Jefferson Davis (1 Viewer)

[Poppo]

The only president of the Confederate States of America was one of the more moderate Southerners and was perfectly conscious that secession would lead to war. He had no political ambitions and was an exemplary honesty, selfless.

Generous, sensitive with the poorest and outcasts of society was also cold and distant in character; he was convinced to know the war for having led a regiment in the war against Mexico. He was wrong , it was not a "chivalry"war, but a "total war".

He did not have a real strategy of war and didn't listen to the advice of General Beauregard about moving the army of Lee to west and oppose it to Grant.

He had breadth of vision and foresight: in 1864 he proposed the law (backed by Lee) for free and give land to the slaves who would have served with loyalty and honor in the army. This measure did not become operational for the short-sighted opposition of Congress.

This measure was more far-sighted than those taken from the Union after the war which did not provide any compensation to freed slaves.

After the war he refused to swear allegiance to the United States of America.

He was ruined like all the southern aristocracy by the northern banks and financial groups, and his wife had to sell lemons to the street corners...


History is really important to understand the present...

 

[Deitz]

"Sensitive with the poorest outcast of society", would this include the slaves?

Brian

 

[Poppo]

the American civil war with the consequent reduction in "colony" of the southern states and the rapid conquest of the wild west through the destruction of the Indian nation, was the first great victory of the Great American finance .... Today,the big capitalism leads its war by other means, less garish and gory..

 

[jazzeum]

"Sensitive with the poorest outcast of society", would this include the slaves?

Brian

Brian,

Don't waste your time. Not worth it.

Brad

 

[Poppo]

"Sensitive with the poorest outcast of society", would this include the slaves?

Brian

Yes, this include the slaves :

In his plantation"The lashes were banned , justice was administered by the "Courts" of slaves who decided about the guilt or innocence of the "crimes" charged and then decided the punishment. They were free to choose from a diverse set of punishments, including a warning, extra work, and more, but what the whips were not allowed. Davis took upon itself exclusively the right of pardon. [1] In addition, slaves were allowed to grow as needed as a food in their own personal gardens (and we expect that to happen), was awarded their poultry because the eggs could be sold to their personal profit as well as they could cultivate their gardens if delivering wanted the surplus to get all the variety of foods they needed from the shops of the plantation.


PS. Many previous presidents had slaves like Washington, Jefferson . The question of the slavery is not easy and can not be solved in a sentence...

 

[Poppo]

Brian,

Don't waste your time. Not worth it.

Brad

Sure, not worth for those who lack of arguments.

 

[Deitz]

Yes, this include the slaves :

In his plantation"The lashes were banned , justice was administered by the "Courts" of slaves who decided about the guilt or innocence of the "crimes" charged and then decided the punishment. They were free to choose from a diverse set of punishments, including a warning, extra work, and more, but what the whips were not allowed. Davis took upon itself exclusively the right of pardon. [1] In addition, slaves were allowed to grow as needed as a food in their own personal gardens (and we expect that to happen), was awarded their poultry because the eggs could be sold to their personal profit as well as they could cultivate their gardens if delivering wanted the surplus to get all the variety of foods they needed from the shops of the plantation.


PS. Many previous presidents had slaves like Washington, Jefferson . The question of the slavery is not easy and can not be solved in a sentence...

Sound very nice, it much have been a pleasure to be a slave on Mr. Davis' plantation. Additionally, how wonderful it must have been, after all the slaves got to choose their own punishment for not living up to their Master's wishes and let's not forget they also got to grow their own food.

Sounds like a great life.

 

[Poppo]

Sound very nice, it much have been a pleasure to be a slave on Mr. Davis' plantation. Additionally, how wonderful it must have been, after all the slaves got to choose their own punishment for not living up to their Master's wishes and let's not forget they also got to grow their own food.

Sounds like a great life.

You can' t consider an historical fact with the today' s eyes but consider the historical context....For example till the end of 19th century corporal punishments were made in the navies of that era, colleges and even to the children.

Moreover, the southerns understood well that the question of the slavery should have an end and tried to find solutions without totally destroying their economy which had been based for a couple of centuries on the slavery...

And in no way the war was made to free the slaves. This was just the winners moralistic justification for war, the real reasons were economic. And to keep the Union together for Lincoln and for many northerns.

 

[wadepat]

Gentle Friends,

The topic of the American Civil War frequently leads to explosive interaction. Please post your remarks carefully, thoughtfully, and respectfully or this conversation will most certainly be brought to an abrupt end.

Thanks for your understanding.

Warmest personal regards,

Pat

 

[Deitz]

Gentle Friends,

The topic of the American Civil War frequently leads to explosive interaction. Please post your remarks carefully, thoughtfully, and respectfully or this conversation will most certainly be brought to an abrupt end.

Thanks for your understanding.

Warmest personal regards,

Pat

Sorry Pat,
I will not comment anymore on this thread.
Brian

 

[theBaron]

Boy, that Pierre Laval was a great guy, wasn't he?

 

[Poppo]

Boy, that Pierre Laval was a great guy, wasn't he?

Eh? What is the connection? I really don' t see.....

 

[tdubel]

I do agree with a point here that history should be studied in its historical context. Unfortunately, in today's age of moral revision and political correctness, this has become impossible IMO. Also, IMO, people of today cannot study history factually, they cannot separate their own morals, opinions and viewpoints and thus leads to shouting, rewrites, etc.

End of the day, there are a myriad of facts that led to all wars depending on which participant's point of view in that time. For example, Genghis Khan is a hero to some and a marauding rapist and plunderer to others who should be shunned from history.

When I was a kid in the 1970s , there was a wonderful "biography book" series in my elementary school library (which was huge by the way) that included George Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, it also included Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Today, the latter two have been pulled and are banned from inclusion. Additionally, in my son's elementary school, the library is one small room. That should tell you something in general.

It is a shame, really.

Tom

 

[nysoldiers]

"Hasten, use your common sense, before the whole of Europe goes up in smoke. Believe me, avoiding wars is more than a thousand victories."

Written during the Thiry Year's War (1618-1648) by a young Silesian poet.

Applicable today and even to the forum!

 

[Poppo]

"Hasten, use your common sense, before the whole of Europe goes up in smoke. Believe me, avoiding wars is more than a thousand victories."

Written during the Thiry Year's War (1618-1648) by a young Silesian poet.

Applicable today and even to the forum!

I don't look for wars, neither to provocate strong feelings....Just Historical discussions.

Being a european, I am amazed that this subject moves so strong emotions over there, tabous, like something hidden, embarassing or unsolved in the US.But those are facts happened in 1861! In totally different societies than ours.....It is like if in France people were taking personally a discussion if to be with the Royalists or with the revolutionaries about the french revolution!! Maybe a kind of american intolerant puritan spirit, or the political correctness that was invented in your country is the answer.

Amazing also that the southern states of the US are considerd by many to have been a kind of "nazi".....

Apparently, also this question has been instrumentalized politically till today...

Anwyay, all this is very interesting to me, I wouldn t have thought it was to this point...

 

[theBaron]

I don't look for wars, neither to provocate strong feelings....Just Historical discussions.

Being a european, I am amazed that this subject moves so strong emotions over there, tabous, like something hidden, embarassing or unsolved in the US.But those are facts happened in 1861! In totally different societies than ours.....It is like if in France people were taking personally a discussion if to be with the Royalists or with the revolutionaries about the french revolution!! Maybe a kind of american intolerant puritan spirit, or the political correctness that was invented in your country is the answer.

Amazing also that the southern states of the US are considerd by many to have been a kind of "nazi".....

Apparently, also this question has been instrumentalized politically till today...

Anwyay, all this is very interesting to me, I wouldn t have thought it was to this point...

As you say, you're European, not American, so I don't expect you to be aware of or understand the emotions surrounding the conflict that took more lives than all other armed conflicts we've been in, and quite nearly tore apart the experiment begun in Philadelphia in 1787. It is not an "american intolerant spirit or political correctness that was invented" in our country.

That's why I made the crack about Pierre Lavall. I meant to be funny, but also to underscore that your posts often sound like that, to those who might be closer to the subject. Or to use another image, sometimes your posts are akin to walking into a German pub and saying, "Y'know, I don't see what the big deal is with Hitler. He ended unemployment and built roads, didn't he?"

Oh, and political correctness is not a uniquely American phenomenon, but rather, it is a hallmark of modern liberalism (modern liberalism, not classic liberalism) throughout the West.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Harper (aka Spitfrnd)]

I do agree with a point here that history should be studied in its historical context. Unfortunately, in today's age of moral revision and political correctness, this has become impossible IMO. Also, IMO, people of today cannot study history factually, they cannot separate their own morals, opinions and viewpoints and thus leads to shouting, rewrites, etc.

End of the day, there are a myriad of facts that led to all wars depending on which participant's point of view in that time. For example, Genghis Khan is a hero to some and a marauding rapist and plunderer to others who should be shunned from history.

When I was a kid in the 1970s , there was a wonderful "biography book" series in my elementary school library (which was huge by the way) that included George Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, it also included Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Today, the latter two have been pulled and are banned from inclusion. Additionally, in my son's elementary school, the library is one small room. That should tell you something in general.

It is a shame, really.

Tom

That is a shame. Ignoring fact due to philosophy or the absurd assumption that there is only one side to a story is always sad and it seems our society is becoming increasingly susceptible to that. Pity there are so many who appear unable or unwilling to understand history except in the context of their own view of contemporary right and wrong. To me, the Southern leaders of that period deserve the same respect and effort to understand their point of view and actions as Lincoln, who was certainly not without his material flaws.

BTW, I suggest even mentioning Hitler in the same thread as Davis is frighteningly inappropriate. I hope the comparison was not intended.

 

[theBaron]

I suggest even mentioning Hitler in the same thread as Davis is frighteningly inappropriate. I hope the comparison was not intended.

I'm not comparing Jefferson Davis to Hitler, and it wasn't inappropriate. My mention of Hitler was as a bit of hyperbole, exaggerating how it seems that Poppo often introduces topics for discussion that might tend to arouse strong feelings, especially since he's not natively familiar with some of the subjects. It was by the same token that I made my original comment about Pierre Lavall. Al (Lancer) got the joke, thanks, Al!

Prost!
Brad

 

[Poppo]

I'm not comparing Jefferson Davis to Hitler, and it wasn't inappropriate. My mention of Hitler was as a bit of hyperbole, exaggerating how it seems that Poppo often introduces topics for discussion that might tend to arouse strong feelings, especially since he's not natively familiar with some of the subjects. It was by the same token that I made my original comment about Pierre Lavall. Al (Lancer) got the joke, thanks, Al!

Prost!
Brad

So, only americans can discuss about Jefferson Davis ? And only the germans can discuss about Hitler or french about Napoleon, as they are natively familiar with them?.....Interesting theory

But I could say that, on the contrary, ex. a foreign historian not involved psychologically and emotionally, can more objectively analyze a foreign topic.

No, the issue is POLITICAL, not historical for many over there. When a so ancient subject causes feelings of censorship and single thought, we are in the field of politics, moral, or moralism....

And the political field is very, very, very far from the actual weight of historical facts...

 

[theBaron]

So, only americans can discuss about Jefferson Davis ? And only the germans can discuss about Hitler or french about Napoleon, as they are natively familiar with them?.....Interesting theory

But I could say that, on the contrary, ex. a foreign historian not involved psychologically and emotionally, can more objectively analyze a foreign topic.

No, the issue is POLITICAL, not historical for many over there. When a so ancient subject causes feelings of censorship and single thought, we are in the field of politics, moral, or moralism....

And the political field is very, very, very far from the actual weight of historical facts...

Not at all. My observation is that you bring up topics that are guaranteed to get people fired up, and then you act surprised when people get fired up. It's sometimes referred to as "throwing a grenade into a room".