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

Based upon his service in the Mexican War, as a Senator and Secretary of War, I do not see the term misplaced.

Heroism is entirely subjective and personal. Those positions may be admirable but they are not seen as heroic to many.

For some in the South, he may be a hero - but for many more -- I don't think he fits the bill.

And that's totally fine! But one should not try to push their heroic version of their hero upon another.

Sorry about you having a bad day :smile: I hope your evening goes a lot better!
 
Last edited:
I personally think, it's unfair and untruthful. It's a disservice to the children and adults on that tour. To even mention what his slaves thought of him is out of line. I wonder if they really had a choice to say the opposite? I think not. Even if they could - they would not have.

Like in another thread we've seen here recently, about the elderly Virginia planter who was so confused and upset because his slaves ran off. He was so kind and generous to them, he was sure they loved him! Why would they ever leave him?

Maybe Davis and his family thought his slaves were devoted to him -- but he and his kind were clueless about a great many things. They, no less than their slaves, were victims of the corrupt system they inherited and in which they lived.
 
Monticello does a pretty good job with Thomas Jefferson, and the community of slaves that made everything work. It's a model of how to do it right.
I don't know about "doing it right." Jefferson's record was spotty to say the least. His early grand pronouncements against slavery sound wonderful. But by the 1790s he was advising people to "invest in human property" if they sought prosperity; and cautioning his overseer (whose brutality white neighbors had complained about) not to discipline his slaves in his (Jefferson's) presence.

See The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson, from the Smithsonian.
 
I don't know about "doing it right." Jefferson's record was spotty to say the least. His early grand pronouncements against slavery sound wonderful. But by the 1790s he was advising people to "invest in human property" if they sought prosperity; and cautioning his overseer (whose brutality white neighbors had complained about) not to discipline his slaves in his (Jefferson's) presence.

See The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson, from the Smithsonian.
I mean the museum is doing a good job interpreting a complex individual and all the people, free and enslaved, at Monticello.
 
Like in another thread we've seen here recently, about the elderly Virginia planter who was so confused and upset because his slaves ran off. He was so kind and generous to them, he was sure they loved him! Why would they ever leave him?

Maybe Davis and his family thought his slaves were devoted to him -- but he and his kind were clueless about a great many things. They, no less than their slaves, were victims of the corrupt system they inherited and in which they lived.

You're right. :smile: Thanks for reminding me of that.

It is just very important to me and others like myself - that these voiceless people now have a strong voice through their descendants.

Thanks!
 
The hatred evidenced here amazes me. Here's what we ought to do. We need to burn the place to the ground. Then we need to spread salt so that nothing can ever grow there again. Then we should move to every other Confederate site and do the same. Once we've destroyed every site, pulled down every statue and expunged every reference to Confederates and the Confederacy, heck, we might as well even do the same in the cemeteries, no one should be reminded of the evil that only Confederates caused in this great nation. That way all will be safe from from being tainted by their very existence. Everyone's life will then be sweetness and light in the serene knowledge that all remnants of racism have been removed from our social fabric. We all know that only those rascally Confederates had these awful traits and views.

I'm sorry folks it has been a particularly bad day for me but I am quite literally sick to death of the incessant drumbeat that anyone who fought for the Confederacy is a moral reprobate worthy of being held up to to contempt and derision. Peace and Justice require understanding and tolerance of the views of others. There is none of that in this thread. I am sick of the veiled references to genocide, the overt references to Nazis and the like. It must stop. It serves no useful purpose. It is divisive and it mean spirited. It does nothing but make me want to dig in my heels and resist.
You are the only one talking about burning the place to the ground.
 
I have trouble understanding how Jefferson Davis is a hero.
A hero admits the nation will not be successful, and takes the consequences.
He does not leave it to Forrest and Lee to make that decision after several thousand more men die.
Resistance is a loaded word, intentionally chosen to protect a coalition of people who tried to overthrow the United States government, and attempts to make Davis, in particular, a victim.
 
If you go tour a former working plantation then slavery would be part of how the farm operated and you should hear about how it was there.

You go to the presidents house, you might learn about what was happening there in meetings and the important people who came and went.

When the subject is slavery lets talk about it, when slavery is not the subject we dont need it shoved in our faces constantly.
 
Well, just imagine how it feels to be beaten over the head that you come from the enslaved and that the story of your ancestors is cleaned up and polished to make SOME feel better about their ancestors actions.

OR to be totally OK about honoring and highlighting certain ancestors or heroes/figures of "history" -- but then go on to say they are "being beat over the head with slavery" Basically it sounds like -- don't mention "the slaves" or slavery! or 'ugh - they [blacks] are always complaining!" LOL. Does that sound right? Especially, when Davis and the Confederate are known for things about and surrounding slavery.

My point is that it should be possible to discuss people and topics during the Civil War era without someone demanding that slavery be included in every single last discussion. If a museum wants to specialize in a narrowly focused way, there's nothing wrong with that.

And - remember the enslaved just happened to be there too. But, not in such a great situation. I guess they shouldn't get a voice or have the right to have the truth or their story be heard. Just the people of southern "history" - like Davis. Doesn't sound right to me.

And if the truth about slavery wasn't available in many other venues, I'd agree with you. But it is easily found in many other museums and libraries, so I have a hard time accepting that anyone is being shortchanged here. But I appreciate your thoughtful response and your perspective.
 
If you go tour a former working plantation then slavery would be part of how the farm operated and you should hear about how it was there.

You go to the presidents house, you might learn about what was happening there in meetings and the important people who came and went.

When the subject is slavery lets talk about it, when slavery is not the subject we dont need it shoved in our faces constantly.

I totally agree. But, in this case - it's the President of the Confederacy not the President of U.S. And you can't talk about the Confederacy without talking about slavery and the South.

I guess you can't see how you are OK with someone else doing the same thing. Meaning, the Confederacy/Davis and a one-sided view being shoved + presented as accurate history in many faces - some being children. But, totally ignore slavery and racism. IMO, that's a way to silence and narrate what one may think is important - but not what IS important.

What was his job?
Jefferson Finis Davis[1] (June 3, 1808 – December 6, 1889) was an American politician who was a Democratic U.S. Representative and Senator from Mississippi, the 23rd U.S. Secretary of War, and the President of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. He took personal charge of the Confederate war plans but was unable to find a strategy to defeat the more populous and industrialized Union. His diplomatic efforts failed to gain recognition from any foreign country, and at home, the collapsing Confederate economy forced his government to print more and more paper money to cover the war's expenses, leading to runaway inflation and devaluation of the Confederate dollar.

What issues did the Confederacy fight for?
One BIG and MAIN thing was --- Slavery. And yeah - "states rights."

Unfortunately, you can't just talk about what he did, his home decor and what meetings took place there. You have to talk about what those meetings were about, and what were the key goals and benchmarks in those war plans and strategies. What his beliefs were? And any other historically accurate information about him and The Confederacy - good or bad.
 
Last edited:
Lowell Mills in Massachushutes does a good job of detailing how poorly some of the girls were treated in Northern factories. Same with the horrendous tenement houses in New York. It can be done. Just present the good and the bad.
Lowell also dispells the myth that the "Mill Girls" were farmer's daughters looking for independance. After the first decade or so, most were immigrants and their conditions were generally bad before they unionized in the early 20th Century. I went to the Tenement Museum several times and was told the histories of the families who lived their, including children who died because farmers sold their mothers spoiled milk and workers who were locked out by bosses. No need for rose colored glasses if you are looking for history instead of myth.
 
Back
Top