In Their Own Words: Now That We're at the 150th Anniversary of America's "Bloodies Day," Let's Briefly Revist The Cause...

Last night we had the great pleasure of listening to Harvard President and History Professor Drew Gilpin Faust deliver her wonderful "Reflections of a Civil War Historian" lecture (2011 NEH Jefferson Lecturer) at the commemoration to the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Harpers Ferry. Was more than thrilled to hear Prof. Faust mirror my often repeated assertion in response to the question about historical revisionists proclaiming how America’s "Grand Terrible Drama" was somehow fought over the notion of "States rights;" and that answering that question is not an obscure or abstract undertaking – that one simply needed to look at the actual, contemporaneous written words of those participants. We don't need to look to fanciful excuses made years and decades after the fact, but rather to the participant’s various "Declarations" of secession--telling the world exactly why they were seceeding.

Texas for example, in its February 2, 1861, "Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union," would, in typical loud and proud fashion, (as only a Texan like little Ricky Perry can) declare how:

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

Like that? The real and contemporaneous words from those who started the whole thing and their assertion was that enslaving another human being was an intrinsic good, and that masters were somehow "beneficent" – nay, even "patriarchal." Our Texas friends went further to chastise the very notion of a "doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color—a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind." They even went so far as to up the ante, declaring how the very idea was "in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law."

In any event…bully for them for speaking their clear, unequivocal (albeit racist) mind – in their own words!

It's a darn shame their supporters (those same supporters who continuously tell us how much they worship Declarations of Independence) don't share that same courage and instead, are compelled to fashion elaborate and fanciful excuses…

Here's a copy of Drew Gilpin Faust’s lecture: Telling War Stories: Reflections of a Civil War Historian

Here's a link to the Texas "Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union:" Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

BTW and if interested, I did something along the lines of slavery and "the plainest revelations of Divine Law" awhile back: The Bible and Slavery

"The present seems to be the most propitious time, since the commencement of the war:" Robert E. Lee's Maryland Campaign

On September 3, 1862, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, lacking the military strength to attack Washington, D.C., directly, yet embolden from what can only be characterized as a series of brilliant military victories culminating in the the September 1, 1862, Confederate victory at the Battle of Chantilly that brought an end to Union Maj. Gen. John Pope's Northern Virginia Campaign (which included the August 28 - 30, 1862, Union defeat during the Battle of Second Manassas) coupled with the Union defeat the previous month during Union Maj. Gen. McClellan's Peninsula Campaign (March through July 1862 – who could possibly forget McClellan and his famously bad case of "the slows"?), wrote to Confederate President Jefferson Davis how:

The present seems to be the most propitious time, since the commencement of the war, for the Confederate Army to enter Maryland. The two grand armies of the U. S. that have been operating in Virginia, though now united, are much weakened and demoralized. Their new levees, of which, I understand, sixty thousand men have already been posted in Washington, are not yet organized, and will take some time to prepare for the field. If it is ever desired to give material aid to Maryland, and afford her an opportunity of throwing off the oppression to which she is now subject, this would seem the most favorable. After the enemy had disappeared from the vicinity of Fairfax C. H. and taken the road to Alexandri[a] & Washington, I did not think it would be advantageous to follow him further. I had no intention of attacking him in his fortifications, and am not prepared to invest them. If I possessed the necessary munitions, I should be unable to supply provisions for the troops. I therefore determined while threatening the approaches to Washington to draw the troops into Loudon, where forage and some provisions can be obtained, menace their possession of the Shenandoah Valley, and if found practicable, to cross into Maryland.
 

Original unknown: http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=111

Lee ordered his 55,000 man Army of Northern Virginia north through the Shenandoah Valley for the purpose of invading the north into Maryland; thus beginning the first of three separate Confederate invasions of the North (in the eastern theater).  Lee’s purposes were varied: to resupply his army in an area untouched by the war that was destroying the Virginia countryside; to increase his troop count by the thousands of Marylanders he just knew were chomping at the bit to rise up and fight their Northern oppressors; to severe the Baltimore & Ohio railroad supplying Washington; and most importantly, to draw the Union Army into the open for a decisive victory that would pressure Lincoln into negotiating an end of the war.

150 years ago today, advance elements from Lee's Army crossed from Leesburg, Virginia through White’s Ford, across the Potomac River and into Maryland through Point of Rocks and headed north toward Frederick, Maryland…

Wonder how that whole thing turns out?

The Ides of March are come

“Beware the Ides of March”

- William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2

 The "Tusculum portrait" of Julius Caesar
made during his lifetime.

On March 15, 44 BC, Emperor Julius Caesar (July 100 BC - March 15, 44 BC) was assassinated (murdered?) in the Roman Senate, stabbed 23 times by conspirators led in part by his friend, Marcus Junius Brutus.  Recall that it was Caesar who conquered Gaul, invaded Britain, with his Roman Legions crossed the Rhine, became a Roman Governor, fought numerous wars (defeated  Pontus in Zela, Turkey and famously wrote to his friend Amantius how he “Came, saw, conquered”), was believed to have amassed too much military and political power, charged with treason; and with a Roman Legion “Crossed the Rubicon” (the river separating Italy from Gaul to the north) uttering the famous line “The die is cast” (or perhaps “Let the die be cast”) thereby igniting the Roman civil war that ended with the defeat and death of Pompey; and who famously sided with Cleopatra during an Egyptian civil war, and was utimately declared “Dictator in Perpetuity” and “Father of the Fatherland;” enacted a number of social and political reforms including ordering a census, sought to reduce public debt, extended the right of Roman citizenship throughout the empire, instituted political term limits, and adopted the Julian calendar (adopted from the Egyptian calendar which aligned the calendar with the sun and seasons as opposed to the moon, added three months to the calendar year, included a leap year every fourth year, and provided for 365.25 days per year beginning on January 1, 45 BC); and who wrote of his exploits in his Commentaries on the Gallic War and Commentaries on the Civil War.

Caesar's Commentaries on the
Gallic Wars

The Greek historian Plutarch wrote how Roman politicians had come to fear and distrust Caesar believing (not without merit) that Caesar was ambitious and sought to make himself King of the Roman Empire for Life, thereby destroying the Republic.  A conspiracy to overthrow Caesar was born that consisted of sixty Roman senators led by Gaius Cassius Longinus and supported by Caesar’s one-time ally, Marcus Junius Brutus.  Plutarch wrote how one day, while walking through a market, a seer had warned Caesar to be on guard come the Ides (day of the full moon).  Shakespeare famously wrote of this encounter in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar when a soothsayer warned Caesar to “Beware the Ides of March” (Act 1, S 2).

Caesar's Commentaries on the
Civil Wars

Plutarch wrote how suspicions of conspiracy swirled and on March 15, Caesar’s wife told him that she had dreamt of seeing his body streaming with blood.  She begged Caesar not to go to attend the senate that day.  Caesar’s departure was delay and as walked to the Theater of Pompeii (where the senate met), he passed the seer, “when the day had come and Caesar was on his way to the senate-house, he greeted the seer with a jest and said:

“Well, the Ides of March are come,”

Soothsayer: "Ay, Caesar; but not gone."

Plutarch wrote how Caesar entered the senate chamber, sat in his chair as the senator Tullius Climber delivered a petition to recall an exiled brother.  The conspirators, in excess of 60 surrounded Caesar as though in support of Climber’s petition and as Caesar waved the group away, Tullius pulled Caesar’s toga down from his neck.  Plutarch wrote how:

“This was the signal for the assault.  It was Casca who gave him the first blow with his dagger, in the neck, not a mortal wound, nor even a deep one, for which he was too much confused, as was natural at the beginning of a deed of great daring; so that Caesar turned about, grasped the knife, and held it fast.  At almost the same instant both cried out, the smitten man in Latin: ‘Accursed Casca, what does thou?’ and the smiter, in Greek, to his brother: ‘Brother, help!’

The Death of Caesar (Mort de César), Vincenzo Camuccini, 1798

So the affair began, and those who were not privy to the plot were filled with consternation and horror at what was going on; they dared not fly, nor go to Caesar's help, nay, nor even utter a word.

But those who had prepared themselves for the murder bared each of them his dagger, and Caesar, hemmed in on all sides, whichever way he turned confronting blows of weapons aimed at his face and eyes, driven hither and thither like a wild beast, was entangled in the hands of all; for all had to take part in the sacrifice and taste of the slaughter. Therefore Brutus also gave him one blow in the groin.

 Death of Caesar, Jean-Leon Gerome, 1867

And it is said by some writers that although Caesar defended himself against the rest and darted this way and that and cried aloud, when he saw that Brutus had drawn his dagger, he pulled his toga down over his head and sank, either by chance or because pushed there by his murderers, against the pedestal on which the statue of Pompey stood.”

Shakespeare's The Tragedy
of Julius Caesar (from the First Folio)

We recall how in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Shakespeare wrote how seeing his friend Brutus attack him, Caesar cried “Et tu, Brute?” – “And you, Brutus?” (See: Julius Caesar: Act 1, Scene 2)

Plutarch concluded:

“And the pedestal was drenched with his blood, so that one might have thought that Pompey himself was presiding over this vengeance upon his enemy, who now lay prostrate at his feet, quivering from a multitude of wounds.  For it is said that he received twenty-three; and many of the conspirators were wounded by one another, as they struggled to plant all those blows in one body.

Caesar thus done to death, the senators, although Brutus came forward as if to say something about what had been done, would not wait to hear him, but burst out of doors and fled, thus filling the people with confusion and helpless fear…”

Plutarch, The Life of Julius Caesar, pp. 64-67 (See: Plutarch, The Parallel Lives. The Life of Julius ).

February 22, 1632, Galileo publishes his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems – Ptolemaic and Copernican



The engraved frontispiece from Galileo's Dialogue depicts three great students of astronomy
 in dialogue: from left to right, Aristotle (384–322 BCE), Ptolemy (90–168 CE), and
Nicholas Copernicus (1473–1543). Ptolemy holds an armillary sphere with the
Earth at its center, while Copernicus grasps a heliocentric model of the solar system.

On February 22, 1632, Galileo Galilei (February 15, 1564 to January 8, 1642) published “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems – Ptolemaic and Copernican”  Galileo’s famous work consists of a fictional conversation (a dialogue) between three people over the course of four days on the Ptolemaic and Copernican views of the world and its place in the universe.   Here's a link to Galileo's Dialogue: Galileo's Dialogue.

Galileo would begin his most famous of all his works work by telling the audience that: “since bitter death has deprived Venice and Florence [Ptolemy and Copernicus] of those two great luminaries in the very meridian of their years, I have resolved to make their fame live on in these pages, so far as my poor abilities will permit, by introducing them as interlocutors in the present argument.”

Within his book are three characters:

• Salviati, a proponent of the Copernican theory that (among other things) the earth revolves around the Sun of whom Galileo described as possessing “…a sublime intellect which fed no more hungrily upon any pleasure than it did upon fine meditations;
• Simplicio (oftentimes thought of as a simpleton) who is supporter of the Ptolemaic model that the earth is fixed within the universe, does not move, and that sun and all heavenly bodies revolve around our planet; and finally,
• Sagredo, “…a man of noble extraction and trenchant wit,” who represents an honest broker striving to hearing all sides.

From the Fourth Edition of Galileo's Dialogue (dated 1700) 

which includes an engraving depicting 

Aristotle, Copernicus and Ptolemy discussing the

heliocentric and geocentric models of the solar system.

The dialogue between these three fictional characters takes place over a four day period with Salviati arguing against Aristotelian physics.  Sagredo, the neutral observer, summarized the first day of the dialogue as consisting of:

[A] preliminary examination of the two following opinions as to which is the more probable and reasonable. The first holds the substance of the heavenly bodies to be ingenerable, incorruptible, inalterable, invariant, and in a word free from all mutations except those of situation, and accordingly to be a quintessence most different from our generable, corruptible, alterable bodies. The other opinion, removing this disparity from the world’s parts, considers the earth to enjoy the same perfection as other integral bodies of the universe; in short, to be a movable and a moving body no less than the moon, Jupiter, Venus, or any other planet. Later many detailed parallels were drawn between the earth and the moon. More comparisons were made with the moon than with other planets, perhaps from our having more and better sensible evidence about the former by reason of its lesser distance.

Day two involved discussing the law of inertia and whether or not the earth itself is immovable.  Interestingly, in defending his position that the earth does not move, among other things, Simplicio argues that:

·        An object dropped from a height will fall to the ground directly at a right angle), while an object dropped from the mast of a moving ship will not fall perpendicularly, but somewhat behind the direction of the ships motion. Similar results are obtained from throwing or shooting an object upwards to a great height.

·        Cannonballs fired point-blank east and west travel the same distance; those fired due north and due south do not deviate from their course.

·        If the earth were moving westerly at the speed required to complete one revolution in twenty-four hours, clouds could only move eastward, we should feel a constant easterly wind, and birds could never fly quickly enough to move westward; none of this occurs.

·        If the earth were spinning at such a rate, because of centrifugal force, pigs (and everyone and everything else) would fly off the face of the earth.

On Day three Salviati discusses astronomical phenomena and argues that:

[I]f it is true that the center of the universe is that point around which all the orbs and world bodies (that is, the planets) move, it is quite certain that not the earth, but the sun, is to be found at the center of the universe. Hence, as for this first general conception, the central place is the sun’s, and the earth is to be found as far away from the center as it is from the sun.

The fourth and final day of the discussion consists of Salviati discussing among other things, the ebb and flow of tides; the moon’s effect on the tides; points out that Aristotle “ascribes to miracles all things whose causes are hidden;” discusses wind currents; and in apparent frustration, tells Simplicio that, “…no one can ever win against you, but must always lose…it would be better not to play.”  Later Simplicio arrogantly  tells Salviati that he has “…nothing further to say; neither on my own account, because of my lack of inventiveness, nor on that of others, because of the novelty of the opinion. But I do indeed believe that if this were broadcast among the schools, there would be no lack of philosophers who would be able to cast doubt upon it.”
 

Galileo Galilei painted in 1636 by
Giusto Sustermans,
the 17th c. Baroque, Flemish painter.

Certainly a wildly oversimplification of Galileo’s February 22, 1632 Dialogue that resulted in his being convicted of hersey, forced to recant his ideas, and his work placed on Catholic Church's Index of Forbidden Books (not removed until 1835, here's a partical list: Catholic Church list of banned authors/books).

Iwo Jima Memorial

Iwo Jima Memorial, a set on Flickr.

Ed Feeny's photostream

Ed Feeny's photostream on Flickr.

MG Gouverneur K. Warren

MG Gouverneur K. Warren, a photo by Ed Feeny on Flickr.

Today’s the 150th anniversary of the Union victory at Fort Donelson

Seriously derelict on the Civil War front—what can I say?  Sooo…today’s the 150^th anniversary of the Union victory at Fort Donelson.  For those who ran to the fridge during the commercials, here’s a very—very—very, brief recap of what’s been happening.

Recall how some of our more libertarian inclined countrymen felt that an intrusive, overeaching Federal government would take away their individual liberty and property rights by either restricting their right to own another human being—I’m sorry, their "property," or abolish it all together.  Of course some call the whole thing a “States Rights” issue which is clearly a euphemism for…something…not really sure what.  What is certain is that our State’s Rights libertarian friends certainly weren’t advocating a State’s right to levy or regulate taxes, raise a military, build schools, roads, hospitals, construct water treatment plants, plant their own crops, enter into treaties, or anything else that I can figure out.  Indeed, I think South Carolina’s “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union” pretty much sums the whole thing up:

"An increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The [northern states]…have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them…the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed…In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

…The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor."

See: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html. 

I think the great Presbyterian minister and theologian Albert Barnes said it best when he wrote that,

“The Bible is the acknowledged standard of morals in this nation…there are perhaps no questions of more importance to our country than those which pertain to the subject of slavery…there is nothing connected with our national interests which is not affected more or less by slavery.”  Of course he went on to say that slavery was “intimately allied with religion”

But that’s missing the point.  See: Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery, 1846, p. 21 @ http://www.archive.org/stream/inquiryintoscrip1846barn#page/20/mode/2up/search/the+acknowledged+moral+standard).

As an aside, here: http://www.nytimes.com/1860/11/13/news/why-not-let-south-carolina-secede.html?pagewanted=all, was an amusing and somewhat interesting letter to the editorial from the November 13, 1860 New York Times titled “Why Not Let South Carolina Secede?”  Ahhh…things haven’t really changed all that much ‘lo these past 150 years or so, have they?

But in any event, our libertarian brothers collectively said F-it and pre-emptively succeeded from the Union while James Buchanan was President (lest we forget that Lincoln wasn’t sworn in until March 4, 1861, while South Carolina started the secession band wagon on December 20, 1860; followed by Mississippi on January 9, 1861; Florida on January 10, 1861; Alabama on January 11, 1861, and so on).

So the states seceded, Lincoln was inaugurated; the Confederates attack Ft. Sumter in April 1861; Lincoln called up 75,000 troops ‘n  Davis called up his folks; Winfield Scott devised the Anaconda Plan to strangle the south into surrendering; and…

On July 26, 1861, the Battle of First Manassas where Thomas Jackson would earn the nickname Stonewall and the Confederates would beat the Union in Northern Virginia.

But what was going on out west, say, in Kentucky, a neutral state?

Recall that Lincoln said that while he hoped to have God on his side, he “must have Kentucky.”  On September22, 1861, Lincoln warned:

“I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we can not hold Missouri, nor, as I think, Maryland. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. We would as well consent to separation at once, including the surrender of this capitol.”

Certainly an oversimplification, but skip forward to January 11, 1862, when Union Ironclads defeated Confederates in western Kentucky on the Mississippi River in the Battle of Lucas Bend.

Then on January 19, 1862, BG Felix Zollicoffer invaded eastern Kentucky through the Cumberland Gap and was defeated by Union BG George Thomas (one of my personal hero’s).  Indeed BG Zollicoffer was shot dead by Col Speed Fry.  By later standards, it was a minor engagement but at the time, it was the largest Union victory of the war and was strategically important because it broke the Confederate defensive line in eastern Kentucky.

What’s next?  The January 11, Confederate defeat at Lucas Bend on the Mississippi River , allowed U.S. Grant to move up the rivers toward the Confederates at Forts Henry and Donaldson.

On February 6, 1862, Grant “defeats” the Confederate at Fort Henry in Western, Kentucky—although he didn’t as much defeat the Confederates as they surrendered.

On February 16, 1862, Grant soundly defeated the Confederates at Fort Donelson resulting in the surrender of nearly 12,000 Confederate soldiers.  That’s pretty much it for the Confederates in western Kentucky.  The Confederates would briefly consolidate in Bowling Green, Kentucky and then withdraw to Nashville, Tennessee, then to Shiloh, Tennessee, Vicksburg, Mississippi, and so on.

There would of course be a relatively brief Confederate invasion of Kentucky in October resulting in the Confederate defeat at Perryville…

“I know that I know nothing” and the Death of Socrates

Bust of Socrates (Roman?)

Although no one knows the exact date, February 15, 399 B.C.E., is recognized by many as the date when a jury of 500 Athenian citizens over the age of 30, by a vote of 280 to 220, convicted 70 year-old philosopher Socrates (469 B.C.E. – 399 B.C.E.) of the crime of not believing in the Gods recognized by the State, and that Socrates’ teachings had corrupted Athenian youth. Of course Plato, a student of Socrates, witnessed both Socrates' trial as well as his death and wrote that during his defense Socrates related how the Oracle of Delphi had asked him if anyone was wiser than he (Socrates), and how Socrates related:

“…neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not that I know what I do not know.” (See Plato’s Apology, p. 19).

Engraving of Socrates on trial

Of course this passage is famously viewed as Socrates' philosophical statement that, “I know that I know nothing;” which appears to mean that the wise man knows that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty, but can feel secure about knowing certain things.

In writing of the trial, Plato also related how Socrates discussed his sentence and rhetorically asked why he could not simply live a quiet life and in response, that “Life without investigation is not worth living” or more popularly how, “An unexamined life is not worth living” (Apology, pp. 42-43).

Socrates suggested that, “If, therefore, I must award a sentence according to my just deserts, I award this, maintenance in the Prytaneum” (that is, food and wages paid to him by the state for the rest of his days). As we know, that didn’t go over so well and by a vote of 360 to 140, Socrates was sentenced to death by drinking hemlock.  Having been told his sentence and in his final statement to the jury, Socrates said:

“For my own part I bear no grudge at all against those who condemned me and accused me, although it was not with this kind intention that they did so, but because they thought that they were hurting me; and that is culpable of them.

However, I ask them to grant me one favor. When my sons grow up, gentlemen, if you think that they are putting money or anything else before goodness, take your revenge by plaguing them as I plagued you; and if they fancy themselves for no reason, you must scold them just as I scolded you, for neglecting the important things and thinking that they are good for something when they are good for nothing. If you do this, I shall have had justice at your hands, both I myself and my children.

Now it is time that we were going, I to die and you to live, but which of us has the happier prospect is unknown to anyone but God”

See: Plato's Apology, Crito, and Phaedo

In Phaedo, Plato wrote of Socrates's death and how: 

“Crito made a sign to the servant, who was standing by; and he went out, and having been absent for some time, returned with the jailer carrying the cup of poison. Socrates said: ‘You, my good friend, who are experienced in these matters, shall give me directions how I am to proceed.’

The man answered: ‘You have only to walk about until your legs are heavy, and then to lie down, and the poison will act.’

At the same time he handed the cup to Socrates, who in the easiest and gentlest manner, without the least fear or change of color or feature, looking at the man with all his eyes, Echecrates, as his manner was, took the cup and said: ‘What do you say about making a libation out of this cup to any god?’

‘May I, or not?’ The man answered: ‘We only prepare, Socrates, just so much as we deem enough.’

‘I understand,’ he said: ‘but I may and must ask the gods to prosper my journey from this to the other world—even so—and so be it according to my prayer.’

Socrates drinks Hemlock (from 1907 Edwardian engraving)

Then raising the cup to his lips, quite readily and cheerfully he drank off the poison. And hitherto most of us had been able to control our sorrow; but now when we saw him drinking, and saw too that he had finished the draught, we could no longer forbear, and in spite of myself my own tears were flowing fast; so that I covered my face and wept, not for him, but at the thought of my own calamity in having to part from such a friend.  Nor was I the first; for Crito, when he found himself unable to restrain his tears, had got up, and I followed; and at that moment, Apollodorus, who had been weeping all the time, broke out in a loud and passionate cry which made cowards of us all.  Socrates alone retained his calmness:  

Jacques-Louis David, The Death of Socrates, 1787

‘What is this strange outcry?’ he said.  ‘I sent away the women mainly in order that they might not misbehave in this way, for I have been told that a man should die in peace. Be quiet then, and have patience.’

When we heard his words we were ashamed, and refrained our tears; and he walked about until, as he said, his legs began to fail, and then he lay on his back, according to the directions, and the man who gave him the poison now and then looked at his feet and legs; and after a while he pressed his foot hard, and asked him if he could feel; and he said, ‘No;’ and then his leg, and so upwards and upwards, and showed us that he was cold and stiff. And he felt them himself, and said: ‘When the poison reaches the heart, that will be the end.’

He was beginning to grow cold about the groin, when he uncovered his face, for he had covered himself up, and said—they were his last words—he said:

‘Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?’

‘The debt shall be paid,’ said Crito; ‘is there anything else?’

There was no answer to this question; but in a minute or two a movement was heard, and the attendants uncovered him; his eyes were set, and Crito closed his eyes and mouth.

Giambettino Cignaroli’s The Death of Socrates (c. 1759?)

Such was the end, Echecrates, of our friend; concerning whom I may truly say, that of all the men of his time whom I have known, he was the wisest and justest and best.”

(See: Plato’s Phaedo, pp. 173-174).

It is interesting to note that when Socrates said that he owed a debt (a cock) to Asclepius and that Asclepius was the Greek god of medicine and healing.  Socrates last words would then seem to imply that death is the cure to life.

See: Plato's Apology, Crito, and Phaedo