- This topic has 9 voices and 27 replies.
-
Posts
-
One group named the current year the “Year of Davis”, and there are other events set to mark Jefferson Davis' 200th birthday. Still, from what I recall, he doesn't get much respect. Do you think that Jefferson Davis should be honored as a great American, or do you think that being on the “losing” side of the Civil War (and thus of history itself) rightly relegates him to secondary or tertiary status within the depths of mainstream appreciation?
well, since a lot of history is said to be written by the “winners”…well, you know the cliche'.I think Jefferson Davis deserves every bit of honor as Abraham Lincoln, or any of the Revolutionary War leaders.After all, this was the Conferderacy's "War of Independence", and while they ultimately lost the war, you have to admire the South for the tenacity of their fight.Unfortunately, the MSM and others equate the Conferderacy and the "Stars and Bars" with racism, and in this uber-PC world, they and President Davis will not get the honor they deserve.JMHO
I agree with Donald, he was a very bad choice to lead the Confederacy and his “leadership” had a lot to do with their eventual loss.
The site that I linked to had this interesting tidbit:
Did you know that Jefferson Davis adopted a black child, Jim Limber, as his son?
The site that I linked to had this interesting tidbit:
Did you know that Jefferson Davis adopted a black child, Jim Limber, as his son?
Not all uncommon for slave holders to do that in the South. Thomas Jefferson is reported to have done the same and Washington, I believe, had a black mistress although I have never verified this. Slave holders often got attached to some of their slaves and tried to assuage guilts by adopting them or freeing them.
I agree with Donald and others who say Davis merits no special honors. I also agree he wasn't a noble man. Not just because of the cause he supported but also because of his general (arrogant, petty and inflexible) character. He certainly was not a great leader and much of the failure of the Confederacy to win the war is a result of the decisions he made.
Davis was inflexible. When it became obvious the war was lost he should have negotiated a peace. Were it not for his stubbornness we would have avoid many/most/all the problems that came with Reconstruction. Plus the Civil Rights protest of the 1960s and numerous social problems that we face today.Simply put, Jefferson Davis was a traitor. He supported and led an insurrection against the duly elected government of the United States. This fact alone wipes out all the goodwill garnered by his many years as a Virginia lawmaker in congress prior to the Civil War.
The same could be said of Washington, Adams, Franklin and the others.
They were traitors against crown, the difference is that the side they were fighting for won, Davis' side did not. Therefore, he was not vindicated by victory. I point out that history is written by the winners despite all the protestaions on the left, that is still true. The ultimate verdict in history like in life, is whether you win or lose.
And in today's time, Sherman would have been labeled a War Criminal. The fact is, Davis was loyal to his section (Mississippi), and in this regard, he was not a traitor. Lee did no different than Davis, but he was not castigated like Davis was. I see that as an inconsistency.
This harks to my other post about different moral standards at different times and which we should use when judging historical actors.
The old saying in History goes, "When dealing with Andrew Jackson, you either love the man or you totally hate him." He was that polarizing kind of figure. I give him credit for the modern Political Party system, but I will condemn him for his role in Indian forced relocation.
This is another historiographical argument. Are we justified in condemning the actions of those in the past whose acts we find unconscionable according to current values, or should we not judge them by the standards of their time? This is an argument I have had several times in classes. I think we are wrong to impose our morals on the past, if we do so then we unfairly judge those who we acknowledge were not as enlightened as we are. Instead, we should look at their actions based on their own contemporary morality as to whether they were right or wrong in their actions.I do think you are right about Jackson. He is an either or type of figure, there is no middle ground.
But shouldnt we as historians (be it professional or ameture) Not look at who won but what is the truth? What is accurate? Can we really judge Davis by our own standards and opinions? I am not a fan of the man, but objectivly I can not see him being any different than Adams or Washington when I judge his loyalties, they were either all traitors or they were all revolutionaries. Like Donald said, why does he receive this label and not Lee or Jackson?
Davis was labeled a traitor by the people of his own times, who are we to revisit their judgement, the facts of the matter are not at issue. If I am remembering correctly, he was barred from ever holding public office again by the 14th amendment and escaped the hangmans noose by the skin of his teeth because the nation wanted to get past the war. Of course Davis was seen as a patriot by other southerners; I do not deny that; but it does not mean he should be honored. Should we then honor Benedict Arnold because by spying for the Crown he was just doing his duty to the crown against colonies in rebellion? I think not, Arnold was reviled by the colonists after the extent of his calumny was revealed, just as Davis and his cause was revealed to be false by Union victory. We are not responsible for the views of partisans. The fact is that Davis actively served as the leader of states in rebellion against a constitutionally elected government, as such, he is by definition a traitor. What is worse, he served in the US Senate for many years prior to secession so he was, if anyone, in a better position to know that there were democratic methods to resolve the issues between the states than the average man on the street. Let us not confuse the issue by claiming the Civil War was about states rights it was not, it was about slavery. States rights is a convenient straw man, but the only states right at issue was whether it was right and proper to hold another human being in bondage.It is not about truth, which is a hazy concept at best. It is about facts, which are diffferent from truth. Treason is simple, it is the only crime specifically addressed in the constitution. Article 3, Section 3 of the constitution states:
Treason NoteTreason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted
I found this at the national archives website: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.htmlIt is very simple, by definition Jefferson Davis was a traitor. My opinion is that as such, he is not due honor but instead, our despite, the despite rightly due a traitor to his nation.
I suppose anyone who donned the Gray have to be traitors since they were judged by their opponents who were victorious. But as an objective onlooker in the 21st century, I have to cut him some slack because he followed his fellow Mississippians off to war, and he fought the war because he valued the South's interpretation of a more perfect union over the North's. But your point is well argued and well taken.
