to conduct aggressive armed conflict. He wrote,

“If Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquility which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations?

3/6/1861 Rumor and speculation of the new president’s actual intentions led to an editorial comment in the New York Herald that said,

“We have no doubt that Mr. Lincoln wants the Cabinet at Montgomery to take the initiative by capturing the two forts in its waters, for it would give him the opportunity of throwing upon the Southern Confederacy the responsibility of commencing hostilities. But the country and posterity will hold him as responsible as if he struck the first blow…”

As a response to Lincoln's question of reinforcing Ft. Sumter, Secretary of State William Seward stated that,

“The attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter will provoke an attack and involve war. The very preparation for such an expedition will precipitate war at that point. I oppose beginning war at that point. I would advise against the expedition to Charleston….I would instruct Major Anderson to retire from Sumter”.

Secretary of War Simon Cameron stated,

“It would be unwise now to make such an attempt” to garrison Ft. Sumter. “The cause of humanity and the highest obligation of the public interest would be best promoted” by abandoning the fort.

Secretary of Navy Gideon Wells said,

“By sending or attempting to send provisions into Ft. Sumter, will not war be precipitated? It may be impossible to escape it under any course of policy that may be pursued, but I am not prepared to advise a course that would provoke hostilities….I do not, therefore, under all circumstances, think it wise to provision Ft. Sumter.”

4/4/1861 Seward made the following statement to a London Times correspondent:

“It would be contrary to the spirit of the American Government to use armed force to subjugate the South. If the people of the South want to stay out of the Union, if they desire independence, let them have it.

4/4/1861 At the same time this was being said, the following letter was being drafted:

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., April 4, 1861.

Lieutenant Colonel HENRY L. SCOTT, A. D. C., New York:

SIR: This letter will be landed to you by Captain G. V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose object is to re-enforce Fort Sumter.

To embark with Captain Fox you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about two hundred, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latter-indeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition can take-with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter.

The subsistence and other supplies should be assorted like those which were provided by you and Captain Ward of the Navy for a former expedition. Consult Captain Fox and Major Eaton on the subject, and give all necessary orders in my name to fit out the expedition, except that the hiring of vessels will be left to others.

Some fuel must be shipped. Oil, artillery implements, fuses, cordage, slow-march, mechanical levers, and gins, &c., should also be put on board.

Consult, also, if necessary, confidentially, Colonel Tompkins and Major Thornton.

Respectfully, yours,

WINFIELD SCOTT.

Everyone except Lincoln and his protectionist industrialists wanted peace.

[PeaRidge]

What about that is confusing you?

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Note: this topic is from October 2003. "We seceded to rid ourselves of the rule of the majority, and this would subject us to it again." -- Jefferson Davis Blast from the Past. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·