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
Well done Mike S! You are more patient than I am.
This thread has been a real education for me! It is a prime example of the talent that resides on Prof. Turley’s blog.
“Mike said:
“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.”
And why was it ILLEGAL Mike????? Hmmmmmmm?????????
I will tell you why. Because states are FREE and SOVEREIGN according to the Constitution and the ONLY role of the federal government is to carry out the powers that were DELEGATED to them by the STATES.”
Larry,
In your own words here is proof that you read, but are so absorbed with your own ideas that you unwittingly misinterpret what is being stated. My point was clearly that the Federal Govt. deemed S. Carolina’s secession to be illegal, therefore they had no need to withdraw federal troops, from a federal fort that was located in the US. You obviously took what I said and twisted it into my saying that the Federal Govt. deemed its’ own presence to be illegal.
Also are you becoming a tad hysterical in your confusion? What is with the caps, question marks and the Hmmmmmm? You truly are confused Larry, because as I’ve said repeatedly, only to be ignored by you, Vince has answered and skewered every point you made. You just either misread it, or are incapable of understanding it. You are not the prosecutor here, able to demand answers to your questions and to keep rephrasing them when you don’t get the answer you want, so you can have the “frisson” you need to feel victorious.
You have continually ignored every point I’ve made, in order to make this a “battle” between you and Vince. In this thread Vince has, as usual supplied the relevant research to make his case.
I see no need in my trying to improve on the points he has made so well, so I’ve been focusing more on the macrocosm, to wit:
Even if Lincoln was a duplicitous, monster (which he surely wasn’t)his actions accomplished the correct outcome.
People subjected to the barbarity of slavery were to some extent freed and the Southern States were taught that they could not bully the rest of the country with their bellicosity. Now, lest you again misinterpret me I stated “were to some extent freed” because in the years that followed, the “States Rightists” of whom you apparently approve instituted something almost as evil as slavery, Jim Crow. From your apparent perspective though that was a good outcome since they had “the Constitutional right to do it (paraphrase).”
“Obviously Mike, you completely IGNORED the posts above that I addressed to Vince because I stated that Lincoln had many many chances to emancipate slaves and he chose not to.”
Larry,
You’re projecting your own failings onto others. I’ve read every one of your comments in full. Where the failure to communicate comes in is that Vince has addressed every point you’ve made and demolished them all. Vince’s first post was early on the morning of 2/11 and he had already commented 22 times extensively, with citations, befor you showed up much later that day. Your opening sally was to the effect of “Tut, Tut, I’ve already done that on MY blog” and off you went completely disregarding any bit of information supplied that didn’t fit in with your thought process.
I didn’t ignore you at all Larry, but I refuse to be taken around in circles again by you. I’ve seen this tactic before and its’ goal appears to me to be to exhaust and bore everyone else to tears, so you could claim victory and thus salve your fragile ego. It is a game you are playing Larry, one which you might not be aware of, but that is obvious to any observer. While it might works in some venues, perhaps even your blog, it just makes you a one trick pony here. I suggest you read “The Games People Play” by Eric Berne, M.D.. It’s a text for layman, yet it might help you gain some insight into the unsprung rhetorical traps you lay.
This comment of mine was ignored too:
“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 a result 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 Battle 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 proclaimed 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 the 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 federal govt when in reality, the Constitution says the states are sovereign over the federal system and the ONLY powers that the federal govt should have is the powers DELIGATED to the fed. govt.
Peaceful?”
Spare me the “Larry youre being beligerent” or “Larry, you’re a troll, that’s why we didnt answer you”—–BULL. You’re not answering because addressing my comments would be an admittance that you saw the comment, and if you see the comment, you’d have to address why YOUR comments are contradictory to LINCOLN’S OWN WORDS. So, spare me with telling me that you’re not answering me because of you being “offended” at anything characteristic of ME…..it’s because Lincoln’s OWN WORDS are standing in the way of your protection of the Lincoln image. You’re protecting a man that never existed!
Mike said:
“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.”
Obviously Mike, you completely IGNORED the posts above that I addressed to Vince because I stated that Lincoln had many many chances to emancipate slaves and he chose not to. Like I said above—-in fact it was a QUESTION that was completely IGNORED:
“If Lincoln wanted to end slavery peacefully [or at all] why didnt he issue the Emancipation Proclaimation on April 12, 1861, rght after war broke out?”
In fact, here is the rest of my post that was IGNORED:
“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.
Mike said:
“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.”
And why was it ILLEGAL Mike????? Hmmmmmmm?????????
I will tell you why. Because states are FREE and SOVEREIGN according to the Constitution and the ONLY role of the federal government is to carry out the powers that were DELEGATED to them by the STATES.
What I find amazing [but not surprising] is that Vince didnt reply to ONE of my comments above. Now, why IS that? Because when people state facts that can’t be debunked, the ONLY option the other person has is to IGNORE that person.
Another thing I find amazing is that NO ONE has EVER responded to, or debunked anything I said when I post quotes from LINCOLN HIMSELF.
Tootie—-the Lincoln cult can’t be persuaded with facts—do you know why? Because it’s impossible for them to explain away LINCOLN’S OWN WORDS, as I have proven on this thread. All my comments above that included Lincoln’s OWN words whether in speeches, inaugural addresses or the Emancipation Proclaimation were all IGNORED.
Blouise, thanks for the kind words.
Mike, S., I, too, agree with your eloquent analysis.
I have read two books on Churchill recently, Churchill’s War and Churchill’s Empire. He was a eloquent speaker for freedom, but not for the hundreds of millions of colonial peoples, mostly non-white, in the British Empire. It was a compete blind spot. Roosevelt opposed colonialism as a war leader.
In your words, it was amazing how a “great and highly intelligent man, who obviously valued freedom and human rights, could rationalize” a vast undemocratic empire.
Oddly, Mandela listened to Churchill’s words that were broadcast during the war, and became inspired by those s words, not his deeds.
Likewise, a lot of people have taken Jefferson’s words as inspiration, leading to things like emancipation and the civil rights movement that would have shocked and terrified him.
So, everyone, careful what you say. Words have a life of their own.
Mike S-
I agree with your analysis. The examples are numerous throughout history. Thus the Nazis calling their conquered people “untermenschen”, the British calling theirs “wogs”,
and today’s Americans calling theirs “ragheads, towelheads, Ali Babas, etc”. This makes it easier to justify doing inhuman things to human beings.
Vince’s last comment on Jefferson and the myth of his freeing his slaves got me to thinking about how is it that a great and highly intelligent man, who obviously valued freedom and human rights, could rationalize having slaves. My thought on this is that the way “decent” people can rationalize mistreatment of others is to reduce them in their minds to a semi-human status. This was indeed the thinking in the white/European world for centuries. The enlightenment only began to give lie to this belief and as we see there are still a sizable percentage of humans who see other peoples as less human than they. My complaint against the European world is directly related to this. Their imperialism was justified on the basis of thinking other races inferior, probably a general human trait. To be fair this was practiced also on a religious scale by Muslims and is a characteristic behavior of all religious fundamentalists, even those of atheistic bent. Its’ relevance for todays world and this discussion in particular is that Lincoln, a man of his times, rose above this. His motivation is really irrelevant, since we all have many faults despite our talents, it is his accomplishments that mark him as an extraordinary man.
Time for dinner here, too.
opps … you were posting “Was there a contract …” while I was responding so I didn’t get to read it before responding. I will wait a couple of hours to make certain I have given you enough time to complete your postings before coming back and reading.
(It’s time for dinner anyway)
Vince Treacy,
There we go … a clear and concise explanation as to Texan’s claims that they had a right to secede and why, legally under the Constitution, they did not. A persuasive argument based on law … I would be interested in AY’s further explanation of “contract disputes” and why he thinks that is applicable to Texas’ early times as a State.
“Eventually, the question was put to the test and settled permanently on the battlefields of the Civil War.” … a statement which can not be argued with at all.
You are a patient man, Vince Treacy, and I appreciate it.
Was There a Contract?
The admission of Texas was not a contract for the sale of goods or personal property, nor a conveyance of real property, nor a contract for personal services. It was not a purchase of a “car and real estate” People can make informal comparisons all they want, but the analogy is very weak.
Private commercial contracts are governed usually by state law. Private parties can even stipulate the law that applies.
But admission of a State into the Union is not a common law contract,a Uniform Commercial Code transaction, or a conveyance of real property.
Admission of a new state is a constitutional procedure, like the election of a President, confirmation of a judge or official, ratification of a treaty, or impeachment of and officer. It is governed by Article IV of the Constitution, not by an extra-constitutional concepts of contract law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Even if contract law principles were applied to analyze the admission of Texas to the Union, those principles would support my thesis.
Under elementary contract principles, the “bargaining” began when the United States President first “offered” to annex Texas as a territory. That offer was “withdrawn” when Congress failed to ratify the treaty. The U.S. then made a new “offer” to admit Texas as a state. Texas made no “counter-offer,” but instead “accepted” the exact terms of the offer by the U.S. It approved the language in sections 1 and 2 of the offered agreement.
The final agreement was concluded by the December 29th Joint Resolution approving admission of Texas on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatsoever.
That was the “contract.” All of the terms, conditions and understandings were set forth in writing in the documents of offer, acceptance, and contract.
Under the parol evidence rule in contract law, a party to a written contract cannot present oral or other evidence from outside the contract to add to or detract from its written terms. The extrinsic evidence of past agreements or terms should not be considered when interpreting that writing, because the parties themselves had decided to ultimately leave them out of the contract. See wiki on parol evidence for more discussion.
So annexation was offered and withdrawn. Admission was offered and accepted. Annexation may not be read back into the contract because it was never agreed upon. Secession was never mentioned in any of the documents, so extraneous evidence of unwritten understandings may not be inserted into the agreed-upon contract.
In short, Texas bargained for statehood on an equal footing with the original states, and was bound by the terms of its bargained written agreement. Texas never bargained for a right to secede in any of the contract documents. It never offered any benefit or concession in return for such a right. It therefore did not achieve anything in the formal agreement that it had not bargained for.
VI. Could Texas secede? Can it?
Sometimes it is good to ask some Texans themselves about these questions. A lot of people seem to have asked the people at the Texas State Library and Archives Commission “Did the terms of Texas’s admission to the Union include permission to withdraw if it found statehood not to its liking?”
Here is their full answer, quoted from their site:
[quote on] It is said of Texas (and, occasionally, Vermont) that it received a letter or document of permission to withdraw from the Federal Union if it so chose. In the case of Texas, this permission is sometimes said to have been granted at the time of Texas’s admission as a state. Other times it is said to have been included in the terms readmitting Texas to the Union after the Civil War.
In fact, Texas received no special terms in its admission to the Union. Once Texas had agreed to join the Union, she never had the legal option of leaving, either before or after the Civil War.
The early years of the United States had seen a great deal of debate over whether states could, in fact, legally withdraw from the Union. During the War of 1812 it was New England that wanted to secede from the rest of the country. Later, it was the Southern states. Secessionists argued that states were sovereign and had the right to withdraw from the Union. Opponents countered that the Constitution created a sovereign union that, once entered into, could never be broken. Eventually, the question was put to the test and settled permanently on the battlefields of the Civil War.
The Presidential Proclamation declaring peace between the United States and Texas after the Civil War, dated August 20, 1866, states very clearly in the following passage that no state had the right to leave the Union (emphasis added in all capitals):
And whereas,
the President of the United States, by further proclamation issued on the second day of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, did promulgate and declare, that there no longer existed any armed resistance of misguided citizens, or others, to the authority of the United States in any, or in all the States before mentioned, excepting only the State of Texas, and did further promulgate and declare that the laws could be sustained and enforced in the several States before mentioned, except Texas, by the proper civil authorities, State, or Federal, and that the people of the said States, except Texas, are well and loyally disposed, and have conformed or will conform in their legislation to the condition of affairs growing out of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, prohibiting slavery within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States;
And did further declare in the same proclamation THAT IT IS THE MANIFEST DETERMINATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT NO STATE, OF ITS OWN WILL, HAS A RIGHT OR POWER TO GO OUT OF OR SEPARATE ITSELF FROM, OR BE SEPARATED FROM THE AMERICAN UNION; and that, therefore, each State ought to remain and constitute an integral part of the United States;
On March 30, 1870, Congress passed the Act to admit the State of Texas to Representation in the Congress of the United States. Likewise, this act contains no language that would allow Texas to unilaterally withdraw from the United States. [quote off]
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/annexation/part5/question11.html
Folks who still think Texas reserved a right to secede, or had a right to secede, ought to take up the question with the Texas State Library.
V. Texas Admitted as a State
Congress approved the “Joint Resolution for the Admission of the State of Texas into the Union” on December 29, 1845.
It provided “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.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/dec1845.html
To repeat, it made Texas one of the United States of America, and admitted it into the Union on an equal footing with the original States “in all respects whatever.”
IV. The Texas Ordinance
Texas accepted the offer: “Ordinance of Annexation, Approved by the Texas Convention on July 4, 1845.”
Although described as an ordinance of annexation, the fact is that Texas consented to admission as a state on equal footing with the original states.
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/4july1845.html
Once again, we have to look beyond unofficial short titles and popular descriptions to the actual legal language and its effect.
The actual language of the Texas Ordinance did recite the unofficial short title of the Joint Resolution:
“Now in order to manifest the assent of the people of this Republic, as required in the above recited portions of 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.”
But it then quoted verbatim the statutory language in section 1 of the J.R.:
“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 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.” [Remember that these are the words approved by Congress, quoted verbatim by the Texas Ordinance]
In its final paragraph, the Ordinance expressly approved the terms of the Joint Resolution, including the terms of section 1:
“Now in order to manifest the assent of the people of this Republic, as required in the above recited portions of 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.”
So Texas did not say that it consented to “annexation,” despite the short title. It “assented to and accepted” the proposals in sections 1 and 2. Section 1 had proposed and consented that “…the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas….”
Therefore, Texas consented to admission as a State, not to annexation as territory as proposed by treaty in 1844. QED.
III. The Offer of Statehood
Congress offered to “admit” Texas as a State in sections 1 and 2 of the Joint Resolution of March 1, 1845.
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html
The unofficial short title was “Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States,” but this was legally inaccurate since the operative language provided for admission as a state, not annexation as a territory or otherwise.
The Joint Resolution provided in section 1 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….” Congress consented to the conditions of admission in section 2.
In contract terms, the U.S offered to admit Texas as a State.
II. 1844 Annexation Treaty Fails.
President Tyler submitted the Texas annexation treaty to the United States Senate for ratification on April 22, 1844. On June 8, 1844, the Senate rejected the treaty 35-16.
Url: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/texan05.asp
What did the annexation Treaty provide?
It stated that “The Republic of Texas, acting in conformity with the wishes of the people and every department of its government, cedes to the United States all its territories, to be held by them in full property and sovereignty, and to be annexed to the said United States as one of their Territories, subject to the same constitutional provisions with their other Territories.”
The Treaty therefore would have annexed Texas as a territory, and would not have admitted Texas as a State.
So the short answer is that the U.S. tried to annex Texas as a territory and failed, and then tried to admit it as a State, and succeeded.
Incidentally, statehood was far more valuable to Texas that territorial status.
I. This series responds to Blouise, above at February 13, 2011 at 2:12 am.
Blouise, I have relied on the legal substance and the actual enacted legal language of all three of the relevant documents, rather than the popular and prevalent unofficial use of the terms annex and annexation.
Now I agree with Blouise 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.”
But the legal facts are that Congress offered to “admit” Texas as a State in sections 1 and 2 of its Joint Resolution, and Texas expressly approved the language of sections 1 and 2 in its Ordinance approving statehood..
The emphasis placed on the word “annexation” in popular history has no effect on the clear and unequivocal legal language used in the documents of admission.
I disagree with AY. I maintain that there is no legal importance to the fact that the admission of Texas was informally described as an “annexation.” There is no legal significance to that popular term. The use of the term “annexation” does not mean or imply in any way that Texas ever had any right to secede from the Union.
The prior independent status of Texas does not give it any special legal status as State. Any informal flag customs do not affect this legal status, because Texas was admitted as a State, on an equal footing with all of the original states.