Death of Jefferson Davis Remembered - The Christmas of 1889 Was a Sad Time in the South

Accessnga.com ^ | 11/19/07 | Calvin Johnson, Jr.

[BnBlFlag]

Death of Jefferson Davis Remembered - The Christmas of 1889 was a sad time in the South. By Calvin Johnson Jr. Staff Email Contact Editor Print

Jefferson Davis - AuthenticHistory.com December 6th, is the 118th anniversary of the death of a great American Hero---Jefferson Davis.

The "Politically Correct" would have you forget the past...But do not forget the history of the men and women who made the USA great.

Caution, this is a family friendly story to be shared.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans have declared 2008, the "Year of Jefferson Davis." Remembrance events will include the re-opening of "Beauvoir" on Jefferson Davis' 200th birthday---June 3, 2008. This was Davis' last home that was damaged by Hurricane Katrina. The Jefferson Davis Presidential Library and Museum will be rebuilt and re-open about two years after the house. Beauvoir is located on the beautiful Mississippi Gulf Coast. See more at: www.beauvoir.org

The New York Times reported the death of Jefferson Davis;

New Orleans, December 8, 1889---Quote "A careful tally of the visitors shows that about 40,000 persons, mostly women and children, viewed the remains today. This crowd included, in solemn and respectful attendance, all conditions of Whites, Blacks, ex-Confederates, ex-Federals, and even Indians and Chinamen." ---Unquote

Davis' Death was also the page 1 story in Dixie;

Excerpt: http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=204067&c=11

[Non-Sequitur]

I don’t recall the White Northern population exactly clamoring for Equal Rights for Blacks. As far as that goes, most of the were even ambilivant about Slavery.

Yeah but it's you Southern types who keep insisting that the South rebelled in defense of its rights. I'm just reminding you that for one third your population, no rights were granted, or even considered.

IIRC, Grant said that if he thought the War was about Slavery, he would resin and offer his sword to the other side.

You must not be recalling correctly because if memory serves Grant was a Union general right up to the end. And after the war he was saying, ""...As soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle."

[BnBlFlag]

For a so-called “Hunterite” you’re a real Conservative, aren’t you. A member of good standing in the FR P.C. conservative posse!

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I'll play along. Let's pretend that secession was legal. What was the Southern justifications for secession? The constitutional election of a president?

See #93. They felt they had roughly the same "long train of abuses" that the Colonies had when "seceding" from their political bond with Great Britain.

[silentreignofheroes]

How many of these “Save the Union” folks would fight for the Constitution today,if it was found that The Constitution was being undermined..?Dare to say,,not one..

[BnBlFlag]

Well, why didn’t he get rid of his own slaves then. Even after the War, he objected to giving up his own slaves because “good help is hard to find”!

[Non-Sequitur]

No, the exahnge was stopped because the North’s biggest asset was manpower. Every confederate taken prison was a net deduction from southern manpower. Grant’s whole strategy was to attrite the enemy.

You might want to read up on that a bit. Prisoner exchanges were stopped several times during the rebellion, almost always in response to some Southern outrage. For example, when the South made it clear that Generals like Butler or Pope would be shot if captured, or when the South made it clear that Black Union soldiers would be sent into slavery. Here is a Cronology of prisoner exchanges.

[Hunterite]

“How many of these “Save the Union” folks would fight for the Constitution today,if it was found that The Constitution was being undermined..?Dare to say,,not one..”

*****************

Depends. Would we be fighting under the rebellious John Brown, or under president Lincoln.

[Badeye]

‘How many of these “Save the Union” folks would fight for the Constitution today,if it was found that The Constitution was being undermined..?Dare to say,,not one..’

Depends on how it was ‘packaged’.

In the first battle of the Civil War worthy of the name, families loaded up the family carriage with a picnic basket and made it a field party, thinking it would be one ‘battle’ with virtually no casualties, and that would be that.

As we all know, it didn’t quite work out that way, but nobody suspected it the day before the battle.

Nobody that was listened to, at any rate, till much later.

[puroresu]

I would think that the Radical Republicans in the Congress of 1870 who wanted former confederates imprisoned and hung as traitors had more to do with burying positive memories of the CSA than Carole Moseley-Braun more than a century later.

Well, most Americans, north and south, held the view that both sides in the Civil War were honorable and that it was appropriate to respect those who fought for both armies. At least that was the consensus that developed a few years after the war, when people on both sides had had time to put the memories and anger behind them. Yankees didn't begrudge southerners occasionally displaying a Rebel Flag or honoring Robert E. Lee. Likewise, southerners didn't refuse to salute Old Glory or work to undermine U.S. forces in subsequent wars. Southerners accepted that they lost and were proud to be American. In return, northerners didn't mind us displaying a little regional pride now and then.

That consensus collapsed a decade-and-a-half or so ago when Senate Democrats realized they could use symbols of the Confederacy to play the race card, and that half the conservatives would tuck their tails between their legs and run for cover at the charge of "racism", no matter how bogus.

The Carole Moseley-Braun incident involved a routine renewal of the congressional trademark for a southern charity group that used both the U.S. and Rebel Flags in their logo. Moseley-Braun hit the floor screaming about racism. She pretended to be about to faint (Senator Feinstein ran over and helped "hold her up" so she could continue speaking) in horror at the sight of a Rebel Flag. The Senate voted not to renew the trademark, with about half the GOP joining the Democrats in voting "no".

This incident caused a lightbulb to go off above the heads of every leftist in America, and soon there were howls to purge every Confederate name and symbol from the public sphere. This issue not only splits conservatives (between the PC and non-PC types) but sets the precedent for a future leftist crusade against Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et al.

[drjimmy]

It also fails to note it was the Union that stopped ‘prisoner exchanges’.

As was noted by someone earlier, this was because Jefferson Davis--the "hero" of this thread--decreed that all former slaves fighting for the Union would not be treated as prisoners of war and instead be returned to the state from whence they came and punished according to that state's laws. The white officers of those troops would also be subject to execution for inciting slave insurrection.


Some don’t want to recall those things, for the obvious reasons.

If the shoe fits...

[Non-Sequitur]

Yes, I am thinking of Rawle's book, but it was written in 1825 - Davis graduated West Point in 1828, so actually it WAS written (literally) when Davis was at West Point.

The definitive version, and the version used at West Point was the second version published in 1829.

[DakotaGator]

Jefferson Davis’s last home was Beauvoir located on the Mississippi Sound in Biloxi, Mississippi.

Later sold to the Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, it was operated as a Confederate Veterans Home for those veterans and their widows. I believe there also was a hospital on site for the residents.

Little known is that the grounds also contain a Confederate cemetery including the Tomb of the Unknown Confederate Soldier.

Beauvoir is undergoing repairs from hurricane Katrina damage. It is well worth visiting and contributing to its restoration.

Also worth noting is the spiritual successor to Beauvoir, the Armed Forces Retirement Home at Gulfport. This used to be the Sailors Home. This Gulfport home was severely damaged by Hurrican Katrina and plans are under way with GSA to rebuild it by 2010.

Veterans and their ghosts from the “Late Unpleasantness” until today are seeing their Mississippi Sound sanctuaries restored.

[wideawake]

From there, a march on Washington DC and a seige, could have broken the political will of the President and his cabinet.

After Antietam, there was a hard core of Northerners who were committed to more or less total war for victory.

If DC had fallen to a Confederate siege, this humiliation would have only fanned the flames of anger. If the Army Of The Potomac had been encircled and decimated, the North could have replaced it several times over.

Lincoln would not have bargained away the Union just to escape a siege: nothing in his writings or actions would seem to justify that - more likely he would have fled the city by water and set up shop in Philadelphia or Boston and continued the war.

By Chancellorsville, too much blood had been spilt to just walk away. And if the UK had decided to reward the Confederacy with some kind of acknowledgment for taking DC, that would have fueled the wrath of the Black Republicans further.

[EarthBound]

The central point is that the Federal gov't had become destructive of its ends towards the Southern states, and so they seceded.

We can argue back and forth whether or not it was "legal". The Southern States joined the Union team, then decided they'd rather make their own team.

Washington et al. did the same thing when we broke from Britain. The only difference between the two is that the North won, and so the victor writes the history.

[Badeye]

It also fails to note it was the Union that stopped ‘prisoner exchanges’.

‘As was noted by someone earlier, this was because Jefferson Davis—the “hero” of this thread—decreed that all former slaves fighting for the Union would not be treated as prisoners of war and instead be returned to the state from whence they came and punished according to that state’s laws. The white officers of those troops would also be subject to execution for inciting slave insurrection.’

This viewpoint is wholly dependent on which histories you accept as ‘the gospel’. I don’t see it clearly as whoever you are citing, due to the conflicting words from the attagonists themselves (Lincoln and Davis, primarily, but also others of flag rank on both sides).

“Some don’t want to recall those things, for the obvious reasons.”

“If the shoe fits...’

Obviously, you miss the fact the ‘shoe’ not only doesn’t fit in the context of this conversation, but its on the ‘wrong foot’ too boot (pun)

[Non-Sequitur]

What difference would it make. Maybe Southerners got out of the wrong side of the bed that day. So what. It was still legal.

As it turns out, no it wasn't.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Even if one were to imagine that secession were constitutional - which it emphatically is not - it is the Confederacy which inaugurated hostilities.

The Confederacy made war on the Union.

Nope. If you support the war in Iraq, then you basically have no position. The federal government was already preparing to make war on the first States that had seceded - mobilising troops and armaments for the effort. The second wave of secession was prompted in part by these preparations for coercion. Upper South States were tipped over the edge by indignation at the coercive preparations, and would not make war on other States. The Confederacy was pre-emptively responding to an imminent Northern attack, by removing spurs which could have been used to more easily make that attack.

Secession was initiated as a response to the election of Abraham Lincoln and the concomitant fear that a Lincoln administration would see the admission of enough non-slave states to permanently overrule the slave state minority in the House and Senate. While a host of issues stoked the fires of rebellion, slavery was the central question.

No, slavery was the emotional question. One of many in the totality of issues. It was there, but it was the public face for larger economic issues which loomed for the past few decades.

The federal government has a responsibility to protect the people of the United States from rebellion, whether they constitute a minority of a state's population or not.

The Constitution doesn't say that, sorry. Read the relevant sections more closely. The Constitution tasks the federal government with protecting STATES from internal rebellions. When the State itself if "in rebellion", there is no constitutional provision for protecting "some people inside that State" who disagree with the decision to secede.

And, of course, 40% of the South's population was not even allowed a voice at the polls during the wave of secessions.

Which is an irrelevant argument for an age when, even in the most progressive Northern States, only a small minority of the population (white males at or above a certain economic status) would have been able to exercise the franchise anywise.

[CodeToad]

You’re very ignorant of history since you believe the civil war was about slavery and only the southern states had slaves. I do believe six northern states had slaves and Lincoln only proclaimed the southern slaves free during his emancipation proclamation speech.

Funny how northerners and liberals think the south is just a bunch of racists yet fail to see their own culpability in slavery.

[Badeye]

At the time of Antietam, the Copperheads were at the height of their political strength, so I don’t see it as clear cut as you seem to, WA.

Ohio, Indiana, Wiscounsin, Michigan were all leaning to the copperhead viewpoint in large percentages at that time.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Using federal troops to make war on States which had voluntarily and peaceably seceded from the Union.

How did that violate the Constitution? Southern forces had initiated hostilities by firing at Ft. Sumter. Congress was out of session. Lincoln used his powers under the Militia Act and as Supreme Commander to respond. Are you claiming that the south retained Constitutional rights after renouncing the Constitution?

In all cases, secession was basically grounded in perceived economic interests. New England wanted supports for its manufactured and shipping that the other sections weren't that keen on giving.

If you're talking about the Hartford Convention, it had more to do with the trade embargo that had been imposed. Reaction to the talk of secession was severely negative. Southern papers called it treason and it directly led to the destruction of the Federalist party.

The South wanted free trade to promote the sale of its agricultural products, which the tariff-loving North didn't want.

Like the south was having trouble selling its cotton?

Slavery, while being one of many issues, was NOT as much of a driving force as our pabulum-fed school kids are taught today to believe.

And yet the four states that bothered to issue Declarations of Causes ("a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation" and all that), slavery is overwhelming cited as the main issue, with the others barely mentioned, if at all.