That's exactly what they were. They ignored the Constitution and conspired amongst each other. They didn't ignore the Constitution at all. The South wanted the Constitution to operate as it was written. At most your argument supports that there was a difference of opinion on what the Constitution meant. That does not come close to treason.
It was the South that ignored it and did whatever they wanted. What did they ignore?They chose to selectivley abide by the Constitution. What specifically?
Did I ever call you a liar? Nope, I didn't, EVER. I didn't say that you did.In fact on many occasions I have defended you, but no more. Good. Someone else to fight with.And because I disagreed with your opinion you resort to that crap. I must say that you are a little overly sensitive. I don't think what I wrote was that harsh.
I must say that you are a little overly sensitive. Â Â
Not that big of a deal but nobody likes it including you.
I don't think what I wrote was that harsh.
That's the problem, you don't think it was insulting. Most people do. Instead of continuing the debate or telling me why you felt I was wrong you go immediately into
The first intelligent thing you have said on the subject.
That's great debate, I can't believe after reading that I didn't leap from my chair and say, "Damn you've been rightall along, the crystal reasoning and persuasiveness of that argument made me see your side"
JT, as I said before the southerns thought they were supporting the Constitution and that the north was not. Based on the language of the document they had a good argument that that was the case. The Supreme Court at the time seemed to agree with them. Lincoln was afraid that the Court would do so explicity given the chance.
Whatever Jethro, if you can't tell that saying, "that's the first thing intelligent you said on the subject" is patronizing and offensive then don't worry about it. It won't matter.
I finally got to start this book.I have finished the first 100 pages. Some of the things I didn't know, although maybe I should have, include that Jeff graduated from West Point. He was officer for about 7 years. He has been stationed in Wisconsin, Missouri and in Oklahoma. When he got out of the army he married Zachary Taylor's daughter. Unfortunately she died after three months of marriage. I am just getting to the point where he is getting involved in politics.
Editorial Reviews Amazon.com The title might seem odd, given that Jefferson Davis (1808-89) served as president of the Confederacy during the Civil War, and never once, in the 34 years between the end of the war and his death, expressed any remorse for his part in the conflict that tore America apart. Yet, as historian William J. Cooper Jr. reminds us in his sober, comprehensive biography, Davis "saw himself as a faithful American ... a true son of the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers." Indeed, Davis's own father had fought in the Revolution, and Davis himself was a West Point graduate and Mexican War veteran. He declared January 21, 1861, "the saddest day of my life," as he resigned his U.S. Senate seat to follow his native state of Mississippi out of the Union; yet he also unflinchingly defended secession as a constitutionally guaranteed right. Cooper's measured portrait neither glosses over Davis's lifelong belief that blacks were inferior nor vilifies him for it: "My goal," he writes, "is to understand Jefferson Davis as a man of his time, not condemn him for not being a man of my time." The chapters on the Civil War show Davis intimately involved in military decisions, as well as in diplomatic attempts to gain foreign support for the Confederacy. Cooper acknowledges the irony of his subject--who interpreted the Constitution as strictly limiting federal authority--being forced by the war's exigencies to create a powerful, centralized Confederate government. Yet, this depiction of a forceful, self-confident Davis makes it clear that he never could have been anything but "a vigorous and potent chief executive." The author also paints an attractive picture of a warm family man who was devoted to his strong-minded wife and their children. Neither hagiography nor hatchet job, this evenhanded work sees Jefferson Davis whole. --Wendy Smith --
From Booklist Cooper (The American South , 1990) constructs his straightforward, detailed biography of Jefferson Davis around a central question: "How did a patriotic American come to lead the great struggle to destroy the United States?" In following the stages of Davis' political career and personal life, the reader sees that prior to his assumption of the office of Confederate president, having served as U.S. senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce.
William J. Cooper, Jr., is the Boyd Professor of History at Louisiana State University. His books include Jefferson Davis, American; Liberty and Slavery: Southern Politics to 1860; The South and the Politics of Slavery, 1828–1856; and The Conservative Regime: South Carolina, 1877–1890. He is also coauthor of The American South: A History. Cooper lives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Why is it so hard to believe that someone like Jefferson Davis did what they did, not out of malice or hatred for their country, but rather because they actually believed in the ideas of America? Because it's scary, that's why.
Jefferson Davis believed in the ideals of the United States as set forth by the Founding Fathers (which, by the way, are NOT the same principles guiding us today. Similar, but not the same). He did what he did because he saw those ideals being corrupted and decided to take a stand against it. Now whether you agree with what he did or not, that is how he saw himself.
But that being the case, perhaps the problem is that we begin to question how we see ourselves. If Jefferson Davis could take a crucial role in plunging the country into war, all the while believing that he was doing the morally right thing, what is each one of us then capable of, all the while believing we are doing the right thing?
Is it not perhaps easier in the end to simply demonize someone like Jefferson Davis so that we can still look ourselves in the mirror and say, "I'm not like that!"?
"Jefferson Davis believed in the ideals of the United States as set forth by the Founding Fathers (which, by the way, are NOT the same principles guiding us today. Similar, but not the same). He did what he did because he saw those ideals being corrupted and decided to take a stand against it. Now whether you agree with what he did or not, that is how he saw himself. "
This makes him look both delusional and traitorous.
The more you say about him the worse you make him look.
rick, its not often that i agree with jethro, but when it comes to this issue, he's hit the nail perfectly on the head. there is nothing traitorous, treasonous, or otherwise unamerican about secession, unless you can find the spot in the constitution that withholds that right from the individual state.
Like the 1860s Congress, historians and countless millions of Americans, I don't recognize the authority of the Confederate States to seceed.
Another thoughtless post. There was nothing in the Constituion that stated states could not leave. The thenth amendement even indicates otherwise. I guess you also believe women should stay in a bad marriage even if they are beaten every day?
The south didn't want to overthrow the federal govermnet, rick. They were quite happy for it to continue as it was just without the south participating in it.
And Washington was the same as the rest of the crowd. He just had a unique position in the revolution. The George Washington that most people think of is a myth.
ares, the only "Founding Father" who had true intentions of honesty, integrety and was completely trusted and admired by every person of the era, was George Washington. The rest were as dirty a bunch of scoundrels as any we've ever had, including recently, and most all of those "Fathers", Owned Slaves.
Fold,
I disagree, first of all none of them were saints, no such thing exists. As dirty a bunch of scoundrels we've ever had ? C'mon, yes they owned slaves which for the time was considered normal or certainly wasn't looked down upon the way it would and should be today. You have to put yourself in the times. Now were they right ? god no, slavery is wrong and horrid, but we also have the advantage of 250 plus years of growth and knowledge too.
They also risked evrything they had and risked their and their families lives to give us what we have today. Had the revolutuion failed we probably wouldn't be talking today or be a colony of somebody. They would have been hung if we lost and the chances of taking on and beating England back then was slim to none as there were plenty of loyalists still here and England was the most powerful nation in the world. Also they were mostly wealthy land owners who knew not only would they risk death but also risked losing everything they had for their families. And yet they stil did so, they didn't have to do anything, they were well off people mostly with high places in society. They believed in the principles and ideals so much they were willing to do that. Were they perfect people ? heck No, they were human but to say.....
As dirty bunch of scoundrels as we've ever had ? Perhaps you could explain why you feel that way ?
They also risked evrything they had and risked their and their families lives to give us what we have today.
No they wouldn't approve of what we have today, except maybe Alexander Hamilton and his crowd.
Jethro, they laid the foundation is what I'm saying. I don't think they ever dreamed we would be as succesful as we are today with the advances we've made, it would seem like science fiction back then. Fact is they stuck their necks on the line because they believed in being free and were tired of living under Englands' thumb. They risked everything to do so.
hey rick you didn't comment on the following, either: The south didn't want to overthrow the federal govermnet, rick. They were quite happy for it to continue as it was just without the south participating in it.
Really? I didn't know that!!!! Damn!!!! But seriously when the south lost the war America lost alot of its freedoms. Liberals talk about how many rights we are losing due to the war on terror, well we lost a lot of rights in the aftermath of the civil war.
"hey rick you didn't comment on the following, either: The south didn't want to overthrow the federal govermnet, rick. They were quite happy for it to continue as it was just without the south participating in it."
Dissolving their Union was tyranny against the people in their state and attacking a federal installation is treason a sedition.
Tyrannical, scheming scoundrels!
"hey rick you didn't comment on the following: I guess you also believe women should stay in a bad marriage even if they are beaten every day?"
And you portray them as victims?
You're making them look worse with every post, jethro.
see, thx, and i hold that they seceded quite legally under the premises provided by the 10th amendment. nowhere is the right to secede prohibited in the constitution. now, i'm not gonna debate the merits of the allegations that the conspiracies beforehand were illegal. as far as i'm concerned its a gray area that can neither be proved nor disproved.
The South lost....
which of course set the precedent that states aren't allowed to secede.
That's exactly what they were. They ignored the Constitution and conspired amongst each other. They didn't ignore the Constitution at all. The South wanted the Constitution to operate as it was written. At most your argument supports that there was a difference of opinion on what the Constitution meant. That does not come close to treason.
It was the South that ignored it and did whatever they wanted. What did they ignore?They chose to selectivley abide by the Constitution. What specifically?
Did I ever call you a liar? Nope, I didn't, EVER. I didn't say that you did.In fact on many occasions I have defended you, but no more. Good. Someone else to fight with.And because I disagreed with your opinion you resort to that crap. I must say that you are a little overly sensitive. I don't think what I wrote was that harsh.
Not that big of a deal but nobody likes it including you.
That's the problem, you don't think it was insulting. Most people do. Instead of continuing the debate or telling me why you felt I was wrong you go immediately into
That's great debate, I can't believe after reading that I didn't leap from my chair and say, "Damn you've been rightall along, the crystal reasoning and persuasiveness of that argument made me see your side"
What did they ignore?
The part of the Constitution which specifically forbade states from conspiring, forming alliances.......
Without looking it up, I believe it was Article 10 but am unsure offhand.
The first intelligent thing you have said on the subject.
sounds like a complement to me.
JT, as I said before the southerns thought they were supporting the Constitution and that the north was not. Based on the language of the document they had a good argument that that was the case. The Supreme Court at the time seemed to agree with them. Lincoln was afraid that the Court would do so explicity given the chance.
I'm sure to you it does.
Where you from boy? Where I come from those are friendly words!
Whatever Jethro, if you can't tell that saying, "that's the first thing intelligent you said on the subject" is patronizing and offensive then don't worry about it. It won't matter.
Where you from boy? Where I come from those are friendly words!
Aren't you from Missouri?
I finally got to start this book.I have finished the first 100 pages. Some of the things I didn't know, although maybe I should have, include that Jeff graduated from West Point. He was officer for about 7 years. He has been stationed in Wisconsin, Missouri and in Oklahoma. When he got out of the army he married Zachary Taylor's daughter. Unfortunately she died after three months of marriage. I am just getting to the point where he is getting involved in politics.
JEFFERSON DAVIS, AMERICAN
Not!!!!
Jefferson Davis: Scheming Betrayer of America, I say.
Biography of a Traitor
The title of Rick's biography woud be:
Rick: Closed-Minded Unthinking American
A man that was unwilling to think for himself
Was that in Townhall.com today ?
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
The title might seem odd, given that Jefferson Davis (1808-89) served as president of the Confederacy during the Civil War, and never once, in the 34 years between the end of the war and his death, expressed any remorse for his part in the conflict that tore America apart. Yet, as historian William J. Cooper Jr. reminds us in his sober, comprehensive biography, Davis "saw himself as a faithful American ... a true son of the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers." Indeed, Davis's own father had fought in the Revolution, and Davis himself was a West Point graduate and Mexican War veteran. He declared January 21, 1861, "the saddest day of my life," as he resigned his U.S. Senate seat to follow his native state of Mississippi out of the Union; yet he also unflinchingly defended secession as a constitutionally guaranteed right. Cooper's measured portrait neither glosses over Davis's lifelong belief that blacks were inferior nor vilifies him for it: "My goal," he writes, "is to understand Jefferson Davis as a man of his time, not condemn him for not being a man of my time." The chapters on the Civil War show Davis intimately involved in military decisions, as well as in diplomatic attempts to gain foreign support for the Confederacy. Cooper acknowledges the irony of his subject--who interpreted the Constitution as strictly limiting federal authority--being forced by the war's exigencies to create a powerful, centralized Confederate government. Yet, this depiction of a forceful, self-confident Davis makes it clear that he never could have been anything but "a vigorous and potent chief executive." The author also paints an attractive picture of a warm family man who was devoted to his strong-minded wife and their children. Neither hagiography nor hatchet job, this evenhanded work sees Jefferson Davis whole. --Wendy Smith --
From Booklist
Cooper (The American South , 1990) constructs his straightforward, detailed biography of Jefferson Davis around a central question: "How did a patriotic American come to lead the great struggle to destroy the United States?" In following the stages of Davis' political career and personal life, the reader sees that prior to his assumption of the office of Confederate president, having served as U.S. senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce.
William J. Cooper, Jr., is the Boyd Professor of History at Louisiana State University. His books include Jefferson Davis, American; Liberty and Slavery: Southern Politics to 1860; The South and the Politics of Slavery, 1828–1856; and The Conservative Regime: South Carolina, 1877–1890. He is also coauthor of The American South: A History. Cooper lives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Read the book, fold, or any book, and learn something.
Why is it so hard to believe that someone like Jefferson Davis did what they did, not out of malice or hatred for their country, but rather because they actually believed in the ideas of America? Because it's scary, that's why.
Jefferson Davis believed in the ideals of the United States as set forth by the Founding Fathers (which, by the way, are NOT the same principles guiding us today. Similar, but not the same). He did what he did because he saw those ideals being corrupted and decided to take a stand against it. Now whether you agree with what he did or not, that is how he saw himself.
But that being the case, perhaps the problem is that we begin to question how we see ourselves. If Jefferson Davis could take a crucial role in plunging the country into war, all the while believing that he was doing the morally right thing, what is each one of us then capable of, all the while believing we are doing the right thing?
Is it not perhaps easier in the end to simply demonize someone like Jefferson Davis so that we can still look ourselves in the mirror and say, "I'm not like that!"?
WOW! A thoughful post!
:: standing applause ::.....
"Jefferson Davis believed in the ideals of the United States as set forth by the Founding Fathers (which, by the way, are NOT the same principles guiding us today. Similar, but not the same). He did what he did because he saw those ideals being corrupted and decided to take a stand against it. Now whether you agree with what he did or not, that is how he saw himself. "
This makes him look both delusional and traitorous.
The more you say about him the worse you make him look.
A thoughtless post. I see things are back to normal.
Yeah, you're back to siding with traitors.
It's the outlaw/hero fantasy for you isn't it jethro?
rick, its not often that i agree with jethro, but when it comes to this issue, he's hit the nail perfectly on the head. there is nothing traitorous, treasonous, or otherwise unamerican about secession, unless you can find the spot in the constitution that withholds that right from the individual state.
How about marshalling and army and waging war?
That Constitutional/theortical circle-jerk has already has already taken place on this thread.
Like the 1860s Congress, historians and countless millions of Americans, I don't recognize the authority of the Confederate States to seceed.
How about marshalling and army and waging war?
Lincoln took arms against the south that wanted to peacefully secede.
Like the 1860s Congress, historians and countless millions of Americans, I don't recognize the authority of the Confederate States to seceed.
Another thoughtless post. There was nothing in the Constituion that stated states could not leave. The thenth amendement even indicates otherwise. I guess you also believe women should stay in a bad marriage even if they are beaten every day?
Cloak you justification of sedition in all the high minded thought you want jethro, but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Good luck, Rick.
I'm on your side but, you're wasting your time.
:-)
The south didn't want to overthrow the federal govermnet, rick. They were quite happy for it to continue as it was just without the south participating in it.
And Washington was the same as the rest of the crowd. He just had a unique position in the revolution. The George Washington that most people think of is a myth.
I think of him as the man who would not be King
Fold,
I disagree, first of all none of them were saints, no such thing exists. As dirty a bunch of scoundrels we've ever had ? C'mon, yes they owned slaves which for the time was considered normal or certainly wasn't looked down upon the way it would and should be today. You have to put yourself in the times. Now were they right ? god no, slavery is wrong and horrid, but we also have the advantage of 250 plus years of growth and knowledge too.
They also risked evrything they had and risked their and their families lives to give us what we have today. Had the revolutuion failed we probably wouldn't be talking today or be a colony of somebody. They would have been hung if we lost and the chances of taking on and beating England back then was slim to none as there were plenty of loyalists still here and England was the most powerful nation in the world. Also they were mostly wealthy land owners who knew not only would they risk death but also risked losing everything they had for their families. And yet they stil did so, they didn't have to do anything, they were well off people mostly with high places in society. They believed in the principles and ideals so much they were willing to do that. Were they perfect people ? heck No, they were human but to say.....
As dirty bunch of scoundrels as we've ever had ? Perhaps you could explain why you feel that way ?
Think him of a man that padded his expense account.
They also risked evrything they had and risked their and their families lives to give us what we have today.
No they wouldn't approve of what we have today, except maybe Alexander Hamilton and his crowd.
I think of him as the man who would not be King
Please explain.
They also risked evrything they had and risked their and their families lives to give us what we have today.
Jethro, they laid the foundation is what I'm saying. I don't think they ever dreamed we would be as succesful as we are today with the advances we've made, it would seem like science fiction back then. Fact is they stuck their necks on the line because they believed in being free and were tired of living under Englands' thumb. They risked everything to do so.
My point was they wouldn't be happy with the size of the federal government.
Agreed, they'd s**t their knickers.
We were talking about different things I guess.
My point was they wouldn't be happy with the size of the federal government.
what luv said. pretty much across the board.
How about marshalling and army and waging war?
the secession of the states from the union made these legitimate acts.
Rick wrote: How about marshalling and army and waging war?
ares response: the secession of the states from the union made these legitimate acts.
Legitmate acts by whom?
"the secession of the states from the union made these legitimate acts."
Legitimate acts by traitors.
For them, anything goes.
Legitmate acts by whom?
i was referring to the raising of an army by the confederate states, jethro. i'm still with ya on this one.
hey rick you didn't comment on the following: I guess you also believe women should stay in a bad marriage even if they are beaten every day?
hey rick you didn't comment on the following, either: The south didn't want to overthrow the federal govermnet, rick. They were quite happy for it to continue as it was just without the south participating in it.
The South seceded illegally according to the 10th amendment. We've been over this a dozen times.
The South lost, get over it Jethro.
The South seceded illegally according to the 10th amendment.
You must have a funny interpretation of illegal.
The South lost, get over it Jethro.
Really? I didn't know that!!!! Damn!!!! But seriously when the south lost the war America lost alot of its freedoms. Liberals talk about how many rights we are losing due to the war on terror, well we lost a lot of rights in the aftermath of the civil war.
"hey rick you didn't comment on the following, either: The south didn't want to overthrow the federal govermnet, rick. They were quite happy for it to continue as it was just without the south participating in it."
Dissolving their Union was tyranny against the people in their state and attacking a federal installation is treason a sedition.
Tyrannical, scheming scoundrels!
"hey rick you didn't comment on the following: I guess you also believe women should stay in a bad marriage even if they are beaten every day?"
And you portray them as victims?
You're making them look worse with every post, jethro.
see, thx, and i hold that they seceded quite legally under the premises provided by the 10th amendment. nowhere is the right to secede prohibited in the constitution. now, i'm not gonna debate the merits of the allegations that the conspiracies beforehand were illegal. as far as i'm concerned its a gray area that can neither be proved nor disproved.
The South lost....
which of course set the precedent that states aren't allowed to secede.
Dissolving their Union was tyranny against the people in their state...
when that's what the people themselves wanted? surely you jest.
...and attacking a federal installation is treason a sedition.
an irrelevant point once the state left the union.