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 ...
Dr. Williams is a competent economist, but every time I've seen him venture into the history of the Civil War he's come off looking rather careless.
And yet their constitution specifically prohibited protectionist tariffs, their reason for rebelling is allegedly a protectionist tariff, and they turn to a protectionist tariff right off the bat. If they allow their principles to collapse so easily then perhaps a tariff wasn't such a major problem after all?
You almost never see the Stars and Bars, the official flag of the Confederacy...what you see as a Confederate emblem is the battle flag (with 13 stars on the cross of St. Andrew).
I can imagine a couple of border state lawyers having a discussion in the winter of 1860-1861 over the legality of secession. One of them says to the other, “I have a book here which demonstrates conclusively that there’s no right to secede from the Union,” and the other responds, “That’s just an old Story.”
LOL, yes. It also serves to illustrate that the sentiment in the union of the States before the Civil War was divided. This is true, even in the North, where Lincoln used broad police powers to suppress newspapers which editorialised that the South had the right to leave the union if those States chose to. The sentiment in favour of the legality and Constitutionality of secession was widespread before the war, Joseph Story and Andrew Jackson notwithstanding.
Looks like most folks are here already
usual suspects....still sore lol
present & accounted for.
free dixie,sw
I'd rather have been a dissenter under Lincoln than in Jeff Davis's Confederacy. A dissenter's life expectancy was greater up North.
The North was mobilising troops before the war, and was already moving towards a war footing, reflected in the fact that Buchanan tried to resupply Ft. Sumter, in contravention of previous agreements with the Confederate government and the State of South Carolina, in preparation for a general assault on the "insurrection". This breaking of the agreement, and aggressive move towards preparation, is what precipitated the firing on Ft. Sumter in the first place. The South hadn't mobilised any substantial forces until after the remaining four States seceded, and then because of the imminent threat of Union mobilisations. The South didn't even HAVE an army until the summer of '61, and was almost as poorly organised as was the Northern army when the two met at Bull Run. If by a Southern mobilisation prior to that, you mean the calling up of the various State militias, this was hardly an offensive threat to the North, and was rather a response to Northern threats of military intervention in the secessionist States.
That is absolute nonsense. The North was not mobilizing prior to the South's initiation of the war. Quite the contrary, the U.S. army was shrinking as Southern officers and enlisted deserted its ranks. Buchanan did not call up any troops, nor did Lincoln, until the outbreak of hostilities. The South, on the other hand, was mobilizing from day one.
Buchanan did not break any agreement with South Carolina by trying to resupply Sumter. The agreement had been broken weeks before that when South Carolina had seized federal facilities in Charleston.
The South hadn't mobilised any substantial forces until after the remaining four States seceded, and then because of the imminent threat of Union mobilisations.
The confederate congress had passed legislation authorizing an army of 100,000 men in March 1861, over a month before Sumter and weeks before any similar actions by the North.
Nope - just assuming a level of tacit understanding on your part that I probably shouldn't. Let me go back and go step by step. The South's trading partners were primarily Britain and France, which were (especially the former) the two major industrial powers at the time. Britain was the "workshop of the world", so to speak. Britain had perfected the process of mass production much better than the USA had at this time, and was able to produce goods more cheaply than manufacturers could in the North (which is why the North wanted protective tariffs). The South sold cotton and other agricultural goods to Britain and France, and purchased the cheaper manufactured goods in return, including to a great degree the goods and materials associated with the agriculture upon which the South depended. The South wanted free trade so as to be able to purchase goods from Europe more cheaply. No tariff meant no money made from duties on these European imports. Adding a tariff meant some of the money the Southerners made from the sale of their agricultural products would be taken from their pockets to cover the increased costs rolled in due to the tariff, or alternatively the South could avoid the tariff by buying higher priced goods from Northern manufacturers internally. Hence, the North was tariffing the South's trade, increasing the cost and decreasing the profit from her agricultural trade. Hence, the North was "tariffing the South's agricultural products". I apologise if I was making some leaps of language without explaining the path I was taking.
But it was protective in nature, in spite of the fact that their own constitution said protective tariffs were not allowed.
In war, laws are silent. Further, while I said that the tariff and free trade were an issue as well, I didn't say they were the ONLY issue besides slavery that was at stake. You asked for an example of something else besides slavery that was at issue - and I provided you an example. And it WAS an issue - even if the South's application of its own tariff after secession appears hypocritical, even if it was a wartime expediency. The Southerners themselves gave tariffs as a reason among many, and you can't simply ignore that by pointing out their hypocrisy. What galled them especially about the tariffs were that they were NORTHERN tariffs, and the Southerns felt them to be applied in a purposefully prejudicial way against the South. Again, whether YOU agree with their assessment is irrelevant - THEY felt this way, and believed they had adequate causes to secede from the union, this being one of them.
The Army was being moved East long before Lincoln's call for additional troops. There were Federal troops in St. Louis that were already being mobilised for war before shots were fired. Both sides were mobilising for the reason most nations mobilise before a war - fear that the other side may already mobilising, and we'd better do it to, to protect ourselves. Both sides were mobilising, moving troops. The South mobilised on the basis of widely trumpeted Northern threats to "hang the traitors", i.e. they mobilised for what they perceived to be self-defence. To argue that the North didn't move any troops or make any preparations until after Ft. Sumter is ridiculous.
What agreements? There were no agreements, only a status quo that Buchanan was happy to let stand until his term was up.
The Buchanan administration have made agreements with the government of South Carolina and with the Confederate government to remove the troops and war materials from Ft. Sumter. The North was then caught trying to resupply the fort with the Star of the West, which was driven off. Lincoln, after coming into office, basically ignored these agreements, and instead of bringing off the men and wweapons, informed the Confederate government that he intended to resupply the fort "with provisions only". This was breaking the agreement, and indicated a desire to hold the fort, since even provisions would allow the garrison to hold out much longer and occupy a fort which had previously been promised to be turned over. The South, of course, didn't trust Lincoln to only supply provisions (and it seems perhaps with good reason), and authorisation was given to take the fort.
I'm sure they did, just like a bank robber just wants the money and doesn't want anyone to get hurt.
Your analogy only holds if the bank personnel go into the home of the "bank robber" and try to incite him to rob their bank. Otherwise, it is irrelevant to the actual historical facts.
Well after reading this it's obvious I'd incorrectly assumed a lot, too.
The South sold cotton and other agricultural goods to Britain and France, and purchased the cheaper manufactured goods in return, including to a great degree the goods and materials associated with the agriculture upon which the South depended.
What were these manufactured goods associated with their agricultural industry?
No tariff meant no money made from duties on these European imports. Adding a tariff meant some of the money the Southerners made from the sale of their agricultural products would be taken from their pockets to cover the increased costs rolled in due to the tariff...
That same tariff would have hit North as well as South equally. But perhaps it would help if you could explain for us just what the South needed in the way of imports? What goods were in such demand?
I apologise if I was making some leaps of language without explaining the path I was taking.
No apology is necessary. It's all been most amusing.
In war, laws are silent.
In the South a constitution was worthless.
Further, while I said that the tariff and free trade were an issue as well, I didn't say they were the ONLY issue besides slavery that was at stake.
The tariff really wasn't an issue at all, judging from the quotes of the southern leaders of the time.
You asked for an example of something else besides slavery that was at issue - and I provided you an example.
You provided your opinion.
Again, whether YOU agree with their assessment is irrelevant - THEY felt this way, and believed they had adequate causes to secede from the union, this being one of them.
So you keep saying.
Let's back up a bit to give some perspective: When South Carolina seceded from the Union, Lincoln had been elected but was not yet sworn in; James Buchanan was President. But Buchanan didn't take any action. Why? Because he (Buchanan) said there was no constitutional basis for using force to keep them in the Union.
Lincoln ran on an anti-slavery platform and, eventually, 10 more states seceded, as they had indicated they would if he were elected. Lincoln said he’d use force to keep them in the Union. Rather an about face from Buchanan.
His anti-slavery platform notwithstanding, Lincoln appears not to have cared much about the slavery issue. His goal was to preserve the Union and he said as much; quoting from a letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln said “My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
This sentiment plays out very well in his much-vaunted Emancipation Proclamation, which frees slaves in states which had seceded but not in states which remained in the Union. Think about that for a moment: he says slaves are free in states where he has neither power nor control but if you were a slave in a border state where, presumably, his word held some sway, this proclamation affected you not one whit.
As an aside, and acting somewhat as an agent provocateur, consider this as well: at this time, under law, slaves were considered chattel, that is, property. Taking property without due process is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment. We can argue over whether the government was “taking” property from individuals but there was clear intent to deprive them of something of value. We can also argue about whether this Proclamation constitutes due process (I would argue no but I am not a supporter of Executive Orders; arguing against this interpretation of the 13th-15th Amendments would be much harder). This casts the subject of reparations in a whole new light.
Returning to the issue of border states, it is also instructive to look at the case of West Virginia. Prior to the Civil War, this state didn’t exist; Lincoln created it to provide a buffer zone between Virginia (a Confederate state) and Maryland (a Union state). However, creation of this new state is in direct violation of Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, which prohibits the federal government from forming states from the jurisdiction of any of the existing states without consent of both the Congress and the state legislature. I wonder how Virginia felt about this? (Actually, when it happened, they probably didn’t think anything about it as they would have thought Lincoln had neither authority nor power to do it.)
Of course Lincoln didn’t stop there: the taxes he levied and the conscription he imposed were clearly unconstitutional and his detractors weren’t shy about mentioning it. One such notable was Roger Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who ruled that many of Lincoln’s actions were unconstitutional. Lincoln’s response was to have an arrest warrant written to jail him. (He was never jailed.) This was not an isolated instance: he suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, suspended the Bill of Rights and summarily imprisoned many of his critics.
Let me summarize what I just wrote, because it is important and usually glossed over: the Confederate States seceded over the issue of slavery. But the war was fought to preserve the Union! Why is that important? Because the states left over a states-rights issue; that’s what it was considered at the time, and that’s the way it had been treated prior to the Civil War. No amount of re-writing history will change that. Lincoln fought the war to establish that the central government is pre-eminent over the states. He staked out a very Liberal position (“the end justifies the means.”) and didn’t let little things like the Constitution and the rule of law stand in his way.
I'm beginning to wonder if you're making this stuff up as you go along. I assume you have a source that supports these claims?
Because of rampant federalism that gave rise to logically insupportable decisions like Brown vs. Board, I am now forced to commerce with homosexuals, satanists, child molestors, and a host of other groups I find abhorrent. I can no longer refuse to hire a black man because he has no talent, nor can I fire him if I make the mistake of hiring him. I can be forced to admit incompetents to my university, to my place of employment, and to my place of business. I can be convicted of an aggravated crime if I assault a homosexual, but not if I assault a heterosexual. All this is federalism writ large, an imposition of a set of national values across the spectrum, regardless of the fact that different regions have different cultures and different values. Yeah, there are people telling me how to live, act, and think.
Black citizens have a right to attend public schools. Racism isn't a "regional difference" - it's a violation of constitutional rights.
Black citizens WERE attending public schools. They were attending public schools in their neighborhoods, built by the tax levies against the property they owned. Integration gave them the right to go to schools built by other peoples' money in other neighborhoods. Taxation without representation is hardly a constitutional right.
This is a phenomenon of the 1960s, not the 1860s.
But the notion that a federal bureaucracy should be responsible for regulating industrial development comes directly from the federalism that took root after the Civil War.
If you don't like the interstates, take the back roads.
States were required to post 55-mph speed limits on their highways as well, or face a loss of federal highway money. Federalism once again.
Genteel, refined and civilized for about the one-half of one-percent of the population that constituted the Tidewater aristocracy.
More revisionist hogwash. Not everyone in the South lived on Tobacco Road and scratched a meager living from Da Massuh's flinty soil. You've been reading Harriet Beecher Stowe again. The gentility of the South was rooted in an aristocratic set of values that respected caste, tradition, and cultural continuity. The North -- ever-changing, industrialized, cosmopolitan -- discarded those values in deference to commercialization. The agrarian South clung to its tragically outmoded notions until they were torn away by the War.
If you think the average Southern family sat in tranquil leisure on the broad verandah of their palatial home on 4000 acres, sipping juleps from silver cups and discussing Montesquieu while the strains of Chopin issued forth from the grand piano in the conservatory, you're fantasizing.
If you think I said that, you're fantasizing.
In 1860, most Southerners - black and white - spent their days as subsistence farm laborers with severely limited or nonexistent educations.
As opposed to the North? Where every citizen had a Harvard MBA? Just because the South employed its working class on plantations while the North employed its in factories, there's no reason to conclude that the South was repressive while the North was enlightened.
Genteel is expensive, and there wasn't much money in the South if you weren't a planter, a slave trader, a textile exporter or an attorney working for the aforementioned.
Or a tradesman supporting any of those industries. Or a lumber mill supplying building materials for those plantations. Or a cooper supplying barrels or a steamboat company transporting goods or a smith who shoed horses or any of a thousand other crafts and trades that flourished in the cotton economy of the ante-bellum South.
The states are not sovereigns: the Constitution makes that perfectly clear.
Where?
Yes, the King and Parliament had a continuing interest in keeping the colonies separated from one another by trying to play regional issues back and forth between them: attempting to keep them divided and down.
Claptrap. Each colony was established for a given purpose, by a specific group, with each granted its own sovereignty. If there was to be a uniform government, there would be no need for state laws or individual legislatures.
Luckily, the Constitution put an end to the legal establishment of sectionalism.
Yeah, we're so "lucky" we've got a federal bureaucracy controlling us instead of a state legislature. That "sectionalism" was pretty scary stuff.
Ah, but it was. No other nation in the world's history has ever shown anything approaching that level of domestic restraint during a civil war.
Probably one of the most delusional statements I've ever seen on a political forum.
Overstating as usual, non-seq? From The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865: A Financial and Industrial History of the South During the Civil War, by John Christopher Schwab, 1901, page 240-241:
The first distinctive Confederate tariff was enacted on March 15, 1861, and levied a 15% ad valorem duty upon the importation of coal, iron, paper, and lumber. This was soon elaborated into the tariff of May 21, 1861, which, slightly amended on August 8, and put into force on August 31, expressed the tariff policy of the Confederate States during the war. As was to be expected, the Confederate Congress perfected a revenue measure from which almost every trace of protective motives was removed. In fact the protective principle was discountenanced by both Confederate Constitutions, for under the old regime the South always felt that the burden of the tariff had fallen chiefly on its own shoulders.
… As in the case of the old tariffs of 1846 and 1857, each rate was avowedly aimed at deriving the largest possible customs revenue from the particular articles to which it applied. In carrying out this principle, the Confederate tariff lowered the former rates of 1857, especially the leading 24% rate to 15%, coal and coke, raw hemp and tobacco, leather, iron ore, and pig iron, from 24% to 10%. The duty on sugar and molasses, however, was but slightly reduced, from 24% to 20%, perhaps from lingering protectionist motives, which we shall see were not wholly absent.
The Confederate Congress wasn't perfect, but it did a pretty good job of sticking by its principles as regards protective tariffs.
And when did Lincoln issue this threat?
His anti-slavery platform notwithstanding, Lincoln appears not to have cared much about the slavery issue.
Lincoln's personal opposition to slavery aside, the Republicans ran on a platform to limit the expansion of slavery. Nowhere is there a promise or a threat to end slavery where it currently existed. Lincoln and the Republicans weren't fools, they knew that to end slavery completely would take a Constitutional amendment that could never be ratified if the slave-owning states held together.
This sentiment plays out very well in his much-vaunted Emancipation Proclamation, which frees slaves in states which had seceded but not in states which remained in the Union. Think about that for a moment: he says slaves are free in states where he has neither power nor control but if you were a slave in a border state where, presumably, his word held some sway, this proclamation affected you not one whit.
And the reason for that is obvious, slavery was not unconstitutional. Lincoln lacked the authority to end slavery on his own, it required a Constitutional amendment to do that.
As an aside, and acting somewhat as an agent provocateur, consider this as well: at this time, under law, slaves were considered chattel, that is, property. Taking property without due process is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.
In 1862 Congress had passed the Confiscation Acts which said that private property used to support the Southern rebellion could be seized without compensation. This included slaves, and the Emancipation Proclamation was really an off-shoot of those acts. The Constitutionality of the Confiscation Acts was upheld in several post-war Supreme Court cases.
Returning to the issue of border states, it is also instructive to look at the case of West Virginia. Prior to the Civil War, this state didn’t exist; Lincoln created it to provide a buffer zone between Virginia (a Confederate state) and Maryland (a Union state). However, creation of this new state is in direct violation of Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, which prohibits the federal government from forming states from the jurisdiction of any of the existing states without consent of both the Congress and the state legislature. I wonder how Virginia felt about this? (Actually, when it happened, they probably didn’t think anything about it as they would have thought Lincoln had neither authority nor power to do it.)
It is also instructive to look into the creation of West Virginia in detail rather than superficially. When Virginia rebelled, members of the legislature representing the western part of the state remained loyal to the Union and formed an alternate state legislature. They petitioned Congress for recognition, and Congress did agree that they were the legitimate Virginia legislature. It was this body which then requested permission to split Virginia into two parts, as required by the Constituiton. Congress approved their request and West Virginia was born.
It would also do to examine what the Constituiton has to say on creating a state or splitting an existing state in two. Only Congress and the state legislature play a part, the President has no say. For you to say that Lincoln created the state is wrong.
Of course Lincoln didn’t stop there: the taxes he levied and the conscription he imposed were clearly unconstitutional and his detractors weren’t shy about mentioning it.
And how, exactly, were they 'clearly unconstitutional'? Were there Supreme Court decisions indicating this? Some precedent that had established the matter? Neither Conscription nor the Income Tax were struck down by the Supreme Court, though a later post-rebellion Income Tax was struck down by a later court.
One such notable was Roger Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who ruled that many of Lincoln’s actions were unconstitutional.
I am aware of one case where Chief Justice Taney declared one of Lincoln's actions unconstitutional. But that decision was issued from the Circuit Court bench and the entire court never had a chance to review the matter and issue a decision. As for all these other actions that Chief Justice Taney ruled unconstitutional, perhaps you can list some of them?
Lincoln’s response was to have an arrest warrant written to jail him. (He was never jailed.)
Absolute, utter nonsense. There is not, nor has there ever been a single shred of hard evidence supporting this claim. And it should be also noted that of the many biographys of Roger Taney that have been published, not a single one of them has ever included the alleged arrest warrant.
This was not an isolated instance: he suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, suspended the Bill of Rights and summarily imprisoned many of his critics.
I'm familiar with Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus but you'll have to point out where he suspended the entire Bill of Rights.
Let me summarize what I just wrote, because it is important and usually glossed over: the Confederate States seceded over the issue of slavery. But the war was fought to preserve the Union! Why is that important? Because the states left over a states-rights issue; that’s what it was considered at the time, and that’s the way it had been treated prior to the Civil War. No amount of re-writing history will change that. Lincoln fought the war to establish that the central government is pre-eminent over the states. He staked out a very Liberal position (“the end justifies the means.”) and didn’t let little things like the Constitution and the rule of law stand in his way.
Considering that it was the South who actually started the war, perhaps you'll indulge us and explain what their reasons for war were? You've said what you thought Lincoln's motivations were, what motivated Jefferson Davis? Why did he see the need for a war that would eventually destroy everyting? Can you shed some light in that area?
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.