Restricted Transcontinental Railroad: The Primary Reason for the Election of Jefferson Davis to be President of the CSA

Status
Not open for further replies.

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Great Post, and thanks for that. His military service is something that you have head of. Defending the South was definitely important in a New Nation.

How about Economics, would that not be Important? How would a new Nation pay for its military and Independence? Have you ever head of this?:

Such sentiments were widespread. The grand vistas, the beautiful tunnels, the elegant viaducts and the steep embankments indicated a range of new possibilities. But the political implications of these new geographical arrangements were unclear. Toasts were made to the "young west" and to the "future Empire" and the nation's "surpassing agricultural wealth, manufactured production, commercial energy, and political power." They were also made to the South and in defense of its rights (that is, slaves).

One guest hailed the railroad as "a powerful agent. . .to republicanize a people. The toasts caught precisely the contradictory spirit of the age. The development of railroads in the East, West and South spurred expansion across great space and competition for resources, trade routes and "natural" advantages. Railroad lines reconfigured the landscape and changed the "location: of cities, towns, and even natural features. Hiring and disciplining thousands of workers, the railroads began a process on networking the nation and let to Americans' first and most significant experience in and within, a national system. In the heated debates of sectional conflict, slavery, and western expansion, Americans at these moments speculated on how the railroads might affect a future war.

Later in the presidential election of 1860, over 1,000 votes were cast in Baltimore City for Abraham Lincoln, more than in any county in Maryland and more than in any other place in the South, where Lincoln was no ever on the ballot. Indeed, all along the B & O line in Maryland, especially in Allegheny County, where the company had its shops, large numbers of Lincoln voters went to the polls for the Republicans in 1860. There seemed to be little coincidence in this Lincoln support along the railroad.

The B & O therefore, appeared to be the exception in the slaveholding South that probed the influence of all railroads, whether built with slave or free labor. Railroads and telegraphs could, and did, appear to sway the political and social orientation of new places. Despite its slave state location, in other words, the B&O seemed to be pulling Maryland and western Virginia closer to Ohio and Pennsylvania, rather that the reverse. The lesson for southern slaveholders seemed clear with regard to expansion in western territories: free labor railroads could sustain free labor societies, and slave labor railroads could sustain slave labor societies.

At nearly the same time, the Memphis and Charleston Railroad held its celebration of completion, but its event turned into a rehearsal for secession. The Mayor of Charleston, South Carolina, William Porcher Miles, explained that the railroad would bind the southern people "together more closely and compactly as a homogeneous people having common interests, common institutions, and a common destiny," He called the internal bickering between southern states and cities competing for railroads, "suicidal madness for us, while our citadel is besieged." Miles sharply pointed out, "The time [for Union] has passed." The South cannot "blink" or cry for peace, because "the war has already begun."

These defiant sentiments found ready agreement in Virginia, where the Richmond Examiner was already fretting that the South's failure to build railroads would jeopardize its security in a sure-to-come civil war. With its exposed position on the frontier of any future Confederacy, Virginia, the newspaper warned, should not find herself "without the means of concentrating troops with the rapidity indispensable to modern warfare," would be governed "by steam," and it had achieved a velocity "not dreamed of thirty years ago." The Examiner considered it "obvious" that the Covington and Ohio Railroad was a military necessity because it planned to connect the states's largest white population in western Virginia with the points in the East most vulnerable to attack. The future war would be won and lost, the Examiner believed, by how quickly and how many forces could be rushed to the battlefields.

Every time a railroad celebration took place in the South, white Southerners, such as Charleston's Mayor Miles, were increasingly convinced that the Confederate nation was already self-evident. The South's railroads took in capital from abroad through state bond sales and participated in the global web of the cotton trade. They stood at the fore front of commerce and engineering. When southern secession conventions met after Lincoln's election in 1860, the same ideas of civilization and progress--what a nation needed to claim modernity--were strikingly evident. What surprised white Southerners throughout the sectional debates over the extension of slavery in the late 1850s was the North's blatant disregard for the underlying geographic advantages that they thought nature had bestowed upon the South. The recent mastery of geography that their railroad building so clearly demonstrated seemed to count for little in the North, and yet the experience gave the white South unprecedented confidence in its modern civilization and slavery's place in its society as "a first rate power" in the world, and an infrastructure to justify and sustain independence of necessary. pp62-64 The Iron Way by Thomas.

Recon what Porcher Myles would of put in the Secession Documents for Reason? Part of building a New Nation is to build Nationalism. Slavery Expansion to the West and Industrial Slavery was all part of the TRR. Davis was the biggest Contributor to a Southern TRR. Davis had spent the last 10 years in this capacity.

The economic interests were 4 BILLION dollars in 1860s currency, in slavery, period.

How much was that Gadson purchase again?
 

uaskme

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
One source from the book, Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of America, by William C. Davis, chapter 3, Visions of Breakers Ahead, page 72:

"The final argument came from Davis himself. Alexander Clayton, a Mississippi delegate had been held up and only arrived on the afternoon of February 7. With him he brought a letter from Davis in which, replying to a question from Clayton, he said he would not turn down the presidency if offered. Many had assumed that, in the event of war, he would naturally be appointed to chief command of the armies they would have to raise, the best use for the Mississippian's acknowledged military talents. Indeed, he made it clear that this would be his preference as well. But the constitution they were then debating included the old commander-in-chief clause unchanged, meaning that their president would have ultimate authority over their armed forces just as in the United States. If there was any lack of unanimity for Davis in the Mississippi delegation, this quenched it entirely."

Unionblue

PS: In all of William C. Davis's book, I have not found one mention of the TRR nor the word "railroad" in the index of his book.

Here is a blip on Mr. Alexander M Clayton:


Seems. He was a director on the Memphis and Charleston Railroad. I'm sure in all of your studies, that you know, Memphis was one of the Jumping Off Places considered for the TRR. So, it would seem that Mr Clayton, might of had another Motive for helping to select Davis. His Railroad, experience.:

During 1859 and 1860 in the Senate, Davis did not spend his time solely on the territorial question, though it was certainly the most important item of business...He also continued his vigorous support for a transcontinental railroad, built with federal assistance. As before, he struggled against his strict-constructionist associates, who did not think the federal government should aid railroads. Again, Davis based his contention on requirements for defense and federal ownership of the territories. To avoid the problems of selection a route, he suggested authorizing private companies to present plans for construction; he argued tat they would make decisions on the best way west on engineering and commercial bases, not politics. Then accepting the best proposal, the government could provide alternate sections of land in the territories and advance as much as $10 million, to be repaid from the railroad's profits. pp330 Jefferson Davis by Cooper

Yes, Alexander Clayton would of been, well acquainted with Davis! Not only with his Military record, which would of been the Mexican War, 1848. But him being a recent advocate of the TRR.
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
So: is there a point where Clayton says "We must elect Jefferson Davis President of the Confederacy because he wants a Transcontinental Railroad"????? Or is this yet another post that says nothing about the topic of the OP?

I knew the minute a supporter of JD was found to have RR interests that the next step would be to discount them.

All my posts go right back to the OP.

James
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Here is a blip on Mr. Alexander M Clayton:


Seems. He was a director on the Memphis and Charleston Railroad. I'm sure in all of your studies, that you know, Memphis was one of the Jumping Off Places considered for the TRR. So, it would seem that Mr Clayton, might of had another Motive for helping to select Davis. His Railroad, experience.:

During 1859 and 1860 in the Senate, Davis did not spend his time solely on the territorial question, though it was certainly the most important item of business...He also continued his vigorous support for a transcontinental railroad, built with federal assistance. As before, he struggled against his strict-constructionist associates, who did not think the federal government should aid railroads. Again, Davis based his contention on requirements for defense and federal ownership of the territories. To avoid the problems of selection a route, he suggested authorizing private companies to present plans for construction; he argued tat they would make decisions on the best way west on engineering and commercial bases, not politics. Then accepting the best proposal, the government could provide alternate sections of land in the territories and advance as much as $10 million, to be repaid from the railroad's profits. pp330 Jefferson Davis by Cooper

Yes, Alexander Clayton would of been, well acquainted with Davis! Not only with his Military record, which would of been the Mexican War, 1848. But him being a recent advocate of the TRR.

A great find, Uaskme, though technically Mr. Clayton was a Director of the Mississippi Central RR that simply shared trackage with --Voila! The Memphis and Charleston Railroad.

The M&CRR, of course, was the baby of James Gadsden who in turn coaxed John C. Calhoun to preside over the Memphis Commercial Convention of 1845 and who in turn passed the torch of the TRR to Jeff Davis one November night in Natchez on his way back to Charleston (while Calhoun danced with Davis's wife) and after which Charleston's very own James D. B. De Bow launched his Review in January 1846, hyping ever thereafter in it the TRR, California, Sonora, the Non-Gadsden Purchase, China, Japan, the Spice Islands, and Peruvian guano. I guess Mr. Clayton just missed all of this because he was such an anti-intellectual judge during his career. How would he know any of this?

Does this help?

Thanks, Uaskme, for a fine find! My guess is that something similar could be said about the remaining 36 fellows. Sooner or later I will track them all down even though I do not need their testimonies or personal Railroad interests to prove my point but just to add a little icing on the Confederate cake.

James
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
The economic interests were 4 BILLION dollars in 1860s currency, in slavery, period.

How much was that Gadson purchase again?

Hinton Helper valued the slaves at less than $2 billion. On top of that he demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that slavery overwhelmingly depressed southern real estate values. Salvation was in steam, not in slaves; in iron horse power, not black muscle power.

And on top of this, Albert Pike stated in De Bow's Review that the value of the TRR to the South was "inestimable. "Inestimable" trumps $4 billion anyday."

James
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
The economic interests were 4 BILLION dollars in 1860s currency, in slavery, period.

How much was that Gadson purchase again?

On page 127 of his book THE IMPENDING CRISIS (published in 1857), Hinton Helper, using statistics prepared under the supervision of the Southern fire-eater, James D. B. De Bow, and also citing as authorities the slaveowners themselves, tells us that those slaveowners valued their slaves at $1.6 billion in 1857 dollars. Thus,

$4,000,000,000 = UB's 2019 valuation of slaves in 1860 currency.
$1,600,000,000 = HH's 1857 valuation of slaves in 1857 currency.
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
So: is there a point where Clayton says "We must elect Jefferson Davis President of the Confederacy because he wants a Transcontinental Railroad"????? Or is this yet another post that says nothing about the topic of the OP?

In short, yes he did. See post 104. Clayton's history with JD and the Mississippi Central RR says those identical words in actions that speak louder than the words I understand that you would prefer to read. Sometimes people say things in synonyms.
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
One source from the book, Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of America, by William C. Davis, chapter 3, Visions of Breakers Ahead, page 72:

"The final argument came from Davis himself. Alexander Clayton, a Mississippi delegate had been held up and only arrived on the afternoon of February 7. With him he brought a letter from Davis in which, replying to a question from Clayton, he said he would not turn down the presidency if offered. Many had assumed that, in the event of war, he would naturally be appointed to chief command of the armies they would have to raise, the best use for the Mississippian's acknowledged military talents. Indeed, he made it clear that this would be his preference as well. But the constitution they were then debating included the old commander-in-chief clause unchanged, meaning that their president would have ultimate authority over their armed forces just as in the United States. If there was any lack of unanimity for Davis in the Mississippi delegation, this quenched it entirely."

Unionblue

PS: In all of William C. Davis's book, I have not found one mention of the TRR nor the word "railroad" in the index of his book.


See post #104 about Clayton and the RRs.

The absence of "railroad" in Davis's book is one reason I wrote mine. He and others (McPherson, Freehling, et al.) pay far too little attention to the RR. Your statement supports my concern about what the recognized Civil War historians have been feeding us about the antebellum.

I have an art book by Davis and others (I think others but at least Davis) about the Civil War. Not a mention of Val Verde or Glorieta. Davis gets an F- when it comes to the ACW in the West. That's what he would get, if he turned his book into me as a term paper in my history class.
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
I’ve never seen convincing evidence that the RR had much of anything to do with Davis being appointed. You cannot be elected if there was no opponent.

I believe the choice of Davis as CSA President was set during the DNC a year prior to Secession. He had planned to run for President of the US but was convinced to back out. Then miraculously a year later he was President of the CSA. The RR had nothing to do with it.

Davis was a professional politician that didn’t see the plus of the RR or his area would have been chock full of RR line.

Mr. Steele, UB, and Mr. Trice have raised questions about the supporters of Davis for president of the CSA and that "The RR [by which I think he means the TRR] had nothing to do with it." UB offered as an example of this unsupported negative one Alexander Clayton, a member of Mississippi's Supreme Court.

Post #104 proves beyond question Mr. Clayton's connection with RRs, more specifically the Mississippi Central RR which used trackage of James Gadsden's Memphis and Charleston RR. Mr. Clayton practiced law in Holly Springs, Mississippi, through which the Mississippi Central RR ran. In the January 16, 1852, edition of THE WEEKLY MISSISSIPPIAN, published in Jackson, Mississippi, that paper connects the footprint in Holly Springs with a route to the Pacific.

"The RR had nothing to do with it [the choice of JD as president of the CSA]"? Not in my view. Clayton might not have said so using nouns and verbs in a formal address or a private letter, but he said so in iron rails and wooden ties heading west.

Just a thought.

James
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Hinton Helper valued the slaves at less than $2 billion. On top of that he demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that slavery overwhelmingly depressed southern real estate values. Salvation was in steam, not in slaves; in iron horse power, not black muscle power.

And on top of this, Albert Pike stated in De Bow's Review that the value of the TRR to the South was "inestimable. "Inestimable" trumps $4 billion any day."

Albert Pike said that or is that "trumps $4 billion any day" just in your opinion?

James
On page 127 of his book THE IMPENDING CRISIS (published in 1857), Hinton Helper, using statistics prepared under the supervision of the Southern fire-eater, James D. B. De Bow, and also citing as authorities the slaveowners themselves, tells us that those slaveowners valued their slaves at $1.6 billion in 1857 dollars. Thus,

$4,000,000,000 = UB's 2019 valuation of slaves in 1860 currency.
$1,600,000,000 = HH's 1857 valuation of slaves in 1857 currency.

Only 2 BILLION? :smile:

(And the 4 Billion figure comes from other sources other Hinton and Helper.)

Slavery in the United States.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/slavery-in-the-united states/

Note the figures "3.1 billion to 3.6 billion and later on "nearly 4 billion.

Hinton Helper, how was his "demonstration" received by the slaveholding South? Was he welcomed with open arms? Was his Hinton Helper given high praise? Who did he influence in giving up slavery for a TRR?

As for DeBow, how was his advice and comments taken by the slaveholding South? Didn't he comment at one time the South needed to produce it's own ships? It's own products instead of always importing them from the North? Was his reviews responsible for jump-starting the South away from a slave based economy?

What's that old saying? "A prophet in his own country...?"

Unionblue
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I never said that all I have is my opinion. What I have are overwhelming facts that by themselves scream their significance. All I have done is to pass along that scream for those out of earshot. If you can't hear it, the correct characterization is not "You said this was just your own opinion" which is something I never said or would say. A correct characterization would be, "I didn't hear those screams myself."

James

Even the screaming an opinion is still just that, just an opinion. Noise level does not increase their significance. They only annoy potential listeners

It just depends which "overwhelming facts" are presented and in what context they are given if they are supportive of that opinion.

Some of us here can't hear anything for all the noise except, "this is my opinion."
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
So: is there a point where Clayton says "We must elect Jefferson Davis President of the Confederacy because he wants a Transcontinental Railroad"????? Or is this yet another post that says nothing about the topic of the OP?
I knew the minute a supporter of JD was found to have RR interests that the next step would be to discount them.

All my posts go right back to the OP.
James

This is an attempt to go off on a tangent and refuse to answer the question. Absolutely nothing you have presented shows that Clayton supported Jefferson Davis for President because of the Transcontinental RR.

So, once again: is there a point where Clayton says "We must elect Jefferson Davis President of the Confederacy because he wants a Transcontinental Railroad"????? Or is this yet another post that says nothing about the topic of the OP?
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Mr. Steele, UB, and Mr. Trice have raised questions about the supporters of Davis for president of the CSA and that "The RR [by which I think he means the TRR] had nothing to do with it." UB offered as an example of this unsupported negative one Alexander Clayton, a member of Mississippi's Supreme Court.

Post #104 proves beyond question Mr. Clayton's connection with RRs, more specifically the Mississippi Central RR which used trackage of James Gadsden's Memphis and Charleston RR. Mr. Clayton practiced law in Holly Springs, Mississippi, through which the Mississippi Central RR ran. In the January 16, 1852, edition of THE WEEKLY MISSISSIPPIAN, published in Jackson, Mississippi, that paper connects the footprint in Holly Springs with a route to the Pacific.

"The RR had nothing to do with it [the choice of JD as president of the CSA]"? Not in my view. Clayton might not have said so using nouns and verbs in a formal address or a private letter, but he said so in iron rails and wooden ties heading west.

Just a thought.

James

There are a couple of errors of fact above, but let's ignore them.

Your logic goes like this:
  1. Jefferson Davis liked/supported railroads
  2. Clayton M. Moore liked/supported railroads
  3. therefore, Moore supported Davis for President of the Confederacy because of the Transcontinental Railroad
This is a pure and simple logical fallacy. Points #1 and 2 have no observable relationship to your conclusion. You can just as easily say this:
  1. Jefferson Davis liked/supported education (see reforms at West Point during his term as Secretary of War)
  2. Clayton M. Moore liked/supported education (he was first president of the Board of Trustees of the University of Mississippi and served on the board from 1857 to 1870.)
  3. therefore, Moore supported Davis for President of the Confederacy because of their shared interest in education
Neither one of those proves the conclusion because there is no evidence to support the conclusion, merely empty supposition. This is how you always present your case for the Transcontinental RR and secession. All you present is unsupported supposition and conjecture.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Here we have 2 historians calling the inclusion of Popular Sovereignty as BAIT to the Southerners. It is true, the Free Soilers are going to see this as a Gift and use it to split the Country, which will cause a War. The Republicans will favor the Presidency over the TRR. Little doubt what was on Douglas's mind. The 3 route proposal for the TRR was a Trap, to be advantaged. Thank you Mr. Potter.








You are laboring to deliver a mouse. Popular Sovereignty had nothing to do wiith my origiinal post, you are trying to answer, if that is what you are trying to do.

All knowlegeable historians know that popular sovereignty was the bait, Douglas was using to tempt southern votes for his Nebraska Bill. But at the F Street Mess, Douglas requested the powerful Southern Leaders of the Democratic Party, to declare his Bill as a Party interest, requiring a bloc vote by all Democrats. Those Southerners required the insertion of a specific renouncing of the Compromise of 1820. Douglas agreed, even though knowing that to do so, would raise 'a hell of a row' in the North.(the fact that the operation of Douglas' Bill would effectively render the Mo. Compromise a dead letter, was not good enough for thos southern leaders).

But none this answers my question, But, for slavery what the row over statehood for Ks, if A TRR was involved, ie., why were southerners fighting so hard to further the building of a Northern TRR? Even as Northern votes passed the Gadfsden Purchase, clearing the way for a Southern Rte, for a TRR? If it was really about TRR's what was the controversy?
 

uaskme

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
You are laboring to deliver a mouse. Popular Sovereignty had nothing to do wiith my origiinal post, you are trying to answer, if that is what you are trying to do.

All knowlegeable historians know that popular sovereignty was the bait, Douglas was using to tempt southern votes for his Nebraska Bill. But at the F Street Mess, Douglas requested the powerful Southern Leaders of the Democratic Party, to declare his Bill as a Party interest, requiring a bloc vote by all Democrats. Those Southerners required the insertion of a specific renouncing of the Compromise of 1820. Douglas agreed, even though knowing that to do so, would raise 'a hell of a row' in the North.(the fact that the operation of Douglas' Bill would effectively render the Mo. Compromise a dead letter, was not good enough for thos southern leaders).

But none this answers my question, But, for slavery what the row over statehood for Ks, if A TRR was involved, ie., why were southerners fighting so hard to further the building of a Northern TRR? Even as Northern votes passed the Gadfsden Purchase, clearing the way for a Southern Rte, for a TRR? If it was really about TRR's what was the controversy?

There is no question, Douglas BAITED the Southerners with the repeal of the MO Comp, because he was clearing the way for the TRR. Southerners thought that allowing Slavery in the Territories was an act of Equality. South should participate equally as the North. They didn't view, Both not having slaves in the territories as equality, because the North didn't have them.

In 1853 Pierce appointed James Gadsden of South Carolina as minister to Mexico, where he successfully negotiated for the American purchase of land that bolstered the chances of a route form New Orleans to San Diego. Atchison then told Douglas he would no longer support the Nebraska Bill and joined the phalanx of other slave state congressmen, stating he would see the territory "sink in hell" rather than yield it to free soiliers. Douglas's effort had failed even when he had Atchison's backing. Now, without strong support form the South, Douglas knew he was sunk.

With his energies directed exclusively at a railroad and the fame and increased power he would gain for pulling off this stupendous feat of engineering and statecraft, Douglas found a solution. He would appeal to white southerners by repealing the restrictions on slavery contained in the Missouri Compromise. On January 23, 1854. Douglas offered a new bill, one creating two territories, Kansas to the South and Nebraska above it. The division implied that Kansas might become slave and Nebraska free, but the bill stated expressly that the decision over slavery would fall to the people of each territory, not Congress. With Atchison and other powerful slave state senators aboard, Douglas approached President Pierce with the plan and won his appeal. pp180 Yancey by Walther

The initiative was on Douglas. The Southerners took the Bait. They were Stupid.

The immediate purpose and larger implications of the Kansas-Nebraska bill certainly did not escape alert Southerners outside of Congress. Albert Pike, of Arkansas, stated them in his speeches and addresses in behalf of his plan for building a Southern Pacific railway. :Not content,": he wrote, "with the natural and regular growth towards manly stature of the great country lying in the North-west, they have resorted to the system of forcing, as men use hotbeds on horticulture' and we see new territories of vast size and comparatively unpeopled, organized and established on the line of a Northern Pacific Railroad--Oregon and Washington standing on the shores of the Pacific and Nebraska and Kansas on those of the Mississippi--each clasping hands with the other on the slopes of the rocky mountains. It needs no prophetic eye to see in the future a cordon of fee States carved in succession off from these territories, extending with a continuous and swarming population across the continent, giving such power to the Northern vote in Congress as has hitherto been only dreamed of, and securing to their road, the Nile of this new Egypt, aid from the National Treasury, and countenance and encouragement from the general government. pp165-166 Improvements in Communications by Russel

I get the Idea, you don't see this as a Sectional Debate. Don't Care. However, if you seriously study this, don't think your will. I think you would see it differently.
 
Last edited:

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Once again:

Is there any evidence at all that the politicians electing Jefferson Davis to be President of the Confederacy (37 representatives from the six States meeting in Montgomery) actually mentioned/discussed/thought about the Transcontinental Railroad when electing him?

If there is, would someone please post at least a reference to it?

If no one can find even a single reference to such an event in February 1861, the opinion expressed in the OP of this thread ("There can be no doubt that the reason Jeff Davis was elected the first president of the CSA was because of his TRR resume.") is still completely unsupported. It is merely an expression of hope and desire by James Lutzweiler; other than that, it is absolutely unfounded.
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Once again:

Is there any evidence at all that the politicians electing Jefferson Davis to be President of the Confederacy (37 representatives from the six States meeting in Montgomery) actually mentioned/discussed/thought about the Transcontinental Railroad when electing him?

If there is, would someone please post at least a reference to it?

If no one can find even a single reference to such an event in February 1861, the opinion expressed in the OP of this thread ("There can be no doubt that the reason Jeff Davis was elected the first president of the CSA was because of his TRR resume.") is still completely unsupported. It is merely an expression of hope and desire by James Lutzweiler; other than that, it is absolutely unfounded.

"When electing him"? So you intend to discount ten years of history that preceded his elevation, just as those who argue for "slavery only" based on speeches and declarations in December 1860 ignore all the TRR history from 1845-1860?

I don't grant the point you are trying to make by limiting the universe of reasoning to "when" electing him. There is far more to the story than this limitation you express and need in order to dispute the OP.
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
"When electing him"? So you intend to discount ten years of history that preceded his elevation, just as those who argue for "slavery only" based on speeches and declarations in December 1860 ignore all the TRR history from 1845-1860?

I don't grant the point you are trying to make by limiting the universe of reasoning to "when" electing him. There is far more to the story than this limitation you express and need in order to dispute the OP.

This seems like a really picky way to avoid the question. Why in the world would you, or anyone else, think they could find anyone declaring for Jefferson Davis as Confederate President in 1851? Secession had not happened yet, there was no Confederacy to be President of, and Jefferson Davis had resigned from Congress to run for Governor of Mississippi -- an election he lost. Be more realistic, please.

***You*** are the one positing that people supported Jefferson Davis for Confederate President because of the Transcontinental Railroad. So far, you have not been able to show even one person who voted for him for that reason. Please provide some actual evidence.
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
This seems like a really picky way to avoid the question. Why in the world would you, or anyone else, think they could find anyone declaring for Jefferson Davis as Confederate President in 1851? Secession had not happened yet, there was no Confederacy to be President of, and Jefferson Davis had resigned from Congress to run for Governor of Mississippi -- an election he lost. Be more realistic, please.

***You*** are the one positing that people supported Jefferson Davis for Confederate President because of the Transcontinental Railroad. So far, you have not been able to show even one person who voted for him for that reason. Please provide some actual evidence.

Thanks for your post.

I do not avoid questions, as my thread history will demonstrate.

I have no idea what your second sentence means. No idea.

Do you have any other arguments against my view in your arsenal besides "You haven't been able to show . . ."? And apparently you have missed a point I have repeated several times now: I do NOT need statements in letters, speeches, pamphlets by the 37, stating, "The reaspon I am voting for Jeff Davis is because of his expertise in the TRR which we need to capture California and Canton." You keep setting up that foil, when it has nothing to do with my evidence so plainly stated. I would repeat it here, but it is already in plain sight. But I will repeat the axiom: Actions speak louder than words. Think about this parallel: When people vote for a poet laureate, they usually don't say, "We are voting for him/her because he/she is a poet." That is a given. And when you need western territory in the worst way to keep your life style alive, you vote for the fellow most equipped to accomplish that. It certainly was not any of the others like Howell Cobb whose main claim to fame might have been that he was chairman of the U.S. Committee on Mileage. What a notch in his resume. They were all lightweights in that respect.

James
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Once again:

Is there any evidence at all that the politicians electing Jefferson Davis to be President of the Confederacy (37 representatives from the six States meeting in Montgomery) actually mentioned/discussed/thought about the Transcontinental Railroad when electing him?

If there is, would someone please post at least a reference to it?

If no one can find even a single reference to such an event in February 1861, the opinion expressed in the OP of this thread ("There can be no doubt that the reason Jeff Davis was elected the first president of the CSA was because of his TRR resume.") is still completely unsupported. It is merely an expression of hope and desire by James Lutzweiler; other than that, it is absolutely unfounded.

Is your evidentiary vocabulary limited to "[Your view is] unsupported" and "[Your view] is merely an expression of hope and desire" and "is totally unfounded"? Pray tell, what kind of rebuttal is this? Do you have a view that prevails because of your alleged default of mine? My view will totally collapse in the face of a more powerful view. Do you have any statements from any of Davis's 37 supporters, stating their reasoning? One? If so, let's hear it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top