08 December 2009

Feds Will Help Rebuild Beauvoir

"Ground has been broken on the $10.5 million project to rebuild the Jefferson Davis Presidential Library and Museum at Beauvoir, the Biloxi, Miss., beachfront home of the only president of the Confederate States of America. The restored home, damaged in 2005 by Hurricane Katrina, reopened earlier this year. Reconstruction of the destroyed library and museum will be completed by August 2011. . . Funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and its state counterpart will pay 90 percent of the project’s cost."

Beauvoir is owned and operated by the Mississippi Division of the SCV.

I wonder if "apolitical" historians will protest.


Corey Meyer said...

I think the better question to ask is why would the SCV want federal dollars. If they stay true to their lost cause ideology, they need to refuse to spend the taxpayers money on this private enterprise.


Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

I anticipated that question and almost addressed it in the post. I have two comments regarding the SCV and federal dollars.

First of all, I believe it is poetic justice and sweet irony: the Feds funding the rebuilding of Jeff Davis's home.

Secondly, since the Feds rob us all of so much money, in some instances its only fitting we get some of it back.


Corey Meyer said...

Although the argument could be made that had the south accepted the election of Lincoln to the presidency as prescribed by the Constitution, there would not have been a war for the Union and no destruction of the south's wealth.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Of course, that was the North's argument. Obviously, the Southern states believed they had a constitutional right to secession which is why Jeff Davis was never tried . . . couldn't risk losing in court what 4 years, the treasury, and 600,000 lives had just purchased.

Corey Meyer said...

I used to ask this question of a many a good "lost causers" in the past, but when it was met by utter silence I stopped asking it.

You obviously believe the south had a Constitutional right to secede...but my question is...on what grounds did they secede?

I mean what did the election of Lincoln or Lincoln himself do to the south to warrant secession?

Chaps said...

I always smile at the phrase "the war for the Union." Truth is a war for the Union was totally unnecessary. If the 11, or 13, Southern States had been allowed to leave unmolested, as was certainly their Constitutional right, the Union among the remaining States would have been unchanged, except, of course, they would have had to raise their own revenue. An arrangement in which the members of a compact cannot leave without threats of violence and actual acts of violence being visited upon them is not a Nation; it is a street gang.

Arthur B. Breedlove said...

"You obviously believe the south had a Constitutional right to secede...but my question is...on what grounds did they secede?"

"I mean what did the election of Lincoln or Lincoln himself do to the south to warrant secession?"

I don't know if I qualify as a "Lost Causer"or even a "good" one. But will attempt to answer your questions none the less.

In the first case, I don't believe the South had a Constitutional right to secede, because I don't believe the rights of the states are derived from the Constitution. They are actually rights RETAINED by the states.This was the obvious purpose of the 10th Amendment. They did have a right to secede on the basis of the sovereignty of the states. The "grounds" on which they seceded are irrelevant because rights of sovereignty are not subjected to the approval of others(even Yankees). If they were it would cease to be a right.

The second question is likewise irrelevant from the inference of the first. The Southern states did not need a "warrant" because that would imply the need for a higher authorization. The federal government had only powers expressly delegated to it FROM the states. The Constitution was simply an agreement by the states to exercise fewer sovereign powers while in the union. Not a surrender of fundamental sovereignty.