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 ...
You made an assertion about Andersonville.
From the military records, this is the POW data for 1861-1865:
There were 22,576 deaths among the 126,950 Union captives held in Confederate prisons.
There were 26,436 Confederates out of 220,000 Confederate captives in the north who died in the northern prisons.
More southerners died while in union prisons than Union soldiers did in Southern prisons.
Please do not post unless you know for a fact what you think you know.
Not necessarily true. Madison supported a right to secession of States, but not for flippant or short-sighted purposes. He did acknowledge that political bodies could secede from federated units to which they belong, but that such an act would constitute an act of revolution which would dissolve the constitutional bonds. Secession seems to have been an option for "intolerable oppression". See Madison's interesting letter to Daniel Webster of 15 Mar 1833. While proclaiming the supremacy of the federal constitution over the constitutions and laws of the several States, he did also note that the government can be "subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases" - "the people" basically being defined as the States - "....that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity...." - as was the case with many of the other Founders. It's interesting to note that Madison distinguishes between the "claim" to secede at will and the "right" to secede from intolerable oppression.
Also note, the recipient, Daniel Webster, spoke from the Senate floor on 15 Feb 1833, saying, "If the Union was formed by the accession of States then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States." Prior to the Civil War, secession was viewed as a legitimate right of the States under certain extraordinary circumstances, by others besides John C. Calhoun.
Reasonably well for certain white people that is.
Tell that to the Chinese who built the railroads.
They were serfs in China. They were free laborers in the USA. They came here rather than stay there because they appreciated the difference.
Somebody had to be living in all those cities that exploded in population in the latter half of the 19th century.
Plenty of people were. But plenty more weren't.
Wrong.
You made the claim that de facto slavery existed in the North. Back it up.
Not before 1913, when the 17th Amendment was passed. Senators were elected by the state legislatures.
That never applied to the House, the engine room of US legislation.
Yes, those areas specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Secession is not one of them.
Again, either the federal government is the supreme law of the land or it isn't. Secession directly contradicts this explicit provision of the Constitution.
.... in some functions ...
No, secession means complete independence. That's certainly what the architects of the Confederacy took it to mean.
Making treaties does not in itself constitute independence.
In America it does, because the only entity that has the power to make treaties is the federal government according to the Constitution.
the Revolution cast off the notion of a detached, tyrannical, centralized authority in favor of local rule.
More accurately, the revolution repudiated the notion of non-representative government by fiat and embraced representative government by law.
The colonist's objection to British rule was not that it was centralized, but that it was arbitrary and unelected. The Acts of Union were not singled out for opprobrium.
The federal government usurped those prerogatives at the point of a gun.
No, the federal government is given those prerogatives in the Constitution: raising armies, declaring war, negotiating treaties, final interpretation of laws, etc.
Did innocent civilians die during those sieges?
Not at all. Everyone in those sieges had the opportunity during ceasefires and negotiations to abandon sedition and go over to the legitimate military forces of their country.
They chose sedition.
Or for the very indictable reason that a band of abolitionists managed to overturn the Constitution in their self-righteous zeal to have slavery banned.
That never happened.
At the time of the acts of secession, the grievance was that there was a legitimate president-elect who did not sympathize with the pro-slavery agenda.
That is all. They were provoked by a completely legal election result. Are election results indictable? Should the South have called for a do-over?
There were 26,436 Confederates out of 220,000 Confederate captives in the north who died in the northern prisons.
Let's consider a few things when discussing the issue of POWs in the Civil War:
1) The Confederates were consistently short on supplies. In the latter years, they couldn't even reliably get their own soldiers enough shoes. What makes us think they're going to be able to lavishly pour goodies upon enemy POWs?
2) The Union could have rescued many of its soldiers in POW camps if it hadn't stopped prisoner exchanges halfway through the war.
3) Being in a POW camp, belonging to EITHER side, would not have been a fun experience. Both sides didn't have enough resources or personnel to "waste" supplying and guarding enemy prisoners. There were some Northern POW camps that were every bit as bad as Andersonville - and it wasn't because the Northerners were evil, genocidal monsters. The same, however, holds true for the Southerners.
I don't think you meant to do so, but your numbers show that a Confederate POW had a higher chance of survival than a Federal POW?
Anyhow, thanks for the info.
(And for the record I would have hanged/hung every UNION POW camp commander that abused his charges too.)
The catch is that the old order is under no obligation not to oppose your revolution, so you need to win and you're not really allowed to bitch about it when you don't. A great many words have been expended by the south denying that their actions were revolution. I have little doubt that, had they won their war, they'd have been more than happy to proclaim it thus.
I can't state that I've read every account of southern POWs in Federal hands, but could you point me towards said info could be found?
An agricultural nation (which the South was) couldn't even find enough food?
What I “meant” to do was to provide the data.
You missed Madison’s point. When we’re dealing with constitutional compacts between separate political bodies into a federated constitutional state, secession IS the expression of the natural right of revolution. It’s the way that one of the individual political bodies that acceded to the union has of dissolving that union and going its separate way, through a revolution against the union. Secession IS revolution, and is justifiable under “intolerable oppressions”.
It’s true - the old order is NOT under an obligation accept the new. Great Britain was within its rights to oppose the departure of her American colonies, and the North was within its rights to try to stop the South. Remember, I’ve consistently been saying on here that I don’t think the South should have won (would have been very, very bad for future world events), but instead that all States, Southern or otherwise, DO have a right to secession from the union if they choose to exercise it for solemn purposes.
Unfortunately, not right at this very moment, since I have to make my departure for the evening, but FReepmail me and I could try to get some sources together to send to you in a couple of days, after the holiday. An agricultural nation (which the South was) couldn't even find enough food?
Yes, actually. Remember, much of the South's agricultural was of the non-edible kind, cotton and tobacco and so forth. Also, even in areas where food crops were plentiful, by 1863, the general wrecking of the South's internal transportation systems by Northern invaders made it hard to move goods around between sections of the South. In 1863, there were bread riots in Richmond, the capitol. It's not surprising that POW camps, already low on the priority list, were notorious for starvation.
This may help:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p137_Weber.html
“An agricultural nation (which the South was) couldn’t even find enough food?”
You need a little help. Go to google and find where Andersonville was located. Now food moves two ways: road or rail? At the time of Andersonville, which Union General had control of the central roads in Georgia?
Atlanta was the railroad hub that served food suppliers and consumers. Who had just burned Atlanta?
What were Union troops doing with railroad steel?
What were Union troops doing to Southern farms and food warehouses?
If you think a few thousand Union troops died at Andersonville at the hands of the Confederates, what would you think of a few thousand Georgia citizens starved to death while someone wanted to “make them howl”?
And you apparently miss the overall point of Madison's letter, which is to address "the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans." And Madison comes down, for the most part, on the side of "the people," saying:
"the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. "In short, the Constitution is not an association of states, but an association of the people, who are simply organized by state.
Secession IS revolution, and is justifiable under “intolerable oppressions”.
Indeed. But in this you are in a different place, than, say, Jefferson Davis, who said, in his first inaugural,
By virtue of this authority, the time and occasion requiring them to exercise it having arrived, the sovereign States here represented have seceded from that Union, and it is a gross abuse of language to denominate the act rebellion or revolution
Linking to a holocaust denial site?
It seems more likely that your arguements are drawn from your imagination, for several reasons. Let me point out a few of your more imaginative claims.
"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."
Complete nonsense. Buchanan at no time and under no circumstances I'm aware of ever promised to remove the troops or supplies from Sumter. In early December he did meet with a group of South Carolina congressmen who were heading home. After discussions, the written agreement was that South Carolina would make no assault on any federal facility in South Carolina so long as Buchanan took no steps to reinforce the garrison in Charleston. Buchanan kept his word, no attempt was made to reinforce or resupply the garrison until after South Carolina had seized Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinkney, and the Charleston armory. Prior to the meeting, in his 1860 message to Congress, Buchanan had vowed to retain control of federal property. Following Anderson's move to Sumter Buchanan refused to condemn his move or order him out. At no time did Buchanan order Charleston be abandoned. So based on all evidence I'm aware of, your claim is false.
Sources:
"Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War" by David Detzer
Offical Record of the War of Southern Rebellion (OR)
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".
There was no agreement in place for Lincoln to have basically ignored. And even had their been, such agreements would have been between Buchanan and South Carolina. And even has such an agreement been in place it would have lapsed when South Carolina joined the confederacy and the Davis regime became the government in control. Lincoln did inform Governor Pickens that he intended to land food and supplies. Lincoln had little choice; in virtually every communication sent North Major Anderson had warned he was running out of food. So far as Lincoln knew Anderson would soon be forced to surrender or starve. Lincoln chose to make the attempt in as non-confrontational manner as possible, by outlining plans well ahead of time. He sent the message by personal representative, Robert Chew and not Ward Lamon, and laid out his intent. The question of war or peace was entirely left up to the confederacy, and we know what they chose.
Source:
"Lincoln" by David Herbert Donald
"Team of Rivals" by Doris Goodwin
Official Record (OR)
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.
Fascinating, but entirely fanciful. At no time and under no circumstances had either Buchanan or Lincoln promised to surrender the fort to Southern demands.
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.
It was more a case where the South was not interested in peace or the status quo, and chose war instead.
I didn't even mention some of the apparent efforts by members of Lincoln's cabinet to push for a military resolution to the Ft. Sumter seige (which was ultimately overruled by Lincoln, at least officially).
Nor did you mention recommendations by members of the Buchanan administration for reinforcing the Charleston garrison. The fact of the matter is that both Presidents had recommendations to reinforce the forts and recommendations to surrender the forts. And both men, to their credit, decided to hold to the public promises both men made to retain control of the property of the United States in the face of Southern demands.
Lincoln had already been informed by his envoy Ward Lamon that the South would not accept any resupply effort at Sumter, and would view such as an act of war - Lincoln knew that trying to resupply the fort would lead to war.
Lincoln's choices were to resupply the fort, even with the risk of giving the South their excuse to start a war, or give in to Southern demands. He chose to act in the least confrontational manner possible, and left the choice of war or peace in the hands of Jeff Davis. We know what he chose.
Knowing of this, is it really any surprise that Beauregard was alarmed at the appearance of several Union warships appearing outside the harbour as part of the relief expedition, under cover of darkness, and felt that he'd better act now or lose any hope of having the fort surrender peacefully?
Orders to bombard the fort into surrender, and the bombardment had actually started, long before an Union ships appeared off the harbor.
And you ignore the question. In reply 252 you made the claim that the South wanted to import goods and materials associated with their agricultural industry. How about listing them?
...saw little need to protect industry at the expense of reducing demand for its exports...
I understand how tariffs work, but don't see the connection between the tariff and demand for Southern exports. Demand for Southern exports had been growing for years before the rebellion. The South exported almost 3 million bales of cotton each year, most of it to England. The sold every bale that they produced, and at prices that had risen steadily during the 1850s. Tariffs didn't impact that.
What manufactured goods did the South need? What DIDN'T it needs? Iron. Finished cloth. Tools. Construction materials. Railroad ties. Engines. You name it.
As did the rest of the country. Every part consumed iron, finished cloth, railroad engines (Imported railroad ties???) and what have you. Any tariff that artificially raised the price of those goods hit every single consumer equally. The idea that the tariff impacted the South harder than any other area is ridiculous. Except, perhaps, for all those goods and materials associated with their agricultural industry. </sarcasm>
In the North, a constitution was worthless. Lincoln basically urinated on the Constitution (see Elric's #255), and even before him, among the South's grievances was that the federal government was trampling on the reserved rights of the States.
The same tired old Southron whine. What rights had been trampled on?
One tariff in contravention to a constitution versus an ongoing trend of ignoring basic constitutional provisions in the federal Constitution?
That was one of the minor infractions. If you want to consider a major infraction then consider the absence of a confederate supreme court. Consider the allegations of Davis' late rebellion promise to European powers to end slavery in exchange for recognition.
Missouri's Senator from before the war, Thomas Hart Benton said...
And Alexander Stephens, soon to be confederate vice president said:
"The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself. And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that...Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at."
Was Reagan exaggerating? No. Prior to the institution of the income tax, the primary source of revenue for the federal government was from tariffs and other import duties. The historian Charles Adams in When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Succession reminds us that the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South. In 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860.
Do you even stop and think for one moment just how ridiculous your claims are? Or Adams' claims if you want to blame him. In 1860 total tariff revenues were about $60 million, so according to you the North only accounted for about $9 million of that. The first question would have to be what did the South import in such massive quantities. But the second question involves Lincoln's 1864 message to Congress. In that he mentions that federal tariff revenue for the fiscal year ending June 1864 was around $110 million. How could tariff revenue increase that much that fast? How could the North go from importing almost nothing to importing 11 times as many goods as they had only 3 years before? Any ideas floating arouond int that fertile imagination of yours?
Oh, and according to federal documents in the year prior to the rebellion about 95% of all tariff income was collected in three Northern ports. If 87% of all imports were destined for Southern consumers then why weren't the goods delivered to them? Why were they sent North, where according to you there was no demand?
More could be said on this, but won't now for the sake of bandwidth. But yet, tariffs and trade had diddly to do with it, so you tell us.
And has been. Southerners will go to any extreme to deny slavery as the cause for their rebellion. But the dollars don't add up and for every document mentioning tariffs, many more mention slavery.
The lot of Union prisoners wasn't much better. There was little if any provision for keeping prisoners for long periods of time; most were intended to be paroled back to their homes. But prisoner exchanges became a bargaining chip in peace negotiations, and POWs on both sides suffered egregiously as a result.
It wasn't a question of Christianity as much as politics and the exigencies of war.
It tells us a lot about you, as well. Like, maybe you need to read the Constitution to begin with. Article I, Section 10 is full of actions forbidden to the states, either completely or which require Congressional approval. As is Article IV.
Yes, let's.
The Confederates were consistently short on supplies. In the latter years, they couldn't even reliably get their own soldiers enough shoes. What makes us think they're going to be able to lavishly pour goodies upon enemy POWs?
The confederates had transportation and resources enough to get the prisoners to the camps, but they didn't have resources enough to provide them with food?
The Union could have rescued many of its soldiers in POW camps if it hadn't stopped prisoner exchanges halfway through the war.
Exchanges were stopped because the South refused to treat black Union soldiers as POWs but instead said that they would be sent into slavery and their officers shot. The South also threatened to execute, without trial, specific Union generals.
Being in a POW camp, belonging to EITHER side, would not have been a fun experience. Both sides didn't have enough resources or personnel to "waste" supplying and guarding enemy prisoners. There were some Northern POW camps that were every bit as bad as Andersonville - and it wasn't because the Northerners were evil, genocidal monsters. The same, however, holds true for the Southerners.
I disagree. Both sides are culpable because both sides could have provided decent care for their POWS and neither side did. Both could have provided decent food, but didn't. Both sides could have provided decent shelter, but didn't. Both sides could have taken steps to reduce the fatalities, but didn't. Abuse and mistreatment was deliberate both North and SOuth.
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.