The Rise and Resignation of Jefferson Davis (Pg. 3-17)

In beginning Fort Sumter to Perryville, Shelby Foote begins like all good classical writers (Homer, Virgil) in media res "in the middle of things." South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia have seceded from the US, and Senator Jefferson Davis of MS has resigned his post in January 1861.

Davis was a very tentative secessionist unlike Robert Toombs and other radical fire eaters. He agreed that states had the right to secede, but he was  bit apprehensive about leaving the Union after over 40 years of statehood. Even though he knew secession was unwise economically, Davis let his emotions and patriotism for his home state trump his reason and put his full strength behind his own state. Mississippi, not the United States, was Davis' native country.

But Jefferson Davis' real home state was Kentucky where he lived as a third generation American, the son of a farmer and Revolutionary War veteran. He was born in 1808 and named after Thomas Jefferson. This is ironic because Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, leading to American separation from Britain.

Davis decided to be a politician while living on his father's plantation in Natchez, MS. He skipped school for two days to work in the fields but returned, wanting a white collar job. At 16, (the idea of adolescence was unheard of in 19th century US) Davis was accepted to West Point. John C. Calhoun, later famous for nullifying the tariff on exported goods to SC, wrote his letter of recommendation. This would be Davis' first link with politics and secession.

Though a poor student (23rd out 34), Davis made many lifelong connections at West Point. His roommate was Leonidas Polk, who he made a lieutenant general in the West, and he got in lots of scraps with Joseph Johnston, who he removed from command twice in Virginia and Georgia. Two cadets he looked up to were Albert Sidney Johnston and Robert E. Lee, who became full generals in the Confederate Army.

Davis' immediate experiences after college give one an insight into his character. He did well in small-scale Indian fighting in the Midwest, earning promotion to 1st lieutenant and having great guerrilla fighting skills. Davis let these experiences go to his head and often overruled his military advisers, like replacing the Mexican War veteran Joseph Johnston with "Old Wooden Head" John Hood, leading to the fall of Atlanta. Davis also let his emotions get the best of him, eloping with Knox Taylor, daughter of future president Zachary Taylor and becoming a planter in Mississippi. This was not the first time he would  put his emotions before a promising career. (senator)

However, Knox died, and this was a major turning point in Davis' life. After visiting friends in Cuba, New York, and DC, Davis wanted to be a planter and politician, instead of a soldier. His brother Joseph had the biggest library in MS and gave him 40 acres of land, which was the start of his plantation Brierfield. During this time, Davis studied famous political works by Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, and John Locke. These authors definitely inspired his later ideas of the right to separate, a hands off economy, and government by the consent of the governed. Brierfield, Davis' plantation, was run very democratically. Slaves could only be punished if found guilty by an all black jury. Brierfield's overseer James Pemberton was always called by his first name, James. Davis didn't blacks as equal to whites, but he treated his slaves with dignity and honor, according to Foote. But this could be slightly biased as Foote is a native Mississippian.

Instead of remaining a bachelor scholar-planter, Davis put his brain and land power to work. He married young Varina Howell (20 years younger than him), who was a Whig to his Democrat. She was very intelligent about classical languages and politics and would become a great First Lady. Davis became a state representative in 1844 and tried to champion state rights' by unsuccessfully passing a bill to replace standing armies with militia.

The Mexican War was another major paradigm shift for Davis politically. After successfully defending Buena Vista from Mexican cavalry, he became a war hero but declined a brigadier general commission from the president because the state chose militia officers, not the federal government. In four short years, Davis went from a simple Jeffersonian Democrat who wanted to protect states' rights to a Southern imperialist.

But what was a Southern imperialist? Davis and men, like Calhoun, William Yancey, and Robert Toombs wanted to expand slavery and the Southern cotton economy to territories won by the Mexican War, like Texas, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and especially gold-rich California. They also wanted to eventually expand into the warm climates of Cuba and Central America. Unlike Yancey and Toombs, Davis wanted these policies to be made within the Union, not through secession.

During the late 1840s, Davis had decided what he was going to be politically: a paradox. He wanted the South to dominate the US, but was against secession. He wanted states' rights but opposed Henry Clay's 1850 Compromise that gave individual states the ability to be slave or free. Davis' inability to reconcile these dogmatic paradoxes in slippery world of politics led to his defeat by Compromise supporter Henry Foote and an early retirement to his plantation in 1851.

Franklin Pierce gave Davis another shot at politics when he made Davis his Secretary of War in 1853. Davis' political connections were beginning to pay off, and he still had some of his prestige from the Mexican War to work off of. As secretary, Davis renovated West Point and built a railroad from Memphis to Vicksburg, MS using $100 million in federal funds. He continued to be an imperialist, hoping to extend slavery and maybe even the slave trade into Cuba. Working in the cabinet, Davis began to become sympathetic to the idea of a big central government which he brought to his government of the Confederacy.

After Pierce didn't run for re-election, Davis became senator from MS and "champion of the South." He was the perfect moderate in a time when fire eater Preston Books (SC) caned abolitionist Charles Sumner (MA) into a bloody pulp on the Senate floor. Davis kept his policies of Southern imperialism while actively campaigning against secession. If he had remained true to his political principles, instead of resigning with his free state, Davis could have found refuge in the North as a moderate. I could see him returning to Kentucky, his hometown and where he studied at Transylvania University and being a senator, governor, or even a general in the Civil War.

But sectionalism came before Southern imperialism, and Davis joined the Confederacy. He regretted leaving the US, unlike Toombs, who said, "Georgia is on the warpath." Instead of trying to join the new Confederate government, Davis was commisioned a major general of militia and began to raise his army. However, on February, 10, 1861, he received a telegram electing him president of the Confederacy  and spoke of it "like a man might speak of a sentence of death." His dream of being champion of the South was realized in a different way than he liked.

What if Jefferson Davis wasn't elected president of the Confederacy and remained leader of militia in Mississippi? If a fire eater like Yancey, Toombs, or Rhett had been elected, some of the moderate slave states like Tennessee, Missouri, or Virginia wouldn't have joined the CSA. Davis, a cunning battlefield tactician and good at guerilla warfare, would have held out in the bayous of MS, but the Confederacy would have had not even a little bit of industry and crumble behind a Union army led by Robert E. Lee.

What is your opinion of Jefferson Davis? Was he a racist? Traitor? Second Thomas Jefferson? Guided by his emotions? Comments would be awesome...

Coming soon: Honest Abe (Pgs. 17-35)

"War is Hell": Blogging Shelby Foote's Civil War: A Narrative

Hi, Popology readers.I'm really revamping my blog philosophy for the next few months. In the immediate present, there will be no pop culture quips or song analyses. I'm going to be reading and live blogging Shelby Foote's Civil War: A Narrative. The American Civil War was the crucible of the modern United States and studying it in depth through this book will really give me and y'all (I am from the South) a good perspective of American history as a whole.

But why Civil War: A Narrative. Isn't Shelby Foote a novelist? Didn't he not use footnotes? First, the book's sheer length. The only history book I have in my library that compares to Civil War in this way is Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. At over 3,000 pages, Foote does a great job describing the military and political history of Civil War era United States in depth, but he doesn't really discuss American economy or culture at this time, probably because the war transcended all areas of life.

Because I'm reading this great work of American history, the format of Popology will change. First, I'm temporarily changing my blog's name from "Popology" to "War is Hell". I will change the background from cool, random books to a more somber template. However, there may still be the occasional poem, list, or film/book related post to relieve the tension, especially if I fall back in reading.

I will do a short summary of 5-10 pages from the book and include Foote's own subheadings. Then, I will analyze and unpack his portraits of the main figures and events of the Civil War and ask lots of questions, many rhetorical. I will end every blog post with a "What if?" on my reading. Feel free to comment, even negatively.

Disclaimer: I am a pacifist and believe war is unnecessary and horrific, thus the blog's new name. Civil wars especially pain me because they basically pit families against each other. E.g. George Crittenden and Thomas Crittenden. However, I will try to be an objective historian and not rant about the idea of war, Southern racism, the destruction of my home state Tennessee, and Sherman's march through Georgia.

"War is cruelty. You cannot refine it."- William Tecumseh Sherman
 

Original Poetry: "Ring of the Fallen"

Ring of the Fallen by Logan Dalton

Rotting gold on the cairn,

Sprinkling ashes on the ground,

Trifling glances at the grave.

Understanding faces go insane.

Vexation grows inside me.

Underneath my marble face,

Tears well inside my soul

Swallowing my body whole;

Remembering the fallen...

   I have five primary inspirations for this poem. This week I've been working on my senior thesis paper and comparing Achilles from the Iliad to Wolverine from the X-Men movies. One of Homer's trademarks in the  Iliad is the use of ring compositions which is like A happened, then B; there's a hinge, B happened then A. For example, (A) Priam prepares the wagon. (B) He gets the treasure for Hector's ransom. (C) He talks to Hecuba. The hinge is Hecuba fearing for Priam's life and hating Achilles. (C) Priam tells Hecuba he's going. (B) He loads the treasure in the wagon (A) He starts driving to the Greek camp. I decided to do a ring composition with the first letters of lines (RSTUVUTSR) as a postmodern tribute to the first great poet.

   My second inspiration was personal. Last month, I visited my grandfather's grave, who died one year ago today. We had a really good relationship. He gave me advice in hard times and went to my basketball. I enjoyed helping him paint his shed and helping him around the house when his health deteriorated. He was a very patriotic man, serving in the Korean and Vietnam wars and and the best grandfather anyone could have. The images of sorrow come from his death, and the stark white tombstones in the military cemetery.

   This week, in American history class, we watched the compelling and heartbreaking documentary Civil War by Ken Burns. For long stretches of time, there is no narration just stark images of dead, rotting bodies at battlefields from Maryland to Mississippi. Those bodies, killed, fighting their own brothers really made me angry at the violence between people from the same country, and the leaders who allowed the future leaders of tomorrow die bloody deaths charging impossible hills and fortifications     http://americancivilwar.50megs.com/Sunset%20In%20The%20West.html 

   My fourth inspiration is also from the Iliad. At the end of the poem, the Trojans burn him on a pyre high on the walls of Troy. This was a fitting end for the greatest Trojan, who stayed loyal to his city despite an unjust war fought over a woman. I can see the women of Troy scattering his ashes in the sacred temple of Pallas Athena.

   My final inspiration is a song, "The Memory Remains" by Metallica from their 1999 live album S & M with the San Francisco Symphony. This song talks about the shortness of fame, and how it corrupts. It has biting images of bloated celebrities , like gold rings on every hand and "Dance little tin goddess."

Would you like to post your poetry on Popology? Email me at lakerfakerinroanoke@gmail.com.

The Golden Goose: Why the United States Shouldn't Have Rebelled Against Britain

 A peasant and his wife had a goose that laid a golden egg every day. They thought that the goose had a huge lump of gold inside of her, so they killed the goose one day. However, the goose was just a normal goose inside, and they lost all their profit. Aesop's moral was this, "'Much wants more and loses all". If someone is greedy, it can lead to their demise.


I believe that Great Britain is the goose in this saying. She was very wealthy through trade and industry and planted the thirteen American colonies. The colonies weren't justified in throwing off the mother country because of economic, military, political, and religious regions.

Despite embargoes on tea, sugar, and wool, the colonies had no right to complain about paying too many taxes. They had to pay less tax than England proper or even India or Jamaica. At this time, Parliament was basically an oligarchy, and only a small percentage of the people voted on taxes. The colonies didn't have to pay income or property taxes, just a small duty on tea and luxury goods. This tax money actually went to the Exchequer (British treasury) to reimburse Parliament for money spent on troops in the French and Indian War which began in the colony of Pennsylvania. If anyone had a right to revolt, it was the poor of England who had to go to debtor prisons when they lost money to the government. Britain was also reasonable with taxes by repealing the Stamp Tax on paper products. A slightly inconvenient tea tax is no reason to completely secede from a country.

The US shouldn't have rebelled against Britain because she was gaining economic clout and was an asset to Britain. The number one market for American timber, manufactured goods, fish, cotton, and tobacco were the ports of England. New England provided timber for most of the ships of the Royal Navy. The US also had access to the British triangular trade in the West Indies where the islands made sugar and molasses into rum and traded it for slaves. As a colony, US could exclusively use this seemingly endless supply of labor to work the tobacco, rice, and cotton plantations of the South. By rebelling, the US would lose its biggest trade market and lose access to the slaves and sugar of the Indies and the fisheries of Newfoundland. They also had few immediate allies because American militia contributed to French defeat in the French and Indian War. Britain and US had a symbiotic relationship. The US got a tariff free market, wool, tea, slaves, sugar, and paper products from England. Britain got timber, fish, tobacco, cotton, and some manufactured goods. By rejecting this relationship, US lost its colony status and the ability to freely trade with England, Canada, and the Indies. They would have to find new allies, and even "independent" New England traded with enemy Britain in the War of 1812.

An American grievance toward England was the quartering of soldiers. The 1775 Quartering Act was a major cause of the Revolution. however, this was the common practice of armies in the 18th century. Because there were no barracks in the colonies, soldiers needed somewhere to eat, rest, and polish their weapons. The colonists' hospitality acted as a sort of payment for the colonial defense. During the American Revolution, French soldiers stayed in private homes in Virginia and Rhode Island and weren't hated. The thirteen colonies needed a military presence in case French fur traders incited the Indians to raid the frontier. The colonists needed the British regulars' protection. In the French and Indian War, militiamen couldn't defend the American frontier from Halifax to Savannah by themselves, leading to the fall of Louisbourg and Ft. Duquesne. British regulars led by James Wolfe conquered Quebec and claimed Canada for England. They effectively wiped France off the North American map and gave the thirteen colonies a huge buffer between them and Spanish Louisiana. A British army defeated a large Indian alliance led by Pontiac and  halted his raid before it affected the coastal colonies. Without the British regulars, the colonies would be vulnerable to Indian attacks or a Franco Spanish resurgence. There would be no professional soldiers to protect the frontier.

US could have also become an independent nation through peaceful means. The Whig Liberals in Parliaments wanted to increase democracy by allowing the US a seat in Parliament. The Americans also had assemblies, like the House of Burgesses in Virginia, which provided for some self government. Former British colonies like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have become first world nations without bloody revolts but through the gradual increase in home rule as Parliament became more liberal after the 1867 Reform Act. If US had followed the example of Canada, they would avoid things like the costly War of 1812 and possible wars with Napoleon. The US could have been less imperialistic (E.g. Manifest Destiny) and more assistive, helping Britain, Canada, and Australia with their struggles.           

Finally, Romans 13:1 forbids rebellion against government. God institutes rulers for protection and to be obeyed. Rules can be disobeyed if they force one to sin. Paying a tea tax and hosting soldiers in one's home is not sinful. Jesus told the Pharisees to pay taxes and his disciples to love their neighbors. When St. Peter writes about submitting to government (1 Peter 2:13), he was a subject of Nero, an insane autocrat, who killed his mother Agrippina and may have burned Rome. Britain had begun to give the US some home rule and was not an absolute monarchy. In addition to political and economic reasons, the US shouldn't have rebelled because it was unbiblical.

Is God and His Providence Machiavellian?

What does the Bible say about providence? Providence is like God's invisible hand, making sure that He is glorified. Matthew 10:29-31 paints a great picture of the doctrine of providence. “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear, you are more valuable than many sparrows.                      If God cares about the death of two tiny birds, how much more does He care about the lives of those who He created in His own image? In our fallen self-centered minds, having our life already planned out for us makes us seem like robots. However, it is comforting to know that God will make everything right for those who trust Him. (Romans 8:28; Revelation 3:21)

This was my original view of providence, taken from my blog “Popology.” I used the example of Blaise Pascal and J.R.R. Tolkien, by way of Peter Jackson, to back up my view. But by studying Bible Doctrine, my view of providence has been challenged and has expanded, especially in regards to evil in the world.

For example, God’s providence is for everyone, not just believers. This brings up a paradox. If God is the ultimate cause of everything in this world, is he the ultimate cause of evil? For example, God told Pharaoh, “I will harden his heart (Exodus 4:21). But God didn’t directly do evil through Pharaoh. He used Pharaoh’s evil of slavery to bring a greater good: the liberation of the Israelites from slavery. Joseph clearly states this in Genesis 50:20, “You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good.” Joseph was wrongfully sold into captivity by his brothers and lived a gloomy existence in an Egyptian prison after he was yet again wrongfully accused of adultery. Even his friend, Pharaoh’s butler, didn’t vouch for his release. However, in the end, Joseph became one of the most powerful men in Egypt and saved his brother from Egypt.

However, taken at face value, God seems Machiavellian. In his pamphlet The Prince (which is sandwiched between John MacArthur and C.J. Mahaney’s Humility on my bookshelf), Niccolo Machiavelli wrote about the ends justifying the means. He used the example of corrupt Italian cardinal Cesar Borgia, who used the church treasury to carve out an empire in North Italy for his father Alexander VI. Despite the actions of those who claim to be Christians, God doesn’t operate by these principles.

If God was an earthly king, Machiavelli would love Him because he is a ruler that is both feared and loved (52). Proverbs 1:7 says that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” This kind of fear is not cowering before a merciless tyrant, like Nero, who killed his wife and mother. Fearing God is willingly submitting to His will and leaning on Him for guidance in daily life. God is our father (Galatians 1:4), but He is also Lord of the universe who has power over both the hills and plains, unlike the weak deities of Israel’s Syrian neighbors (I Kings 20:28).

But tyrants can be fathers too. Julius Caesar adopted his nephew Octavian to succeed him after his death and be his son. But Octavian had merits; he was a descendant of the Julii, one of the most prestigious families in Rome. When God adopted us as sons and daughters, we had no merits (Romans 3:23; Isaiah 64:6). Paul writes, “ For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps even for a good man someone would even dare to die” (Romans 5:7). A lot of people would die for their family or friends but not for a stranger without a hint of charisma.

However, God’s love is called agape in Greek. There are three words for love in Koine Greek. Eros means lustful desire and comes from the name of the son of Aphrodite, goddess of love and sex. Adelphos means brotherly love. This is love for a family member or someone close to you. Agape love is unconditional and is exemplified in 1 John 4:10, “ In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” We have to power to make choices that have real consequences (Romans 1:27; 6:23), but God calls us to be saved because we have a sinful nature (Romans 3:10). “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him and he with Me” (Revelation 3:20). This verse shows that election wasn’t an invention of Paul because God initiates the saving process by “knocking.”

God doesn’t use evil ends to bring about good means. He can’t sin or tempt anyone (James 1:13). But he gives humans free will to do both good and evil after Adam and Eve ate the fruit in the garden (Genesis 3:7; Isaiah 66:3). This free will is under God’s providence, which controls even “chance events”, like rolling a die (Proverbs 16:33). When we sin, it’s our faults, not God’s, and we have to confess our sins and ask for his forgiveness (1 John 1:9).

In conclusion, there can be no crystal clear explanation for why there is evil in the world. But if we had a God that could be placed in a box and explained away, would He really be God? We must trust in God’s sovereignty and wisdom because “all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).