Posted on 11/19/2007 10:09:26 AM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at accessnorthga.com ...
Didn’t he sell off part of his farm to his former slave? IIRC, they remained very close friends until he died.
‘Now that’s quite a reach. Davis knew very well what was going on there, and obviously approved.’
No reach at all, I don’t dispute what Davis’s position was anywhere on this thread.
What I have said is it depends on which histories you take as the ‘gospel’. what I mean is there are a host of information stores from both sides, top tier like Lincoln and Davis, but also diaries, letters, journals, newspaper accounts, and historical works from staffers within each cabinet, each army, and sometimes each of the various commands that offer more depth, and differing timelines.
Consider the war took place over a century ago here, among our homes for the most part (primarily our Southern friends homes to be blunt....chuckle) and yet we STILL don’t have a definitive timeline of who said what when, how it was said, what the context was, etc etc etc.
When you factor in much of whats cited today was nothing more than ‘spur of the moment political rhetoric’...well, you can draw multiple conclusions from the exact same event, from multiple perspectives.
Thats why the era remains so facinating to me, and millions of others, here and around the world. There has simply never been a conflict quite like our Civil War.
Sorry, but the quotes from the men of the period dispute that. They make it clear that slavery was by far the single most important reason for their rebellion. I'd go so far as to say that take away every issue except slavery, and the South still rebels. Take away slavery but leave every other issue, and the South does not. Simple as that.
Somehow, descendents of slaves became major landowners of what used to be the Davis estate.
He did, out of desperation. And his letters made it clear that he expected them to fail. Which they did.
The Confederacy had already indicated that it had designs on territories outside the boundaries of the seceded states and that it would support secession movements within as yet unseceded states.
The Confederacy had already indicated that it would seize US military installations and armaments. The Confederacy's stance was hostile from the beginning - South Carolina and Mississippi were already mobilizing within days of secession.
The Union would have been crazy to have forgotten Bleeding Kansas.
If you support the war in Iraq, then you basically have no position.
Non sequitur.
The Confederacy was pre-emptively responding to an imminent Northern attack
The Confederacy was not sitting around twiddling its thumbs while the North mobilized. The Confederacy had already moved first.
No, it was the political question. The Southern states were not willing to allow the admittance of new free states into the Union - the defection of Northern Democrats and the election of Lincoln demosntrated that the South had run out of room to maneuver and that slavery would now be forever geographically limited.
Slavery excited emotions across the board - but its geographic expansion was the question that created the political will to move for secession.
The Constitution tasks the federal government with protecting STATES from internal rebellions.
Correct. Since the loyal population of the Southern states were unable to sustain the tide of rebellion, they required federal assistance.
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.
By 1860 property qualifications had largely gone by the wayside in lower chamber elections.
Moreover, the slaves had a weight of 60% of their number in national councils but a weight of 0% of their number in the secession elections.
I'm not saying it, THEY said it. They also feared that if they DIDN'T have the preponderance of influence (somewhat overstated in your post, but there in part nevertheless), then the powers of the federal government would be used against them. That's what THEY thought, whether you agree with them or not today is somewhat irrelevant. THEY thought they had cause, to dissolve their bond to the Union, and there was much public opinion even in the North that shared this view.
Its a bit blurry from a historical perspective, if for no other reason than after his release from Ft Monroe, Davis was not just a ‘man without a country’ but without means, or land holdings. He worked and lived on the largess of supporters that faired much better, and in a few instances actually prospered, in the wake of the defeat of the South.
As I recall it, he was living on the estate of a woman rumored to be his lover, and his wife Varina refused to join him there, using a reference to a three way relationship that for the era was a bit crude, but right on ‘point’. To say that marriage had some obsticles to overcome is a gross understatement. Most marriages don’t survive the death of a child, and the Davis’s youngest son’s sudden death after falling from a balcony in Richmond devastated both of them forever, according to the histories.
The federal government mobilized nothing until after the Southern states had initiated hostilities at Sumter. The confederacy, on the other hand, had been calling up troops for weeks prior.
No, slavery was the emotional question. One of many in the totality of issues.
Slavery was THE issue, the only issue the South felt was worth rebelling over.
The Constitution doesn't say that, sorry.
Yes it does. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the authority to call "...forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.." Congresss, in turn, gave the President the authority to call up the militia for a limited period for those same reasons if Congress was not in session.
Davis had a slave who performed the duties of overseer, which is a far cry from running the plantation. In Davis' absence his brother was responsible for managing the property. And it should be noted that while Pemberton was trusted to a certain extent by Davis and did act as overseer, he was still a slave and remained a slave till the day he died. In all his years as a slave owner, not once did Jefferson Davis ever emancipate a single slave he owned.
Apologists for the Confederacy love to trot out this tired chestnut.
There is absolutely no comparison at all between the independence of the colonies and the secession of the Confederacy.
The colonists were nominally English citizens but they were deprived by the government of their right to representation in the nation's councils - they separated from Great Britain because Great Britain had continually refused their requests for representation in the Parliament that was levying taxes on them.
The states of the Confederacy were fully represented in their nation's councils - in fact they were overrepresented due to the generous compromise of giving a 60% franchise to a population that couldn't even vote.
Basically the colonists demanded their rightful place at the table and were summarily denied, while the South demanded and got a better place at the table than fairness warranted - and they left in a snit anyway because not everything went their way.
However, I believe Jackson's statement should be read in the context of the events happening at the time it was written.
Joseph Story - an author you apparently hold in high esteem - quoted Jackson not because of the fleeting historical circumstances surrounding his speech but because, in Story's words:
As a state paper it is entitled to very high praise for the clearness, force, and eloquence, with which it has defended the rights and powers of the national government. I gladly copy into these pages some of its important passages, as among the ablest commentaries ever offered upon the constitution.
Clearly Story is applauding the general principles it lays down and is not citing it as of passing and limited importance, but as one of the ablest commentaries on the Constitution itself.
Jackson was saying that secession because of a single law (the tariff) was not constitutionally valid.
No Jackson was saying, and I quote him again:
Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms
The Confederacy had no constitutional right to secede, and to say that it did is to confound the meaning of terms. There may be a moral justification for breaking the law, but it is still breaking the law.
And in this case the moral necessity that was given as an excuse for breaking the law was that the federal government would not allow a broader market for trade in human flesh.
Not overstated in the slightest. By 1861 because of the 3/5ths clause the South had it's population inflated by around 1.8 million for the purpose of determining House seats. That was worth about 20 extra congressional seats to them.
The conduct of the CSA at Andersonville tarnishes the claims to have 'fought for an honorable cause'.
But there is one sure thing in this world; abuse US soldiers when their in a POW status is a sure path to wealth.
Partially true, but in a way which renders the spirit of it untrue. "Designs on territories outside the boundaries of the seceded states." Like Cuba? So what? Wasn't the North's business anywise. "....It would support secession movements within as yet unseceded states". States which, if they made the voluntary choice (and there's nothing to suggest the choice would have been anything but) to join the Confederacy, would then oblige the Confederate government to protect them, as members of the new union.
The Confederacy had already indicated that it would seize US military installations and armaments. The Confederacy's stance was hostile from the beginning - South Carolina and Mississippi were already mobilizing within days of secession.
Mobilising in self-defence because there was already mobilisation going on in the North to stifle the secession movement at its inception. As for seizing installations, what else would you do to hostile, foreign military bases that (like it or not) are suddenly within the territory of a foreign country.
Non sequitur.
Not so. The South attacked Ft. Sumner pre-emptively specifically because it perceived an imminent Northern military threat - the same grounds Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq (correctly, I might add).
The Confederacy was not sitting around twiddling its thumbs while the North mobilized. The Confederacy had already moved first.
Wrong. The North was mobilising from the get go.
No, it was the political question. The Southern states were not willing to allow the admittance of new free states into the Union - the defection of Northern Democrats and the election of Lincoln demosntrated that the South had run out of room to maneuver and that slavery would now be forever geographically limited.
Again, that's only a partial explanation. The Southerners felt that if they were blocked in, then they would inevitably fall before the protectionist Northern interests and would be crippled economically, since their economies depended on agricultural sales to Europe. Slavery was an engine for that agricultural production, but fundamentally, the issue would be the same, whether slavery existed or not. Even if cotton was picked by free labour, the North would want tariffs and the South free trade. With an end of geographic expansion for cotton growing regions (can't grow cotton in Nebraska or Nevada, though some Southerners apparently thought they'd like to try), the South had no place but Cuba and the Caribbean to expand the cotton culture.
Slavery excited emotions across the board - but its geographic expansion was the question that created the political will to move for secession.
Yes, slavery DID excite emotional passions - which is why it figured so prominently in the rhetoric (though less so in the actual policy decisions) of the day. That's why slavery is the ONLY thing 99% of people think about when they think of the Civil War.
Correct. Since the loyal population of the Southern states were unable to sustain the tide of rebellion, they required federal assistance.
You seem to have missed what the Constitution actually says. It protects States, not portions of the population WITHIN States that don't like a choice made by the elected government of that State. Ironically, the only justification the federal government might have had for sending troops into the seceded States was if the non-secessionary parts of the population had revolted, and that to put down the NON-secessionists (ignoring the sovereignty issues involved with now-separate governments). You argument is not based upon a sound knowledge of the Constitution, but upon a rehashing of "popular knowledge" which you probably picked up in school.
By 1860 property qualifications had largely gone by the wayside in lower chamber elections.
Not really true. Some restrictions were relaxed, but many remained in place in States all across the union.
Moreover, the slaves had a weight of 60% of their number in national councils but a weight of 0% of their number in the secession elections.
So do you believe that ANY decision made by an elected State government in the South, prior to 1860, would be illegitimate because blacks had no role in electing the governments? Moreover, it's incorrect to say that "slaves had a weight of 60% of their number in national councils". Their numbers were weighted into federal divisions of representation, but the choices as to who were to fill this expanded number of seats would still have rested on 0% of the actual slave population.
‘I consider myself a history buff, even to the extent of traveling to Europe and Little Big Horn, to lay the Mark I eyeballs on the terrain.’
Its one of my goals to travel the West, and get to the Little Big Horn sometime in the next few years. I’ve been told its ‘way out in the middle of nowhere’....which means its pretty much as it was when Custer made his fatal errors in judgement.
Nope. The South believed themselves to have a long train of abuses, so they felt themselves legitimate in seceding. What YOU think on the matter, with the hindsight on 130 years, is irrelevant.
Joseph Story - an author you apparently hold in high esteem - quoted Jackson not because of the fleeting historical circumstances surrounding his speech but because, in Story's words:
If you were actually paying attention to the progress of the thread, you'd have seen that it was suggested, and I agreed, that I was thinking of William Rawle's cmmentary on the Constitution, not Joseph Story's.
No Jackson was saying, and I quote him again:
Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms
The Confederacy had no constitutional right to secede, and to say that it did is to confound the meaning of terms. There may be a moral justification for breaking the law, but it is still breaking the law.
And as I said before, Jackson was simply incorrect in his understanding of the Constitution. There is not a single word in the Constitution which denies to the States their right of secession. Not Art.VI, Sect. 2 or any other. When ratifying the Constitution, the Virginia ratifiers said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." "The people" is shown to have been understood by the Founders as being the States - the people represented through their State officials - in Federalist 39. Secession is a right falling under the 10th amendment - it is (obviously) not granted to the federal government, nor is it denied the State governments. This is regardless of what Andrew Jackson and Joseph Story thought on the matter.
I recommend it. Once you get to the Monument, you can see how that ridge hid the bulk of the Indian encampment.
But the size of the horse herd, which could be seen, should have been a clue to Custer to rethink his plans.
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.