Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865  I think I’m your man for this question because I just got done reading the book. Davis was a Colonel of the Mississippi Rifles which was a volunteer outfit (he’s actually Taylor’s son-in-law and initially it stands noting that Taylor doesn’t much care for Davis). At Monterrey, Taylor sends two Generals and Davis as commissioners to discuss the terms of the Mexican capitulation of the city.
Davis misses out on a promotion to Price (probably because Polk is a Democrat and Taylor is feared by Polk to be a Whig; later when Polk decides to give him a brigadier rank, Davis refuses on the basis that he feels that only HIS state could make him a brigadier general of a state militia unit). At Buena Vista, Davis’ regiment is in the rear and Taylor plugs the lines after the 2nd Indiana falters and Davis shields Buena Vista – at this action Davis gets wounded in the heel. This is when Santa Anna is coming with an army and attacking at 5:1 odds….I would say that Davis’ actions on that day were very important, but I don’t see where Davis is personally bailing Grant out of anything. At the time Davis is a Colonel and Grant is a lieutenant. At no point are the names intermingled and if Davis’ unit is ‘bailing out’ another unit at Buena Vista it would be more fair to say that he would be bailing out that regiment’s commander rather than a lower officer. |
Cash doesn't seem to want to let it go! I said Grant was not in charge, and he insists that
I was saying Grant was in command... I meant that Davis and his subordinates bailed the whole army out, at that moment, and took the fort. I was using Hiram Ulysses as an identifier, in order to show the part of the army which was 'saved'.
Thank you for admitting to the Liberal/ Conservative thing that I can't get Cash and company to own up to, at all!
It is my contention that the whole of the war settled here, on these political mindless-nesses, and the Rise of the Second Party to prominence, if not on the actual facts that we are, in essence, and actuality, two vastly different countries! (Celtic Southern and Anglo- Saxon Yankee!)
(Yes, I know, there were a lot of other people involved, and to be considered, and of course, yes, you are absolutely right! But the fierce independence of the Celts and the collectivist nature of the Anglo-Saxons cannot be denied!). We are still from those people, and still, those people!
The names date back to the libertine/anarchist Whiggamores and the staid, traditionalist Conservative Tories in Britain. The Whiggamores wanted to ("unconstitutionally"!)
change their goverment, sort of like Abolitionist Emancipation without Constitutional Representation!
It's where the Collectivist Left got the name Whig.
(Notice something diabolical here... The Whigs in England would seem to be the rebels, not the landed gentry (Traditional Conservatives), in England. That's in England! Notice that the collectivists here who have historically called themselves FEDERALISTS, WHIGS and LIBERALS are in fact NONE of these things, as collectivists! They merely use the names! First as Republican Liberals, and later, assuming the sacred DEMOCRAT (originally and primarily a Southern Conservative) title, used to this day. I have to give them credit! They are well-hidden in their terminologies, so much so that it is hard to distinguish them, historically. However, if one follows the thread of collectivism...).
Here's one of the original incarnations of the Tory base: from "The Victorian Web"
"The Tory power base was the conservative rural squirearchy, which was violently opposed to the taxation required to pay for the wars with France that the Whigs stood rather to profit by. It was not until 1784 that the followers of Pitt returned the Tories to power, but after the French Revolution they came increasingly to be seen as a party of reaction, and eventually lost power in 1830".
"In the mid-nineteenth century the Tory party was rechristened the Conservative Party, but today its members are still popularly known as Tories".
Sound familiar? Circle of Life!
That's why the Brits love to study our war. They like looking into that mirror. (Although, they don't much like looking into the one the Germans made for them, called THE PATRIOT!)
The Whig/ Democrat thing was, doubtless, of primary importance, more times than not!
Zachary Taylor was associated with Whiggery, if I recall correctly, and while he didn't want Knoxie, his cute little daughter, marrying a military man, I am sure it had to do with Davis' politics as a Conservative, since the push towards Henry Clay-ism (The so-called American System) was coming like a great storm cloud, brought to fruition by his disciple, the man who gave his eulogy, Abraham Lincoln.
As an aside, Varina Howell (Davis) was a recovering Whig, if I recall correctly,or was at least she was descended from those antecedents!
Zach eventually wanted to take Davis by the hand, and have him and his men near him... (and this is before the heroics!). His daughter, who was dead by this time, has been, according to the future president, "a better judge of men than (he was) ..."
O, that all Whigs, everywhere, past and present, should come to this understanding of Davis!
That is my hope, not my expectation!
Still, stranger things have happened! New England went home in a box last evening... Courtesy of the Gangs of New York...
Who'd a thunk it?
Beowulf
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Hmmmmm. 
Linear Mode
