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

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

[Non-Sequitur]

The Seige of Vickburg didn’t being til June 18th, 1863. And didn’t end til July 4th, 1863.

But by that time oc Chacellorsville Grant had already crossed the river. The Union held the west bank of the Mississippi across from Vicksburg, the river above and below Vicksburg, and Grant's army was maneuvering against Pemberton east of Vicksburg. The confederacy was, for all practical purposes, cut in half months before Vicksburg acually fell.

[Non-Sequitur]

Are you now, or have you ever been a slave?

Nope. Have you ever owned one?

[Non-Sequitur]

See #93.

In all those issues the South had representation in Congress. In fact, the South had a disproportionate level of representation in Congress. For the 80 years prior to the rebellion they had influenced the government and its policies far beyond their population by controlling the White House, the Courts, the Army, and the Congress. What you're saying is that just because the South didn't have everything its own way then that was cause for secession. Kind of a 'taking my ball and going home' just because they struck out once or twice.

[investigateworld]

Based on what a hell hole Andersonville Prison was, he was lucky not to be hung.

[drjimmy]

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).

There is no ambiguity whatsover regarding the proposed fate of black soldiers and their white officers fighting for the Union. I will cite the words of Jefferson Davis himself:
"Now, therefore, I, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America...do issue this my proclamation, and by virtue of my authority Commander-in-Chief of the Armies of the Confederate States do order...

That all negro slaves captured in arms be at once delivered over to the executive authorities of the respective States to which they belong, to be dealt with according to the laws of said States...

That the like orders be executed in all cases with respect to all commissioned officers of the United States when found serving in company with armed slaves in insurrection against the authorities of the different States of this Confederacy."

[tumblindice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq-cA1JZLQY

. . . Virgil quick come see, there goes the Robert E. Lee.

[rustbucket]

I visited his home in Pass Christian (I think), Mississippi 20 years ago. It overlooked the Gulf of Mexico. I believe it was destroyed by Katrina.

Jefferson Davis' home Beauvoir was one of the few structures left standing right along the coast after Katrina. A stand of large oaks may have protected the house. The house suffered a lot of damage though and is still in the process of being repaired.

We drove past Beauvoir a month ago. Here is what it looked like.

The small library building where Jefferson Davis did his writing is gone as is the one-story modern memorabilia store whose foundation appears in the foreground of my picture. The grand front steps of Beauvoir are gone as well.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

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

That is an incorrect assertion.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I do believe six northern states had slaves and Lincoln only proclaimed the southern slaves free during his emancipation proclamation speech.

No, five border states (DE, MD, WV, KY and MO) had slavery and didn't secede. Therefore they weren't subject to the Emancipation Proclamation, which was a military measure issued under Lincoln's power as Commander in Chief and which applied to the states in rebellion. For the loyal slave states it would require a constitutional amendment, which Lincoln also championed.

Oh, and the Emancipation Proclamation was a document, not a speech.

[Non-Sequitur]

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”!

You're mistaking Grant for Southern generals. Grant owned a single slave in his entire life, a gift from his father-in-law. In 1858 or 1859, when moving to Illinois, Grant freed the man rather than sold him. Grant's wife had the use of several slaves off and on during their marriage, though it's pretty evident that legal title for the slaves remained with her father, Frederick Dent. Missouri records show that all the Dent family slaves were freed shortly after the Emancipation Proclamation, even though Missouri was not included in it. In any event, Julia Dent was not seen with any of her slaves on any of her visits to Grant's headquarters from 1863 to 1865.

As for the old 'good help is hard to find' comment, Grant never said it and it would have been impossible for him or his wife or her family to owned any slaves after the war. Missouri ended slavery in January 1865, and by the time the war ended Grant wasn't living anywhere where slave ownership would have been legal. The idea that he held slaves after the rebellion was over is pure Southron fairy tale, nothing less.

[Badeye]

‘The Seige of Vickburg didn’t being til June 18th, 1863. And didn’t end til July 4th, 1863.
But by that time oc Chacellorsville Grant had already crossed the river. The Union held the west bank of the Mississippi across from Vicksburg, the river above and below Vicksburg, and Grant’s army was maneuvering against Pemberton east of Vicksburg. The confederacy was, for all practical purposes, cut in half months before Vicksburg acually fell.’

Tell that to the Farragut losing his riverboats to Vicksburgs guns almost up to the day they surrendered.

He’d beg to differ....(chuckle)

Its easy to forget the ‘hardship’ Vickburg put on the North, especially the agriculture centers, because the South controlled who could pass up or down the mighty Mississippi til July 4th, 1863.

[wideawake]

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.

You are absolutely right - which is why President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in Antietam's wake: to create an unbreakable hard core of war loyalists among abolitionists and strong federalists.

The 1862 House elections were weeks away and the President was concerned that the Copperhead/Peace Democrats might even win a majority in the Congress.

The Republican/Unionist alliance of course won - demonstrating that there was the political will to resist despite serious military setbacks.

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

Indeed they were.

But the 1862 elections showed that New England was rock solid for the Union and it would continue to ensure a pro-Union majority.

[Non-Sequitur]

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

The Southern states seceded because of what they saw as a threat to their institution of slavery. Lincoln was opposed to its expansion and would have taken all steps possible to prevent it.

[Badeye]

‘Based on what a hell hole Andersonville Prison was, he was lucky not to be hung.’

Irrelevant. We’re talking about events that took place AFTER THE WAR, not ‘during’.

The South treated prisoners as well as they could, with the limited amounts of supplies and provisions it had at its disposal. Yes, Andersonville was horrific, no denying it. But the Union prisons weren’t much better...but again that was DURING THE WAR.

We are discussing what took place for almost three years AFTER THE WAR.

If you want to talk about hanging Jefferson Davis, the events of five years before his capture are more along the lines of ‘indictable’ then citing a Prison he (Davis) never once visited, nor controlled directly.

Thats like Impeaching Bush for Abu Ghraib.

[EarthBound]

The Southern states seceded because of what they saw as a threat to their institution of slavery. Lincoln was opposed to its expansion and would have taken all steps possible to prevent it.

As someone stated earlier, the Southern States seceded because of a buildup of issues, slavery being but one. If you want to argue on it's being morally wrong, fine. We still felt that the fed overstepped it's bounds too many times and decided to leave. There are times where I don't understand why we haven't done it again.

[The_Media_never_lie]

I’m a Republican. Jefferson Davis is a Democrat. Naturally I don’t like him.

I presume that is the depth of your understanding of U.S. History.

Try reading a little history in your spare time. You may find it fascinating!

[Badeye]

‘There is no ambiguity whatsover regarding the proposed fate of black soldiers and their white officers fighting for the Union. I will cite the words of Jefferson Davis himself:...’

Didn’t say there was.

[investigateworld]

Now that’s quite a reach. Davis knew very well what was going on there, and obviously approved.

[Badeye]

Yes, yes, yep, and yes....(chuckle)

[Hunterite]

I’m a Republican. Jefferson Davis is a Democrat. Naturally I don’t like him.

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

“I presume that is the depth of your understanding of U.S. History.

Try reading a little history in your spare time. You may find it fascinating!”

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

When was the last time you saw the Democrats do the right thing?