In 1861, Americans went to war with each other to determine if their young republic could endure as a unified nation or if it should be divided between the North and the South. The question of whether or not states could voluntarily secede from the Union was decided in battle over the following four years. Although they lost, Southerners still believed in the ideals of the Confederacy. Northerners, however, felt that the outcome of the war vindicated their position that the Union should be maintained, and that they, as victors, should be in a position of superiority over the South.[1] Whether victorious or defeated, most Americans were traumatized by the war, and Jefferson Davis (1808–1889) was a convenient target for blame. As its President, Davis was the embodiment of the Confederacy to many people on both sides of the war. The responses of Americans to Davis' post war public life, from his capture and imprisonment in 1865 to his speeches and writings in the 1870s and 1880s, suggested that although the Civil War was over, they were still a divided people.

The anger that Northerners directed at Davis after the war was indicative of Northerners’ desires for Southerners to accept the outcome of the war and acknowledge Northern superiority. Southerners blamed Davis for losing their chance at independence, but the poor treatment he received while imprisoned and a general dissatisfaction with reunification on Northern terms improved his popularity in the South. By the late 1870s, Southerners had accepted the reality of the Civil War’s outcome, but they were proud that they had fought for independence. Although they accepted the outcome of the war and their place as American citizens, Southerners desired an identity separate from Northerners. As feelings of Southern pride grew, Davis’ popularity grew because he represented the idea of Southern independence. Davis’s speeches and writings from this time through the end of his life in 1889 garnered support from Southerners and angered Northerners who were dissatisfied with his lack of remorse. The death of Jefferson Davis evoked a range of feelings in America, from loss and mourning in the South to happiness and gratification in the North. The range of responses to his death was a further testament to the divisions still present in America twenty-four years after the end of the Civil War.

The polarizing figure of Davis, like many topics related to the Civil War, has been a subject of interest to many historians. Before the war began in 1861, Davis was a popular Senator from Mississippi. In the twenty-eight years between the beginning of the war and his death in 1889, Davis’ public image went through highs and lows. As President of the Confederacy, a key figure in the war, much was written by Davis during his life, and much has been written about him since. For instance, William C. Davis and William J. Cooper, Jr., provided insight into Davis’ personal life and political career. Cooper analyzed the personal and professional life of Davis, whereas William C. Davis focused more on Davis’ life during the Civil War. Both historians attempted to better understand the man beyond his political life. Cooper argued that Davis’ beliefs were paradoxical because Davis’ loyalty to the Constitution led him to not only support secession but also to become the leader of the rebellion. William C. Davis’ analysis of Davis during the war found that Davis was a poor administrator, but he also concluded that the Confederacy would not have lasted as long as it did without Davis’ leadership.

Several authors have discussed the broader implications of the public image of Davis. Frank E. Vandiver, Harrison Trexler, Wilm K. Strawbridge, and Donald E. Collins each produced works concerned specifically with the public image of Davis. Both Vandiver’s and Trexler’s work focused on the relationship between Davis and the Southern press during the Civil War. Trexler found that Southern newspapers, despite their own assertions of loyalty to the Confederacy, hurt the cause for Southern independence by attacking Davis. Vandiver’s analysis of the animosity with which the editor of the Richmond Examiner, Edward A. Pollard, wrote about Davis found that such criticism caused long lasting harm to Davis’ public image and the treatment he has received from historians. Collins’ analysis of Davis’ image focused on the end of Davis’ life and the years following his death. He found that the increasing popularity of Davis among white Southerners during the late 1880s and 1890s denoted a growing sense of nostalgia for the Confederacy. Strawbridge also found that Davis’ post war image indicated an increased sense of Southern pride; however, he also asserted that Davis’ image and Southern pride were indicative of divisions between the North and the South. Silber’s exploration of gender issues in post Civil War America found that the Northern images of Davis and the South in general revealed a desire of Northerners for the South to assume a submissive role during the process of reunification.

The interpretive approach that most closely coincides with my approach to this project is the new cultural history. This method of addressing the topic is closely related to new social history, but instead of focusing solely on the political structure and cultural institutions of the time, new cultural history entails studying the minds, motivations, and feelings of the people that were affected by the war and its aftermath.[2] My analysis will be accomplished with a narrative approach that will begin by briefly covering background information from the late 1840s about Davis and his military service through the early 1890s and an interpretation of the reactions to his death. Histories of Davis that analyzed him and his public service from the 1840s through the 1860s showed how his dedication to the principle of states’ rights affected his actions before, during, and after the Civil War. As Strawbridge noted, there is not much existing scholarship solely studying the post war image of Davis. Strawbridge analyzed what Davis' image said about the culture of the South in particular.[3] This project takes the work of Strawbridge a step further and analyzes how the opinions that Americans on both sides of the war expressed about Davis after the war were an indication of the progress, or lack thereof, towards social and cultural reunion.

The disdain that Northerners felt for Davis was rooted in the fact that the leader of the rebellion was a veteran and a former prominent official of the federal government. Prior to the Civil War, Davis served as a Colonel in the United States Army. He received national attention for his service during the Mexican War, and, in particular, for his performance in battle against Santa Anna at the Battle of Buena Vista. Following the war, Davis was offered a commission as Brigadier General. At the time, though, there was talk in some newspapers that Governor Albert G. Brown of Mississippi would appoint Davis to a vacant seat in the U.S. Senate, and Davis accepted that appointment in August 1847.[4] In 1853, Davis accepted the position of Secretary of War in President Franklin Pierce’s administration. During his service, Davis was accused of moving weapons to arsenals in the South as tensions rose over the presidential election of 1856. However, as William C. Davis found, the evidence suggests that Davis did not show such favoritism. For example, when Governor Henry Wise of Virginia requested new weapons for his militia to prepare for military action in case Republican John C. Fremont won the presidency, Davis refused his request.[5] Following President Pierce’s term in office, Davis won back his seat in the Senate by a large margin. Davis was undoubtedly pleased to return there, as he was quoted as saying, “I preferred the Senate to any other public post.”[6] In 1857, Davis looked forward to returning to the Senate, but in just four years, his service there ended when Mississippi seceded from the Union.

The formation of the Confederacy with Davis as its President marked a turning point in Northerners’ opinions of him. As states seceded, Davis, who believed that secession was a right afforded to the states, advocated a peaceful resolution to the matter while still serving as Senator. In January 1861, the New York Times praised Davis’s stance on preserving the peace and, in the same article, lauded Davis’ prior service in the military. Even after Davis was sworn in as President of the Confederacy in Montgomery, Alabama on February 18, 1861, the Times still showed respect for Davis, calling him “the most capable and respectable man of the Southern Confederacy.”[7] As he arrived in Montgomery to assume the duties of President, Davis expressed in a speech to the Southern people that since they, as their forefathers had done in the Revolution, had embarked on a path towards sovereignty, there could be no turning back. Davis later recalled in his memoirs that the South did not desire war but was prepared to fight if necessary.[8] The respect from the Northern press soon faded as it became clear that Davis was resolute in his determination to lead the South to independence, even if that meant war. Just two weeks after calling Davis “capable and respectable”, the Times published an article that compared Davis to Satan and called for him to be hung.[9] In the space of a few weeks, Davis went from being viewed in the North as a respectable statesman and war hero to a villainous traitor, and his reputation never recovered.

Although Davis enjoyed the support of the Southern people at the outset of the war, after the conflict ended, there were some who held him responsible for the ultimate failure of the Confederacy. Early in the war, the Richmond Dispatch concluded that Davis was “in every way fitted for the distinguished post to which he has been called,” and praised the disparity between Davis and the “tyrant,” Lincoln.[10] The support of Davis among Southerners indicated a belief in the justice of their cause, and confidence in the success of the Confederate experiment. The challenges inherent in the formation of a new country bordered by a powerful enemy meant that the South’s chance at success was directly related to the success of their leadership. When the Confederacy did not achieve success during the war and ultimately failed in its attempt at independence, though, much of the blame fell squarely on Davis.

Burdened with a war fought primarily in their territory, Southerners blamed Davis for their suffering. Unlike Abraham Lincoln, Davis did not establish close relationships with Southern newspaper editors in an effort to promote public morale, and during the war, Southern newspapers encouraged unrealistic expectations of success on the battlefield. When that success was unrealized, Southerners were reluctant to blame the generals in the field and turned their disappointment towards Davis.[11] Trexler found that as early as 1862, the Richmond Whig and Public Advertiser was accusing Davis of incompetence. Edward A. Pollard, editor of the Richmond Examiner, also criticized Davis throughout the war. The press claimed to support the cause of the Confederacy, but, as Trexler argued, the spirit of the Southern people was negatively impacted by attacks on Davis and the government.[12]