Assignment #10: Jackson Debate - engine of souls

Date: Nov 4, 2007

Assignment #10: Jackson Debate

Date: Nov 5, 2007

Positions- Indian Removal

Andrew Jacksons forceful removal was unnecessary. There was enough land mass in the country to be able to allow the Indians to remain where they were on land that was rightfully theirs and for the white colonists to expand and live comfortably. The white settlers could have migrated west to the area where the U.S, Government was sending the Indian people.
The removal of the Indian people violated previous treaties issued by the United States such as the Hopewell Treaty of 1785 in which the U.S. Agreed to recognize strict boundaries of the Cherokee lands. In 1830 Congress cose to disregard Indian treaty guarantees.
The Indian removal was an act of greed. The act was based on the demand and desire for cheap land for European settlers.
The removal was also an act of prejudice against the Indian people and their customs. Jackson in his speech on Indian removal in 1830 stated that the act was a means of separating the Indians from the white so that they could pursue their own rude customs and loose their savage habits. He did not believe that they were civilized enough or Christian and therefore should not be allowed to practice their own customs in the presence of white settlers.
The discovery of gold on Cherokee land increased the desire to extinguish Indian land titles and relocate the Indians. When gold was discovered on Indian land the move to remove the Indians from that area intensified. Many white gold seekers rushed to the area, running through Indian territory in search of gold.

Date: Nov 5, 2007

Positions- Indian Removal

Andrew Jacksons forceful removal was unnecessary. There was enough land mass in the country to be able to allow the Indians to remain where they were on land that was rightfully theirs and for the white colonists to expand and live comfortably. The white settlers could have migrated west to the area where the U.S, Government was sending the Indian people.
The removal of the Indian people violated previous treaties issued by the United States such as the Hopewell Treaty of 1785 in which the U.S. Agreed to recognize strict boundaries of the Cherokee lands. In 1830 Congress cose to disregard Indian treaty guarantees.
The Indian removal was an act of greed. The act was based on the demand and desire for cheap land for European settlers.
The removal was also an act of prejudice against the Indian people and their customs. Jackson in his speech on Indian removal in 1830 stated that the act was a means of separating the Indians from the white so that they could pursue their own rude customs and loose their savage habits. He did not believe that they were civilized enough or Christian and therefore should not be allowed to practice their own customs in the presence of white settlers.
The discovery of gold on Cherokee land increased the desire to extinguish Indian land titles and relocate the Indians. When gold was discovered on Indian land the move to remove the Indians from that area intensified. Many white gold seekers rushed to the area, running through Indian territory in search of gold.

Date: Nov 5, 2007

Evidence

1. In 1785, the Hopewell Treaty between the United States and the Cherokee was made. The U.S. agreed to recognize strict boundaries of the Cherokee lands and also gave the Cherokee the right to send a deputy to represent them in congress.

2. According to information on the State Department he Constitution of 1789 empowered Congress to regulate commerce with Indian tribes. In the first 40 years of the republic, the United States signed multiple treaties, which followed a basic pattern of the Indians withdrawing from certain lands in exchange for supplies, food and money. In 1830 Congress chose to disregard Indian treaty guarantees when it passed the Indian Removal Act.

3. In 1832 in the case of Worcester vs. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee nation was sovereign making the removal laws invalid.

4. In Jacksons speech on Indian removal in 1830 he said It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites and enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions and perhaps cause them to gradually cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, Christian community.

5. According to the Web page of the U.S. State Department, the U.S. governments inability and unwillingness to abide by its treaty obligations with Indian tribes was clearly related to an insatiable demand for cheap land for European settlers.

6. According to Teach U.S. History .com, in 1824 President Monroe was pressured by Georgia to relocate all Indians because Gold was discovered on Cherokee land in Georgia.

Questions

1. If the Indians were adapting to the new nation and its traditions why was it necessary to remove them?

2. The Indians were not creating violent problem no violating any laws; why was it necessary to use force to remove them.

3. Can the result truly justify the death of over 4,000 Cherokees?

4. Why wasnt the force of removal an extreme last resort when the tribe was peaceful and accepting of compromising treaties?

5. Why did Jackson refuse to uphold the Supreme Court Decision of 1831, which gave Cherokee Indians the right to govern themselves in Georgia?

Date: Nov 5, 2007

As a result of Jackson breaking apart the Bank of the United States, money was transferred into 23 different banks, and these banks started issuing loans with no species to back them up.

A wave of speculation in Western lands and ambitious new state internal improvement schemes in the mid-1830's produced inflated land prices and a flood of paper money.
"Jackon was concerned, and he tried to curtail irresponsible economic activity. In July 1836, he issued the specie circular."
(History textbook)

As a result of two secretary of treasury candidates dismay, Roger Taney was appointed as Supreme Court Justice. The first two candidates disappeared with Jackson's notion of transferred $10 milliion in government funds to state banks. The appointment of Taney later resulted in the Dred Scott decision.

A main reasonf or the abolishment of the national bank was as written by George Bankcroft, was because it "served mainly to make the rich richer," but as a result of the abolishment, the country ended up millions of dollars in debt. ($6 million)

Jackson's decision for species made the country go into a great depression. "The commecial progress at the nation's economy was noticeably dented by the resulting failures, and it took years to recover from the damage."

history textbook
www.wikipedia.com/AndrewJackson

Date: Nov 6, 2007

Andrew Jackson Debate

Group #1 Nullification Negative

Daniel Steliga

Positions

1. Nullification is a threat to the unity of the United States.

2. Nullification isnt necessary for any state to use and none should have it since policies could be changed if it is voted to be so by the people.

3. Nullification is incompatible with the Constitution.

4. The idea of nullification is treasonous and it promotes rebellion.

5. The Union must be preserved for the nation as a whole to continue and flourish.

Evidence

1. Daniel Webster stated in response to Calhouns support of nullification that the government was made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. Meaning that nullification wasnt necessary. He also stated that the appropriate motto for the nation was not Liberty first and Union afterwards, but Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!

2. Andrew Jackson considered the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." He also stated Our Unionit must be preserved.

3. Force Bill of 1833 Since it was approved it denied any one state to secede because it went against the idea of a national union.

4. Compromise Tariff of 1833 made the want for South Carolina to nullify unnecessary in any situation.

Questions

Are state rights more important than keeping the country together?
Would the country be better off having each state do what they wanted and separate from each other?
If any state has a problem with a federal law should it not try to change it from within the government instead of rashly seceding from the U.S.?
If all states were granted the right to nullify federal laws would that not soon create anarchy?
Again, if all states were granted the right to nullify would it not also make the central government as weak as it had been under the Articles if Confederation?

Date: Nov 6, 2007

Andrew Jackson Debate

Resolved: That Indian Removal is unjustified (Trail of Tears)

5 Quotes

We have a perfect and original right to remain without interruption or molestation. The treaties with us, and laws of the United States made in pursuance of treaties, guaranty our residence and our privileges, and secure us against intruders. Our only request is, that these treaties may be fulfilled, and these laws executed.

Niles Weekly Register-year 1830 - Memorial of the Cherokee Nation

Chief Justice Marshall stated that the Georgia law was repugnant to the Constitution with no force over the Cherokee and inviolable treaty rights considered Native Americans domestic dependant nations of the U.S. federal government.

William Wurt, Attorney General in Monroe and Adams administration stated that Georgias state legislation created laws which go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society and that the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court was a foreign nation in the sense of our constitution and lawand was not subject to Georgia jurisdiction.

Court Case Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia

The Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a distant community with self-government in which the laws of Georgia can have no force.

Court Case Worcester vs. Georgia

Lewis Cass promised to Shawnee and Cherokee officials at an 1825 treaty council that The United States will never ask for your land there. This I promise you in the name of your great father, President. That country he assigns to his red people, to be held by them and their childrens children forever.

Chapter 7, As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs from Zin packet

Date: Nov 6, 2007

Indian Removal:

Claims:

1. Indian lands, especially those sitting atop Georgia, were extremely valuable and fertile. There, gold was discovered is 1829, and the land could have been used for cotton. Both more than likely would have benefited the nations economy.

2. The southern tribes, although making an attempt at becoming civilized, were planning on erecting an independent government within the limits of the nations states.

3. Indian Removal was not a forced act, it was intended to be voluntary, however if Natives chose to stay there would be consequences.

4. Indian Removal puts an end to any future conflict between white settlers and Indian occupants. Not only may this, but a host of other benefits like new territory and expansion possibly will arise.

5. Indian tribal leaders themselves sold their lands and emigration westward to the United States government.

Quotes:

1. Under these circumstances the question presented was whether the General Government had a right to sustain those people in their pretensions. The Constitution declares that "no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State" without the consent of its legislature. If the General Government is not permitted to tolerate the erection of a confederate State within the territory of one of the members of this Union against her consent, much less could it allow a foreign and independent government to establish itself there. Andrew Jackson, 1829, First Annual Message

2. This emigration should be voluntary, for it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aboriginies to abandon the graves of their fathers and seek a home in a distant land. But they should be distinctly informed that if they remain within the limits of the States they must be subject to their laws. Andrew Jackson, 1829, First Annual Message

3. The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community. These consequences, some of them so certain and the rest so probable, make the complete execution of the plan sanctioned by Congress at their last session an object of much solicitude. Andrew Jackson, Second Annual Address, 1830

4. With a full understanding of the subject, the Choctaw and the Chickasaw tribes have with great unanimity determined to avail themselves of the liberal offers presented by the act of Congress, and have agreed to remove beyond the Mississippi River. Treaties have been made with them, which in due season will be submitted for consideration. In negotiating these treaties they were made to understand their true condition, and they have preferred maintaining their independence in the Western forests to submitting to the laws of the States in which they now reside. Andrew Jackson, Second Annual Address, 1830

5. Can it be cruel in this Government when, by events which it can not control, the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy. Andrew Jackson, Second Annual Address, 1830

6. The authority contemplated by the bill is to make the exchange of territory with those Indians, and with those only, who are willing to make it. The friends of this measure do not wish to vest power in the President of the United States to assign a district of country West of the Mississippi, and, by strong arm, to drive these unfortunate people from their present abode, and compel them to take up their residence in the country assigned to them. On the contrary, it is their wish that this exchange should be left to the free and voluntary choice of the Indians themselves. Speech given by Senator Robert Adams (Mississippi) in April, 1830 during a debate in the Senate

7. A Supreme Court decision in 1823 declared that Native Americans could occupy but not hold title to land in the United States. Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823. Source, the American People: Seventh Edition

8. Supreme Court found in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia that Cherokee lacked jurisdiction over its land, as it was a domestic, dependent nation possessing some sovereignty but not a foreign nation. Notes, Jacksonian Democracy

Date: Nov 6, 2007

Indian Removal: Negative

As pointed out by my first quote, the Indian nations situated on American lands sought to be identified as 'independent sovereignties'. I ask to those against Removal: how could a country such as ours, infant and growing, prosper with the threat and presence of 'independent nations' in our own lands? Would not the Removal of Indians spare both sides hostilities in the face of inevitable conflict?

Both questions are pointed out in my second and fourth claims.

The Constitution declares that "no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State" without the consent of its legislature. If the General Government is not permitted to tolerate the erection of a confederate State within the territory of one of the members of this Union against her consent, much less could it allow a foreign and independent government to establish itself there.

Date: Nov 6, 2007

Anna wrote:
Court Case Worcester vs. Georgia
Lewis Cass promised to Shawnee and Cherokee officials at an 1825 treaty council that The United States will never ask for your land there. This I promise you in the name of your great father, President. That country he assigns to his red people, to be held by them and their childrens children forever.
Chapter 7, As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs from Zin packet

I do believe the land that Cass promises never to ask for is the land he himself plans on placing Natives on as a result of the Removal. It certainly seems that he is in the quote advocating Removal.

Date: Nov 6, 2007

Anna wrote:

William Wurt, Attorney General in Monroe and Adams administration stated that Georgias state legislation created laws which go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society and that the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court was a foreign nation in the sense of our constitution and lawand was not subject to Georgia jurisdiction.
Court Case Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia
Chapter 7, As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs from Zin packet

You point out the court case Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. I ask you, do you know what the Court's holding was? Here it is:

The Supreme Court did not have original jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution to hear a suit brought by the Cherokee Nation, which as an Indian tribe, was not a sovereign nation.

The Court found in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia that Cherokee lacked jurisdiction over its land, as it was a domestic, dependent nation possessing some sovereignty but not a foreign nation. This proves contrary to your claim.

Date: Nov 7, 2007

Anna wrote:

The Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a distant community with self-government in which the laws of Georgia can have no force.

Just asking, what case was this?

Date: Nov 7, 2007

Kelby wrote:

Andrew Jacksons forceful removal was unnecessary. There was enough land mass in the country to be able to allow the Indians to remain where they were on land that was rightfully theirs and for the white colonists to expand and live comfortably. The white settlers could have migrated west to the area where the U.S, Government was sending the Indian people.

Why wasnt it possible for the Indians to live comfortably? First off, the move puts an end to all possible events of collision between whites and the Natives. Also:

It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.

And may I add: The Indians were being handed new lands, which were incredibly extensive. Their removal wasnt at their expense, and the government promises to support the Indians in their new endeavor for one year. I quote: How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.

Date: Nov 7, 2007

Kelby wrote:
The removal of the Indian people violated previous treaties issued by the United States such as the Hopewell Treaty of 1785 in which the U.S. Agreed to recognize strict boundaries of the Cherokee lands. In 1830 Congress cose to disregard Indian treaty guarantees.

The Treaty was signed in 1785, enough said. It wasnt passed under the law of the Constitution which at the time was nonexistent. Nonetheless the Treaty is surely overruled by future Supreme Court decisions, most notably Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.

Date: Nov 7, 2007

Kelby wrote:
The Indian removal was an act of greed. The act was based on the demand and desire for cheap land for European settlers.
The removal was also an act of prejudice against the Indian people and their customs. Jackson in his speech on Indian removal in 1830 stated that the act was a means of separating the Indians from the white so that they could pursue their own rude customs and loose their savage habits. He did not believe that they were civilized enough or Christian and therefore should not be allowed to practice their own customs in the presence of white settlers.

You are aware that a handful of Native tribes signed over the rights to their lands therefore not being forcibly removed from their lands. With a full understanding of the subject, the Choctaw and the Chickasaw tribes have with great unanimity determined to avail themselves of the liberal offers presented by the act of Congress, and have agreed to remove beyond the Mississippi River. Treaties have been made with them, which in due season will be submitted for consideration. In negotiating these treaties they were made to understand their true condition, and they have preferred maintaining their independence in the Western forests to submitting to the laws of the States in which they now reside.

Date: Nov 7, 2007

Kelby wrote:
4. In Jacksons speech on Indian removal in 1830 he said It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites and enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions and perhaps cause them to gradually cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, Christian community.

Dont forget the rest of what President Jackson said just yet! It was just getting good.

Andrew Jackson, Second Annual Address, 1830:

The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community. These consequences, some of them so certain and the rest so probable, make the complete execution of the plan sanctioned by Congress at their last session an object of much solicitude.

Date: Nov 7, 2007

Claims:

1. The bank held too much power because it had no higher authority to listen to, neither the people or the government.

2. Because much of the banks power was centered on its president and its directors (only five appointed by Gov.) which were part of the social elite, they would trample on the rights of the people.

3. It restricted the actions of many smaller state banks by preventing them from making unwise loans and investments and required them to back their cash with specie (gold, silver). This created a demand in the west for the inflated money which could be used to fund projects and expansion.

4. The bank was run poorly by unfit leaders.

5. Interference from foreign investors could be a threat to America, in cases such as political instability and war.

Quotes/ Evidence:

1. Every monopoly, and all exclusive privileges, are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. - Andrew Jackson 1832

2. Hamilton stated that the Bank's directors had held a meeting in Washington where they announced that the Bank belonged to no political party nor would it be involved in politics

3. Even though the bank should have held no political bias it was believed that both the Lexington and Louisville branches had advocated the re-election of Adams by purposely refusing loans to members of the democratic part which led to suspicions about the banks political agenda.

4. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. - Andrew Jackson 1832 (on the constitutionality of the bank )

5. Suspicions are entertained, and charges are made, of gross abuse and violation of its charter. An investigation unwillingly conceded, and so restricted in time as necessarily to make it incomplete and unsatisfactory, disclosed enough to excite suspicion and alarm.- Andrew Jackson 1832

6. The time allowed to close its concerns is ample; and if it has been well managed, its pressure will be light, and heavy only in case its management has been bad. --Andrew Jackson

7. Should the stock of the Bank principally pass into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and we should unfortunately become involved in a war with that country, what would be our condition? - Andrew Jackson

Date: Nov 7, 2007

Questions:

1. How much did the bank help the middle class and poor of America as opposed to the very wealthy?

2. How were the banks foreign investors protected in cases like the ones mentioned above (i.e. International political upheaval and instability, war)?

3. In what ways, if any, was the power of the bank checked by any authority?

4. How did the banks political biases and involvement (if any existed) affect its image in the eyes of the middle- class and poor? The wealthy?

5. Jackson argued that if the calling in of debts due to the closing of the bank would cause great embarrassment and distress that poor leadership was the culprit. How was the management of the bank run and what were some of its flaws?

Date: Nov 7, 2007

Pos. Trail of Tears

1. How can you justify moving people from land promised to them then treating those people so harshly that many of them die?

2. How can moving the native americans be justified after a court settlement renewed treaties making the only way for someone to take land from them is by their own consent?

3. Do you think that it was just for Jackson to go around the court system by using Georgians as lackies in carrying out bribes, harrassing, and intimidating the native americans into giving up their land?

4. If a treaty is a formal agreement between two or more parties than how can you justify the removal of the native americans through the Treaty of Echota which was never signed by an official representative of the Cherokee nation?

5. How do you justify Jackson's abuse of power in office?

Date: Nov 7, 2007

1. Evidence for Q1 Mary Cobb grandaughter of Cherokee surviver.
"the men in charge drove them like cattle and many died enroute."

2. EQ2 Cherokee Nation v Georgia
"Though the indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and heretofore, unquestioned right to the lands they occupy with until that right be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government."

3. EQ3 It is stated in the textbook that Jackson gave his blessing for Georgians to bribe, intitmidate, and harass the indians into giving up their land.

4. EQ4 Cherokee officials claimed to not have signed it and John Ross started a petition with 15,000 signatures.

5. EQ5 Jackson broke the Treaty of Hopewell and he formed The Treaty of Echota without consent of official representatives of Cherokee. He then used armies to destroy homes and drive 4,000 people to death. He also broke a promise of Governmental friendship to the Cherokee that he made at the Battle of Horseshoe bend.

Date: Nov 9, 2007

Group 1) Aff.

Questions:

1) If a state does not have the right to nullify laws they feel are unjust what rights do they have to combat injustice?

2) What other ways could South Carolina have contested the unfair tariffs?

3) Do you feel the use of military force to collect tariffs is unethical if not unconstitutional?

4) Do you think that the Force Bill was successful?

5) Had these troubles not occurred, do you think South Carolina would have seceded so readily?

Positions:

1) States reserve the right to nullify laws they feel are unjust.

2) The Tariff of 1832 severely damaged the agrarian economy of South Carolina.

3) Jacksons threat to hang nullifiers was immoral.

4) South Carolina felt that the Force Bill did not do enough to protect their economic interests.

5) The issues with the tariff were some of the beginnings of the war.

Date: Nov 9, 2007

Responses [Evidence]

1) Historian Richard E. Ellis wrote:

"By creating a national government with the authority to act directly upon individuals, by denying to the state many of the prerogatives that they formerly had, and by leaving open to the central government the possibility of claiming for itself many powers not explicitly assigned to it, the Constitution and Bill of Rights as finally ratified substantially increased the strength of the central government at the expense of the states."

- He is stating that in no way does it state in the Constitution that states don't have the ability to nullify laws they feel are unjust/ unfair to them. In cases such as this the state then has the ability to interpret those areas of the Constitution that aren't defined as powers only held to the federal government. (Ninth and Tenth Ammendements) Also he goes on to say that if the government was alloted the right to regulate such matters it would be above its authority.

2) It was shown to be an infavorable amount of strain placed on the agricultural economy of the South and due to this the tariff was unfair to South Carolina.

3) Jackson could not have legally or ethically hung those who supported nullification without a proper trial.

4) The Force Bill only lowered the tariff by 10% which did not significantly improve the conditions that South Carolina was fighting for and is one of the reasons suggested why the South seceeded so soon.

5) Due to the strains put on the relationship between Southern states and the federal government because of the Tariff of 1832, the South was more readily accepting towards the idea of secession and the leader of the fight for nullification (John C. Calhoun) was elected president of the Confederacy after they broke from the Union.