Posted on 01/31/2002 4:17:10 AM PST by shuckmaster
The South has risen to challenge a Snohomish lawmaker.
In hundreds of e-mails and phone calls, Southerners and history buffs across the country reacted to a proposal last week by state Rep. Hans Dunshee to remove a road marker at the Peace Arch border crossing honoring Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president.
"My resolve has only increased," Dunshee said Wednesday.
The controversy surrounds a monument in Blaine designating old Highway 99, which runs through Snohomish County, as part of the transcontinental Jefferson Davis Highway. The United Daughters of the Confederacy erected the marker in 1940 with the support of state and Canadian officials.
Dunshee wants to pass a bill to rename the highway after William Stewart, a black man who fought for the North in the Civil War before moving to Snohomish. He also wants to get rid of the marker honoring Davis, whom he called "a guy who led the insurgency to perpetuate slavery and killed half a million Americans."
That comment is what most infuriated Southerners who heard about or saw The Herald's article about Dunshee's proposal.
"Amazing! Your Mr. Dunshee's ignorance of history is certainly letting itself be known," wrote John Salley of Belton, S.C., before launching into a history lesson.
"While I'm a believer in the traditional Southern view of states' rights, and believe that Mr. Dunshee has a right to move to change the name of the highway in his state," wrote Jeff Adams from Houston, "I don't think he should be so angry, intolerant and bigoted about it."
Some talked of boycotting Washington state if the marker is taken down.
Others said that if state officials change the highway's name, they should also change the state's name, because George Washington was one of the biggest slave owners of his time.
And still others accused Dunshee of trying to revise history, George Orwell-style.
Dunshee's reaction seems "outrageous" to Southerners because Davis is widely revered in the South, said Dave Gass, an art director for a magazine in Atlanta.
"Jefferson Davis' birthday is a legal holiday in seven Southern states," Gass said. "That's why I was so shocked to read this fellow (Dunshee) going on about how horrible he was, when Jefferson Davis was really a great man.
"Mr. Davis had a whole career before the war started and did things that benefited the entire country from coast to coast," Gass added. "He definitely deserves to be memorialized."
Suzanne Silek, president general of the 20,000-member United Daughters of the Confederacy, said there was good reason to erect the marker here. Davis built forts in Washington and helped get roads and railways built to reach them when he served as secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce, Silek said from the group's headquarters in Richmond, Va., where Davis is buried.
"The members who were active then did the historical research and found out that Mr. Davis was instrumental in developing the roads and highways in Washington state," Silek said. "And that's why they felt that Washington needed a highway named after Jefferson Davis."
The organization used to have six Washington chapters, although there's only one left now, with 32 members.
United Daughters of the Confederacy, which originated the highway naming in 1913, placed the markers for the patchwork road, which started in Virginia at the Potomac River and goes all the way to California, then up the coast, Silek said. The Blaine marker is the last one.
The local United Daughters of the Confederacy chapter plans to fight to keep the memorial standing, Silek said. She also said she'll ask Vancouver city officials to put back their marker in a city park marking the other end of the highway in Washington. It was quietly removed four years ago by a city council members who expressed concerns similar to Dunshee's.
The Daughters of the Confederacy can expect help from the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, said Ken Richmond of Sequim, leader of the group's state chapter. He said his group would support them in their quest to keep the markers up "because of the heritage issues involved."
A Western Washington University history professor said he isn't opposed to taking down the memorial, as long as it's not done solely over the slavery issue.
"If we take away memorials to people who owned slaves, we'd have to change the name of the state of Washington," said Alan Gallay, who teaches Southern history. Gallay used to teach history in Davis' home state of Mississippi, and his third book about the South is due out next week.
The proposal has stirred debate over the causes of the Civil War.
Dunshee is a history buff who can quote Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and insists that slavery was the real reason the war was fought. Others loudly disagree.
"To say that the war between the states was fought over slavery is like saying the American Revolution was fought over tea," Gass said.
The plan also highlights the deep North-South divide that still separates this country.
"It just seems that more often than not, Southerners are maligned for no particular reason," said William Wells of New Orleans, where Davis died in 1889.
Wells and others threatened -- some in jest -- to boycott Washington if Dunshee's bill gets through the Legislature.
"If Dunshee and his cohorts attempt to remove the marker, another will go up in its place," wrote Steven Moshlak of Longmont, Colo. And if the Legislature changes the name of the highway, "it will be a dark day before I, or others, will ever visit Washington state."
Hero or villain?
Dead for 113 years, Jefferson Davis still inspires Civil War-era feelings of reverence in the South and hatred in the North.
He was the first and only president of the Confederate United States. But he's often wrongly held up as a symbol of a pro-slavery resistance that led to war.
A U.S. senator from Mississippi, Davis tried to keep the Union together. He joined the Confederacy only when his state seceded. He sent a peace commission to Washington, D.C., after his inauguration, but Abraham Lincoln refused it.
Davis was born in Kentucky in 1808, just eight months before Lincoln and 100 miles away.
Davis was captured by federal troops in 1865 and jailed for two years. He was indicted for treason, but his case was dropped.
You got me there, Walt. Sorry, that was sloppy history on my part.
Lincoln was not blockading Ft. Sumter before the skirmish, but he was setting up floating custom houses to collect taxes and tariffs from ships using the Charleston port. Lincoln's primary concern was collecting tax revenue. He saw the Confederacy drawing away to establish free trade with England and the rest of Europe, and it horrified him. "What then will become of my tariff?" were his words.
A free trade zone between the Confederate States and Europe would have been a disaster to the Union's tax revenue, since the South was paying nearly 90% of all tariff money received by the federal government.
It was a great game for the North. The slave trade would go through New York and Rhode Island; the slaves would be sold South to harvest the cash crops; the South would sell the cotton and tobacco to Europe in exchange for industrial goods they did not produce; the North would collect large tariffs on these exchanges. A wonderful racket. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 helped sustain it: the federal government decreed that all Northern states must return all runaway slaves to their "proper owners". I always thought some of the Northern states should have seceded in protest of this violation of their own states' rights.
Interesting quote from Robert Penn Warren -- I'll have to read that. As I recall, he was a prominent writer from the Southern Agrarian movement, right?
Thank you, unfortunately many would disagree with you - thinking that we must bury the past forever. The section of the Constitution to which you refer would only apply to states still in the Union - the south formed her confederacy after legally seceding from the federal union. The was nothing in it that said she couldn't, no federal laws against it, the rights were granted in Amendments 9 & 10, and expressly reserved by New York, Rhode Island and Virginia in the ratifications, and accepted by every single member of the union.
That's a good question. The reason that the proclamation only freed Southern slaves was because that was all the President believed he had the Constitutional authority to do. He used his war powers to free slaves in the South, contending that they were being used in the war against the USA. It probably did make military sense. If an Army would steal the enemy's horses, why not free their slaves?
Sorry, in 1858-59 more tariff revenue was generated by Boston ($5,133,414.55) than by the 10 largest southern ports combined ($2,874,167.11). And New York generated almost 7 times as much revenue as Boston ($35,155,452.75). All figures from "Lifeline of the Confederacy" by Stephen R. Wise.
Lincoln was not blockading Ft. Sumter before the skirmish, but he was setting up floating custom houses to collect taxes and tariffs from ships using the Charleston port.
Fort Sumter was a military fort, nothing more and nothing less. The Customs House in Charleston is, if memory serves, on East Bay Street. Perhaps you can see the wisdom behind putting a customs house miles away from the wharves where the tariffs would be collected but it makes no sense to me. Can you explain the logic to me?
The slave trade would go through New York and Rhode Island; the slaves would be sold South to harvest the cash crops; the South would sell the cotton and tobacco to Europe in exchange for industrial goods they did not produce; the North would collect large tariffs on these exchanges.
Interesting premise, except for one thing. Slave imports, legal slave imports, ended in 1808 through federal legislation as the Constitution provided. Slavery was illegal in New York by 1827. So how could this be fueling the tariff engine you describe in 1860?
I always thought some of the Northern states should have seceded in protest of this violation of their own states' rights.
Interesting, except that, of course, arbitrary secession is not an action guranteed by the Constitution and is illegal. But if it was a 'states rights' issue, it is interesting to note how the south was against states rights in this instance but claim to be all for it in others.
You got me there, Walt. Sorry, that was sloppy history on my part.
Not the only instance, apparently.
for dixie,sw
"Sorry, in 1858-59 more tariff revenue was generated by Boston ($5,133,414.55) than by the 10 largest southern ports combined ($2,874,167.11). And New York generated almost 7 times as much revenue as Boston ($35,155,452.75)."
The threat to the Union's tax revenue of a free-trade zone between the Confederacy and Europe was not limited to the loss of Southern tariff money, whatever proportion it may have been of total tariff revenue. All of the latter was threatened. European shippers would have significantly shifted the destinations of their exports from Northern to Southern ports. Numerous Northern editorial writers wrote of this threat in an effort to scare up popular support for war from a largely indifferent general population in the North. The port of New Orleans was considered a particular threat because from there the Mississippi would give traders of imported European goods access to an enormous number of potential buyers. Small wonder that the capture of New Orleans was a first priority.
When you get old ... the mind is the second thing to go.
Thanks for the info.
Sorry, in 1858-59 more tariff revenue was generated by Boston ($5,133,414.55) than by the 10 largest southern ports combined ($2,874,167.11). And New York generated almost 7 times as much revenue as Boston ($35,155,452.75). All figures from "Lifeline of the Confederacy" by Stephen R. Wise.
Charles Adams of "When in the Course of Human Events" cites tariff revenues from the 1830's and 1840's of $90 million from the South, $17.5 million from the North, for a total of $107.5 million. As confirmation of this, he points out that these amounts are proportional to the exports of both sides -- $214 million from the South, $47 million from the North.
Fort Sumter was a military fort, nothing more and nothing less. The Customs House in Charleston is, if memory serves, on East Bay Street. Perhaps you can see the wisdom behind putting a customs house miles away from the wharves where the tariffs would be collected but it makes no sense to me. Can you explain the logic to me?
Read my words: I said "floating" customs houses. You make my point: there is no wisdom in having a customs house miles away from the wharves. That's why Lincoln gave the authority to set up ships to collect tariffs out on the water.
>> The slave trade would go through New York and Rhode Island; the slaves would be sold South ....
Interesting premise, except for one thing. Slave imports, legal slave imports, ended in 1808 through federal legislation as the Constitution provided. Slavery was illegal in New York by 1827. So how could this be fueling the tariff engine you describe in 1860?
There was plenty of clandestine slave trading going on. By far most slaves went to Brazil, but a few were sold to the South. Slave trading was a hanging offense, but that sentence was only carried out one time, in 1862, when the Yankee slave trader Nathanial Gordon was hanged after being captured with a boatload of slaves going to the West Indies.
Nevertheless, the North still profited handsomely from slave labor, even without official engagement in the slave trade. That's because they collected tariffs on goods produced with slave labor. Whether you import 'em or just breed 'em, they're still slaves.
>> I always thought some of the Northern states should have seceded in protest of this violation of their own states' rights.
Interesting, except that, of course, arbitrary secession is not an action guranteed by the Constitution and is illegal.
First, the Constitution did not explicitly forbid secession, and therefore by Amendments 9 and 10 this right was retained by the States and the people. The Constitution, at least as originally framed, does not give us rights, it only denies the government certain rights.
Second, it was Abraham Lincoln himself who most eloquently affirmed the right of secession in his July 4, 1848 letter to the New York Tribune:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world . . . Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit. "
Gosh, old Honest Abe is so eloquent it almost brings tears to my eyes.
Third, the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence affirms the natural right of secession. Do you think King George thought the American colonists had a "right" to secede from Britain? No. But what some politician thinks has no bearing on natural rights.
But if it was a 'states rights' issue, it is interesting to note how the south was against states rights in this instance but claim to be all for it in others.
Absolutely. Very well said. You won't find me defending either Northern or Southern hypocrisy. And there is plenty of it all around.
Hell, it was Massachusetts that threatened to secede four times, first on the adjustment of state debts, second on the Louisiana Purchase by Jefferson (clearly unconstitutional), third during the War of 1812; and fourth on the annexation of Texas. One resolution actually passed the state house. Those wascally webels!
Not the only instance, apparently.
That's the beauty of the net -- you get to forge your ideas under the scrutiny of thousands of other people.
For my answer I refer you back to last fall's thread where you and I already went through this at length. I have no intention of going through it again.
Nothing at all. But of course shipments from the North to Mexico would have been similarly interrupted, and you are invited to imagine how long it would have been until other western territories would have chosen to throw their lot in as states of the Confederacy, rather than seek union with the USA.
Similarly, shipments from Central America would have had to travel by sea rather than by the IRCA railroads that later came into being as a result of Yankee development, and the banannas and other exports would have likely found waiting markets in the southland rather than in longer voyages to the north in those pre-mechanical refrigeration days. The exchange of southern-produced light industrial goods in exchange would have further developed such trade and stimulated southern industrial capacity, and it's interesting to speculate as to whether the Panama Canal would ever have come into existance at all.
I believe it was Winston Churchill's article on a fictional Confederate victory in the War of Northern Dominance that World War I might thereby have also been averted. Happy thought, and too bad that that didn't work out that way.
-archy-/-
Interesting premise, except for one thing. Slave imports, legal slave imports, ended in 1808 through federal legislation as the Constitution provided. Slavery was illegal in New York by 1827. So how could this be fueling the tariff engine you describe in 1860?
There was plenty of clandestine slave trading going on. By far most slaves went to Brazil, but a few were sold to the South. Slave trading was a hanging offense, but that sentence was only carried out one time, in 1862, when the Yankee slave trader Nathanial Gordon was hanged after being captured with a boatload of slaves going to the West Indies.
Nevertheless, the North still profited handsomely from slave labor, even without official engagement in the slave trade. That's because they collected tariffs on goods produced with slave labor. Whether you import 'em or just breed 'em, they're still slaves.
Note that the slaves delivered to Memphis slavetrader Nathan Bedford Forrest in Memphis came downriver on the Mississippi, from Cairo, in Illinois. He was presumable brokering the sale of slaves from Northern areas in which their ownership had been proscribed or was unpopular, and relocating them to new homes in the southland.
Whatever the case, those who he took into his own household apparantly held him in personal high esteem, and some 30 of them served with him through the war; with only one deserting to the other side when the opportunity to do so presented itself. Their courage under fire, military skill and horsemanship and individual ability impressed Forrest greatly, and he described them as *his equals.*
-archy-/-
Oh, Lord, I was afraid that someone was going to dredge up Adams and his POS novel. Well, the book I quote the figures from references the "Statement Showing the Amount of Revenue Collected Annually From Each Collection District for the Period June 1858-June 1859", Exec Doc. No. 33, 26th Congress, 1st Session, 1860 as it's source. Adams references nothing except his own opinion. I know. I read the book.
That's why Lincoln gave the authority to set up ships to collect tariffs out on the water.
How was that to be done? Send out boats and board every ship coming along? When and how did Lincoln issue these instructions? It still makes no sense.
There was plenty of clandestine slave trading going on.
Going on through Boston and New York? Don't you think someone would have noticed that? If you are smuggling slaves into the states then why smuggle them into a northern port - where slavery was illegal - only to have to ship them down south where the demand was? Does that honestly make any sense to you?
First, the Constitution did not explicitly forbid secession...
According to the Supreme Court this right does not and never has existed. Texas v. White, 1869.
Gosh, old Honest Abe is so eloquent it almost brings tears to my eyes.
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession." -- R.E. Lee January 23, 1861.
The Robert E. Lee sure had a way with words, didn't he?
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.