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 ...
see post 182
No.
Because you sure are creating a new one.
No, I'm not.
The Great Migration didn't take place until 50 years--half a century--after the end of the Civil War.
I didn't mention any "Great Migration." You did.
In 1900, approximately 90 percent of all blacks still lived in the former slave-holding states.
Kind of destroys the argument that the slave economy was so horrible, doesn't it? After all, why stay down on the plantation when the streets Up No'th are paved with gold?
Detroit's black population in 1910 was all of 6,000, just 1% of the total population.
I used Detroit as a metaphor for ALL the Northern industrial centers. And I never said that only Blacks were serfs in the industrialized North. In fact, I argued just the opposite.
freed slaves who stayed in the south continued to be disenfranchised, once Reconstruction ended and Jim Crow laws were enacted.
Discrimination -- whether codified in the form of Jim Crow laws or exercised de facto as a cultural artifact -- existed, and continues to exist in all parts of the country. To suggest that it is limited to the South is simplistic.
...my g.grandfather got shot in the knee cap at Chickamauga and taken prisoner by Rosecran’s troops...the Yankees put him on a train to Chicago where he did POW hard time at Camp Douglas...he wintered over in’64 and’65 under brutal conditions because the camp was close to Lake Michigan...when they turned them loose some of the men were mad from the way they had been treated and had to be led away....he was gimp-legged and started walking for his home in Lloyd, Fla...he was a Mason and along the way other Masons helped him along...Illinois Masons were especially kind; would feed him; give him rides in their wagons and let him sleep in the hay mow....he made it home, became county sheriff and lived until the early 1920s....my father knew him.
No one in the south was a traitor! That is just an ignorant statement!
You haven't pointed to any error in my post. The Yale professor was correct, and you are in error.
Yale professor from my earlier post: "molasses ... 20%"
non-seq: It placed a 25% duty on molasses.
Confederate tariff law: molasses 20%
You are confusing a 25% tariff on various items (fruits, sweetmeats, etc.) that were preserved in molasses with the tax on molasses itself. The Yale professor was correct in the 20% figure he cited for the Confederate tariff on molasses.
rustbucket 1; non-sequitur 0. Your proclivity for error is well known.
I trust the analysis of the professor who once held the Chair of Political Economy at Yale as to whether the Confederate tariff removed most of the protection motive or not. It did. He also said, as I clearly quoted, that the protectionist motive was not wholly absent in the tariff.
Bilge. The grievance was that federal military installations on sovereign state soil were being used to enforce an agenda that was not palatable to the locals, in defiance of constitutional protections. Since the federal government had declared itself a hostile entity -- an invading force if you will -- the states felt they had the right to contain federal troops or force them to withdraw. That is what happened at Sumter, although that was only one of many federal forts that were treated similarly.
Read the Acts of Secession of the various states yourself. They make it pretty clear that it was the repeated violations of state sovereignty that motivated them.
And you are an idiot.
I change my mind. You are an idiot AND a moron!
Still a legend in your own mind, I see. Still, the protectionist tariffs on tobacco products, salt, turpentine, etc. were still there. So when you said they did "a pretty good job of sticking by its principles as regards protective tariffs" then I'd still have to ask what principles they had to stick by. At worst, rustbucket 1: Non-Sequitur 1.
Then why did the emancipated slaves hang around Dixie for half a century after the War? Inertia? Tradition? A misplaced sense of loyalty to Simon Legree? No, there was work there for them, and many of them had no skills other than manual labor to sell. They were in essence offered the same jobs they had had before Emancipation, only this time, Massa was free to discharge them at will when their mechanized replacement became available. And they had to spend their meager salary to buy their own food, clothing, and shelter, goods and services provided for them, albeit at marginal levels, free of charge before they were "freed."
Point out some poor northern serfs who willingly sold themselves into slavery in the south and you might just have an argument that conditions for workers in both parts of the country were equivalent.
I can point out hundreds of thousands of poor northern serfs who sold themselves into virtual slavery in the North. Every man who worked in subhuman conditions in a packing plant or garment mill or steelworks or mine. Every woman who burned to death at the Triangle Shirtwaist. Every child who picked soybeans for a dollar a week. The labor laws of the 20's didn't come about because the giants of industry took it on themselves to make a benevolent workplace, but because creeping unionism forced them to reassess their oppressive practices in the name of enlightened self-interest. Before those protections were passed, the conditions in Northern factories was little better than those on plantations in the antebellum South.
Why do Jews still live in Germany?
Because Germany is their ancestral homeland. Because they have homes and businesses and friends there. Because post-war Germany was not nearly so hostile to them as nazi-fied Germany was.
Did a lot of slaves think of the plantation as an ancestral home? Did they have businesses and trades to tend there? Did the collective Southern mind change drastically after the War?
Not in most cases. But where that was true, it certainly gives the lie to the myth that all slaves lived a tortured existence.
Much as I'd like to re-fight the Civil War, I think we've diverged far enough on this thread. I'll restate my original position: I have no anger toward Jefferson Davis or any of the Confederacy who fought for their cause with honor.
With that, I will bid you adieu.
Home is home, and it's a powerful thing. And as bad as Jim Crow and sharecropping was, it wasn't as bad as slavery had been.
...thanks for that Camp Douglas information Bubba Ho-Tep...it’s nice the funeral home has taken some effort to recognize the site....
Which turned out to be in the late 1930's.
And they had to spend their meager salary to buy their own food, clothing, and shelter, goods and services provided for them, albeit at marginal levels, free of charge before they were "freed."
Don't forget the added bonus that they couldn't be sold any more.
Completely and utterly false.
First, those federal military installations were on federal land.
Second, they wern't "enforcing" any "agenda."
Third, the first seven treasonous states declared secession during the Buchanan administration - an administration which had bent over backwards to osculate their slaveholding derrieres.
Since the federal government had declared itself a hostile entity -- an invading force if you will -- the states felt they had the right to contain federal troops or force them to withdraw.
The hostile stance of the federal government was the new administration's response to the treasonous decision they had already taken to secede.
And that hostile stance was taken only after attempts at rational discussion failed.
Read the Acts of Secession of the various states yourself. They make it pretty clear that it was the repeated violations of state sovereignty that motivated them.
Not really. Of the 13 secession ordinances, only 5 make mention of any motivation at all. Of those 5, 3 were made after the Confederacy had already initiated military hostilities with the Union and the Union's own self-defense is cited as the reason for secession - there is no enumeration of any specific violations.
Of the remaining 2, AL cites the election of Lincoln as the reason for secession and makes passing reference to "infractions" by the the Union that it does not bother to list or explain and the TX ordinance is the only one that makes any specific complaint at all (other than crying like a baby because their favorite candidate didn't win the Presidency).
Texas' complaint: that the Feds didn't do enough to protect the western border of TX from Indian raids.
Pretty weak tea, all of it.
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.