Jeff Davis Birthday

[Lee Ragan]

On this date in 1808, Jefferson Davis was born in Kentucky. A West Pointer, he bacame a hero in the Mexican War as Colonel of a Mississippi Rifle Regiment. He was later Secretary of War and a U.S. Senator. In 1861, he was elected President of the Confederate States of America even tho he didn't seek the job. He was the only president of the CSA and his six year term was cut short by the end of the War for Southern Independence.
Love him or hate him, he was an American original.

[MOM]

[TheLegalShark]

I find it strange that on a site populated by military veterans and patriots that Jeff Davis' birthday warrants any notice. The man was a traitor, he betrayed his country plain and simple and sat at the head of an armed rebellion against it. He should have died for that. As far as I'm concerned he occupies the same category of people as Benedict Arnold.

[ang1sgt]

Originally Posted by TheLegalShark

I find it strange that on a site populated by military veterans and patriots that Jeff Davis' birthday warrants any notice. The man was a traitor, he betrayed his country plain and simple and sat at the head of an armed rebellion against it. He should have died for that. As far as I'm concerned he occupies the same category of people as Benedict Arnold.

And you can thank those that have served and fought for freedoms that you now enjoy, Like freedom of Speech.

There is no deny that Jefferson Davis was a great Military Man. While you see him as a traitor, many look at him and study him to see what tactics and strategies might be able to be used today.

Some people study history to broaden their horizon, while some ignore it all together.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Originally Posted by TheLegalShark

I find it strange that on a site populated by military veterans and patriots that Jeff Davis' birthday warrants any notice. The man was a traitor, he betrayed his country plain and simple and sat at the head of an armed rebellion against it. He should have died for that. As far as I'm concerned he occupies the same category of people as Benedict Arnold.

I know people who call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression"...I've also spoken to people who don't know it's over yet. If you want a thrill, go to the Deep South and tell everyone how great General Sherman is. Let the fun begin!

[Desert Sapper]

I think you have to look a little deeper at the Federalization of our nation before you start to point fingers at some very educated and intelligent men that took a stand for what they believed in. Many of them, to include Robert E. Lee (who, I might add, was the first man Lincoln asked to lead the Army of the Potomac), felt that they were walking in the footsteps of the nation's forefathers when they stood with their states over the federal government.

Many felt the fed had become too powerful and that the states needed to have more freedom. Given that the 'United States' were brought together in agreement, and signed a document that bound them to one another, it was thought by some that the binding points of the agreement needed to remain mutually agreeable to remain valid. This was partly what some states used to secede from the union, famously drawing from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It is not a foreign concept to our country.

[AFCadetSteel]

To quote Federalist 28, Paragraph 6

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

And just my opinion, the South could have easily won as the North did, and if going by LegalSharks point of view, we would all be traitors if im not mistaken.

[MOM]

Benedict Arnold does not even come close to being comparable to Jefferson Davis.
That's apples to oranges.

I love what Dessert Sapper posted - that was well said.

[Desert Sapper]

The south could have won but for a few minor details:

1. No major industry to fuel the war effort in the way of munitions (the north had this in abundance).

2. No easy source of replacement Soldiers (the north had irish immigrants they could draft -- the south could have freed enough slaves to make this work in their favor, but they didn't).

3. Lee still thought as Napoleon both tactically and operationally. This worked from the operational perspective and created some successful campaigns. To a point, it even worked tactically. However, technology had superseded Napoleonic strategy, and it cost Lee, especially at Gettysburg, where on the final day of the battle, Lee lost a huge percentage of his Soldiers due to the range of Union cannons.


I think the South might have won had they, as Harry Turtledove postulated in 'Guns of the South', had time-traveling South Africans provide them with AK-47s.

[Machine]

Originally Posted by TheLegalShark

I find it strange that on a site populated by military veterans and patriots that Jeff Davis' birthday warrants any notice. The man was a traitor, he betrayed his country plain and simple and sat at the head of an armed rebellion against it. He should have died for that. As far as I'm concerned he occupies the same category of people as Benedict Arnold.

Your signature line requires modification. Maybe something like, "I'm a public school graduate and therefore consider myself intelligent, regardless of facts."

Davis was arrested, never charged, tried, or convicted.