An American President
By: Jonathan Harris
Yes, Davis did own slaves, and yes he fought in Congress for the right of slave-owners to take their slaves with them to the territories of the United States- however his reasons for participating in both activities is rarely given a look, and all other actions made by him are rarely given any time at all in modern classrooms. Davis is the one pinned with slavery and sedition while folks like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson generally get more respectable treatment, however all three had similar if not identical principles when it came to government and even the question of slavery. Davis's slaves were treated extremely well as the documentary shows. One story which stands out in my mind is the account of his top slave James Pemberton, who was in charge of managing the others in their work capacities. Davis offered Pemberton freedom at one point which Pemberton quickly turned down claiming he'd rather be the slave of Davis indefinitely. Pemberton was a loyal friend to both Davis and his wives. Another interesting story that gives a glimpse into the life of Davis's slaves is an incident that occurred after Davis was released from prison after the war. Having nothing and nowhere to go, one of his former slaves who was living in the North a freeman gave Davis a sizable amount of money simply in return for his kind treatment. One of the photos of Davis presented in the documentary shows him sitting in a Baptist church surrounded by blacks with a black man preaching at the pulpit. The personal view of the president of the Confederacy was that slavery had many evils associated with it but overall it was good for the Africans to come to the new world out of their paganism and be exposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He valued learning so much he educated his slaves and made it his personal goal to see them function in an adult capacity. Like most men at the time Davis believed that blacks were inferior, mostly due to cultural inadequacies, and he treated them as a loving father would treat his children. To him slavery was the stepping stone for the negro to become civilized. His views must be viewed in the historical context- in which he would have personally been seen as an extremely sympathetic man to the plight of slaves. There is no indication he ever sold a slave, and it was his constitution that allowed more possibilities for the peaceful freeing of all slaves (The Confederate Constitution protected slavery as an institution but allowed for the states to dissolve of it in their own ways and totally made illegal the slave trade. In contrast the U.S. constitution protected slavery and made it federally legal). His objection to disallowing slave-masters from going to the territories with their slaves stemmed from his strict-constructional view of the Constitution entirely. The 5th amendment could not be regarded as unimportant in his mind, and according to the logic of him and his fellow Southerners, if one section of the Constitution was ignored what was to keep the whole thing from being ignored? We've reaped the consequences of his loose-constructionist political rivals today.
The tariff was another constitutional issue negatively impacting the South that Jefferson fought over, and while he did believe state's had the right to secede, as many both North and South did at the time, he did not want secession to take place. He tried everything to keep the Union together helping engineering the Crittenden Compromise which Lincoln refused to hear, writing a personal letter to Lincoln which was never replied to, and sending delegations to make treaties with the United States which were never heard. He had a hard time even seeing the U.S. flag knowing it was the flag he was still loyal to (the "Old Union" as he would always call it), the flag he got wounded under in Mexico, the flag he had fought for. It was the deaf ears of Lincoln and the Republican party that eventually caused him to rise to his nation's calling leaving the union. I would recommend for everyone to read his farewell address which outlines the peaceful relationship he cherished and would have liked to see continue as two separate peoples.
Many folks don't realize Jefferson Davis was the man mostly responsible for many things that affect our government today apart from the Confederacy. The Smithsonian Institution was sponsored by Davis as he valued learning very much, and the renovations that occurred at the Capitol building (i.e. the statue on the top, the gold leaf interior, the extensions) were his doing as Secretary of War. While serving in this position he also brought the United States armed forces into the modern age- a contribution he would later regret in a way, since he was the engineer in his own defeat. His book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government is a call to constitutional government in the way our Founder's wanted it and would have served as the reasoning for his defense in court if he had been allowed to be tried. After he was caught by Federal troops in Georgia, Davis spent time in prison waiting to go to court. Of course, if he would have been acquitted the Confederacy would have been seen to be constitutionally in the right, and if he had been sentenced he would have become a martyr. Many Northeastern prominent abolitionists (who knew the ramifications) offered to pay his bail, which he refused to do. Living in a prison in which a guard stood by him at all times watching his every move, Davis had little privacy, but he strongly believed he was right to continue this arrangement indefinitely (despite many health illnesses from reoccurring malaria and war wounds as well) as long as there was still hope for the South. Davis wanted to continue fighting even after Lee had surrendered. He was a man of principle unlike his competitor up North who was a man of practicality. The trial started and Davis was quickly becoming the martyr for freedom in the world. European newspapers denounced the injustice being done to him, and the Pope even sent him a crown of thorns. Andrew Johnston and Radical Republicans decided it was better to just let Davis go without a trial which is what they did.
Having already lost one wife (which according to friends made him a more serious man. When he was a cadet at West Point he was known for partying, but that changed with tragedy.) and three children Davis was a man at his wit's end, and any other man would have gone crazy no doubt. Of his six children only two survived to adulthood, one dying in her early thirties. Davis tried living in Europe, starting a life-insurance company in Tennessee which went under, and eventually went back to planting, living near poverty the entire time. His planting prospects likewise failed with flooding problems. The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government gave him some success but not nearly what he had hoped for. Instead of writing a memoir he wrote what looked like a Constitutional justification for secession and the war. Always a Southerner, always a devout member of the old Union, Davis died in 1889. His death was grieved by all the South, and in New Orleans, where he died, the biggest public funeral ever was held as a parade marched in his honor. There lied a man with an idea of preserving self-government, state's rights, and constitutional authority in the tradition of the first Jefferson- Thomas. He will be forever revered in my mind and in the minds of those who know the truth about him. These are the reasons I highly recommend Jefferson Davis: An American President.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Monday, May 03, 2010
By: Jonathan Harris
Perhaps the most common tactic employed by Southern detractors is painting the whole South as a bunch of racists. If you can paint someone as racist in our day, nothing else they say seems to matter. The implications of this are far-reaching. Bill Maher loves to harp on the fact that the South is both racist and predominately Christian. The two have to be related right? It's the Northeast that shows true tolerance in the midst of their secularism. Indeed, the Christian God himself must be a racist if it's His people that exhibit this kind of behavior; you know what I mean, the cliche white male with a Southern accent beating a black man within an inch of his life while shouting racial slurs and sipping lemonade. This kind of perception may play well on the big screen or in the media, but it doesn't match the facts by a long shot. Let's examine what the truth is concerning Southern slave conditions by examining reliable historical sources- not radical abolitionist stereotypes.
Our most reliable sources of information are not going to only be from selected first-hand accounts. If we based our whole argument around individual cases we could find ourselves in deep trouble of picking and choosing the cases that match our preconceptions. Let me give you an example. If I were to select accounts of home-schooled children who underwent abuse during their upbringing, and then ignore the vast majority of children who were treated well, I could make a very compelling case that homeschooling is a horrible institution by highlighting the hundreds of cases of abuse. Radical abolitionists were notorious for using this same flawed reasoning. However, by their standards I could demonize any labor system. So what sources of information are available today by which we can judge rightly the Southern slave situation?
My favorite depictions of Chattel slavery comes directly from the slaves themselves and can be found in the Slave Narratives- the cumulative result of two years of in depth interviews surveying over 2,000 former slaves by the Works Project Administration under FDR. In the book Time on the Cross, noble prize winning scientist Robert Fogel demonstrates that nowhere in the Western Hemisphere were slaves better treated and cared for than in the South. After studying the Slave Narratives Fogel concluded that 60 to 80 percent of all respondents had only positive things to say about their masters and their life during slave days.
The U.S. Census
If you're a big fan of raw data, perhaps the 1860 U.S. Census will have you convinced against radical abolitionist rhetoric. One way to assess the quality of life is to look at the rate of population increase. We can do this by comparing the number of live births with the number of deaths. In 1860, the Southern black population was shown to have increased by 23 percent, while the Northern black population only increased 1.7 percent. If we go back ten years to the 1850 U.S. Census something even more startling emerges. 1 out of every 1,000 white persons was deaf, dumb, blind, insane, or idiotic. In Northern states 1 out of every 506 black persons had the same handicaps. For Southern blacks it was merely 1 in 1,464 persons who possessed such inabilities. So the question is, based on raw data in which region were blacks treated better?
Certainly if there are any unbiased individuals when it comes to the cultural conflicts between the North and South we should assume that they would be from somewhere other than the United States. Englishman James Silk Buckingham published his observation of Southern slavery in 1842 by stating that slaves were "well-fed, well dressed, and easy to be governed." They were in his view as well off as were English servants in the middle rank of life. In Democracy and America French observer Alex de Tocqueville stated that "the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists." Northerner Frederick L. Olmsted published Journey to the Seaboard Slave States in 1856. His assessment of slavery? According to Facts the Historians Leave Out:
He learned that the slaves were probably fed better than any comparable class of other countries. The labor required of house-servants he described as light, that of field-hands not appreciably heavier than that of laborer in the North. It interested him that slave marriages were frequently made occasions, attended by their owners; those of favorite slaves, performed in the master's house by the master's minister.
If we reasonably think through the topic of slavery in the South and the situation of modern blacks, the official Northern dogma looses credibility pretty quickly. Just ponder with me a minute. If you were to spend $1,000 a worker (what a sum in today's money!) and only receive a 10% profit how would you treat your indentured servant? I doubt you would abuse him/her. Even if you were purely a creature of economics you would want to keep your slaves as healthy as possible for as long as possible. Fortunately, Southerners weren't merely creatures of economics. They cared for their slaves on a personal level, in huge contrast to the way Northerner's in general treated black people at the time. This is why former slaves are almost universally Christian. Would you accept the religion of an abusive master and keep following it even after you were out from under your master's rule? Of course not! Southerners saw the slave trade as an opportunity for evangelism and many slaves were thankful for it. Sure the institution was far removed from what should have been happening Biblically, although this was primarily on the part of the Northern slave merchants (i.e. racism and man capture), but there were many benefits that often get ignored. I'm grateful my ancestors came over as indentured servants because what they left behind was much worse than what they found. Read the slave narratives and you'll find that many slaves felt the same exact way.
In conclusion: If you still aren't convinced that Southerners generally exhibited courtesy to their slaves and free blacks in contrast to the North, I challenge you to offer evidence to the contrary (which shouldn't include individual stories or accounts). In other words, where are the numbers? Sure there were some nasty slave owners. I've had some nasty bosses in my short life. But what are the best sources of information for making a logical decision on this topic? They aren't stories, they're figures. There's a place for stories, but facts should take precedence. If they aren't, are we really being honest with ourselves?