Who was Jefferson Davis???

Sam Jacobs over at Ammo.com has a new ‘personality’ up.

Two individuals come to mind at the mention of the Confederate States of America, General Robert E. Lee and Former-President of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis. Both General Lee and Davis were men of principle and conviction as they stood up for what they believed; however, for a variety of historically complicated reasons, General Lee became a far bigger symbol of the Confederacy after its demise than Davis. Although Davis remains a sort of avatar for the end of states’ rights, some have come to view him as a Southern patriot.

Full article, HERE.

I think it’s one of the more ‘balanced’ depictions of Davis, historically accurate, and free from the usual cliches. With the left trying to revise history and/or erase the parts they don’t like, and honest presentation is refreshing, at least to me…

Your thoughts?


Who was Jefferson Davis??? — 18 Comments

  1. I think that Davis was a good man doing as he saw was right. The Civil War really put states’ right in the backseat. I think the article was good–factual and straightforward.

      • So your criticism is the man looked at available evidence and formed an opinion you disagree with?

        “all men are created equal” wasn’t a literal thing. In fact it’s the only known form of diversity that’s suddenly unacceptable. People are different across the board.

        I can’t understand how a man from the 19th century looked at African slaves and concluded they were different than the majority European population!

        Fucking hell, it’s like the capacity to notice differences or patterns is the new original sin.

  2. Decent article.

    When Davis died, he was a very successful Secretary Of War and the only former Secretary of War to not have the flag lowered upoon his death. For obvious reason. It is said that Davis’ tenure as SofW was key to the future deffeat of the South.

    Secession is not expressly denied to a member State in the law/Constitution in either document. A State may enter a compact, empowered by its citizens through the State’s Constitution. A State cannot give the power to exit such a compact because that means taking thet power/authority away from the State’s people.

    Secession in these uSA. 1-5 were threats but the right of a State to secede was understood.
    1) The Federalist against the unconsitutional Louisianna Purchase.
    2) Hartford Convention (New England States Federalists) against contintuatin of the war.
    3) The North against the annexation of Texas.
    4) Against the Mexican-American war – none other than Mr. lincoln himself
    5) The South over the Tariff Of Abominatoin and nullification.
    6) The South over Lincoln’s (Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural) and the North’s threat to force the collection of federal taxes.

    The CSA’s Consitution is a superior document in thaat it incorporates some of the lessons learned from th uSA’s. To me, an important difference: it explicitly grants the authority to its Federal government to acquire territories. Something that the uSA Connstitution does not. Another important difference is that the CSA’s Constitution removed the “general welfare” from Article 1, section 8. In this way removing words that today still plagues us in these uSA. If general welfare means whatever Congress and politicians can fit into it, why then list specific powers?

    When the uSA’s Constitution was ratified in June 21, 1788 (real birth of these uSA) there were no Bill Of Rights (the first 10 amendments). Did that mean that the Federal government of these uSA could do those things addressid in the Bill Of Rights? CSA’s Constitution incorporated the Bill Of Rights into Article 1.

    As to which side started the war? Fort Sumter’s commanding officer Anderson, upon getting word of the Star Of The West resupply with armed escort wrote: “I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Colonel Lamon’s remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the was (sic) which I see is to be thus commenced. That God will still avert it, and cause us to resort to pacific measures to maintain our rights, is my ardent prayer.”

    In case you think that the resupply was not intended to start the war, here Mr. Lincoln responding to Gustgavus Fox:
    “You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. Very truly your friend A. LINCOLN”

    Some resources that I have used and still reference:

    Great repository of historical and legal documents
    The Avalon Project

    Digitized copies of Harper’s Weekly during the War For Southern Independence

    The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln

    The War of the Rebellion: Official Records of the Civil War

  3. A couple of corrections, sorry.

    When Davis died, he was a very successful Secretary Of War,

    A State cannot give away the power to exit such a compact because that means taking away the power/authority from the State’s people.

  4. Criticism of Davis is only ever motivated by Transphobia.

    Fundamentally disagree with the State’s rights interpretation of Davis.

    That could be considered a valid interpretation if, and only if, it had been carried out peacefully, with the potential for political forces inside the individual states to reverse the succession attempt while it is in progress.

    As a practical matter, succession combined with violence combined with a culture like American culture means that a ‘successful’ succession faction will not be able to bind anyone to peace. It absence of peace, a nation-state of American culture is justified in waging war against neighbors as against the indians. This may not end well with neighbors stronger than indian tribes.

    Essentially, if the CSA had been successful, there would no moral case for commonality or brotherhood between North and South. I understand that many think that this was already the case during Reconstruction, etc. I would invite these people to study more closely the cases of the Indian tribes.

    Do you follow a contract, or do you always retain the right to onesidedly renegotiate later, on the theory that you cannot give up the later right? This is one of the differences between small r republics, and small d democracies.

    Constitution gives the President the executive power, including to suppress insurrections. Once violence came into play, there was a plausible case that the President’s executive power applied.

    Lincoln had 40% of the vote, and a majority of the electoral college. Was that binding? By a strict, small r republican reading, it was binding, Lincoln was President, deal with it. By a small d democrat reading, it was not.

    Thus, we had succession, which could be understood as a hissy fit over having screwed up the Democrat convention enough to lose with /three/ candidates.

    There are people know who may be tempted by the apparent expediency of the small d democrat position, fearing that the small r republican position favors too much the communist would be mass murderers. This is incorrect.

    BLM, the covid lockdown, etc., paint a very clear pattern. 2020 was subversion by violent conspiracy.

    Federal congress and the federal judiciary were party to that insurrection. There is no contesting that Trump held the executive power. Ergo, by strict small r republican reading, Trump would have had a right to recognize the civil war, and call the armed forces or the unorganized militia to restore order. So, lack of support by the armed forces could be mutiny.

    In theory, Trump could have chosen not to exercise that right, that authority under the executive power. But, the treason by the armed forces raises the possibility that his official communications were tampered with, or that his official security was preventing him from issuing those orders. With Big Tech interdicting his private communications, even if his security now is entirely loyal to him (which his survival indicates may be a possibility), we cannot trust any ‘confirmation’ allegedly from him that suggests that he has not exercised that authority under the executive power.

    There may be some more generous explanations for these strange and bizarre proposals I keep hearing for succession or for embracing small d democrat values. (Under small d democrat values, if the Democrats fraud up enough votes, that itself justifies any fraud or tyranny.) Are they glowies, trying to make the violence start on terms favorable to the regime? Are they feds pushing ‘doomer’ ideas, so that we meekly go along to the camps? Are they normies, with their heads in the sand? These are the questions that come to my mind.

  5. In the current circumstances, I most readily understand some of these arguments as an effort to undermine resolve. I have a strong emotional reaction against that.

  6. Hey Old NFO;

    Very good article, and the Confederacy exposed the fallacies of the original articles of “confederation” before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, and not appointing an overall Military commander like Lincoln did with Grant(Granted*You saw what I did there*, Lincoln didn’t do it for a couple of years,) it took General Grant as an overall commander to get all the chess pieces moving in concert to put pressure on the Confederacy in different location and it exposed the weaknesses of the confederacy because of the limitations, they couldn’t react to all of it and collapsed. General Grant held General Lee around Richmond and gave free reign to General Sherman and his other commanders to operate independently and it showed that the confederacy was a hollow shell, because the nexus in the past was always General Lee. History hasn’t been kind to Jefferson Davis, especially in this day and age, the article was well written.

  7. States rights are only a legitimate fight if carried out peacefully?

    What if a majority refuses to acknowledge those rights? At what point are you allowed to say “we are out of here” and when does the majority have to take responsibility for initiating use of force. Theoretically the south could have left peacefully if the north had said “OK, see ya”.

    “Do you follow a contract or do you reserve the right…”

    The contract didn’t have an opt out clause BUT there is always the option of claiming that the contract has been violated due to failure to follow its terms. This is not “reserving the right to unilaterally opt out”, it is declaring the contract null and void because its terms have been violated. Setting aside the issue of slavery, my reading of history (admittedly from long ago) suggests that the north had severely violated the terms when Congress passed laws limiting overseas trade in raw goods by the Southern states. (For the record, I am not a fan of the civil war but largely that is due to the slavery issue.) I am also no historian but well read enough to know that there were legitimate grievances.

    So that being said, if British colonies can write a Declaration of Independence and secede, why can’t American states? That is the philosophical question that must be answered and those opposed to Southern secession haven’t ever provided an answer that makes sense to me. If the South had won their independence (again absent slavery) we probably would be having a completely different discussion about the history of the countries in North America.

  8. All reasoned points of view need to be available, IMO. I personally have no strong feelings on the subject. My ancestors were all blue bellied farmers and railroad workers.

  9. It is a compact among governments and not a contract. Silence on a compact that expressly delegates/grants certain and limited powers to an agent means that the agent cannot do unless given leave to do so.
    There is no expressly delegated power to the FedGov to stop a State from leaving the compact.
    The South had more law behind them in secession than the Colonies had on revolting.

  10. “Constitution gives the President the executive power, including to suppress insurrections.”

    An insurrection is when a State’s court and law enforcement is unable to control/defeat/operate against organized non-State actors against the legitimate and lawfully elected State agents.

    The evil genius of Lincoln was to redefine insurrection to also include the lawful action of the lawfully elected State government.

    The uSA Constitution is not binding and is unenforceable (OK, it should not be) on non members in these uSA union. So, no, the FedGov had no authority to enforce the guarantee of a republican form of government on the South or territories.

    Guaranteeing “a republican form of government” meant no polygamy (no, I am not LDS). IIRC, the Territory of Utah (Desert) had an unicameral legislature (legislative assembly) also was considered un-republican.

    Now it is OK to have unicameral legislatures .. see Nebraska. What exactly is the role of the POTUS in the process of granting statehood?

  11. I don’t think anyone in the founding gubmint thought that Satan could actually get control of the reigns of power . We now know they were wrong .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.