What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government
This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery.
608 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1881
254 people are currently reading
748 people want to read
About the author
Jefferson Davis
246 books19 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Jefferson Finis Davis (June 3, 1808 – December 6, 1889) was an American military officer, statesman, and leader of the Confederacy during the American Civil War, serving as the President of the Confederate States of America for its entire history, 1861 to 1865.
A West Point graduate, Davis fought in the Mexican-American War as a colonel of a volunteer regiment, and was the United States Secretary of War under President Franklin Pierce. Both before and after his time in the Pierce Administration, he served as a U.S. Senator representing the state of Mississippi. As a senator he argued against secession but believed each state was sovereign and had an unquestionable right to secede from the Union.
Davis resigned from the Senate in January 1861, after receiving word that Mississippi had seceded from the Union. The following month, he was provisionally appointed President of the Confederate States of America and was elected to a six-year term that November. During his presidency, Davis was not able to find a strategy to defeat the more industrially developed Union, even though the south only lost roughly one soldier for every two union soldiers on the battlefield.
After Davis was captured May 10, 1865, he was charged with treason, though not tried, and stripped of his eligibility to run for public office. This limitation was posthumously removed by order of Congress and President Jimmy Carter in 1978, 89 years after his death. While not disgraced, he was displaced in Southern affection after the war by its leading general, Robert E. Lee.
Jefferson Finis Davis (June 3, 1808 – December 6, 1889) was an American military officer, statesman, and leader of the Confederacy during the American Civil War, serving as the President of the Confederate States of America for its entire history, 1861 to 1865.
A West Point graduate, Davis fought in the Mexican-American War as a colonel of a volunteer regiment, and was the United States Secretary of War under President Franklin Pierce. Both before and after his time in the Pierce Administration, he served as a U.S. Senator representing the state of Mississippi. As a senator he argued against secession but believed each state was sovereign and had an unquestionable right to secede from the Union.
Davis resigned from the Senate in January 1861, after receiving word that Mississippi had seceded from the Union. The following month, he was provisionally appointed President of the Confederate States of America and was elected to a six-year term that November. During his presidency, Davis was not able to find a strategy to defeat the more industrially developed Union, even though the south only lost roughly one soldier for every two union soldiers on the battlefield.
After Davis was captured May 10, 1865, he was charged with treason, though not tried, and stripped of his eligibility to run for public office. This limitation was posthumously removed by order of Congress and President Jimmy Carter in 1978, 89 years after his death. While not disgraced, he was displaced in Southern affection after the war by its leading general, Robert E. Lee.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
December 17, 2023
Jefferson Davis was 73 years old in 1881, when he published "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government." He had served as as an officer in the Mexican War, as Secretary of War in the Franklin Pierce administration, and for many years as a senator from Mississippi. Although he stoutly argued the right of states to secede from the Union, he was for most of his public career a strong supporter of that Union, and argued against the wisdom of secession. He wrote, "If, through a life, now not a short one, a large portion of which has been spent in the public service, I have given no better proof of my affection for this Union than by declarations, I have lived to little purpose, indeed." But when the Southern states seceded from the Union and formed a Confederacy, he accepted their call to be its president. Little wonder, then, that his telling of the rise and fall of the confederate government is one in which the bitterness of loss and injustice is evident throughout.
Davis goes into great detail outlining a historical and legal justification for the right of states to secede from the Union. This is the strongest part of the book. "My first object in this work was to prove, by historical authority, that each of the States, as sovereign parties to the compact of Union, had the reserved power to secede from it whenever it should be found not to answer the ends for which it was established." Among other arguments, he notes that the Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolution, recognized that the former colonies were now 13 independent and sovereign states; it did not recognize one sovereign state which they comprised. The American Congress ratified this treaty. The Articles of Confederation reiterated the sovereignty of the states: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." When the Articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution, the 10th Amendment again reiterated this theme: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It follows that, if secession was a right retained by the states, then the federal government had no right to use force to compel the states to remain in the Union. Davis writes, "It follows that the war was, on the part of the United States Government, one of aggression and usurpation, and, on the part of the South, was for the defense of an inherent, unalienable right."
As an experienced military man, Davis knew from the start that the military odds were stacked against the Confederacy. The South had excellent military leadership--most historians feel it was far better than that of the North--but it could not compete in manpower and materiel. Davis describes how after the Battle of Shiloh, gleaners were sent to the battlefield to gather lead bullets so that they might be melted down and used again. Such was the lack of military manufacturing in the South.
Davis describes the major battles of the Civil War. The overlong book would have been better had those descriptions been omitted, since the battles are better described by first-hand accounts, and contain more detail than most readers seek. He acknowledges with tender mourning the many officers who fell in defense of their states. As the war ground on, the deaths accumulated on both sides. Modern estimates are that about 700,000 men perished in the war, more than the number of American deaths in all other American wars combined. Millions were made widows and orphans.
From Davis' point of view, the invasion of the South was not the only injustice of that era. He tells how even in states which had not seceded, civil liberties were trampled by the Lincoln administration. Maryland never seceded from the Union, but its legislature was arrested and incarcerated without a trial. Newspapers were closed if they published articles supportive of the secession. In Palmyra, Missouri, ten Southern sympathizers, unconvicted of any crime, were executed by a military firing squad in reprisal for the disappearance of a Union informer. A recent historian estimates that over 14,000 citizens of northern states were incarcerated without trial during the Civil War. As Cicero wrote, silent enim leges inter arma, in times of war, the law falls silent.
In his second inaugural address, Lincoln reflected on the preceding four years of war, and said, "Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came. One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war." Davis makes a case for the legality of slavery, going so far as to point out that slaves are the only form of property explicitly protected by the Constitution. He rarely makes a moral case for it. The few excursions he does make onto that subject strike the modern reader as sincere but purblind. Concerning former slaves who had been inducted into the Union army he writes as follows:
"Let the reader pause for a moment and look calmly at the facts presented in this statement. The forefathers of these negro soldiers were gathered from the torrid plains and malarial swamps of inhospitable Africa. Generally they were born the slaves of barbarian masters, untaught in all the useful arts and occupations, reared in heathen darkness, and, sold by heathen masters, they were transferred to shores enlightened by the rays of Christianity. There, put to servitude, they were trained in the gentle arts of peace and order and civilization; they increased from a few unprofitable savages to millions of efficient Christian laborers. Their servile instincts rendered them contented with their lot, and their patient toil blessed the land of their abode with unmeasured riches. Their strong local and personal attachment secured faithful service to those to whom their service or labor was due. A strong mutual affection was the natural result of this life-long relation, a feeling best if not only understood by those who have grown from childhood under its influence. Never was there happier dependence of labor and capital on each other. The tempter came, like the serpent in Eden, and decoyed them with the magic word of "freedom." Too many were allured by the uncomprehended and unfulfilled promises, until the highways of these wanderers were marked by corpses of infants and the aged. He put arms in their hands, and trained their humble but emotional natures to deeds of violence and bloodshed, and sent them out to devastate their benefactors."
Davis' reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation was equally denigrating of the human dignity and equality of the former slaves, but does at least express a compassion for the multitude suddenly declared free, but who were equally free of property, privilege, and prospects. He recognized that many of them faced starvation as a result of their precipitous emancipation. "We may well leave it to the instinct of that common humanity, which a beneficent Creator has implanted in the breasts of our fellow-men of all countries, to pass judgment on a measure by which several millions of human beings of an inferior race--peaceful, contented laborers in their sphere--are doomed to extermination, while at the same time they are encouraged to a general assassination of their masters by the insidious recommendation 'to abstain from violence, unless in necessary self-defense.'"
The modern reader will rightly criticize Davis and his Southern generation, and wonder how, despite their intelligence and high civilization, they could not recognize the common humanity of the black slaves among whom they lived. Perhaps the harshness of our judgment will be tempered by considering what their reaction would be to learning that our laws now enshrine a right to surgically dismember babies nestled in their mothers' wombs, and that thousands perish daily as a result. Well might that generation ask how it is that we cannot recognize the common humanity of our own children before birth. Well might that generation argue that the slaveholder's claim to own another person is less a crime against nature than is the claim of a mother's right to kill her own child before birth. Again, quoting Lincoln: "Both [sides of the Civil War] read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged."
Lee's surrender at Appomattox sealed the fate of the Confederacy, but was not the end of the war. Davis was still running a rump government when, shortly after the surrender, Lincoln was assassinated. Davis did not join in the cheers of the Confederate soldiers when they heard the news. He recognized that Lincoln's death portended a harsh post-war period for the South. "For an enemy so relentless in the war for our subjugation, we could not be expected to mourn; yet, in view of its political consequences, it could not be regarded otherwise than as a great misfortune to the South. He had power over the Northern people, and was without personal malignity toward the people of the South; his successor was without power in the North, and the embodiment of malignity toward the Southern people, perhaps the more so because he had betrayed and deserted them in the hour of their need." The final chapters of the book are a description of the military occupation of the South, and the wholesale abrogation of civil authority during Reconstruction.
Davis closes his book with a view to the judgment of history, and with a poignant, if tempered, benediction to the Union which he had so long supported, and then perforce opposed, the Union which ultimately punished him not merely with incarceration, but with the sting of revoked citizenship: "In asserting the right of secession, it has not been my wish to incite to its exercise: I recognize the fact that the war showed it to be impracticable, but this did not prove it to be wrong; and, now that it may not be again attempted, and that the Union may promote the general welfare, it is needful that the truth, the whole truth, should be known, so that crimination and recrimination may for ever cease, and then, on the basis of fraternity and faithful regard for the rights of the States, there may be written on the arch of the Union, Esto perpetua."
Davis goes into great detail outlining a historical and legal justification for the right of states to secede from the Union. This is the strongest part of the book. "My first object in this work was to prove, by historical authority, that each of the States, as sovereign parties to the compact of Union, had the reserved power to secede from it whenever it should be found not to answer the ends for which it was established." Among other arguments, he notes that the Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolution, recognized that the former colonies were now 13 independent and sovereign states; it did not recognize one sovereign state which they comprised. The American Congress ratified this treaty. The Articles of Confederation reiterated the sovereignty of the states: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." When the Articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution, the 10th Amendment again reiterated this theme: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It follows that, if secession was a right retained by the states, then the federal government had no right to use force to compel the states to remain in the Union. Davis writes, "It follows that the war was, on the part of the United States Government, one of aggression and usurpation, and, on the part of the South, was for the defense of an inherent, unalienable right."
As an experienced military man, Davis knew from the start that the military odds were stacked against the Confederacy. The South had excellent military leadership--most historians feel it was far better than that of the North--but it could not compete in manpower and materiel. Davis describes how after the Battle of Shiloh, gleaners were sent to the battlefield to gather lead bullets so that they might be melted down and used again. Such was the lack of military manufacturing in the South.
Davis describes the major battles of the Civil War. The overlong book would have been better had those descriptions been omitted, since the battles are better described by first-hand accounts, and contain more detail than most readers seek. He acknowledges with tender mourning the many officers who fell in defense of their states. As the war ground on, the deaths accumulated on both sides. Modern estimates are that about 700,000 men perished in the war, more than the number of American deaths in all other American wars combined. Millions were made widows and orphans.
From Davis' point of view, the invasion of the South was not the only injustice of that era. He tells how even in states which had not seceded, civil liberties were trampled by the Lincoln administration. Maryland never seceded from the Union, but its legislature was arrested and incarcerated without a trial. Newspapers were closed if they published articles supportive of the secession. In Palmyra, Missouri, ten Southern sympathizers, unconvicted of any crime, were executed by a military firing squad in reprisal for the disappearance of a Union informer. A recent historian estimates that over 14,000 citizens of northern states were incarcerated without trial during the Civil War. As Cicero wrote, silent enim leges inter arma, in times of war, the law falls silent.
In his second inaugural address, Lincoln reflected on the preceding four years of war, and said, "Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came. One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war." Davis makes a case for the legality of slavery, going so far as to point out that slaves are the only form of property explicitly protected by the Constitution. He rarely makes a moral case for it. The few excursions he does make onto that subject strike the modern reader as sincere but purblind. Concerning former slaves who had been inducted into the Union army he writes as follows:
"Let the reader pause for a moment and look calmly at the facts presented in this statement. The forefathers of these negro soldiers were gathered from the torrid plains and malarial swamps of inhospitable Africa. Generally they were born the slaves of barbarian masters, untaught in all the useful arts and occupations, reared in heathen darkness, and, sold by heathen masters, they were transferred to shores enlightened by the rays of Christianity. There, put to servitude, they were trained in the gentle arts of peace and order and civilization; they increased from a few unprofitable savages to millions of efficient Christian laborers. Their servile instincts rendered them contented with their lot, and their patient toil blessed the land of their abode with unmeasured riches. Their strong local and personal attachment secured faithful service to those to whom their service or labor was due. A strong mutual affection was the natural result of this life-long relation, a feeling best if not only understood by those who have grown from childhood under its influence. Never was there happier dependence of labor and capital on each other. The tempter came, like the serpent in Eden, and decoyed them with the magic word of "freedom." Too many were allured by the uncomprehended and unfulfilled promises, until the highways of these wanderers were marked by corpses of infants and the aged. He put arms in their hands, and trained their humble but emotional natures to deeds of violence and bloodshed, and sent them out to devastate their benefactors."
Davis' reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation was equally denigrating of the human dignity and equality of the former slaves, but does at least express a compassion for the multitude suddenly declared free, but who were equally free of property, privilege, and prospects. He recognized that many of them faced starvation as a result of their precipitous emancipation. "We may well leave it to the instinct of that common humanity, which a beneficent Creator has implanted in the breasts of our fellow-men of all countries, to pass judgment on a measure by which several millions of human beings of an inferior race--peaceful, contented laborers in their sphere--are doomed to extermination, while at the same time they are encouraged to a general assassination of their masters by the insidious recommendation 'to abstain from violence, unless in necessary self-defense.'"
The modern reader will rightly criticize Davis and his Southern generation, and wonder how, despite their intelligence and high civilization, they could not recognize the common humanity of the black slaves among whom they lived. Perhaps the harshness of our judgment will be tempered by considering what their reaction would be to learning that our laws now enshrine a right to surgically dismember babies nestled in their mothers' wombs, and that thousands perish daily as a result. Well might that generation ask how it is that we cannot recognize the common humanity of our own children before birth. Well might that generation argue that the slaveholder's claim to own another person is less a crime against nature than is the claim of a mother's right to kill her own child before birth. Again, quoting Lincoln: "Both [sides of the Civil War] read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged."
Lee's surrender at Appomattox sealed the fate of the Confederacy, but was not the end of the war. Davis was still running a rump government when, shortly after the surrender, Lincoln was assassinated. Davis did not join in the cheers of the Confederate soldiers when they heard the news. He recognized that Lincoln's death portended a harsh post-war period for the South. "For an enemy so relentless in the war for our subjugation, we could not be expected to mourn; yet, in view of its political consequences, it could not be regarded otherwise than as a great misfortune to the South. He had power over the Northern people, and was without personal malignity toward the people of the South; his successor was without power in the North, and the embodiment of malignity toward the Southern people, perhaps the more so because he had betrayed and deserted them in the hour of their need." The final chapters of the book are a description of the military occupation of the South, and the wholesale abrogation of civil authority during Reconstruction.
Davis closes his book with a view to the judgment of history, and with a poignant, if tempered, benediction to the Union which he had so long supported, and then perforce opposed, the Union which ultimately punished him not merely with incarceration, but with the sting of revoked citizenship: "In asserting the right of secession, it has not been my wish to incite to its exercise: I recognize the fact that the war showed it to be impracticable, but this did not prove it to be wrong; and, now that it may not be again attempted, and that the Union may promote the general welfare, it is needful that the truth, the whole truth, should be known, so that crimination and recrimination may for ever cease, and then, on the basis of fraternity and faithful regard for the rights of the States, there may be written on the arch of the Union, Esto perpetua."
September 21, 2024
I started to read Volume 1 of Jefferson Davis' book to see if he provides a more balanced view of the Confederation and the American Civil War. It looks like he is a good orator and he frequently goes into long diatribes which are somewhat difficult to follow. I was struck by the fact that the book is really a startling text of demagoguery with the main intent to show that "the Southern states were not necessarily advocating slavery, they were supporting the states' individual rights to follow their own policy without intervention from the Central Government". You do not find a single word in the book that is remotely hinting that slavery was a reviled practice and it was bad. No, he's just trying to prove that the Confederate states would eventually abolish slavery, but the Central Government had no right to intervene on any citizen moving their property (aka slaves) to any part of the United States. I think if he had lived through the horrors of the 20th Century, he would have paid more attention to universal Human Rights and would not blindly follow a cause because it seemed to follow the grand idea that states doing whatever they wanted amounted to real democracy.
Accepting the certainty that American history was re-written by the winning Northern historians, it is clear that the South did not really have a defendable position. Just following something because it seems to be "legal" does not make it right. We have lived through a 20th Century where an elected leader tried to annihilate a complete people just because he seemingly had the power to do so, based on the laws he had changed.
Accepting the certainty that American history was re-written by the winning Northern historians, it is clear that the South did not really have a defendable position. Just following something because it seems to be "legal" does not make it right. We have lived through a 20th Century where an elected leader tried to annihilate a complete people just because he seemingly had the power to do so, based on the laws he had changed.
April 19, 2017
Because I refuse to not finish a book it took me a shade over four years to get to the end of this one. While Jefferson Davis did the best he could as The President of The Confederate States of America, his ability to tell a story is sorely lacking.
Don't get me wrong, his speeches, which are contained in the appendices, show him to be a great orator, but his meandering writing style proves that he does not posses writing skills.
As he tends to repeat himself three or four or more times, this book could have been at least one third the length. While I gained an iota of new knowledge about the who, what, why, and when, mostly what I got was a cure for insomnia.
Don't get me wrong, his speeches, which are contained in the appendices, show him to be a great orator, but his meandering writing style proves that he does not posses writing skills.
As he tends to repeat himself three or four or more times, this book could have been at least one third the length. While I gained an iota of new knowledge about the who, what, why, and when, mostly what I got was a cure for insomnia.
April 22, 2020
This was quite eye opening. It made very clear the tremendous challenges that the Confederacy faced while attempting to stand up a new government, while under attack. Davis does seem to get bogged down in details regarding legislative debates, and also conspicuously casts a lot of blame on others.
July 27, 2022
As a primary source to understand the initial phase of Lost Cause Myths and white Southerner sentiments post-Civil War, this work is quite interesting. Other than that, I have nothing good to say about it.
The disdain that Davis has for his readers is absolutely remarkable, as exemplified by his oft-repeated point that the Southern states led out in banning the Atlantic slave trade rather than Northern states—his objective being to cast doubt on the anti-slavery morals of the North. I say disdain, because he must have had a massively low opinion of his fellow human beings in general that he thought they would not recognize the incredible economic incentive that wealthy slave holders had to put a stop to the Atlantic slave trade. Slaves increased in value at a rather fast pace from that time forward as supply failed to meet demand and as new slave states were added to the Union. The wealthiest Southerners in the Upper South bred slaves and sold them to the Deep South for massive profit. The fight over the expansion of slavery to new states was partly about slave state representation in Congress and partly about driving demand for slaves for those who already owned massive forced labor farms to profit from sales. Davis knew this but omits that reality to attack Northern anti-slavery attitudes and suggest the South was actually morally superior on slavery. The absurdity reaches the level of hilarity because he later attacks Northerners as being “radical black Republicans” for threatening the institution of slavery. The text is brimming with similarly blatant omissions and contradictions—another big one is his reliance on the US Constitution to defend the rights of Southern citizens AFTER they claimed they were no longer subject to it vis-à-vis secession.
He-said-he-said arguments for other points of concern are ridiculously repetitive. His writing style is generally pretentious, often whiney, and altogether tiresome. Good for reference or self-lobotomy, nothing else.
The disdain that Davis has for his readers is absolutely remarkable, as exemplified by his oft-repeated point that the Southern states led out in banning the Atlantic slave trade rather than Northern states—his objective being to cast doubt on the anti-slavery morals of the North. I say disdain, because he must have had a massively low opinion of his fellow human beings in general that he thought they would not recognize the incredible economic incentive that wealthy slave holders had to put a stop to the Atlantic slave trade. Slaves increased in value at a rather fast pace from that time forward as supply failed to meet demand and as new slave states were added to the Union. The wealthiest Southerners in the Upper South bred slaves and sold them to the Deep South for massive profit. The fight over the expansion of slavery to new states was partly about slave state representation in Congress and partly about driving demand for slaves for those who already owned massive forced labor farms to profit from sales. Davis knew this but omits that reality to attack Northern anti-slavery attitudes and suggest the South was actually morally superior on slavery. The absurdity reaches the level of hilarity because he later attacks Northerners as being “radical black Republicans” for threatening the institution of slavery. The text is brimming with similarly blatant omissions and contradictions—another big one is his reliance on the US Constitution to defend the rights of Southern citizens AFTER they claimed they were no longer subject to it vis-à-vis secession.
He-said-he-said arguments for other points of concern are ridiculously repetitive. His writing style is generally pretentious, often whiney, and altogether tiresome. Good for reference or self-lobotomy, nothing else.
December 26, 2024
In a world of revision history, it's always nice reading about a historical person in their own words. It's better to preserve accurate history - both good & bad - than to revise it to suit current sensitivities. Even if the history is bad, we're better people for maintaining its integrity - and - we're in a better position to LEARN from it (again, both good & bad) than to sweep it under the rug.
This book is a good read. Besides the history, it's simply interesting.
Spoilers - President Davis lost the confederacy war.
This book is a good read. Besides the history, it's simply interesting.
Spoilers - President Davis lost the confederacy war.
February 7, 2017
This was not a good book. Jefferson Davis was the definition of a pompous asshole that liked to hear himself talk. This should be subtitled "A defeated man's attempt to relieve his troubled conscience." Seriously, there are better books available all over and far better books about the civil war. Most of this one has nothing to do with anything so much as he-said-she-said politics before the war anyway.
November 6, 2016
A view of the southern side
I have read a lot to find out why we had to resort to a civil war. This is the first book that expressed, from the southern side, their reasons for what happened.
I have read a lot to find out why we had to resort to a civil war. This is the first book that expressed, from the southern side, their reasons for what happened.
July 16, 2021
an excellent read
To use a well known phrase after you have read this book, "now you know the rest of the story". You'll read the history you were never taught. Plus you will be astounded by the eloquent manner of speeches and writings.
To use a well known phrase after you have read this book, "now you know the rest of the story". You'll read the history you were never taught. Plus you will be astounded by the eloquent manner of speeches and writings.
October 16, 2025
Jefferson Davis’ important corrective to the “Righteous Cause” mythology promulgated by the Union. Davis is most persuasive when discussing the United States Constitution, political philosophy, the duplicity of Northern sectionalists, the criminality of Lincoln and his proxies, and the barbarities of Union generals like Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Butler.
One major weakness of the book is Davis’ several transparent attempts to defend his personal honor against anyone—South or North—who sees events in a slightly different way. I don’t recall a single place in the two volumes where he admits responsibility for any mistake, or confesses being in the wrong in a matter of statecraft or war.
Seeing as how Davis was the commander-in-chief of the Confederate armed services, one would expect his treatise to address military campaigns to some extent. However, military affairs take up an inordinate amount of space, especially when one considers the fine detail he applies to events he did not personally witness. Some major campaigns receive little detail, while other minor operations are detailed at length—again, I suspect because Davis is subtly attempting to defend his personal honor in some matter.
Nevertheless, this is a valuable primary source. Though lengthy (about 1500 pages including appendices), it is well worth a read—especially the chapters discussing matters of government, state, and diplomacy.
One major weakness of the book is Davis’ several transparent attempts to defend his personal honor against anyone—South or North—who sees events in a slightly different way. I don’t recall a single place in the two volumes where he admits responsibility for any mistake, or confesses being in the wrong in a matter of statecraft or war.
Seeing as how Davis was the commander-in-chief of the Confederate armed services, one would expect his treatise to address military campaigns to some extent. However, military affairs take up an inordinate amount of space, especially when one considers the fine detail he applies to events he did not personally witness. Some major campaigns receive little detail, while other minor operations are detailed at length—again, I suspect because Davis is subtly attempting to defend his personal honor in some matter.
Nevertheless, this is a valuable primary source. Though lengthy (about 1500 pages including appendices), it is well worth a read—especially the chapters discussing matters of government, state, and diplomacy.
March 13, 2022
Interesting Perspective
Jefferson Davis was the president of the Confederacy, and this book is largely an apologetic to justify the constitutional arguments for secession and the decline of Confederate government during the Civil War. I was hoping for more of a memoir - but instead got a series of the Senator Davis’ speeches leading up to the war, and the constitutional law arguments. Interesting perspectives, but not what I was expecting.
Jefferson Davis was the president of the Confederacy, and this book is largely an apologetic to justify the constitutional arguments for secession and the decline of Confederate government during the Civil War. I was hoping for more of a memoir - but instead got a series of the Senator Davis’ speeches leading up to the war, and the constitutional law arguments. Interesting perspectives, but not what I was expecting.
March 26, 2022
According to him, what I have been taught in school on the start of the Civil War is wrong. The North provoked it and fired on Fort Sumpter while the South offered to let them leave. The south chose to leave the Union just as they chose to join
December 29, 2023
🔻 Genre: Memoire.
✔️Published in 1881.
👁 Point of view: First person.
🖊 My review: While this is a work rich in first-hand experiences and information, it unfortunately drags on and on. Jefferson Davis repeats himself much. The back of the book has the Confederate Constitution, which is a definite must-read.
🔥 Dénouement: I about fell asleep for the repetition.
🔲 Excerpts :
Jefferson Davis has some good points well worth reading:
🗝 What I learned: Davis is a fascinating person.
💫 What I like best: Finishing this tome.
📌 Would I read this again? Yes, but only for primary source research.
🤔 My rating 🌟🌟🌟
◼️ Fun fact: As excited as I was to begin reading this, I was just as excited to finish. It took me a year to read this tome.
🟣 Media form: Kindle version.
✔️Published in 1881.
👁 Point of view: First person.
🖊 My review: While this is a work rich in first-hand experiences and information, it unfortunately drags on and on. Jefferson Davis repeats himself much. The back of the book has the Confederate Constitution, which is a definite must-read.
🔥 Dénouement: I about fell asleep for the repetition.
🔲 Excerpts :
Jefferson Davis has some good points well worth reading:
🔸 In the nature of things, no union can be formed except by separate, independent, and distinct parties. Any other combination is not a union; and, upon the destruction of any of these elements in the parties, the union ipso facto ceases. If the Government is the result of a union of States, then these States must be separate, sovereign, and distinct, to be able to form a union, which is entirely an act of their own volition. Such a government as ours had no power to maintain its existence any longer than the contracting parties pleased to cohere, because it was founded on the great principle of voluntary federation, and organized "to establish justice and insure domestic tranquillity."173 Any departure from this principle by the General Government not only perverts and destroys its nature, but furnishes a just cause to the injured State to withdraw from the union. A new union might subsequently be formed, but the original one could never by coercion be restored. Any effort on the part of the others to force the seceding State to consent to come back is an attempt at subjugation. It is a wrong which no lapse of time or combination of circumstances can ever make right. A forced union is a political absurdity. No less absurd is President Lincoln's effort to dissever the sovereignty of the people from that of the State; as if there could be a State without a people, or a sovereign people without a State.
🔸 "But our existing Government is not the less sacred to me because it was not sealed with blood. I honor it the more because it was the free-will offering of men who chose to live together. It rooted in fraternity, and fraternity supported its trunk and all its branches. Every bud and leaflet depends entirely on the nurture it receives from fraternity as the root of the tree. When that is destroyed, the trunk decays, and the branches wither, and the leaves fall; and the shade it was designed to give has passed away for ever. I cling not merely to the name and form, but to the spirit and purpose of the Union which our fathers made. It was for domestic tranquillity; not to organize within one State lawless bands to commit raids upon another. It was to provide for the common defense; not to disband armies and navies, lest they should serve the protection of one section of the country better than another. It was to bring the forces of all the States together to achieve a common object, upholding each the other in amity, and united to repel exterior force.
🔸 Secession, on the other hand, was the assertion of the inalienable right of a people to change their government, whenever it ceased to fulfill the purposes for which it was ordained and established. Under our form of government, and the cardinal principles upon which it was founded, it should have been a peaceful remedy. The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a sovereign a "rebellion," is a gross abuse of language. So is the flippant phrase which speaks of it as an appeal to the "arbitrament of the sword."🖋 The writing style: Dry and repetitive.
🗝 What I learned: Davis is a fascinating person.
💫 What I like best: Finishing this tome.
📌 Would I read this again? Yes, but only for primary source research.
🤔 My rating 🌟🌟🌟
◼️ Fun fact: As excited as I was to begin reading this, I was just as excited to finish. It took me a year to read this tome.
🟣 Media form: Kindle version.
September 24, 2025
A fascinating and unique book. From his position as the President of the Confederacy, Davis had influence and on-going correspondence with all the leading figures of his government, the military commanders and civilian authorities. There's a wealth of first-hand information from those who shaped the Confederacy, as well as his adversaries, the forces of the Federal Government.
By telling the history of the Confederacy, Davis reveals a lot about himself. His basic fairness towards his subordinates is very clear; he can hardly say anything negative about his generals, as the words "valor" "gallantry", and "courage" are bestowed freely on them. He criticizes indirectly by passing over some episodes; for example, Jackson is rightly described as pretty much a wizard for his successes in the Valley Campaign, but his underachieving in the subsequent Seven Days Battles is passed off as a consequence of bad luck, confusing orders, and the exhaustion of his troops.
That analysis is certainly justifiable, especially since Lee himself was new as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, and, not surprisingly, wasn't used to giving orders to divisional and corp commanders. It's more difficult to understand Davis's continued faith in Bragg's ability.
Just before the battle of Chickamauga, Davis had a conference with all of Bragg's subordinates, who criticized their commander up and down (strangely, in Bragg's presence), yet he wasn't removed from command. This key moment goes completely unnoticed in the book. Ultimately, Davis did the wise thing by giving both Bragg and Beauregard administrative positions. Yet battles were sabotaged by subordinates unwilling to follow orders of unpopular commanders.
The political backdrop to the war--in which Davis attempts to justify secession with legalistic arguments--also is highly informative, and deeply nuanced. Nonetheless, like most Southern commentators at the time, he infers and assumes Lincoln's intentions, without giving due respect to what Lincoln actually said in the 1860 presidential campaign, and thereafter.
The issue for Lincoln was to not extend slavery in the territories; but not to interfere with the 'institution' in the fifteen existing slave states. This he said and wrote many times. Only after the war was well underway, did we see Lincoln, gradually, but decisively, move towards abolition.
Even conceding that Davis, and plenty of other southerners believed that they knew Lincoln's mind better than he did, why didn't the Democrats stay united in 1860? A moderate Democrat would've had a much better chance of defeating Lincoln, coming as he was from an upstart party, which was itself a mishmash of Whigs, nativists, abolitionists, and religious revivalists.
Even granting that the Democratic party was destined to split, thus insuring Lincoln's election, why secession? Why didn't the Southern states wait and see what Lincoln would actually do (or not do) about slavery? Again, they assumed the worst, contrary to the evidence.
Once more, granting that Lincoln might've been hell-bent on stopping slavery, so that secession was deemed necessary, why attack Ft. Sumter? It was never state territory; no state or group of states had any right to it. What's surprising is not that Ft. Sumter held out, but that similar installations throughout the South capitulated without a fight.
Davis raises some interesting legal arguments regarding the appropriateness of secession, but, like others in his time, he seemingly wants it both ways. He invokes the protection of the Constitution in order to repudiate it. As Lincoln said of the Constitution, no Government creates itself by providing the means of its own destruction.
For all of these reasons, I found Davis's comments on military matters much more compelling than his political views. Having said that, this is probably the best resource available on both the Civil War and its origins. Highly detailed, and for the most part, well-written. Recommended reading for Civil War followers.
By telling the history of the Confederacy, Davis reveals a lot about himself. His basic fairness towards his subordinates is very clear; he can hardly say anything negative about his generals, as the words "valor" "gallantry", and "courage" are bestowed freely on them. He criticizes indirectly by passing over some episodes; for example, Jackson is rightly described as pretty much a wizard for his successes in the Valley Campaign, but his underachieving in the subsequent Seven Days Battles is passed off as a consequence of bad luck, confusing orders, and the exhaustion of his troops.
That analysis is certainly justifiable, especially since Lee himself was new as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, and, not surprisingly, wasn't used to giving orders to divisional and corp commanders. It's more difficult to understand Davis's continued faith in Bragg's ability.
Just before the battle of Chickamauga, Davis had a conference with all of Bragg's subordinates, who criticized their commander up and down (strangely, in Bragg's presence), yet he wasn't removed from command. This key moment goes completely unnoticed in the book. Ultimately, Davis did the wise thing by giving both Bragg and Beauregard administrative positions. Yet battles were sabotaged by subordinates unwilling to follow orders of unpopular commanders.
The political backdrop to the war--in which Davis attempts to justify secession with legalistic arguments--also is highly informative, and deeply nuanced. Nonetheless, like most Southern commentators at the time, he infers and assumes Lincoln's intentions, without giving due respect to what Lincoln actually said in the 1860 presidential campaign, and thereafter.
The issue for Lincoln was to not extend slavery in the territories; but not to interfere with the 'institution' in the fifteen existing slave states. This he said and wrote many times. Only after the war was well underway, did we see Lincoln, gradually, but decisively, move towards abolition.
Even conceding that Davis, and plenty of other southerners believed that they knew Lincoln's mind better than he did, why didn't the Democrats stay united in 1860? A moderate Democrat would've had a much better chance of defeating Lincoln, coming as he was from an upstart party, which was itself a mishmash of Whigs, nativists, abolitionists, and religious revivalists.
Even granting that the Democratic party was destined to split, thus insuring Lincoln's election, why secession? Why didn't the Southern states wait and see what Lincoln would actually do (or not do) about slavery? Again, they assumed the worst, contrary to the evidence.
Once more, granting that Lincoln might've been hell-bent on stopping slavery, so that secession was deemed necessary, why attack Ft. Sumter? It was never state territory; no state or group of states had any right to it. What's surprising is not that Ft. Sumter held out, but that similar installations throughout the South capitulated without a fight.
Davis raises some interesting legal arguments regarding the appropriateness of secession, but, like others in his time, he seemingly wants it both ways. He invokes the protection of the Constitution in order to repudiate it. As Lincoln said of the Constitution, no Government creates itself by providing the means of its own destruction.
For all of these reasons, I found Davis's comments on military matters much more compelling than his political views. Having said that, this is probably the best resource available on both the Civil War and its origins. Highly detailed, and for the most part, well-written. Recommended reading for Civil War followers.
December 21, 2011
One of the finest examples I've ever read demonstrating that history is written by the victor. Davis brings to light so many things that are never mentioned in history class. While I can't agree or understand when Davis continues to advocate for the legality and morality of slavery into the 1880s, he goes a long way in justifying the right of succession. He provides ample citations, precedents and records from the time of the Founding Fathers all the way to just before the war to back up his words. While I don't regret the ultimate outcome of the war, this book is certainly shifting my stance on how the United States handled the war, officials from the Confederacy, and her own citizens.
It's a shame that the common history books will never go much beyond "South Carolina succeeded and fired upon Fort Sumter". While I knew there was much more to it, this book outlined in fine detail all of the events between the succession and the bombardment of the fort. Those details are not kind to the character of the United States (and more specifically the Secretary of State).
It's a shame that the common history books will never go much beyond "South Carolina succeeded and fired upon Fort Sumter". While I knew there was much more to it, this book outlined in fine detail all of the events between the succession and the bombardment of the fort. Those details are not kind to the character of the United States (and more specifically the Secretary of State).
December 1, 2013
I can't believe I read the whole thing, both lengthy volumes; but it contains many engrossing details of Civil War history that only a high ranking official of the losing side would know or recall.
For example, in the final days of the rebellion, the Confederacy's bullion was deposited in what is now a national center of banking, Charlotte, NC; a confederate naval privateer somewhere near the Straits of Magellan didn't learn that war was over until August, 1865, long after Lee's surrender that April and more than a month after slaves in Texas learned in June that they had been emancipated; and there is Davis' take on how it happened that he was captured wearing women's apparel.
On the more substantial matter of Davis' very legalistic defense of the rebellion, to which the volumes volumes chiefly are devoted, I found of lasting value only its focus on the large extent to which Lincoln, to end Slavery, set aside a strict construction of the constitution, citing instead a doctrine of "military necessity."
For example, in the final days of the rebellion, the Confederacy's bullion was deposited in what is now a national center of banking, Charlotte, NC; a confederate naval privateer somewhere near the Straits of Magellan didn't learn that war was over until August, 1865, long after Lee's surrender that April and more than a month after slaves in Texas learned in June that they had been emancipated; and there is Davis' take on how it happened that he was captured wearing women's apparel.
On the more substantial matter of Davis' very legalistic defense of the rebellion, to which the volumes volumes chiefly are devoted, I found of lasting value only its focus on the large extent to which Lincoln, to end Slavery, set aside a strict construction of the constitution, citing instead a doctrine of "military necessity."
July 2, 2016
The Original Confederate Manifesto!
President Davis presents a very interesting case during the first half of the book with regards to states' rights and on why he felt that the southern states left the United States. However the book tended to wane towards the other half with long-winded letters to Confederate Army leaders and speeches he delivered while he was a Senator from Mississippi. He describes in detail with regards to the national budget of the confederacy, weapons collected or captured during the war and how the U.S. and Confederate constitutions were so similar in nature. An interesting read nonetheless.
President Davis presents a very interesting case during the first half of the book with regards to states' rights and on why he felt that the southern states left the United States. However the book tended to wane towards the other half with long-winded letters to Confederate Army leaders and speeches he delivered while he was a Senator from Mississippi. He describes in detail with regards to the national budget of the confederacy, weapons collected or captured during the war and how the U.S. and Confederate constitutions were so similar in nature. An interesting read nonetheless.
May 26, 2014
An excellent "go-to" book on the rise and fall of the Confederacy. This first edition authored by Jefferson Davis and published by Thomas Yoseloff is difficult to read, but excellent in terms of covering events completely. I found it hard, however, to understand the first pass and had to read over and over to understand sometimes.
July 26, 2012
Hands down, one of the most brilliant pieces of literature that I have ever read. Jefferson Davis' mastery of the English language is unsurpassed as he explains what led to the rise and demise of the Confederacy.
July 4, 2015
The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government
I finally got through The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government by Jefferson Davis. I wanted to see what his excuse was, for secession. As I thought, it was just an excuse for slavery. For me, that is no excuse at all.
I finally got through The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government by Jefferson Davis. I wanted to see what his excuse was, for secession. As I thought, it was just an excuse for slavery. For me, that is no excuse at all.
June 29, 2016
A very thorough telling from the beginning of the issues all the way to the end. It definitely outlines the atrocities of the Lincoln administration and what happened to the entire country during this period in history, not just the south.
February 23, 2015
This is Vol. 1 so will reserve comment, if any, until I've read Vol. 2.
June 11, 2018
This is a great insite ,as to the minds and attitudes of southern people leading up to and during civil war!
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews