• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Jefferson Davis Deserve a Place of Honor in History?

Read the OP first; then answer the poll

  • Jefferson Davis does not deserve to be honored by history.

    Votes: 12 66.7%

  • Jefferson Davis deserves to be honored by history.

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • I honestly don't know.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Other and I'll answer with my post.

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • Total voters
    18
Anagram said:
Davis broke away from this country and waged war against this government. It makes sense for the government of this country not to honor that.
Click to expand...

But it also makes sense for states righters to see it as a symbol of states rights and somebody, even though defeated, who was able to stand up for what he believed and fight for what he saw as right. History is full of people who have railed against existing laws they saw as unjust and who fought to overturn them and nobody resents the Carrie Nation's, Alice Paul's, Martin Luther King's, etc. etc. etc. who wouldn't take no for an answer.

Nobody is saying that the U.S. government should commemorate or honor Jefferson Davis in any way. But should a state who admires who he was, what he stood for, not so honor such a person? He spent most of his adult life competently serving the United States of America in various ways including risking his life as a soldier.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

. . .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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. . .​

The southern states who seceded from the Union saw the same kind of justification for their choice.

And had they been allowed to do so peacefully, there would have been no war. They didn't start the war. The union intent on denying them the right to secede did.
 
Crovax said:
Well as a general rule I usually like to ignore all advice given by insane people and in this case he clearly has an ulterior motive for saying it to absolve himself for all of the very bad things he has done
Click to expand...

I think that's a rule you might need to relax, especially with regard to fictional characters.

Stannis is hardly the only one to ever say something like this though. It is sound.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But it also makes sense for states righters to see it as a symbol of states rights and somebody, even though defeated, who was able to stand up for what he believed and fight for what he saw as right. History is full of people who have railed against existing laws they saw as unjust and who fought to overturn them and nobody resents the Carrie Nation's, Alice Paul's, Martin Luther King's, etc. etc. etc. who wouldn't take no for an answer.

Nobody is saying that the U.S. government should commemorate or honor Jefferson Davis in any way. But should a state who admires who he was, what he stood for, not so honor such a person? He spent most of his adult life competently serving the United States of America in various ways including risking his life as a soldier.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

. . .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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. . .​

The southern states who seceded from the Union saw the same kind of justification for their choice.

And had they been allowed to do so peacefully, there would have been no war. They didn't start the war. The union intent on denying them the right to secede did.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with him in a museum with others like him. You can call it the Traitors Museum....or States Right Museum if you must. LOL
 
AlbqOwl said:
But it also makes sense for states righters to see it as a symbol of states rights and somebody, even though defeated, who was able to stand up for what he believed and fight for what he saw as right. History is full of people who have railed against existing laws they saw as unjust and who fought to overturn them and nobody resents the Carrie Nation's, Alice Paul's, Martin Luther King's, etc. etc. etc. who wouldn't take no for an answer.

Nobody is saying that the U.S. government should commemorate or honor Jefferson Davis in any way. But should a state who admires who he was, what he stood for, not so honor such a person? He spent most of his adult life competently serving the United States of America in various ways including risking his life as a soldier.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

. . .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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. . .​

The southern states who seceded from the Union saw the same kind of justification for their choice.

And had they been allowed to do so peacefully, there would have been no war. They didn't start the war. The union intent on denying them the right to secede did.
Click to expand...

Can states? Sure. But as long as they are state governments in our federal system, I don't think they should.

I'm not going to debate the merits of secession in the Civil War, or any other secession in history. It's complicated, and not really the subject of this thread.
 
MrWonka said:
Honor no? He deserves a factual recording of his record, with a special point made that "states rights" has throughout history been used as code for "we want to do something we know is horribly wrong and can't defend, but since the majority of our state wants to do it you should let us do it anyway."
Click to expand...

States rights has no code word attached. States rights means states governing themselves as far as possible, leaving only those items better accomplished by the collective to the federal government. Those items are generally meant to include fighting the wars, protecting the borders, and facilitating interstate travel and commerce.
 
Caine said:
So that is what states rights mean in regard to legalizing marijuana despite federal law.

Interesting take, but I disagree.

I believe the states have the right to legalize marijuana despite the federal law if they so choose, because I believe in the 10th Amendment.

If Jefferson Davis were alive today, he would support the rights of the states to choose for themselves on issues like marijuana.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the states can legally legalize MJ, and every puff is a violation of federal law. No entity be it an individual or a state has a right to decide which laws they want to obey.

If you think the drug laws are wrong, then the course of action is to get the feds out of the drug business. It's not a Constitutional issue, so Congress could change the law overnight if they chose.
 
MrWonka said:
He may have hated it breaking up, but when it did he chose an absolutely horrible side.



Plenty. Ignorance can justify the mistakes of many great men, but you're talking about a time in history where at least half the country or more was intelligent enough to realize how horribly immoral slavery was and that it had to end. He not only did not apparently realize this, but was willing to go to war killing his fellow country men from the northern part of the union he supposedly cared so much about just so that he could continue treating black people like ****.

Jefferson Davis was on the wrong side of history when hundreds of thousands of better men were not. That's really the key to me. There are critical points throughout history where at least half if not a majority of people come to their senses, and understand that certain things are wrong. Once you get to a point where that much of the population is woke on a particular issue there's simply no excuse for an intelligent and decent person to continue to be wrong.

Let's take for example something like gay marriage. When President Obama initially ran for president he said he was against it. As opinions on the subject changed however it became easier and easier for all the arguments for and against it to be heard, and because President Obama is a rational thinking person with a good moral compass he was able to recognize a losing argument when he saw it and get on the right side. Even though he at one point made a mistake, when it came down to brass tacks, and he realized that he truly needed to take a stand he picked the right one, and I would honor him for that even if he initially made a mistake.
Click to expand...

The Civil War was not fought to end slavery. Lincoln's emancipation proclamation only emancipated the slaves in the states that had seceded and not in the slave states that did not. He was fully on record that he had no authority or good reason to free the slaves and would not have done so at all if the southern states had not forced his hand be seceding.

The Civil War was fought to prevent states from seceding. Slavery was certainly an important though not the only component provoking secession.

For instance in a very long and ponderous declaration of independence of their own, such documents declaring grievances with the U.S. government, North Carolina concluded it with:

. . .On the 4th of March next this party will take possession of the government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory; that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease through-out the United States.

The guaranties of the constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the states will be lost. The slaveholding states will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the federal government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates, in convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the union heretofore existing between this state and the other states of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent state, with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.​
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/...regarding-the-justifying-causes-of-secession/
 
Rexedgar said:
I offer Bill Cosby as an example!
Click to expand...

That is a reasonable comparison. For myself, I recall some eloquent essays and commentary written by Cosby that were spot on. I remember his television show that while a sitcom taught some important values about character and life. He was a terrific stand up comedian. And as a social activist he has preached important common sense also reflected on his television show.

Sadly for some the sexual misconduct allegations, despite the fact that he has not been convicted of anything and the only trial so far resulted in a deadlocked jury and mistrial, the sexual misconduct is now all that he is.

And for some, all that he has been negates any possibility that he could possibly be guilty of any sexual misconduct.

I would guess the truth is somewhere in between plus a whole lot of opportunists hoping to get a big bite out of his $400 million fortune.

I can't see Jefferson Davis's choice of which side to join as negating all the very commendable achievements of his life, most especially when he received a full Presidential Pardon and was ready to serve the USA after the Civil War ended.
 
Last edited:
jimbo said:
I don't believe the states can legally legalize MJ, and every puff is a violation of federal law. No entity be it an individual or a state has a right to decide which laws they want to obey.

If you think the drug laws are wrong, then the course of action is to get the feds out of the drug business. It's not a Constitutional issue, so Congress could change the law overnight if they chose.
Click to expand...

And what constitutional justification is there for the federal government to involve themselves in banning a substance?
 
Caine said:
And what constitutional justification is there for the federal government to involve themselves in banning a substance?
Click to expand...

None in my view. But federal law trumps state law. Federal drug laws should be overturned. But until they are there is no legal pot in the US.
 
No because he fought against America.

Colin Kaepernick refuses to stand for the National Anthem and he's considered a traitor. But we have statues for people who fought for a different flag?
 
jimbo said:
None in my view. But federal law trumps state law. Federal drug laws should be overturned. But until they are there is no legal pot in the US.
Click to expand...

What does the 10th Amendment state? For clarification......
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
No because he fought against America.

Colin Kaepernick refuses to stand for the National Anthem and he's considered a traitor. But we have statues for people who fought for a different flag?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say people consider him a "traitor"...

A moron, yes. But not a traitor.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
No because he fought against America.

Colin Kaepernick refuses to stand for the National Anthem and he's considered a traitor. But we have statues for people who fought for a different flag?
Click to expand...

Again he was not fighting against America for any reason other than his right to leave it. Up to the time when, in his point of view, America had became intolerable, unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional toward the southern states, he served America admirably. Following the Civil War, he received a full presidential pardon and was prepared and ready to serve the United States of America once again.

The Constitution of the United States has as its primary underpinning the Declaration of Independence that spelled out justification for dissolving or breaking away from a corrupt and/or unjust government. If there was such justification for the USA to break aways from England, for Texas to break away from Mexico, is it possible that there was justification for the southern states to break away from the union?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Again he was not fighting against America for any reason other than his right to leave it. Up to the time when, in his point of view, America had became intolerable, unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional toward the southern states, he served America admirably. Following the Civil War, he received a full presidential pardon and was prepared and ready to serve the United States of America once again.

The Constitution of the United States has as its primary underpinning the Declaration of Independence that spelled out justification for dissolving a corrupt and/or unjust government. If there was such justification for the USA to break aways from England, for Texas to break away from Mexico, is it possible that there was justification for the southern states to break away from the union?
Click to expand...

Your response will be.

"Because Slavery"
 
AlbqOwl said:
The Civil War was not fought to end slavery. Lincoln's emancipation proclamation only emancipated the slaves in the states that had seceded and not in the slave states that did not. He was fully on record that he had no authority or good reason to free the slaves and would not have done so at all if the southern states had not forced his hand be seceding.

The Civil War was fought to prevent states from seceding. Slavery was certainly an important though not the only component provoking secession.

For instance in a very long and ponderous declaration of independence of their own, such documents declaring grievances with the U.S. government, North Carolina concluded it with:

. . .On the 4th of March next this party will take possession of the government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory; that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease through-out the United States.

The guaranties of the constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the states will be lost. The slaveholding states will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the federal government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates, in convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the union heretofore existing between this state and the other states of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent state, with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.​
Two Papers Regarding the Justifying Causes of Secession | Teaching American History
Click to expand...

Read Lincoln's campaign speeches, read his debates with Douglas. He was anti-Slavery, it's why the south rebelled upon his election. The Emancipation Proclamation only affected states in rebellion, because he made the proclamation under war time powers, which only granted him the right to do so with rebelling states. Not because he didn't want to free all the Slaves. And then look at his final address, in which he hinted that he would be introducing legislation that granted suffrage to former slaves. This speech is widely regarded by historians as the reason Booth shot him. Booth was at the speech, and then shot him three days later.

So please stop trying to make it seem like Lincoln was pro slavery or the Civil War was fought over anything else.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Read Lincoln's campaign speeches, read his debates with Douglas. He was anti-Slavery, it's why the south rebelled upon his election. The Emancipation Proclamation only affected states in rebellion, because he made the proclamation under war time powers, which only granted him the right to do so with rebelling states. Not because he didn't want to free all the Slaves. And then look at his final address, in which he hinted that he would be introducing legislation that granted suffrage to former slaves. This speech is widely regarded by historians as the reason Booth shot him. Booth was at the speech, and then shot him three days later.

So please stop trying to make it seem like Lincoln was pro slavery or the Civil War was fought over anything else.
Click to expand...

I have never EVER said Lincoln was pro slavery. He was opposed to slavery as were many in the north and south. But he was not pro black people. He did not want the races to co mingle. He did not want black people to vote. He was strongly opposed to mixed marriage. And he considered the possibility of exporting all the black people to Liberia. He did not emancipate all the slaves but only those in the confederacy. He had no intention of emancipating the slaves and would not have done so had the south not forced his hand by seceding.

And of course the Civil War was fought over many reasons including slavery. Even the most cursory scanning of the history will verify that.
 
Who are we to judge?
Let history lay out facts in as impartial a way as practical and still be concise enough to read.

One of the key points about becoming educated, is to see other sides of things, in greater depth, from different angles, experience things through reading that you never would have thought of before etc. In many this sparks a life-long love of learning. For someone who learns this way, I think it's hard to imagine they have black and white beliefs on most issues, including proclaiming if someone should be honored or disgraced, etc.

In that way, perhaps he doesn't deserve to be "honored" at all, but simply explained as an important figure at a particular time in history, presented as a person, warts and all.
 
AlbqOwl said:
He was named President of the Confederacy.
Click to expand...
You kinda undersold that part.

He helped split the nation, and agreed with the policy to wage war and kill American soldiers in order to preserve the institution of slavery.

In his memoirs (1881), he viewed the abolitionists as corruptors of the Republican party; saw abolition as "the misuse of the sacred word Liberty;" accused the abolitionists of taking up the cause to seize political power; saw American slavery as "the mildest and most humane of all institutions to which the name “slavery” has ever been applied..." and so on.
http://www.confederatepastpresent.o...ed-in-1881&catid=38:reconstruction-and-fusion

I.e. he supported slavery, and was unrepentant about his support for it, and role in the war.

He does not deserve to be honored.
 
AlbqOwl said:
And of course the Civil War was fought over many reasons including slavery. Even the most cursory scanning of the history will verify that.
Click to expand...
The Confederates fought over slavery. Even the most cursory scanning of the declarations of secession make that obvious.
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

The North fought for many reasons. Abolition, however, was undoubtedly a key reason.

Thanks for the Lost Cause nonsense. Can't get enough of that.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Does Jefferson Davis deserve a place of honor or of disgrace in history?


What do we know of him?


--His grandfather served as a public servant to the southern colonies.
--His father and uncles served in the Revolutionary War.
--His three older brothers fought in the War of 1812.
--He graduated from West Point at age 20.
--He fought in the Blackhawk War of 1831 capturing the chief who became a lifelong friend due to Davis's considerate and humane treatment.
--He became a high ranking official in the Democratic Party where he supported Texas annexation and spoke against federal interference with states rights.
--He was elected to the House of Representatives as congressman from Mississippi where he continued to support states rights and was instrumental in converting military forts into training schools.
--He left congress and re-enlisted in the Army and fought in the Mexican-American War
--He was appointed Senator from Mississippi by President Taylor and won re-election the same year as an advocate for states rights.
--He was appointed Secretary of War by President Pierce and resigned that office when Mississippi seceded from the union in 1861.
--He was named President of the Confederacy.
--After the Civil War he was charged with treason but was never tried after Horace Greeley posted his bail.
Following his term as president of the Confederacy, Davis traveled overseas on business. He was offered a job as president of Texas A&M University, but declined. He was also elected to the Senate a third time, but was unable to serve due to restrictions included in the 14th Amendment. In 1881, he wrote The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government in an effort to defend his political stance. Davis lived out his retirement years at an estate called Beauvoir in Mississippi.​
--He was a white supremacist and slave owner who believed as did many, including President Lincoln, that the black people were an inferior race. However he was widely renowned for treating his slaves very well and noted that he could trust them to do their work competently and without an overseer in his absence.


Having fervently defended the union for all his public life, once he was forced to take sides he said: "I regarded the separation of the states as a great, though not the greater evil."


https://www.biography.com/people/jefferson-davis-9267899#!

The question is. Does one bad black mark on a person's otherwise commendable record negate all the good?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does if the "black mark" is large enough, and Davis had an immense "black mark" on his record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom