Davis Teaching Alabama School Children About Jeff Davis at First Confederate White House

In her book Confederate Reckoning: Power and Politics in the Civil War South, Stephanie McCurry talks about a slave "outbreak" at the plantations of CSA president Jefferson Davis and his brother Joseph Davis.

McCurry notes that Jefferson Davis and his brother Joseph owned two plantations located on the Mississippi River about twenty miles south of Vicksburg. In February 1862, Jefferson advised his brother to move the slaves and other valuable property further inland, where they would be safer against a Union attack along the river. In May 1862, after New Orleans fell, Joseph took several pieces of property – including house slaves – by fly boat off the plantation, and eventually wound up in Choctow County, AL.

That led to events which would cause “Jefferson Davis (to) watch helplessly from Richmond as his elder brother, Joseph, struggled vainly to beat back the challenge of their slaves’ bid for freedom,” as McCurry puts it. Immediately after Joseph Davis left,

…the Davis slaves made their move, responding not to the immediate presence of the Union army (which was not yet near), but to the signal that (the departure of) Joseph Davis had sent about the shifting balance of power. No sooner had Joseph pushed off from the dock than the remaining slaves seized control of the two plantations, sacking the Hurricane plantation, destroying the cotton, carrying off every article of value, and refusing to work. They would retain control of the plantation, indeed would refuse to be forced off even later by federal troops, seizing a rough and ready freedom while still on their home plantation. By the end of May 1862, Jefferson and Varina Davis received a series of lurid accounts of events on Brierfield plantation. “Negroes at Brierfield…said to be in a state of insubordination…”​

Sometime later, Joseph Davis had Confederate forces conduct a raid against the plantation. The slaves slaves had armed themselves, and shot at the Confederate raiders. At least fifteen slaves were captured, and some were killed. The Confederate lieutenant who led the raid claimed that “almost all the slaves on Davis plantation had guns and newspapers.” The slaves at the Davis plantation became part of the uncounted casualties in their own war for black southerner independence.

McCurry further describes the aftermath for Jefferson Davis:

While the battle was raging, Jefferson Davis retained his composure, at least publicly. But the blow had to have been staggering. His slaves had led federal soldiers to the farm where his private family possessions were concealed, despoiling his property and pointing out place after place where his valuables were hidden. A crowd of thousands (so it was said) had gathered to watch the boxes torn open and emptied of their contents, books and papers strewn all over the yard and through the woods for miles, fine carpets cut to pieces and carried off for saddle blankets… His image-the image of the Confederate president-had been desecrated by Union soldiers… and the Brierfield slaves had celebrated the fourth of July alongside not their masters, but the school marms and other disciples of the Freedman’s cause.​

It seems that the Davis slaves also had a genuine love for freedom, and were willing to fight for it. Something which is not mentioned in the tours.



That's not lot of money from public coffers, although it's probably a large part of the their revenue budget. Still, I'll make an easy prediction: sooner or later, somebody will complain that the current interpretation at the House presents an unfair and unbalanced view of the history, and will ask that no public money be given to the museum. My advice to House management would be to fix your interpretative approach now, before the House is seen as a problem that needs to be fixed.

- Alan
That is an inspiring story of the men and women on the Davis plantation.
 
I'm not trying to make a detailed statement about Davis' character, Dix can certainly say more about that than me. But his comments about slavery are much more limited and finite. I don't have an extensive library about Davis here at home, but I have read a lot about him in the past 8 years I've been studying the war. IMO, that quote pretty much represents his views, and I stand by my use and interpretation of it. I use that quote a lot because Davis said that in his 1881 book about the Confederacy. By then he was 73, had the benefit of time and reflection, and of course, he knew that this book would give posterity his best, his most cogent, his most unequivocal views on the past. And he said what he said.

I could say that she genuinely sees Davis as a hero and a good, even great, man; and that this affection might affect her, to the point that she is unintentionally apologetic about his views toward slavery. But I won't say that. I will say that I've seen enough of Davis' views on slavery that I believe the comments he made in 1881, as well as others I've seen, give us a good understanding of how Davis viewed slavery and slaves.



Just two things. First, getting historical interpretations right is always a good thing.

Second, I can tell you as a matter of fact that there are a lot of people who feel like they've been lied to about their history, that is, their history instruction did not or does not fatefully render the whole truth of Southern history. How much this factors into any negative view of Confederate commemoration, I cannot qualify or quantify. But even if it amounts to just a little bit, well, why let that little bit be a factor?

- Alan
Davis would have been surprised in 1860 if he knew that he was perceived as fundamentally anti-slavery.
 
From the article:

In response to such criticism, representatives of the museum ask why they should have to tell students about the evils of slavery.

“They just know it,” said Gibbs Davis, a member of the nonprofit group that solicits donations and maintains the privately-owned but partially state-funded house.

The Confederate White House is only one stop on the trip to Montgomery that Alabama fourth-graders traditionally take as part of their history education and is not the sole lesson they receive about the state’s past. Some groups choose to spend more time at civil rights sites such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s Dexter Avenue Baptist Church or the Rosa Parks Museum.


I agree. Everyone is beaten over the head with SLAVERY!!! every time the Confederacy or Davis are mentioned. Places that tell other aspects of the story get browbeaten for daring to go off of the approved message, but they shouldn't be. It's not as if all the facts aren't out there, easily found by anyone who's looking.
 
From the article:

In response to such criticism, representatives of the museum ask why they should have to tell students about the evils of slavery.

“They just know it,” said Gibbs Davis, a member of the nonprofit group that solicits donations and maintains the privately-owned but partially state-funded house.

The Confederate White House is only one stop on the trip to Montgomery that Alabama fourth-graders traditionally take as part of their history education and is not the sole lesson they receive about the state’s past. Some groups choose to spend more time at civil rights sites such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s Dexter Avenue Baptist Church or the Rosa Parks Museum.


I agree. Everyone is beaten over the head with SLAVERY!!! every time the Confederacy or Davis are mentioned. Places that tell other aspects of the story get browbeaten for daring to go off of the approved message, but they shouldn't be. It's not as if all the facts aren't out there, easily found by anyone who's looking.
Same with Davis's life, so no need for the preservation of the house. Right? I mean the facts are out there.

I am guessing that for, let's say 100 or so years after Davis lived there slavery really wasn't brought up regarding this site. It was ignored. It was whitewashed. Now, though, blacks in Alabama can vote. That changes things. Right?
 
From the article:

In response to such criticism, representatives of the museum ask why they should have to tell students about the evils of slavery. “They just know it,” said Gibbs Davis, a member of the nonprofit group that solicits donations and maintains the privately-owned but partially state-funded house.

The Confederate White House is only one stop on the trip to Montgomery that Alabama fourth-graders traditionally take as part of their history education and is not the sole lesson they receive about the state’s past. Some groups choose to spend more time at civil rights sites such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s Dexter Avenue Baptist Church or the Rosa Parks Museum.


I agree. Everyone is beaten over the head with SLAVERY!!! every time the Confederacy or Davis are mentioned. Places that tell other aspects of the story get browbeaten for daring to go off of the approved message, but they shouldn't be. It's not as if all the facts aren't out there, easily found by anyone who's looking.

RE: representatives of the museum ask why they should have to tell students about the evils of slavery.

Because it's Southern heritage.

Because in 1860, 45% of Alabama's population was enslaved in 1860, and freed after Jeff Davis's Confederacy lost the war.

Because the descendants of those persons, and in fact, all Alabamans, should know the impact that Jefferson Davis, as one of the most important political figures in the Confederacy, had on the bondage and freedom of that 45%.

If museums like this say they are about Southern heritage, but only want to tell an antiseptic, politically correct version of it, they're not telling Southern heritage, but Southern fantasy. If these folks want to do a feel good version of the history, fine. Let them re-brand it as a southern-themed amusement park, and charge admission.

What people need to understand, is that the idea of presenting history in this manner - in which a sterilized, happy-happy joy-joy vision of the past is given to the public - this is what has helped us get to where we are now with all of this controversy. If people feel like they're not getting the truth from these places, then there's no incentive for them to support them, certainly not with their tax dollars. I'm not trying to be mean or nasty, I'm just stating the reality.

- Alan
 
Same with Davis's life, so no need for the preservation of the house. Right? I mean the facts are out there.

I am guessing that for, let's say 100 or so years after Davis lived there slavery really wasn't brought up regarding this site. It was ignored. It was whitewashed. Now, though, blacks in Alabama can vote. That changes things. Right?

So much for freedom of speech and thought. Who gets to decide what facts are acceptable at this historical site, and which ones are not? The government? Should their taxpayer funding be pulled, because the SPLC and NAACP don't like the history that's taught there? Is that your point? Or maybe the state should take it over and teach some government approved, government sanctioned version of history. Would that be better than the way it's run now?
 
RE: representatives of the museum ask why they should have to tell students about the evils of slavery.

Because it's Southern heritage.

Because in 1860, 45% of Alabama's population was enslaved in 1860, and freed after Jeff Davis's Confederacy lost the war.

Because the descendants of those persons, and in fact, all Alabamans, should know the impact that Jefferson Davis, as one of the most important political figures in the Confederacy, had on the bondage and freedom of that 45%.

If museums like this say they are about Southern heritage, but only want to tell an antiseptic, politically correct version of it, they're not telling Southern heritage, but Southern fantasy. If these folks want to do a feel good version of the history, fine. Let them re-brand it as a southern-themed amusement park, and charge admission.

What people need to understand, is that the idea of presenting history in this manner - in which a sterilized, happy-happy joy-joy vision of the past is given to the public - this is what has helped us get to where we are now with all of this controversy. If people feel like they're not getting the truth from these places, then there's no incentive for them to support them, certainly not with their tax dollars. I'm not trying to be mean or nasty, I'm just stating the reality.

- Alan

Then don't support them. Don't visit their establishment. Even with taxpayer funding, they're still competing in the marketplace of ideas here. Sooner or later they'll have to close down if they can't sell their product.
 
From the article:
In response to such criticism, representatives of the museum ask why they should have to tell students about the evils of slavery.
“They just know it,” said Gibbs Davis, a member of the nonprofit group that solicits donations and maintains the privately-owned but partially state-funded house.
This would be a lot more persuasive if "the museum" did not itself introduce the subject of slavery with a biased, inaccurate, and incomplete account.

You are rarely "beaten over the head with SLAVERY" if you do not first deliberately downplay, trivialize, or outright deny it.
 
So much for freedom of speech and thought. Who gets to decide what facts are acceptable at this historical site, and which ones are not? The government? Should their taxpayer funding be pulled, because the SPLC and NAACP don't like the history that's taught there? Is that your point? Or maybe the state should take it over and teach some government approved, government sanctioned version of history. Would that be better than the way it's run now?

It's not about the government approving what the museum says. They can say whatever they want. If they want to say Davis was a god who walked on water, that is their right.

The question, is, do the people of Alabama have a duty to support their speech? No, they don't. The people have a decision to make about whom they support via state funding. And if the public feels the museum does not serve the public interest, it is subject to losing funding. That is true for every other such entity that gets government support.

You might feel that what they do adequately serves the public interest, others may not. My opinion is that the museum can better serve the public interest if they tell the full and comprehensive story of Southern history, not one that tells the "fun parts" and leaves out the "hard (difficult) parts." The museum staff have no duty to listen to me, and I acknowledge, they couldn't care less about what I think. But I think the advice I offer is sound advice.

- Alan
 
You are rarely "beaten over the head with SLAVERY" if you do not first deliberately downplay, trivialize, or outright deny it.

As the man rightly said, people are already well aware of it. Heaven forbid they have a museum that focuses on other aspects of history instead of rehashing yet again that slavery was a terrible thing, as if no one knows that.
 
Then don't support them. Don't visit their establishment. Even with taxpayer funding, they're still competing in the marketplace of ideas here. Sooner or later they'll have to close down if they can't sell their product.

Just for the record: I am not saying the museum should close. If they want to tell that vision of the past, fine. It's a free country. And I don't see the museum, its staff, or its supporters as bad or evil. I don't see you as bad or evil for advocating for the museum, as it is.

But the government is not free. State funding has a cost. I am describing a not-unlikely scenario under which support for museum funding might be lost. Beyond that, I have no other comments on the museum's future.

- Alan
 
Last edited:
Davis family slaves with newspaper, but wasn't it illegal to teach slaves how to read, so who taught these slaves to read?.
On many plantations, there were often 1 or 2 slaves, often house slaves, who were at least semi-literate. But you're right, the overwhelming majority were unable to read.

- Alan
 
  • Like
Reactions: WJC
So much for freedom of speech and thought. Who gets to decide what facts are acceptable at this historical site, and which ones are not? The government? Should their taxpayer funding be pulled, because the SPLC and NAACP don't like the history that's taught there? Is that your point? Or maybe the state should take it over and teach some government approved, government sanctioned version of history. Would that be better than the way it's run now?

So if they taught Jefferson Davis fathered 5 children by an enslaved woman you'd be okay with that because freedom of speech and thought and who gets to decide what facts are right or wrong.
 
Back
Top