Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Davis' bicentennial eclipsed by Lincoln
The Kentucky Kernel ^ | 3/28/08 | Jill Laster

Posted on 03/28/2008 12:15:10 PM PDT by cowboyway

Over the last few months, celebrations for Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday have drawn attention to the Kentucky native's life and his legacy as president. But the 200-year anniversary of another Kentucky president's birth, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, is receiving mixed reviews.

"I'll say it this way - winners write history," said Ron Bryant, a Lexington historian writing a book on Davis. "We need heroes, we need villains. Lincoln became a hero and Davis a villain."

Davis was born in what is now Todd County, Ky., in 1808, one year before Lincoln. Davis served as the only president of the 11 southern states that seceded from the Union between 1861 and 1865. The Confederate States of America surrendered in 1865, and Davis was locked in prison the same year.

Despite being denounced by many civil rights groups, signs of Davis' legacy can still be found throughout the state.

In Southwest Kentucky, a structure resembling the Washington Monument stands in memory of Davis. At 351 feet tall, the Jefferson Davis Monument is the fourth largest freestanding obelisk in the world, according to Kentucky State Parks.

Although Kentucky never seceded from the Union, a statue of Davis stands in the rotunda in the state's Capitol building.

"The Civil War is still very much alive in many places," said Cliff Howard, a Jefferson Davis impersonator. "Kentucky was on both sides of the fence. It still is."

Having heard of Kentucky's reputation for "being a little backward," integrated strategic communications senior James Davidson Jr. was not surprised about Davis' statue in the Capitol building.

Davidson, first-vice president of UK's chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said a statue of Davis leaves a bad impression.

"What is Frankfort saying to the rest of Kentucky with it being there?" Davidson said. "I respect everyone's heritage and Southern tradition, but given the history, I think it shouldn't be there."

The statue of Davis, installed in 1936, is one of five statues in the Capitol building. Lincoln is the largest in the center, and Davis stands in the corner behind his right shoulder. Former Kentucky Congressman Henry Clay, physician and drafter of the state constitution Ephraim McDowell and former Vice President Alben Barkley also stand in the rotunda.

The last time Davis' statue came into debate was 2003, when a coalition of African-American groups protested its presence in the Capitol building. A state advisory committee left the issue up to former Gov. Ernie Fletcher, who took no action during his term.

Gov. Steve Beshear does not plan to remove the statue because Davis is a historical figure who represents part of Kentucky's cultural history, a spokeswoman said.

Student Government President Nick Phelps said his feelings on the statue in the Capitol building resembled how he felt during a controversy two years ago about a 46-foot mural in Memorial Hall depicting the history of Lexington and its surrounding area. The mural, which some said stereotyped American Indians and blacks, was not removed.

"I was not in support of removing the mural, so I would not support removing Jefferson Davis," Phelps said. "I don't think we should remove history. I think it removes the question, 'Who is he?' "

Many students might ask the same question about Davis.

In Kentucky, the Civil War is part of the middle school curriculum. Unless students take an advanced placement history course in high school, that's usually the last time they focus on 19th century American history, said Nayasha Owens-Morton, a U.S. history and African-American history teacher at Bryan Station Traditional High School.

William Campbell has taught a class on Lincoln at UK for about 10 years as an English and honors professor. Students going into his class know little about the confederate president, he said.

"About Jefferson Davis, Kentuckians tend to know that he was from our state, that there's a memorial dedicated to him somewhere in the state, and that he was the president of the Confederacy," Campbell said. "Of Lincoln's writings, most have read only the Gettysburg Address. Of Davis's writings, most have read nothing."


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: abrahamlincoln; confederacyslavers; confederate; davis; despotlincoln; dishonestabe; dixie; getoveritalready; greatestpresident; jeffersondavis; lincolnthetyrant; northernaggression; rebel; remembersumter; swattienonsense; tyrantlincoln; youlost
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-616 next last

1 posted on 03/28/2008 12:15:10 PM PDT by cowboyway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Dixie ping


2 posted on 03/28/2008 12:17:08 PM PDT by kalee (The offenses we give, we write in the dust; Those we take, we write in marble. JHuett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Bump


3 posted on 03/28/2008 12:21:22 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
"Of Lincoln's writings, most have read only the Gettysburg Address. Of Davis's writings, most have read nothing."

Well Davis' writings weren't nearly as pithy or memorable.

He was a man of great physical courage and of deep personal sorrow who handled a doomed enterprise honorably. While many former Confederates sniped at him for administrative and military incompetence, history shows what an impossible situation he had been placed in.

4 posted on 03/28/2008 12:30:58 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
What a goofy article.

I'm reading through it when along comes this:

Having heard of Kentucky's reputation for "being a little backward," integrated strategic communications senior James Davidson Jr. was not surprised about Davis' statue in the Capitol building.

So who (besides Davidson apparently) thinks Kentucky is "a little backward"? Is that codespeak for not sufficiently politically correct?

It was an awkward and bumbling mechanism but it accomplished what it set out to do, which is set up an excuse to bash and condemn the Jefferson Davis Monument.

Fortunately I doubt that groups like Davidson's will gain enough traction to accomplish their aims...
5 posted on 03/28/2008 12:41:59 PM PDT by rockrr (Global warming is to science what Islam is to religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
thinks Kentucky is "a little backward"? Is that codespeak for not sufficiently politically correct?

Codespeak for 'redneck', 'hillbilly', 'ignert' and 'white'.

I'm so glad that BHO has opened up a race discussion in this country.

6 posted on 03/28/2008 2:41:29 PM PDT by cowboyway (Did I say that out loud?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
While many former Confederates sniped at him for administrative and military incompetence, history shows what an impossible situation he had been placed in.

One of the first things that he did as President was to for a Peace Commission to try to resolve the differences with the union, but, unfortunately, Lincoln preferred a more violent solution.


7 posted on 03/28/2008 2:47:48 PM PDT by cowboyway (Did I say that out loud?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
One of the first things that he did as President was to for a Peace Commission to try to resolve the differences with the union

Given the paucity of the South's resources, he had no other choice.

but, unfortunately, Lincoln preferred a more violent solution.

No, he didn't at all.

However, the violent assault on US troops stationed at Fort Sumter gave him no other choice.

Davis' minions just didn't take his Peace Commission as seriously as he did.

8 posted on 03/28/2008 3:27:37 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
One of the first things that he did as President was to for a Peace Commission to try to resolve the differences with the union, but, unfortunately, Lincoln preferred a more violent solution.

He sent a group to deliver an ultimatum to Lincoln, you mean. Peace was not what he wanted, surrender was.

9 posted on 03/28/2008 4:18:21 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

“One of the first things that he did as President was to for a Peace Commission to try to resolve the differences with the union, but, unfortunately, Lincoln preferred a more violent solution.”

****

Davis’ political foes in South Carolina wouldn’t have tolerated it. He was reviled almost as much by his fellow Southern politicians as he was by Northern ones.


10 posted on 03/28/2008 4:33:20 PM PDT by kiriath_jearim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
No, he didn't at all.

The truth speaks otherwise. The South didn't invade the north..............

11 posted on 03/28/2008 6:40:10 PM PDT by cowboyway (Did I say that out loud?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Peace was not what he wanted, surrender was.

You mean Lincoln? I agree.

12 posted on 03/28/2008 6:41:17 PM PDT by cowboyway (Did I say that out loud?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Davis, wasn’t he the vanquished leader of some states that held slaves. My hero!


13 posted on 03/28/2008 6:42:32 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim
He was reviled almost as much by his fellow Southern politicians as he was by Northern ones.

That's kinda hard to justify given that he was appointed then elected President of the Confederacy.

14 posted on 03/28/2008 6:42:46 PM PDT by cowboyway (Did I say that out loud?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: purpleraine
Davis, wasn’t he the vanquished leader of some states that held slaves. My hero!

Perhaps Prince is more down your alley..................

15 posted on 03/28/2008 6:44:07 PM PDT by cowboyway (Did I say that out loud?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Prince, the one from the North?


16 posted on 03/28/2008 6:46:31 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim
Davis’ political foes in South Carolina wouldn’t have tolerated it. [a peace commission]

??? After they seceded, South Carolina sent their own delegation to President Buchanan offering to negotiate for forts, etc., and their share of the national debt. From correspondence to Buchanan from the South Carolina Commissioners, Dec 28, 1860:

Sir: -- We have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the full powers from the Convention of the people of South Carolina, under which we are "authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses, and other real estate with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment for the public debt and for a division of all the property held by the Government of the United States, of which South Carolina was recently a member, and generally to negotiate as to all other measures proper to be made and adopted in the existing relation of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this Commonwealth and the Government at Washington."

17 posted on 03/28/2008 7:04:59 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
He was a man of great physical courage and of deep personal sorrow who handled a doomed enterprise honorably. While many former Confederates sniped at him for administrative and military incompetence, history shows what an impossible situation he had been placed in.

That's an amazing statement coming from you. He is the kind of man I would want representing me in Washington, if not Richmond. I like the fact that he would not compromise legislation. He insisted each bill be voted on as it was, with no deals in place.
18 posted on 03/29/2008 4:32:17 AM PDT by smug (smug for President; Your only real hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
South Carolina sent their own delegation to President Buchanan offering to negotiate

Yes Sir, the south sent a few Peace delegations to Washington. The most they got was a basket with Champaign in it, accompanied by an insult. As the south would not invade the north the north would not have had a war without themselves being the initiator's of war.
19 posted on 03/29/2008 4:39:45 AM PDT by smug (smug for President; Your only real hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
You mean Lincoln? I agree.

You know, if you would actually read the instructions given to that so-called 'peace commission' we could discuss this. But so long as you rely solely on Southron fairy tales, it's pointless.

20 posted on 03/29/2008 5:43:26 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
The truth speaks otherwise. The South didn't invade the north..............

And the U.S. didn't invade Japan. Not until long after Japan had started the war. So to with the South.

21 posted on 03/29/2008 5:44:51 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
That's kinda hard to justify given that he was appointed then elected President of the Confederacy.

For most delegates Davis was the third or fourth choice for president. Then he was elected while running unopposed. And I understand even then it was close.

22 posted on 03/29/2008 5:46:33 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
After they seceded, South Carolina sent their own delegation to President Buchanan offering to negotiate for forts, etc., and their share of the national debt.

Why didn't Davis do the same?

23 posted on 03/29/2008 5:47:24 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: smug
He is the kind of man I would want representing me in Washington, if not Richmond.

He was the kind of leader who had no respect for the constitution of his country. I wouldn't want that kind of man representing me anywhere.

24 posted on 03/29/2008 5:48:35 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: smug
Yes Sir, the south sent a few Peace delegations to Washington.

Considering that the delegation was there to present an ultimatum, what kind of reception did you expect?

As the south would not invade the north the north would not have had a war without themselves being the initiator's of war.

And yet it was the South who initiated the war by firing on Sumter. I guess Davis was willing to give peace a chance only until it actually appeared that peace would win out.

25 posted on 03/29/2008 5:50:40 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Why didn't Davis do the same?

Are you forgetting about the Confederate Commissioners to the United States nominated by Davis on February 25, 1861, and unanimously approved by the Confederate Congress? Those same commissioners that were later lied to by the Lincoln Administration concerning the evacuation of Fort Sumter? The same ones who on April 11 called the Lincoln Administration's deception about Sumter "gross perfidy?"

Here is what the commissioners sent Seward on March 12, 1861 [my bold]:

WASHINGTON CITY, March 12, 1861.
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States.

Sir: The undersigned have been duly accredited by the Government of the Confederate States of America as commissioners to the Government of the United States, and, in pursuance of their instructions, have now the honor to acquaint you with that fact, and to make known, through you to the President of the United States, the objects of their presence in this capital.

Seven States of the late Federal Union, having in the exercise of the inherent right of every free people to change or reform their political institutions, and through conventions of their people withdrawn from the United States and reassumed the attributes of sovereign power delegated to it, have formed a government of their own. The Confederate States constitute an independent nation, de facto and de jure, and possess a government perfect in all its parts, and endowed with all the means of self-support.

With a view to a speedy adjustment of all questions growing out of this political separation, upon such terms of amity and good will as the respective interests, geographical contiguity, and future welfare of the two nations may render necessary, the undersigned are instructed to make to the Government of the United States overtures for the opening of negotiations, assuring the Government of the United States that the President, Congress, and people of the Confederate States earnestly desire a peaceful solution of these great questions; that it is neither their interest nor their wish to make any demand which is not founded in strictest justice, nor do any act to injure their late confederates.

The undersigned have now the honor, in obedience to the instructions of their Government, to request you to appoint as early a day as possible, in order that they may present to the President of the United States the credentials which they bear and the objects of the mission with which they are charged.

We are, very respectfully, your obedient servants,

JOHN FORSYTH
MARTIN J. CRAWFORD

And from the resolution passed by the Confederate Congress concerning the negotiations [my bold again]:

Resolved, etc., That said commissioners be further instructed to present to the Government of the United States assurances of the sincere wish on the part of this Government to preserve the most friendly relations between the two Governments and the States comprising the same, and to settle, by peaceful negotiations all matters connected with the public property and the indebtedness of the Government of the United States existing before the withdrawal of any of the States of this Confederacy; and to this end said commissioners are hereby fully empowered to negotiate with the Government of the United States in reference to said matters, and to adjust the same upon principles of justice, equality, and right.

Old peace loving King George Lincoln wouldn't even meet with them to tell them to go jump in the lake or that he wasn't going to let them go because he needed Southern revenue to run his government. Instead, Seward reassured them that Sumter would be evacuated, and Lincoln's agent Lamon did the same with the Governor of South Carolina.

26 posted on 03/29/2008 7:01:52 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
One of the first things that he did as President was to for a Peace Commission to try to resolve the differences with the union

He sure did. The Commission was to settle disputes between two countries, and the Union did not recognize that there were two countries. The Commission gave the Union an opportunity to surrender before fighting even started. Apparently he thought we were French.

He made no attempt whatever to negotiate return to the Union, with appropriate concessions to satisfy southern grievances, which would have been the only way to avoid war.

27 posted on 03/29/2008 7:11:56 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
The South didn't invade the north..............

The Union never invaded the South - a country cannot invade its own sovereign territory by definition.

But the so-called Confederacy did invade territory that, by its own admission, it had no sovereign jurisdiction over. Namely Pennsylvania.

28 posted on 03/29/2008 7:15:45 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Are you forgetting about the Confederate Commissioners to the United States nominated by Davis on February 25, 1861, and unanimously approved by the Confederate Congress?

Not at all. I've read all the documents relating to any offers of settlement - the provisional constitution, the confederate congressional resolution, and most of all the letter Davis sent to Lincoln. And unlike you I am not reading any good intentions into documents where none exist. Read the instructions contained in the Davis communication, the instructions outlined in his letter linked here. Let's look at them in detail.

Why did Davis send the delegation? He says so in his letter:

"For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States..."

For the purpose of establishing relations between countries. Period. No offer to negotiate anything, it was a simple statement of purpose. Lincoln's position is unimportant. If Lincoln wished to negotiate an end to secession, sorry but that wasn't what they were there for. Lincoln's choice was to accept the legitimacy of the confederate actions - all their actions - and recognize them as a sovereign state. Under those circumstances, it was an ultimatum pure and simple.

And had Lincoln accepted the confederate demands and agreed to recognize the confederacy, what then? Would the confederacy have done the right thing and offer to pay for the debt they repudiated and the property they stole? Maybe. Maybe not. The Davis letter contains only a vague offer to "...agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations..." What if paying for the debt wasn't of interest to the confederacy? What if paying for the property wasn't? Well, then it wasn't a matter or subject to agree, treat, consult or negotiate on. So where did that leave Lincoln and the U.S.? Holding the bag. And when you get right down to it, if the confederacy had made an offer to pay for the property seized and the debt repudiated then wouldn't they be admitting that their acts of taking the property and walking away from the debt had been wrong to begin with? What soverign nation is prepared to do that?

Claims that Davis was interesting in negotiating anything or was looking for a settlement fair to both sides is fantasy. Davis wanted recognition, period. He didn't give a damn about the debt or the property, so far as he was concerned it wasn't a matter for the confederacy to care about. He wanted Lincoln to surrender to his demands, that's all. Any intelligent man can see that, and Lincoln was an intelligent man. And given that how can you be so shocked when Lincoln refused to play along.

29 posted on 03/29/2008 7:20:31 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Lincoln ... wasn't going to let them go because he needed Southern revenue to run his government.

This is such a silly argument. Lincoln managed to run the government quite effectively for four years without southern revenue, and at a hugely greater level of expense. By mid-1863 the Union was spending about as much each month as it had spent in all of 1860. By the end of the War it had spent around $6B, or roughly 100 year's expenditures at the 1860 level.

The Union's economy performed at gang-buster levels during the War. Industry grew at massive speed. Agriculture throve, with exports booming.

Tell us again why the Union would collapse without southern revenues.

30 posted on 03/29/2008 7:22:14 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: smug
That's an amazing statement coming from you.

The great tragedy of the rebellion is that it attracted not just the dregs of society to its cause, but also many truly gifted and noble souls who should have known much better.

John C. Calhoun - a great but deeply flawed man - was the original Lucifer of the rebellion, and he dragged a number of angels with him.

I like the fact that he would not compromise legislation.

I dislike the fact that he tried to destroy the Union that he had solemnly pledged to defend.

31 posted on 03/29/2008 7:28:07 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
This is such a silly argument. Lincoln managed to run the government quite effectively for four years without southern revenue, and at a hugely greater level of expense. By mid-1863 the Union was spending about as much each month as it had spent in all of 1860. By the end of the War it had spent around $6B, or roughly 100 year's expenditures at the 1860 level.

The North suffered a balance of payments problem without exports of Southern cotton. Inflation and debt was the result.

... exports booming.

Not enough to make up for what they were importing. Let's look at 1863. From Appletons Annual Cyclopedia for 1863, page 190:

... the foreign commerce of the country had greatly contracted in face of improved harvest in Europe. ... The "balance of trade," so called, may then be approximated as follows: ... Excess Imports [rb note: imports over exports]: $74,295,706. Net specie export, direct: $54,689,903 [rb note: It's hard to read some of the last six digits on my copy. The North's exports were mainly food stuffs (and petroleum surprisingly) to Europe.]

In constant 1860 dollars, imports were way down during the war compared to 1860.

32 posted on 03/29/2008 8:25:01 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
He made no attempt whatever to negotiate return to the Union, with appropriate concessions to satisfy southern grievances, which would have been the only way to avoid war.

Why should they want to return to the Union? Northern states were nullifying the Constitution with respect to the return of escaped slaves. Northern congress critters passed the Morrill Tariff that extracted money from the South to pay for Northern jobs and protect Northern industry. The Federal government was not adequately protecting Texas from indians or invasion from Mexico, constitutionally the job of the Federal government. Congress wouldn't fully reimburse Texas for expenditures to fight the invaders. Among other things, the people of Brownsville had to hire the Mexican army to protect them.

Despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary, the North wanted to reserve the territories to free white settlers (Lincoln's words as I remember), the constituents of Northern politicians. This in effect excluded slavery and Southern slave owners from the territories despite the fact that Southern blood and money had been used to obtain the territories.

It is easy to see the North's interest in retaining the South in the Union despite there being no Constitutional prohibition against secession. From de Tocqueville:

If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others.

33 posted on 03/29/2008 8:36:57 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Gee, the Union had fiscal problems when it was forced into the greatest war in our history. What a shock!

Meanwhile, the Confederacy's brilliant strategy (according to the south will rise again types) of taking itself out of the Union so it wouldn't keep subsidizing the North, led directly to massive collapse of the southern economy. The economic damage to the South of its losing war was still quite present 80 years later, and in some ways continues today.

Not enough to make up for what they were importing.

They were importing war materiel, for the most part, as indeed was the Confederacy, when it got the chance. It is obvious that had the Union split permanently in 1861, the Union was far more fiscally sound than the Confederacy, which was largely dependent on the profitability of a single crop.

The fact remains that the Union was qite able to survive without southern revenes. In fact, total revenues, using only Union resources, increased by 10 to 20 times over those from the entire country in 1860.

34 posted on 03/29/2008 8:52:30 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: purpleraine
Prince, the one from the North?

The one you take your sign in name from...........

But that's okay. A lot of you airheads are addicted to American Idol so what else can be expected.

35 posted on 03/29/2008 8:57:30 AM PDT by cowboyway (Did I say that out loud?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
My name is Larraine and my favorite color is purple. Sorry to disillusion you.
36 posted on 03/29/2008 8:59:16 AM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
He made no attempt whatever to negotiate return to the Union, with appropriate concessions to satisfy southern grievances, which would have been the only way to avoid war.

So, you believe that the only tool of negotiation is the rifle.

When you and your neighbors have a difference of opinion, do you just start popping caps at each other?

Lincoln needed a war. The South didn't. The South and Lincoln recognized that the South didn't have the industrial infrastructure to support such an endeavor. The South wanted to be able to govern themselves without northern interference..............and we still do.

37 posted on 03/29/2008 9:18:02 AM PDT by cowboyway (Did I say that out loud?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Northern states were nullifying the Constitution with respect to the return of escaped slaves.

Thank you for agreeing that southern extremists had been in favor of an expansion of federal power (as long as they controlled that power and could use it in their interest) and infringement on the states' rights of northern states.

Northern congress critters passed the Morrill Tariff that extracted money from the South to pay for Northern jobs and protect Northern industry.

This bill did not precipitate secession. It was a result of secession. It passed after the slave states seceded and pulled their congressmen out, giving the tariff proponents a majority. The bill never extracted money from the south.

Some facts on the tariff history prior to 1861: "The Democrats won in 1844, electing James K. Polk as president. Polk succeeded in passing the Walker tariff of 1846 by uniting the rural and agricultural factions of the country for lower taxes. They sought minimal levels of a "tariff for revenue only" that would pay the cost of government but not show favoritism to one section or economic sector at the expense of another. The Walker Tariff remained in place until 1857, when a nonpartisan coalition lowered them again with the Tariff of 1857 to 18 percent. The United States thus had a low-tariff policy that favored the South until the Civil War began in 1861." Wikipedia.

So the increasing burden of tariffs did not cause secession. They were lower at the time of secession than for many years previously.

I'm curious. Had secession won, the Confederacy would have had to pay for a separate government structure, and a military establishment probably much more expensive than that maintained by the Union before 1860. It would have to do this from about 1/4 the population of the 1860 Union. Yet somehow this would result in lower tariffs? If revenues were not raised by tariffs on imports, how would the Confederacy have financed per capita expenditures at least four or five times greater than in the 1860 Union?

The Federal government was not adequately protecting Texas from indians or invasion from Mexico, constitutionally the job of the Federal government.

So the added expense of this additional military, spread out over a much smaller population, would somehow reduce taxation in the South?

Congress wouldn't fully reimburse Texas for expenditures to fight the invaders. Among other things, the people of Brownsville had to hire the Mexican army to protect them.

Not familiar with this one, but I'll take your word on it. It's only fair to point out that Texans raided into Mexico just about as much as Mexicans raided into Texas.

Despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary, the North wanted to reserve the territories to free white settlers (Lincoln's words as I remember), the constituents of Northern politicians. This in effect excluded slavery and Southern slave owners from the territories despite the fact that Southern blood and money had been used to obtain the territories.

What a truly evil policy! Replicating that enacted by the evil Founders even before the Constitution.

Southerners wouldn't be prohibited from entering the territories. They just couldn't take in their slaves, so they'd have to actually work for a living just like the northerners.

BTW, I thought conservatives were supposed to be opposed to Supreme Court rulings where the justices impose their own values on the rest of society. The Scott decision was the first and still the most egregious of these. It was wrong constitutionally, morally and historically.

It has recently been shown that Chief Justice Taney was working on a decision that would invalidate state laws against slavery, a perfectly logical extension of the principles in the Scott decision.

Working on a decision without a case before the Court. A truly fine example of the honor of slaveowners!

A much wiser man than I addressed these attempts to "negotiate peace" a few years later.

"While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."

38 posted on 03/29/2008 9:24:36 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

The Confederacy also invaded, at different times, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Maryland, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia.

To be fair, the Confederacy claimed KY, MO, MD and KY as part of the CSA. And they, quite ironically, denied the right of WV to secede from VA. But Ohio, Indiana and Kansas were indisputably foreign territory.

Confederate agents also raided Vermont from Canada.


39 posted on 03/29/2008 9:29:21 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
"I'll say it this way - winners write history," said Ron Bryant, a Lexington historian writing a book on Davis. "We need heroes, we need villains. Lincoln became a hero and Davis a villain."

Lincoln was a hero, and Davis made himself a villain.

40 posted on 03/29/2008 9:30:52 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The Union never invaded the South - a country cannot invade its own sovereign territory by definition.

Denial of facts do not change the facts, in other words, just because Lincoln said that the South couldn't secede doesn't mean that they didn't secede.

But the so-called Confederacy did invade territory that, by its own admission, it had no sovereign jurisdiction over. Namely Pennsylvania.

That's called War; a war that was brought on by disHonest Abe for political purposes. I'm sure that you know that the stratagem behind Lee's invasion was to bring an end to Lincoln's illegal war.

What do you mean by the "so-called Confederacy"? Is this another example of denial?

41 posted on 03/29/2008 9:31:36 AM PDT by cowboyway (Did I say that out loud?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
I dislike the fact that he tried to destroy the Union that he had solemnly pledged to defend.

The South was being financially squeezed by the north and the threat of the sudden removal of it's labor force spelled complete financial ruin.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact and if you are indeed 'wideawake', then you need to wrap your mind around that.

42 posted on 03/29/2008 9:42:36 AM PDT by cowboyway (Did I say that out loud?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
So, you believe that the only tool of negotiation is the rifle.

No, but apparently the CSA was under this impression, which is why they chose to start the shooting by attacking a federal installation that had already stated it would be forced to surrender in a few days anyway.

Davis knew exactly what he was doing at Sumter. The CSA, at the time, consisted of 7 states, all in the Deep South and almost exclusively agricultural. There was no way this was a viable nation.

The CSA needed at least some, hopefully all, of the other 8 slave states to be able to withstand a confrontation with the Union. There were strong pro-Union movements in each of them, and in the days before polling nobody really knew what public opinion was.

Davis ordered the shooting to start as a way of forcing these states to pick a side. If all went with the CSA, secession would have succeeded, as even Lincoln later agreed.

If all stayed with the Union, the war would have been over quickly and relatively bloodlessly. In fact, it's likely some of the seceded states would have chickened out and "unseceded," as other southern states abandoned SC during its earlier confrontation with Jackson.

As it happened, four slave states (MO, KY, MD, DE) eventually stayed in the USA; three joined the CSA (AR, NC, TN) and one (VA) split in two.

This did not give the CSA enough resources to be able to win, but it gave it enough to fight bloodily for 4 years, with over 600k Americans being killed.

On news being received of the fighting at Sumter, VA immediately seceded, despite the convention having rejected secession a couple days before. Please note that VA received news of an attack by the CSA on the USA, not the other way around. So Davis' ploy succeeded.

43 posted on 03/29/2008 9:49:38 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
The South was being financially squeezed by the north and the threat of the sudden removal of it's labor force spelled complete financial ruin.

There was no threat whatsoever of a "sudden removal of it's labor force." Lincoln and the Republican platform were both very clear that there was no constitutional right to interfere in slavery within a state. Only the expansion of slavery was threatened. The accepted theory on both sides was that this would cause the eventual death of slavery, but it certainly wouldn't be sudden.

To eliminate slavery throughout the nation would require ratification by 3/4 of the states. Since 15 of the 34 states were slave states, this was unlikely, to put it mildly.

44 posted on 03/29/2008 10:02:07 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

I’m curious.

You seem to recognize that the colonies in 1776 and the South in 1860 had the right to rebel when they thought their liberties were threatened.

Do you accept that southern slaves, whose human rights actually were being trampled, not just threatened, had a similar right, indeed duty, to use violence against their oppressors? If not, why not?

To take it another step, did others have the right to fight alongside the slaves in defense of their human rights, as the French fought alongside the American revolutionists? IOW, was John Brown’s attempted insurrection, while hare-brained and incompetent, a thoroughly moral enterprise? If not, why not?


45 posted on 03/29/2008 10:09:28 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
The South didn't invade the north..............

LOL

46 posted on 03/29/2008 10:12:30 AM PDT by RightWhale (Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
There was no way this was a viable nation.

The British could have said that about the 13 colonies. That is just a BS statement.

Davis ordered the shooting to start as a way of forcing these states to pick a side.

Lincoln ordered the reinforcement of Ft. Sumter to instigate action from the South in order to justify his invasion.

The secession of South Carolina having dissolved her connection with the government of the United States, the question of the possession of the forts in the harbor and of the military post at the arsenal became at once a question of vital interest to the State. Able commissioners, Robert W. Barnwell, James H. Adams and James L. Orr, were elected and sent by the convention of the State to treat with the government at Washington for an amicable settlement of this important question, and other questions growing out of the new relation which South Carolina bore to the Union. Pending the action of the commissioners in Washington, an unfortunate move was made by Maj. Robert Anderson, of the United States army, who commanded the only body of troops stationed in the harbor, which ultimately compelled the return of the commissioners and led to the most serious complications. An understanding had been established between the authorities in Washington and the members of Congress from South Carolina, that the forts would not be attacked, or seized as an act of war, until proper negotiations for their cession to the State had been made and had failed; provided that they were not reinforced, and their military status should remain as it was at the time of this understanding, viz., on December 9, 1860.

47 posted on 03/29/2008 10:20:12 AM PDT by cowboyway (Did I say that out loud?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: smug
He is the kind of man I would want representing me in Washington, if not Richmond. I like the fact that he would not compromise legislation. He insisted each bill be voted on as it was, with no deals in place.

If that's true then nothing ever gets done. Maybe that's a good thing much of the time, but there are times when absolute inactivity in government can make real problems. Compromise gets a bad name until you get someone like Davis in power.

BTW, from the original article:

In Kentucky, the Civil War is part of the middle school curriculum. Unless students take an advanced placement history course in high school, that's usually the last time they focus on 19th century American history, said Nayasha Owens-Morton, a U.S. history and African-American history teacher at Bryan Station Traditional High School.

Unbelievable if true.

48 posted on 03/29/2008 10:21:21 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
That is just a BS statement.

That 7 agrcultural states would be heavily outnumbered and outgunned in any confrontation with 27 increasingly industrialized states is a BS statement? LOL

The British could have said that about the 13 colonies.

The new USA didn't share an undefended and indeed indefensible border of well over 1000 miles with a hostile and much more powerful nation.

It is of course true that Lincoln and Davis were playing chicken over the 8 unseceded slave states. Davis blinked by choosing to fire the first shot. Lincoln won that round.

The Buchanan administration, heavily dominated by southerners and doughfaces, apparently made some sort of understanding with SC in December, although exactly what this understanding was is disputed.

When Lincoln, the legally elected president, took office, he was not bound by any such informal agreement. He had the perfect right to set his own policy.

He nevertheless communicated with SC to let them know that he would attempt to introduce only food and other supplies into the fort, not reinforce it for military purposes.

49 posted on 03/29/2008 10:31:15 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Meanwhile, the Confederacy's brilliant strategy (according to the south will rise again types) of taking itself out of the Union so it wouldn't keep subsidizing the North, led directly to massive collapse of the southern economy.

The South's economic problems were due to the North's blockade of Southern ports which stopped cotton exports. The blockade by the North was in fact a recognition of the Confederacy as a separate nation. By international agreements, blockades could only be between separate countries. The North belatedly recognized this in 1865 and tried to recast the blockade as the closing of Southern ports instead of a blockade enforced by gunships.

They [the North] were importing war materiel, for the most part ...

Are you making this up as you go? For a tabulation of the largest import items of the North see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1981097/posts?page=190#190. And for customs income and the effect of inflation see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1981097/posts?page=206#206.

In fact, total revenues, using only Union resources, increased by 10 to 20 times over those from the entire country in 1860.

It's magic. At that rate of increase, the North would have amassed the entire wealth of the globe by the 1870s.

50 posted on 03/29/2008 11:24:21 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-616 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson