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
AY: “Jefferson…another Political Racist and radical…freed his slaves….”
No, AY, that is false. He never freed more than a handful of slaves. There may be confusion with Washington.
He owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime to aid him in his lavish plantation life and to pay the debts he kept incurring. At his death, almost all were sold, not freed.
He did free about five slaves in his will. A couple of them probably were his sons.
Read about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Slavery_2
Once again, everyone can have opinions, but they will be called on their false facts.
I have no use for anything published by The Washington Times – a “newspaper” founded and owned by r Sun Myung Moon and News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the Unification Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times
“that as far as toxicity and side effects go, marijuana is scientifically provable to be safer than either tobacco or alcohol.” (Buddha)
========================================================
Which leads me to a true story … having spent a great deal of my early years in Conservatories of Music and having walked those hallways since the age of 4, I was the little kid everybody got used to and no one saw. For years I watched the older musicians shoot-up, snort, bong … you get the picture. They never tried to hide it from me because they never really “saw” me. Heroin was the eventual drug of choice no matter what conservatory I was in. As I entered my teens I was exposed to jazz and soul and once again watched the drug takers “expand” their creativity. By the age of sixteen I had already attended 4 funerals of young men (women came later) who had overdosed. I determined drugs of any kind were not for me.
At the age of 19 I started attending late night parties … those held after the gig was done. Saying no to drugs was like going to a dinner party and refusing to eat. I devised my own plan. I took non-filter cigarettes, twisted both ends, put a few in a cigarette box and never shared. “No thank you, I have my own” was my party-line. Eventually I got hooked on nicotine and the habit took me years to break.
I’m smart … I’m not so smart. (My apologies if I’ve told you this story before.)
I think I might have been better off if I’d simply gone with the occasional weed. But then, as my mother used to always tell me, you’ll never know if you have the genes of an addict unless you try the drug/alcohol … better off not knowing. So I’ll never know if marijuana would have been a gate-way for me or not. If they legalize it, I’ll find out.
Blouise,
LSD has no flavor either, but you probably wouldn’t want to cook with it (or PCP for that matter) as heat probably alters the chemistry significantly. LSD is best in its natural liquid form or absorbed into blotter paper or sugar cubes.
PCP, however, is something best left the Hell alone. I make it a policy to stay away from large animal tranquilizers which is the drugs intended use. Plus there is this little story about PCP that a buddy from high school (pardon the pun) shared. When he was going to school in Minnesota, he knew a guy who liked PCP. Until one night he took a bunch, decided to rob a liquor store (for no apparent reason other than he could, he had money) and kill the store owner (again, for no apparent reason). When the cops picked the guy up? He had zero memory of the events. According to my friend, the guy still didn’t remember what happened 10 years after the event. It’s an evil, evil drug that (from what I’ve heard and read) makes one prone to both blackouts and extreme violence with the bonus of it makes the takers mostly immune to pain. Dangerous in the extreme.
As far as drugs go, both PCP and LSD (which although less risky than PCP still has dangers for the wrong types of personalities or in excessive dosages) are “hard” drugs. Marijuana is not even in the same class. As I’ve posted the data many time before, I won’t repeat myself other than to say that as far as toxicity and side effects go, marijuana is scientifically provable to be safer than either tobacco or alcohol. And by many orders of magnitude in re toxicity. PCP is inherently dangerous to both the user and everyone around them. Its illegality in re human usage is perfectly appropriate. LSD has, however, been shown to have therapeutic value in treating trauma and to have other beneficial side effects for certain kinds of personalities. I think its use under medical supervision has some merit.
No one in recorded history has ever died from THC poisoning. The same cannot be said of nicotine or alcohol – both of which remain legal due to the same reason marijuana remains illegal, namely corporatist and lobbyist interests. This should not be taken as an endorsement of either tobacco or alcohol prohibition, but rather an endorsement of ending the costly and fallacious prohibition on marijuana. It’s medically safer and the side effects are distinctly non-violent – something alcohol cannot claim.
Here endeth the lesson.
Blouise,
The brownies kind of melt…..even before you eat them….not that you want to eat them….
Buddha Is Laughing
1, February 13, 2011 at 10:39 am
Blouise,
“The caterer who made those funny tasting brownies! (I’m sorry …)”
Awww, now come on! People are going to think you’re talking about pot or hash brownies. That would result not in a mass shooting, but rather in a mass nap. The likely culprit would be PCP brownies and PCP is flavorless.
==============================================================
Ok … add a “Drugs for Dummies” book to my “Porn for Dummies” book … what does LSD do to the flavor?
I didn’t say it was right Mike….never had…never will… I will state that it was a way of life….Jefferson…another Political Racist and radical…freed his slaves….
“If you are inferring that all slave owners were brutal to their slaves….I think you are incorrect…very incorrect….”
AY,
From my perspective even the most gentle and considerate of slave owners were barbaric and brutal. The act of one human “owning” another is perforce degrading to the one “owned”
no matter how kind that owner might be.
Mike S….
Points taken….especially when directed at the folks you mentioned….But, in all fairness they were directed at another… to get a reply….. I will take this opportunity to say that whomever is quoted or referenced regardless of what topic is either accepted or rejected…especially when it is a topic such as this….The time quotes the man…the man may quote the time….but it is Time that makes the difference…take for instance…strict constructionist of the Const or BoR.. most don’t give a damn….except for when it directly affect them….then they want the right expanded…
But to specifically address the point you responded to regarding Taxes…they are like tariffs…except domesticated…
Then again…as far as Taxes go…we are all puppets to the system… That is a broad concept…..
If you are inferring that all slave owners were brutal to their slaves….I think you are incorrect…very incorrect….
As a person of many heritages….I can only know what I have heard or read…either I accept it as a fact or I reject is as a fallacy…
But then again…when something someone says that angers me….I have to figure out why it affects me so…then…resolve the internal conflict… as there is something about me that needs resolving….
I guess I am singing to the choir…You are a trained professional….
“You know the Irony of the issue of Slavery….You don’t work you are not supposed to eat….if you do work you are supposed to pay taxes…if you don’t pay taxes…well, you become a pampered slave….Because you do have a master…”
AY,
With all due respect your analogy stinks. US slaver was brutality, torture and inhumanely destructive. It is I think a very false analogy to Welfare and poorly thought out on your part.
I’d also like to address the ongoing Texas issue and while I find Vince to be most persuasive, I don’t really give a damn, since the status of that State is not really germane to the central issue, which is the books depiction of Lincoln. This is not to criticize the participants in that aspect of the discussion in any way, because the back and forth has been well thought out and mostly civil in nature. I’m just saying that I’m keeping out of it because to me it is irrelevant.
The Civil War in my opinion was a battle against the institution of slavery and against the bellicose nature with which the South pursued spreading it to the country as a whole. There is never any justification for human slavery anywhere and there appears to still be many in this country, usually Southern, who disagree, especially with respect to Black people. To defend the south, is to defend slavery, no matter how torturous the logic used.
On another note AY:
“The posting on this thread started out as was Lincoln a racist….I still believe he was based upon the information provided by black people….if you debunk that they have a right to what it is like in reality then much else that yo is it really debunk is it really bunk?”
Just because one is black doesn’t mean that they have a special insight into issues affecting them. While it is true that no-one who has not been there can fully describe what the experience of a Black person is like. That being the case just because one is black doesn’t mean that they have any special, or political insight. I reference Clarence Thomas and Michael Steele as examples of black men without a clue.
You know the Irony of the issue of Slavery….You don’t work you are not supposed to eat….if you do work you are supposed to pay taxes…if you don’t pay taxes…well, you become a pampered slave….Because you do have a master…
Sorry posted previously on the wrong thread…
Blouise,
“The caterer who made those funny tasting brownies! (I’m sorry …)”
Awww, now come on! People are going to think you’re talking about pot or hash brownies. That would result not in a mass shooting, but rather in a mass nap. The likely culprit would be PCP brownies and PCP is flavorless.
“Mike, this was my question:
““So, Vince, if you enter MY house [invade my home] and I fire first, that means [because I fired first] that I started the conflict????””
I didnt see a YES or NO anywhere in your answer. Therefore it was not answered.”
Larry,
You said the above. first of all this is not a court where one can be directed to answer merely “yes” or “no” to complex questions. The innate assumption in your question was that the North was invading a Southern State, by its’ presence at Fort Sumter. This is not true. The Fort was occupied by US military, as a US military post. It was part of the defense system for the protection of the southern coastline built after the War of 1812.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter
Therefore your analogy was imprecise and incorrect if you are likening it to a home invasion. I did answer your question as shown below, you just didn’t bother to read my answer and understand the point I was making:
“Larry,
you’re going from the ridiculous to the sublime. Are you really likening the firing on Fort Sumpter to a home invasion? Really?
There were forts all over what was then the US and its’ territories. That’s what a government does in uncertain times. The US in those days was in uncertain times with much of it being frontier. Also Fort Sumpter, particularly overlooked an important harbor. Remember the War of 1812 and the sacking of D.C.?”
“If you didn’t see the answer to your question then you either didn’t read carefully, or are unable to extrapolate. Of course US troops were there, they had a right to be there.”
Those were the answers to your questions Larry. Your analogy was a false one. The US forces were there and had been there prior to South Carolina’s secession, which the Federal Government deemed to be illegal. Therefore there was no home invasion and your analogy fails because it is based on a false premise.
As I’ve also stated previously this is a problem that you have in that you only seem to read statements and citations in the light of your own pre-judgment. Therefore you keep whining that no ones answering your points because they are not buying your false analogies and therefore not giving the answers you want. As to Vince, you bring up points and issues that he has already commented on earlier in this thread and so it appears to me that you haven’t bothered to read all the comments. That is sloppy work on your part and as I’ve also already stated I do not intend to go round in the circle of your tautological thought processes.
Larry and Blouise…
You make well rounded argument…..That was the History I was taught…
Texas History alone in Trivia Pursuit….
Vince,
The posting on this thread started out as was Lincoln a racist….I still believe he was based upon the information provided by black people….if you debunk that they have a right to what it is like in reality then much else that yo is it really debunk is it really bunk?
There are a lot of competing interests that were going on that Texas wanted to be eventually a part of the Union…do you know why it was not admitted in 1836?
**************************************
Do you know how much cash was spent to build the Texas State Capitol Building…..Do you know what the state of Texas and the State of Michigan have in common?
**************************************
I am still awaiting for an answer about the car and real estate….I just want to see where your mind is……
*************************************
Suffice it to say….you cannot know everything as an authority and when I do not know…..guess what….I say I don’t know….But when it comes to Texas History….well…bucko…..I’ll play you in Trivia Pursuit and for a $1000.00 and spot you $500 with no recourse….want to take my bet?
Everyone here who is interested should take a look at Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, by Allen C. Guelzo.
http://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Emancipation-Proclamation-Slavery-America/dp/0743221826
Also, please note that because the Constitution did not authorize the abolition of slavery until ratification of the Thirteenth amendment, Lincoln could not have freed the slaves outside the war zone of areas in rebellion and insurrection in 1861, 1863, or in 1865 prior to its ratification.
Just as Jeb Stuart seized northern private property, namely, wagons as part of his war effort when he rode through Maryland and Pennsylvania during the Gettysburg campaign in 1863, so also did Lincoln seize southern private property, namely slaves, as part of the war effort. (Stuart should have been sending vital intelligence to Lee, but the fool concentrated on wagons instead. No wonder they lost).
Just as Lee’s troops sought to capture free African Americans during his invasion of Pennsylvania in 1863 and send them south to be sold into slavery, so too did Lincoln order that all slaves that were useful to the southern war effort be freed and allowed to enlist in the Union army.
And one from a creditable Texas site:
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html
I am not arguing the “right” to secede but am arguing that Texans then and now, based on the wording of the documents with which they were presented, understandably placed/place emphasis on “annexing”: “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.”
Over and out …
Now … although I have repeated much of what you wrote, I have done so only to emphasize that citizens of Texas were presented with the term “annexation” and that “annexation” is still used today. Here are a few sites not associated with Texas:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/texan01.asp (Source:
Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America.
Edited by Hunter Miller
Volume 4
Documents 80-121 : 1836-1846
Washington : Government Printing Office, 1934.)
http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/two/texannex.htm
(to be cont. due to URL)