A Historiographical Analysis of Jefferson Davis - Coursework Example

Running Head: Jefferson Davis.... Topic: Jefferson Davis (Civil War) Historiography project Order#: 417634 Topic: Jefferson Davis (Civil War) Historiography project A Historiographical Analysis of Jefferson Davis: Failure is not the star any General would like to don; and that is the first star that would be conferred on a General by the critics of the failed General. An individual who does not know how to pull the trigger of a gun, will not hesitate to use the power of pen, to court-martial the failed General on all counts. Planning and fighting war is not like comparing notes and issuing press reports. Split second decisions of the Generals bring glory or cost the lives of thousands soldiers defending the fronts. A war with the enemy country can be fought easily as compared to the Civil War that has to be fought within the country, between two or more sections of the people. Much difference exists between the war that is meant to annihilate the enemy and the internal war of a country for upholding a cause or principle. The invisible psychological barrier is the dominant factor in such a war. As America stood divided, when reconciliation failed and civil war became a reality, a new individual was called upon to shoulder the responsibility of Commander in Chief for the Confederacy-- the seasoned Jefferson Davis took over. On the other side stood one of the tallest figures of American History- Abraham Lincoln for the Union. The comparison between the two is not an ordinary part of the history. He achieved martyrdom in his death and Jefferson Davis lived to experience bitter criticism over the years. Criticism arrived like the avalanche from all quarters, and the wounds inflicted on the South were too deep to heal quickly. It took a full century to judge the issue of slavery with a balanced perspective. The North can do no wrong and the South can do no right—was the attitude of majority of the writers, critics, analysts and the historians. The perspective changed gradually. Fresh light was thrown on the actions and reactions of Jefferson Davis, following the declaration of Civil War. This essay concerns research, reviews the primary and secondary literature and throws light on the salient features of Civil War in the conclusion. Rub salt to the wounds-this technique is often used in literary works, and the subject of history is no exception. Failure is not appreciated in any secular field, and for a military General it is the ultimate calamity that can happen in his career. Those who accuse Jefferson Davis as a traitor, should not broach the subject of history as they have grossly misunderstood what Civil War was all about. The emotional aspect of the war was simple- save the Union and liberate the slaves! Davis was asked to lead that section of the society, that believed in Republicanism which was state centered than it was union centrifuged. The issue of slavery was important but that was not the sole reason for which the South chose to secede. The crux of the issue was, about the right of the individual States to assert their own political independence. When States asserted their rights, it can not be equated with treason. It was reiteration of the political philosophy. Slavery was a problem and the South would have found the appropriate solution for it and eventually emancipated the slaves. Conversion of slaves to Christianity would have led to the position where blacks and whites lived harmoniously. Such an amicable settlement was an attainable reality and the process was originally favored also by Abraham Lincoln. However, in the North evangelical abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison demanded instant action, with the strong plea that anything less, would result in a catastrophic judgment of God, that would prove extremely bad and dangerous for the Nation. The pressure on Lincoln to declare Emancipation Proclamation was too much. The Southern States retaliated by asserting the unfettered rights of individual states. As McPherson writes, “ In his first message to the Confederate Congress after the outbreak of war, however, Davis did define Confederate War aims clearly and concisely—We seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone.”(2007,p.54) Essentially, therefore, it was a conflict on the concepts of American democratic republicanism. It was wrong on the part by a section of historians to label this war as the one between the patriots and traitors. It was a violent resolution of a serious political divide. Amidst such an extraordinary political divide, Jefferson Davis donned the mantle of the General of the South to lead the war. He was the proponent of a principle that America greatly values even today. To label him as the outright supporter of slavery is a biased view. In the twelve hundred pages of his own memoirs, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, he declared loftily, that he would tell the truth in full confidence “ that error and misrepresentation have, in their inconsistencies and improbabilities, the elements of self-destruction, while truth is in its nature consistent and therefore self-sustaining.”(McPherson,2007,p.51) How Abraham Lincoln scored over Jefferson Davis as a military leader? McPherson provides the answer. Lincoln by self-admission, noted in a Congressional speech that his military experience was limited to battling mosquitoes during a brief service in the Black Hawk War. Lincoln was always willing to learn. “ Lincoln learned the job of military leadership as commander in chief by reading works on military history and strategy, by asking questions of anyone who had any kind of expertise, such as the first general in chief, Winfield Scott,.... even including George McClellan. As a self-taught lawyer who also once mastered Euclidean geometry on his own for mental exercise, Lincoln had a probing, questing mind and experience as a trial lawyer in cross-examining people.” (5 Questions....) Abraham Lincoln read the issue of Fort Summer correctly that resulted in uniting the North. McPherson describes the situation thus: “.... So Lincoln decided to notify ...and would not send reinforcements if the Confederates permitted the peaceful landing of these supplies. This notification put the burden and stigma of starting a war on the Confederates. In effect, Lincoln flipped a coin and told Jefferson Davis “Heads I win, Tails you lose.” …. The Confederate government did not hesitate: they ordered the guns to fire on Fort Summer even before the supply ships arrived. This action united the North and placed the stigma of starting a war on the South.”(5 Questions....) Thus Abraham Lincoln had scored a vital point over the military strategy and leadership of Jefferson Davis. Lincoln also intelligently used the Emancipation Proclamation as a strategy and a policy goal. It “ was a means to weaken the Confederacy and strengthen the Union war effort by attracting the labor power–and the military manpower–of the slave population to the Northern side...Lincoln also justified the Proclamation as “an act of justice” as well as a “military necessity.”... In April 1864 the Senate, with Lincoln’s support, adopted a 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery everywhere. .. the Civil War became a war not only to preserve the United States as one nation, indivisible, but also to give that nation the new birth of freedom that Lincoln invoked at Gettysburg.”(5 Questions...) Ekenrode reports,“Davis, in later life, was something of an aristocrat, in obedience to the social law of his section, just as Lincoln, also in obedience to social law, remained a plain man of the people” (1923, p. 29). He was elected to a term that he would not be able to complete. According to McPherson, “Jefferson Davis was inaugurated to his full six-year term as president on February 22, 1861 (until then he had been provisional president). He conceded in his inaugural address that ‘after a series of successes and victories, we have recently met with serious disasters’” (quoted at p. 21). As war progressed, Confederacy suffered setbacks,and Davis began to realize he could not win the war, but would be able to secure terms from the North. In any case, he must prosecute the war to gits logical conclusion. Davis was fully convinced about the high moral grounds of the Confederacy on which it was fighting the war. In desperate situations the brilliant amongst the brilliants, commits serious errors of decision. Dirck writes that “Davis largely passed over in silence the more thorny policy initiatives of his own administration--the military draft, impressment of civilian goods, declarations of martial law, and suspensions of the writ of habeas corpus--saying in effect to the reader that his record in these matters was so above reproach as to require no defense” (p. 238). According to Sutherland (2002), “Davis cites instances where Union troops had behaved far more barbarously than the worst Rebel bushwhackers and irregulars. As the Federals dealt ever more harshly with both guerrillas and the citizens who harbored or assisted them, Davis found himself in the awkward position of defending the guerrilla war he had always deplored” (p. 260). Nevertheless, as the leader of the losing side, Davis was the natural target for the animosity that remained after the war drew to its bloody conclusion. For example, according to Cooper (2003), “In four years of bloody warfare that claimed 600,000 American lives, the United States smashed the Confederate states. Even though Davis and his cause failed the vastness of the war and the profound consequences resulting from it ensured its primacy and his prominence” (p. 1). The role of Jefferson and the consequences thereof have been dealt with in detail by McPherson in chapters 3,9,17,and 25particularly—the ideological conflict over slavery, secession and the coming of War Part Two: The Civil War, the first turning point:Antietam and Emancipation and the end of the Confederacy Part Three:Reconstruction.(2009) History may spares the individual who stands defeated, but the historians will never do! When one goes to study the historical aspect, McPherson writes, “Although the personalities and the relationships among the commanders in chief and their principal army commanders in both Confederacy and Union had an important impact on the outcome of the war, a focus on strategy rather than personalities might yield a better understanding of the Confederacys defeat.”(2007,p.52)There is another personality ingrained within the personality of Jefferson Davis as the Commander of the Confederate. His contribution to increase both the size and the character of the country is notable. In this regard, Cooper emphasizes that, “Davis’ notability does not come solely from his crucial role in the Civil War. Born on the Kentucky frontier in the first decade of the 19th century, he witnessed and participated in epochal transformation of the United States from a fledgling country to a strong nation spanning the continent” (2003, p. 1). The post-war humiliations of Davis were too horrid for the printed page to capture. “….Davis manacled and made to endure the humiliations of a common felon of the Dark Ages, a wave of revulsion swept the civilized world” (1971, pp. 11-12). But Davis maintained his calm and dignity. He deeply regretted the impact of the war and the suffering it brought to the innocents and the common man. In this regard, Miers advises, “With splendid dignity, Jefferson Davis withstood the abuses heaped upon him and in the memoirs that follows he dismisses the months of degradation briefly, paying tribute to the ‘bitter tears . . . shed by the gentle” (1971, p. 12).In this regard, Lee wrote, “You can conceive better than I can express the misery which your friends have suffered from your long imprisonment and the other afflictions incident thereto. To no one has this been more painful than to me and the impossibility of affording relief has added to my distress” (quoted by Miers, 1971 at p. 13). Davis was highly trained, capable militarily and in politics, but time and circumstances failed him. If he was not eminently qualified, he would not have been designated as the commander in Chief of the Confederacy. But did his friendship with the Commanders interfered in his military decisions? He delegated powers to Commanders delegation is a good management technique. It might have failed in this particular case. Davis was passionate about winning the war. In the final analysis, his failure in the West contributed significantly to the defeat of the Confederacy. Jefferson was leading the Confederate States at the most difficult times of American history. Though he wished to pursue the offensive polity against the North, which he indeed did in the initial phase of the conflict,due to pressure from different quarters, was compelled to shift to the defensive. That the Confederate sustained for about 4 years, is no ordinary achievement. Civil administration and the operations in the army were well conducted. In the final phase of the conflict, when Davis realized that he had reached the dead end, yet he did not publicly disclose any apprehensions about failure. He was bent upon securing victory for his concept of independence, no qualms about it. He also initiated decisive steps to secure peace-- he would have sacrificed his Presidency for the sake of peace. His fall was deep and crushing. He was taken as a prisoner of war, imprisoned in chains, charged unjustly. He demanded trial for the alleged crimes, and he was denied that. After two years of imprisonment, he was released on bond.. A nolle prosequi was entered in his case in 1869, and thus he was never brought to the trial. He was given a rousing reception at Richmond, Virginia, after the release. He advised the South to concentrate on the process of recovery and adhere to its principles. He was candid enough to rule out secession and he continued to oppose power centralized in Federal Government. His attachment to the people remained undiminished and they responded to his presence on rare occasions , enthusiastically. “The death of the President occurred at New Orleans about one oclock a. m., December 5, 1889, and the event was announced throughout the Union. Distinguished men pronounced eulogies on his character, and the press universally at the South and generally at the North contained extended and laudatory articles on his character.”(Jefferson....) The wise saying goes—when the poet dies, the moon comes down to Planet Earth to mourn. But when he is alive, no one bothers about his welfare. The Nation stood united when Jefferson died—sand that unity and freedom were the issues most dear to the heart of Jefferson! *********** References: Cooper, W. J. (2003). Jefferson Davis: The essential writings. New York: The Modern Library. Davis, J. (1881, 1971 reprint). The rise and fall of the Confederate government. New York: Da Capo Press. Dirck, B. R. (2002). Posteritys blush: Civil liberties, property rights, and property confiscation in the Confederacy. Civil War History Eckenrode, H. J. (1923). Jefferson Davis: President of the South. New York: Macmillan. Jefferson Davis Biography Retrieved on March 7,2010. (Source: Confederate Military History, Vol. 1, Officers of Civil and Military Organizations) McPherson, J. M. and J. K. Hogue (2009). Ordeal by fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN:0072317361 McPherson, James M. The Mighty Scourge: perspectives on the Civil War; Google Books, 2007. Mcpherson, J. M. (2004). Crossroads of freedom: Antietam. New York: Oxford University Press. Miers, E. S. (1971). Foreword to The rise and fall of the Confederate government. Sutherland, D. E. (2002). Guerrilla warfare, democracy and the fate of the Confederacy. Journal of Southern History 5 Questions for James McPherson (Pulitzer Prize-Winning Historian ... 11 Feb 2009 Similar Retrieved on March 7,2009. Read More