Author Phillip W. Magness has long harbored the view that Lincoln biographers had sanitized the history of “The Great Emancipator” to fit his modern popular image. Certainly, civil libertarians have long questioned Lincoln preeminence as a voice of freedom given his denial of habeas corpus and violations of constitutional rights and powers. Now, Magness is about to publish a book entitled “Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement,” revealing research showing that Lincoln actively explored and planned for the relocation of freed slaves to British colonies.
The book details how, soon after issuing the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, Lincoln authorized plans to pursue a freedmen’s settlement in present-day Belize and another in Guyana. Magness and his co-author, Sebastian N. Page, found the documents in British archives, including an order authorizing a British colonial agent to begin recruiting freed slaves to be sent to the Caribbean in June 1863.
Lincoln died a year later.
Other historians have questioned these conclusions and noted that Lincoln was against any compulsory deportation.
Source: Washington Times
Jonathan Turley
…“JOINT RESOLUTION for annexing Texas to the United States.
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to the republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union.
“2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guarantees, to wit: First. Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments; and the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, 1846. Second. Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports, and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines, arms and armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to the said republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which may belong to or be due and owing to the said republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said republic of Texas; and the residue of said lands, after said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the government of the United States. Third. New States of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution; and such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery, or involuntary servitude, (except for crime,) shall be prohibited:”
Now, in order to manifest the assent of the people of this republic, as required in the above recited portions of the said resolutions, we, the deputies of the people of Texas in convention assembled, in their name and by their authority, do ordain and declare that we assent to and accept the proposals, conditions, and guarantees contained in the first and second sections of the resolution of the Congress of the United States aforesaid.
Done in convention at the city of Austin, republic of Texas, July 4, 1845.
THO. J. RUSK, President
Phil. M. Cuny
H. G. Runnels
Robert M. Forbes
Sam. Lusk
Jno. Caldwell
Jose Antonio Navarro
Geo. Wm. Brown
Gustavus A. Evarts
Lemuel Dale Evans
J. B. Miller
R. E. B. Baylor
J. S. Mayfield
R. Bache
James Love
Wm. L. Hunter
John D. Anderson
Isaac Parker
P. O. Lumpkin
Francis Moore, jr.
Isaac W. Brashear
Alexander McGowen
Isaac Van Zandt
S. Holland
Edward Clark
Geo. W. Smyth
James Armstrong
Francis M. White
James Davis
George T. Wood
G. W. Wright
H. R. Latimer John M. Lewis
James Scott
Archibald McNeill
A. C. Horton
Israel Standefer
Jos. L. Hogg
Chas. S. Taylor
David Gage
Henry J. Jewett
Cavit Armstong
James Power
Albert H. Latimer
Wm. C. Young
J. Pinckney Henderson
Nicholas H. Darnell
Emery Rains
A. W. O. Hicks
James M. Burroughs
H. L. Kinney
William L. Cazneau
A. S. Cunningham
Abner S. Lipscomb
John Hemphill
Van. R. Irion
Volney E. Howard
E. H. Tarrant
W. B. Ochiltree
Oliver Jones
B. C. Bagby
Chas. Bellinger Stewart.
Attest: JAS. H. RAYMOND,
Secretary of the Convention.
REPUBLIC OF TEXAS, Executive Department:
The foregoing constitution was unanimously adopted by the deputies of the people of Texas, in convention assembled, at the city of Austin, on the twenty-eighth day of August, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and forty-five, with the consent of the existing government, and was submitted to the people for ratification or rejection at polls opened in the established precincts of the several counties of this republic, on Monday, the thirteenth day of October ultimo, at which time the said constitution was ratified, confirmed, and adopted by the people of Texas themselves, in accordance with the “joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States,” and in order that Texas might be admitted as one of the States of that Union.
http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/text/DORD.html
(You may also view all originals from this page.)
Hopefully in viewing these documents you will be able to see why the people of Texas refer to “annexation” and what I was trying to communicate to you in my original post.
Vince Treacy,
I fully understand what you are writing but I must not have been clear in what I was trying to get across …
First, I understand that Texas had to be admitted as a State for we are, after all, not the United Nations of America …
What I was trying to say and obviously failed miserably in doing was that the people of Texas, the citizens of the Republic of Texas, had to approve annexation before the resolution moved forward.
I am relying on the following documentation:
Constitution of the State of Texas (1845)
AN ORDINANCE. (Doc. No. 16 ) pg 23 which can be seen in its original form here: http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/text/image/D23.html
and states:
AN ORDINANCE.
Whereas, the Congress of the United States of America has passed resolutions providing for the annexation of Texas to that Union, which resolutions were approved by the President of the United States on the first day of March, 1845; and whereas, the President of the United States has submitted to Texas the first and second sections of the said resolution, as the basis upon which Texas may be admitted as one of the States of the said Union; and whereas, the existing government of the republic of Texas has assented to the proposals thus made, the terms and conditions of which are as follow:
(I’ll be making a second post which will contain the second URL because wordpress might not let me put 2 URL’s in one post)
If Lincoln hated slavery so much, why didnt he attempt to free ALL slaves?????? Even after the EC, Union states were able to keep their slaves, so did areas of the south under Federal control.
This is why Lincoln himself said in the actual text of the EC:
“from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. Johns, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New-Orleans)
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth-City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk & Portsmouth); and which excepted parts are, for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.”
Why ONLY Southern states Lincoln???? And why not in those areas of Louisiana and Virginia???? I will TELL you why:
Because they were occupiedby NORTHERN armies and NO states in the UNION applied to the EC. There WERE slaves in the NORTH TOO! Why couldnt THEY be freed?????? HMMMMMMM??????????? Lincoln only wanted SOUTHERN slaves freed??? WHY???? He hated slavery, right Vince???? Oh, is it because the North was not leaving the Union??? Why does that matter? A slave is a slave, right???
Lincoln says this in the EC:
“And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.”
What? Freedmen are to be in the service of the armed forces of the US? In other words: NOT FREE!
I guess you will IGNORE Lincoln’s OWN words again, like you’ve been doing through this entire thread. You have still ignored my question, “did the federal govt create the states?”—–I’m pretty sure why you’re ignoring the question.
I keep posting a comment that is not appearing even after I refresh the screen several times.
Dammit! I meant 1861——im tired.
I said:
If he hated slavery so much, why didnt he issue this on April 12, 1865 and avoid a long, bloody war???
I meant 1863 in this sentence, obviously.
“Larry said “For your info, Henry Clay’s compromise of 1850 already eliminated slavery in D.C. [but not the slave TRADE]”
Yes I did get that backwards, but that hurts your position more that I got that backwards.
But tell me something Vince, why do you kee ignoring the Lincoln quotes I post? You have not addressed ONE quote YET!
It is clear to ANYONE who knows the facts that the Emancipation Proclaimation was just a “war measure” and not meant to actually free the black man. It did was NOT valid in Northern states and in Southern areas under federal occupation. Lincoln KNEW it had no power because if it REALLY had power and he REALLY hated slavery, why did he wait until January 1, 1863??? Why didnt he issue it on April 12, 1861 when the war started?
Lincoln even ADMITS it’s just a war measure in the actual text of the EC:
“Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:”
If he hated slavery so much, why didnt he issue this on April 12, 1865 and avoid a long, bloody war??? NOBODY liked the EC, even NORTHERNERS! Many troops were angry because they felt they had been fighting for 2 years for nothing, but when they found out it was for “slavery”? 90,000 NORTHERN men went to Canada to avoid the conscription. 200,000 federal soldiers deserted as aresult of the EC and 120,000 avoided conscription. Many white people protested the EC in NewYork City in january 1863 and there were race riots there. Whites were outraged at Lincoln’s conscription law in March 1863 an assaulted or killed any black man that was unlucky enough to get in their way.
As a result of the riots, Lincoln ordered 5 regiments from the Battl of Gettysburg to NYC to quell the riots. The troops killed at least 300 people and as many as 1,000.
“He eliminated slavery by law, peacefully, in the only two jurisdictions where the federal government had that authority under the Constitution.”
PEACEFUL??? Are you joking????
Not only did he NOT end slavery immediately after war broke out [which WOULD HAVE been peaceful], but he did this:
In the summer of 1861, John Fremont who was in charge of the federal govt’s military effort in Missouri he issued a proclaimation in August of 1861 and adopted martial law against the guerilla Confederate soldiers of Missouri. Fremont ordered that any people who resist the occupying of the fed. govt would have their property confiscated and their slaves declared freemen. Well, Lincoln would have no part of this—when he heard of Fremont’s proclaimation, he nullified the emancipation part of the proclaimation and stripped Fremont of his command in Nov 1861. Lincoln did the same thing to Union General David Hunter when Hunter attempted to emancipate slaves in Georgia, Florida and South Carolina.
The New York World newspaper said this about the EC:
“The President has purposely made the proclaimation inoperative in all places where we have gained a military footing which makes the slaves accessible. He has prclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it. The exemption of the accessible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia renders the proclaimation not merely futile, but ridiculous.”
THIS is why Lincoln shut down over 300 NORTHERN newspapers during the war, constant articles like this.
Even Lincoln’s secretary of state William Seward said this about the EC:
“We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipation slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free”.
In other words: If you’re loyal to th federal government, you can own slaves. If you’re not, you can’t.
Lincoln KNEW the EC was a war measure and had no legal justification. Of course, we live in a world now where presidents dictate multitudes of laws to state governments, but Lincoln knew he had no power THEN to dictate the EC to state governments. The irony is, it is thanks to Lincoln that laws and regulations are dictated to state governments on a daily basis because it was LINCOLN himself who transformed the states into mere subsidiaries of the fedearl govt when in reality, the Constitution says the states are sovereign over the federa system and the ONLY powers that the federal govt should have is the powers DELIGATED to th fed. govt.
Peaceful?
Vince,
Just presume that you see all of the terms and conditions spelled out and it does not state that you have the right to interfere with the use and enjoyment of either….Hence…no impairment of the contract…. in any shape….can you say that it is legal….What would you do if you were representing the vendor in either case? How would you proceed? What would your arguments be?
Put yourself in the shoes of the Seller of the Vehicle and the Real Estate? I bet you 30 cents that you can’t….
Larry said “For your info, Henry Clay’s compromise of 1850 already eliminated slavery in D.C. [but not the slave TRADE] but it didnt matter anyway, the Dred Scott decision in 1857 made slavery constitutional [which you also keep ignoring] so Lincoln could not end slavery even if he was Jesus Christ himself.”
No, Larry got the Compromise of 1850 exactly backwards. It ended the slave trade in Washington, D.C., but not slavery itself. Go look it up. He is just dead wrong on those facts.
Larry says “the Dred Scott decision in 1857 made slavery constitutional. No, it did not. Larry does not understand Dred Scott. Slavery had been constitutional in the slave states since ratification in 1789. Dred Scott went further and said for the first time that Congress could not limit or ban slavery in the territories, even thought the First Congress had banned slavery in the Northwester Territories. That is what it held. It said nothing about slavery in D.C.
Lincoln knew that legislation was needed. That is why he drafted a law in 1848. His view on slavery never changed. He signed laws abolishing slavery in the territories and D.C. in 1862. Those are the actions of a man who hated slavery.
Lincoln hated slavery and did something about it, signing four laws, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Thirteenth Amendment. That is tangible evidence of his views.
Vince, Lincoln also said in 1848 that:
“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements.”
This you keep IGNORING. My point is, Lincoln seemed to have once believed [before 1861] the CORRECT view of our founding documents, that people can rise up and form a new government—and here you are saying that Lincoln once tried abolishing slavery—-but his views obviously changed on this issue too.
You said:
“But he hated slavery, and wanted prevent it from spreading to the territories and to eliminate in D.C. where Congress had the power to do so.”
WRONG. He was a racist and didnt want the free blacks to come North to take all the jobs and houses, This was also why he he was President of the ILLINOIS colonization Society. He wanted to change the Illinois state constitution to not allow any blacks into the state. For your info, Henry Clay’s compromise of 1850 already eliminated slavery in D.C. [but not the slave TRADE] but it didnt matter anyway, the Dred Scott decision in 1857 made slavery constitutional [which you also keep ignoring] so Lincoln could not end slavery even if he was Jesus Christ himself. It took CONGRESS to end it——what dont you understand about that??
You also ignored this too Vince:
“Are you saying the federal government created the States?? PLEASE tell me youre not saying that, because I can blow you away with facts. Are you saying the federal government came first??”
Answer please?
It looks like Ron Paul is a fan of buying slaves to release them. Maybe that is where the folks get that idea.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/12/snort.html?cid=6a00e551f08003883400e5523a69828834#comment-6a00e551f08003883400e5523a69828834
AY: “Yes Vince, It is all in writing…..”
So post the writings, already!
Seal Clubbing is your metaphor….
You apparently do not understand that they agreed to the equal footing only after the Bargained for Exchange occurred… You do understand this concept? Yes? It was not until after this happened “occurred” for your benefit….why is it that I know that I am speaking to a person of German and Polish heritage…..Dumb with precision….that has to explain your lack of understanding….
Yes Vince,
It is all in writing…..
Sorry, AY, but debating with you is beginning to be like clubbing a harp seal.
“It did not agree to be like any-other state….”
No?
Then why did it agree with Congress “That the State of Texas shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.”
I am sorry. The words “on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever” mean that Texas is “like any-other state” to all English speakers.
Texas was admitted on an equal footing with all other states. Texas agreed to those terms by entering the Union.
If it did not like it, it should have stayed independent.
A funny cartoon for dog lovers everywhere…
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/12/133693685/cartoonist-sees-bad-relationships-in-a-funny-way?sc=fb&cc=fp
Vince,
You are a Theocrat is the greatest degree….You cannot admit that you are WRONG. It did not agree to be like any-other state….If so why can it fly its flag at the same height as the US? Tell me….Why?
The whole thing boils down to Contractual LAW….Apparently you have no knowledge of the concepts…. And you profess to be knowledgeable in the filed of LAW…..
I bet first year wanna be have better insight than you ever will….You have EGO that you do…..
Bouise, I appreciate the post.
It said that “The resolution declared that Texas would be admitted as a state as long as it approved annexation by January 1 1846,” and “On 26 February 1845, six days before Polk took office, Congress passed the joint resolution (which included the “ordinance of annexation”).”
The J. Res. that authorized admission of Texas was approved by Congress on March 1, 1845, and signed by President Tyler the next day. It provided that “That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government in order that the same may by admitted as one of the States of this Union.”
Section 3 provide an alternative “if the President of the United States shall in his judgment and discretion deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution:
“That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next appointment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texian [sic] territory to the United States shall be agreed upon by the governments of Texas and the United States: And that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of Congress, as the President may direct.”
Now the first clause required the “consent” of Texas. Section 3 required admission “be agreed upon.” Neither clause used the word annexation, or require “approval of annexation.”
I just do not see where the word “annexation” appears anywhere in the text of either law.
Now, the short title of the first J. Res. says it is a ” Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States,” but the short title is not part of the law and was not enacted by Congress. The law is what comes after the enacting clause. There is no mention of annexation in the text of either law.
The text of the Texas Ordinance of July 4, 1845, did mention “annexation,” but only in the recitals in the Whereas Clauses, saying “Whereas, the Congress of the United States of America has passed resolutions providing for the annexation of Texas to that Union, which resolutions were approved by the President of the United States on the first day of March, 1845.”
But the fact remains that the operative language of the Congressional Joint Resolution authorized admission, not annexation. The Texas Ordinance accepted the language of the Resolution authorizing admission. Texas therefore consented to admission as a State, not to annexation.
The J.Res. that admitted Texas said nothing about annexation. Here is the text from the Texas State Library: “That the State of Texas shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bs-md-loyola-professor-hearing-20110211,0,1814458.story
This is the operative language, and it admits Texas as a State on an equal footing with the original states in all respects.
So I will hope to say this for the last time. Texas was not annexed to the United States, whatever the term “annexation” might mean. The law that was passed by Congress and signed by the President provided that Texas was ” admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.”
The treaty of 1844 would have annexed Texas a a territory. But after the J.Res. passed in 1845 authorized direct admission of Texas as a State, there was no longer any need for an intermediate status as a territory. Therefore, there was no longer any need to annex Texas.
So Texas was not annexed.
Texas reserved the right to split into smaller states.
There is no language anywhere in the laws of the United States reserving any right secession by Texas. No one has posted any written Texas law reserving that right. Texas was admitted as a State, not annexed, and did not reserve a right to secede.
It does not matter that prior to admission Texas was an independent republic rather than a territory, a part of another state, or one of the original thirteen. The law said that it was admitted on “an equal footing” with the original states in all respects. The prior status of an admitted state is completely immaterial under our system.
Another way to put this is that Texas AGREED to admission on the same basis as every other state. It cannot turn around and claim some special right to secede on the basis of its prior independence. It is bound by its agreement with the terms set by Congress. It is just like every other state, and has no special, unique privileges.
That is the meaning of the Equal Footing Doctrine.
AY asked:
“Take for instance….I agree to purchase a car from you and you agree to sell it….Is not a contract made to purchase that particular car enforceable? How about if I want to purchase a house with real estate from you…it is all agreed upon…and we agree….that it is for this property…..is that contract enforceable? Say in the first example….you decided that you wanted the stereo back because you don’t like the station that I listen to and it was one that you had put in in….can you do that? Can you just take it….the deal is done……What about the second example….I fulfilled my part of the bargain…. You unilaterally decide that I cannot use a particular part of that property….Can you do that…”
Got any of that in writing?
I hate to confuse Larry with the facts, but here goes.
As a Congressman in 1847 and 1848, Lincoln drafted a bill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, where Congress has plenary power under the Constitution. It had compensation and a popular vote. He could not enough support to pass it.
Lincoln consistently held that the Constitution did not authorize interference with slavery in the states where it existed. But he hated slavery, and wanted prevent it from spreading to the territories and to eliminate in D.C. where Congress had the power to do so.
Lincoln signed laws in 1862 that achieved both goals, eliminating slavery in the territories and in D.C. He eliminated slavery by law, peacefully, in the only two jurisdictions where the federal government had that authority under the Constitution. He acted under the Territories Clause and the Seat of Government Clause.
These were not the actions of a man who loved slavery.
He hated slavery.