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
WHO’s playing the game now Mike? Your response to me saying you ignore me is……MORE ignoring! LOL. I LOVE the reasons you say you’re ignoring me.
1. I havent answered YOUR questions. Oh, you mean the questions you asked me AFTER I asked my questions to you?
2. My points have already been addressed by Vince. LOL. Vince addressed Lincoln quotes BEFORE the Lincoln quotes were posted?? Wow, now he has psychic powers! He can answer questions BEFORE they are asked of him!
I find it quite funny that you claim the reasons you’re not answering my questions [stated in the 2 reasons above] but YET you DO address OTHER questions and statements Ive made like these:
“Do you NOT realize that the whole reason why the South seceded [at least in principle] is because the Declaration of Independence states that it is the DUTY of the people to throw of the old government and form a new one if they deem the federal government is corrupt and not following the Constitution?”
“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.”
and this:
“Simply hilarious! Hold on, I have to burst out laughing…..OK I’m done. “Some” extent freed? So, in other words, NOT AT ALL? You’ve been saying they were FREE all along, now youre saying to “some” extent?? LOL.”
Oddly, you have time to address THOSE comments even though NOT addressing them would fall under the same two rules listed above, but you conveniently IGNORE the Lincoln quotes! Hmmmmmmm. I think we all know WHY Mike. Because you CAN’T REFUTE them and your views lay in contradiction to Lincoln’s OWN words. I dont really care anymore if you disagree with me and Tootie because you disagree with Lincoln himself!
LOL
My prediction came true——you IGNORED the Lincoln quotes again—and my questions!!! MY questions were asked first! So, if you want to be a 2nd grader and play the “I won’t answer HIS questions until he answeres MY questions but I asked MY questions AFTER he asked HIS questions” then go ahead. The word that best describes you is….FRAUD.
Everyone can see clearly that you IGNORE Lincoln’s own words. That is embarrassment enough, or at least it should be!
Hey displaced Pollock!
I’ll respond later…don’t be saying I have had nothing to say….I am like kinda of working….
“Mike, if I’m such bullshit, then tell us all this:
WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THE LINCOLN QUOTES I POST THAT CONTRADICT THE THINGS YOU’RE SAYING?
Hmmmm?????”
Larry,
Perhaps for the fifteenth time I’m saying to you that all of your points and questions have already been addressed by Vince and shown to be the result of faulty logic and misquotation out of context. I’ve caught you doing that to me twice and you have never responded to my catching you. Plus you don’t respond to or answer my questions:
“Do you really think slavery was a good thing and that those enslaved were well off? Do you also believe that the system of indentured servitude that worked in tandem in the South with slavery to develop Southern economy was a proper model that should be allowed to prosper?”
“So Larry, how do you really feel about State’s rights, if included in that lame theory are institutions supported by individual States that include slavery and Jim Crow?”
So I take it that the way you see it I should respond to you, but you have no need to respond to me. I told you that I’m not playing your game and you have become so hysterical about it, given the CAPS and exclamation points, that you are left with addressing only Tootie. My guess is that that makes you two the only white supremacists on this particular thread. Now with Tootie I know that for a fact from her own statements, but with you I can only surmise because you refuse to answer my questions.
Larry I think you need to calm down. This isn’t your blog, where you can stifle those who dissent from your particular party line.
Now I know it is frustrating for you to be overwhelmed with evidence to the point that it exposes your ignorance, but look at it this way and it won’t be so bad: At least you have the courage of your own misguided suppositions.
“Lincoln was committing treason by levying war against the states which he still considered part of the Union.”
100% CORRECT Tootie. In Lincoln-cultist logic, this is another way of saying “Lincoln destroyed the Union in order to ‘save’ it”
100% utter crapola. If I attacked, raped and murdered my wife, am I “saving” our Union of marriage? OF COURSE NOT! But this is EXACTLY what you Lincoln cultists believe! That Lincoln MURDERED American citizens to “save” the very Union he was destroying the citizens of! Lincoln was a treasonous, racist, unAmerican piece of filth. Like Tootie said, NO ONE DIED at Fort Sumter! People didnt start dying until Lincoln ordered his troops in to invade the South.
Tootie—they ignore this question too: “Why did Lincoln shut down over 300 NORTHERN newspapers?????” Because Northern journalists AGREED with Lincoln????
Tootie, Mike and Vince keep IGNORING my question I have asked like 5 times now. That question is this:
“If Lincoln wanted to end slavery peacefully [or at all] why didnt he issue the Emancipation Proclaimation on April 12, 1861, right after war broke out?”
Watch them IGNORE it AGAIN.
They also IGNORE the question I asked:
Why didnt Lincoln attempt to free ALL slaves? ONLY SOUTHERN states were mentioned in the EC. NORTHERN STATES got to keep their slaves—-why???? A slave is a slave—whether North or South. If Lincoln was SO against slavery, he would abolish ALL slavery and regardless if a state was seceding!
This will be ignored by the Lincoln cultists too!
Tootie–apparently me and you are the ONLY two that knows the TRUTH about Lincoln. Vince and Mike continue to IGNORE the plethora of quotes by Lincoln himself that I keep posting. He called my comment BS—this one:
“Do you NOT realize that the whole reason why the South seceded [at least in principle] is because the Declaration of Independence states that it is the DUTY of the people to throw of the old government and form a new one if they deem the federal government is corrupt and not following the Constitution?”
…but yet IGNORED the comment I posted like 5 times by Lincoln in 1848 that said the EXACT SAME THING. Here is that Lincoln quote AGAIN:
“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.”
So, Tootie, you see, it’s not ME and YOU that Mike and Vince consider enemies of Lincoln…..it’s Lincoln HIMSELF, because even LINCOLN contradicts what these two morons are saying! THIS is why they CONTINUALLY IGNORE the Lincoln quotes. So, even LINCOLN himself won’t change the minds of the Lincoln cultists.
Mike, if I’m such bullshit, then tell us all this:
WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THE LINCOLN QUOTES I POST THAT CONTRADICT THE THINGS YOU’RE SAYING?
Hmmmm?????
James McPherson described Charles Dew as a southerner who began his research hoping to show that slavery was not at issue, but was astounded to find the overwhelming evidence of the state commissioners who spread the message that slavery made secession absolutely necessary.
Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War, by Charles B. Dew.
From the amazon site:
“In late 1860 and early 1861, state-appointed commissioners traveled the length and breadth of the slave South carrying a fervent message in pursuit of a clear goal: to persuade the political leadership and the citizenry of the uncommitted slave states to join in the effort to destroy the Union and forge a new Southern nation.
“Directly refuting the neo-Confederate contention that slavery was neither the reason for secession nor the catalyst for the resulting onset of hostilities in 1861, Charles B. Dew finds in the commissioners’ brutally candid rhetoric a stark white supremacist ideology that proves the contrary. The commissioners included in their speeches a constitutional justification for secession, to be sure, and they pointed to a number of political “outrages” committed by the North in the decades prior to Lincoln’s election. But the core of their argument–the reason the right of secession had to be invoked and invoked immediately–did not turn on matters of constitutional interpretation or political principle. Over and over again, the commissioners returned to the same point: that Lincoln’s election signaled an unequivocal commitment on the part of the North to destroy slavery and that emancipation would plunge the South into a racial nightmare.
“Dew’s discovery and study of the highly illuminating public letters and speeches of these apostles of disunion–often relatively obscure men sent out to convert the unconverted to the secessionist cause–have led him to suggest that the arguments the commissioners presented provide us with the best evidence we have of the motives behind the secession of the lower South in 1860-61.
“Addressing topics still hotly debated among historians and the public at large more than a century after the Civil War, Dew challenges many current perceptions of the causes of the conflict. He offers a compelling and clearly substantiated argument that slavery and race were absolutely critical factors in the outbreak of war–indeed, that they were at the heart of our great national crisis.”
“Article III, Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
No, Tootie, the white southerners were still in the United States in a region engaged in rebellion and insurrection, a region that never became an independent nation recognized by any other nation, that never exchanged ambassadors or entered into a treaty, and that never controlled its borders. They were Americans waging war against the United States. There were more than two witnesses to their overt acts.
The United States enacted a general amnesty under Andrew Johnson after the war in an effort to bind up the wounds of battle. The losing south repaid the nation with a century of lynchings and Jim Crow.
Lee, who had worn the Uniform of the United States for 40 years, was a traitor. If he was not, why did he have to get a pardon in 1975?
I saw that pardon in the Lee Museum at Washington and Lee.
It was signed by Gerald Ford.
“A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. ”
Now why would anyone think the secession was about Slavery?
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
The South seceded because of the Tariffs (Abomination and Moral). Period.
That the Civil War was about slavery was a cover for self-righteous white supremacists and their white supremacist leader Abe Lincoln to absolve themselves of their murderous rampage across the South for economic warfare. The reason the brown-supremacist now join this grand cabal in our day is because they want the government to murder right-wingers and Lincoln is the best excuse they would like to hide behind.
Slavery was USED to incite the North to murder Southerners. And it worked perfectly. And the white supremacist Abe Lincoln made it so. Again, all the feds had to do was reduce or drop the tariffs. Government refused. This anger had been festering for decades since the 1828 Tariff of Abominations.
IT WAS ABOUT PLUNDER NOT SLAVERY.
These Tariffs were essentially denying the right of property or the loss of it by due process. It was a violation of the Constitution.
The whole purpose of the Commerce Clause was to prevent one section of the country attacking another economically. And one of the greatest reasons for rewriting the Articles of Confederation was because of this type of economic warfare and the need to prevent it before it led to bloodshed.
Lincoln violated this great principle.
Here we had the case of the federal government attacking a region–the South–to benefit another through the Tariffs. The Commerce Clause was meant to protect all regions from unjust plunder in trade and commerce. Our white supremacist Abe Lincoln had sworn an oath to protect the South when he made his oath of office. And yet there he and congress were acting in such a fashion as to not protect them. And since the South was not in violation of the Constitution regarding slavery there was no lawful reason to attack it on that regard as the subsequent need for the 13th and 14th amendment would prove. It was until after the war that any possibility of violating the Constitution regarding slavery could happen and warrant an attack.
Even so, slaughtering 500,000 plus Americans? Oh please.
The attack on the South could not have been about slavery.
Lincoln admits as much in 1861 when he says
“I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I HAVE NO LAWFUL RIGHT TO DO SO, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Nor could it have been about Fort Sumter either.
All that had to be done for that was to have people arrested, tried, and thrown in jail. There wasn’t a need to slaughter 50,0000 innocent civilians in the South to prosecute a small number of people who had been involved in Fort Sumter. There was no reason to destroy the economy of a nation either. No one died as a result of the South’s doings at Fort Sumter. That only happened when the greedy white supremacist, Abe Lincoln, got involved. Then the “victors” told half the story from then until now leading us to believe it was the whole truth.
By violating the Constitution by violating his oath to protect innocent civilians in the South, Lincoln violated Article III Section III which reads:
“Treason against the United States [and you cannot call it a Civil War unless you assume the Southerners were still the United States], shall consist only in levying war against them [the individual states] or in adhering to their [the individual states] enemies, giving them aid and comfort…”
Lincoln was committing treason by levying war against the states which he still considered part of the Union.
By violating the spirit of the Commerce clause, the presidential oath, and Article III Section III the Federal government and Lincoln had broken its obligations to protect all Americans which was to do by law. At that point the South was under no obligation to the government since the government abandoned its obligation to the South (most of whom were innocent of any wrong doing but had no due process under which they might be protected). No one is obligated to sit by while they are robbed, beaten, raped, murdered, and destroyed. No matter who does it.
We learned this from our Founders, the Framers, the Rights of Englishmen, Lex Rex, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, The Magna Carta, our heritage from Western Civilization including our Biblical heritage.
It appears Lincoln did not.
The South was correct on this. It wasn’t illegal according to the Constitution to have slaves. Though, I’m with Spooner on this one, that it was illegal to have slaves in the American colonies because it was illegal to have them in England (before the Constitution was adopted).
Spooner, a stauch abolitionist, loathed what Lincoln was doing because what Lincoln was doing was despotic. Spooner knew it was just as bad for Lincoln to do what he was doing as it was to own a slave: both were forms of tyranny.
Nonetheless, that is not how they looked at in 1860. And the 13th and 14th amendment prove it. Since it wasn’t illegal as the law looked at it in that day, the South couldn’t be attacked for it lawfully.
The South was correct about the Tariffs, correct about the right to revolt, and utterly wrong about slavery.
Because the South held slaves does not mean it was wrong about the Constitutional issues or about the right of any people to throw off tyrants and despots.
Lincoln was a murderer and a white supremacist. And I’m not surprised that the left has adopted him because the left would like to murder right-wingers.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
If historians lie, so much for historians.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF-QIJyLhKQ&w=640&h=390]
Vince,
Thanks.
“Do you NOT realize that the whole reason why the South seceded [at least in principle] is because the Declaration of Independence states that it is the DUTY of the people to throw of the old government and form a new one if they deem the federal government is corrupt and not following the Constitution?”
Larry,
That’s BS. The South seceded because it wanted to maintain and expand slavery. An institution which propped up its’ economy and was cheaper than its original methods of involuntary servitude.
Even though I disagree with your interpretation and Vince has proven that Lincoln did not act un-Constitutionally, that is really irrelevant. Slavery needed to be ended by any means possible if the US Republic were to continue and prosper.
“Simply hilarious! Hold on, I have to burst out laughing…..OK I’m done. “Some” extent freed? So, in other words, NOT AT ALL? You’ve been saying they were FREE all along, now youre saying to “some” extent?? LOL.”
That quote from you only further proves the point I’ve been making about your disingenuousness. You take my remarks out of context and leave the important points out. Here is the full quote from me which you are vainly attempting to ridicule:
“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).”
Well I guess it really doesn’t matter to you that you misinterpret me, even when I try to preclude it. So Larry, how do you really feel about State’s rights, if included in that lame theory are institutions supported by individual States that include slavery and Jim Crow? My guess is that you do approve and what that says about you is damning.
As to the lack of answering your questions which you claim, you’ve never answered this one of mine below, which leads me to the assumption that you would expose yourself too much by giving an answer to it and also that you have no intention of responding anything which disproves your points:
“Do you really think slavery was a good thing and that those enslaved were well off? Do you also believe that the system of indentured servitude that worked in tandem in the South with slavery to develop Southern economy was a proper model that should be allowed to prosper?”
This is a more key question as to your viewpoint than any other.
In all your comments though you never address it. Why is that?
If you won’t answer the most pertinent question and at the same time ignore relevant information that gives lie to your comments,
why then do you deserve any answers? You’ve had all your points addressed Larry, but you refuse to acknowledge that, or at least refute them. That is why you’re a game player, whether conscious of it or not and most game players (remember I referenced “The Games People Play”)are not conscious of their game play. I am of course being charitable to you because I suspect that you know exactly what you are doing and its’ disingenuousness.
Buddha Is Laughing, February 14, 2011 at 8:28 am: Vince,How did you do that embedding?
I just copied the url at the amazon.com page for the book, pasted it here, and the embedding happened without any more effort by me, although the post did spend a little time in moderation.
Same for Guelzo’s book up above at February 13, 2011 at 9:54 am.
Buddha Is Laughing
1, February 14, 2011 at 7:45 am
The french horn is an underrated brass instrument.
==========================================================
Put a french horn, cello, and oboe together with the occasional underpinnings of a harp in any arrangement of any piece and you will experience pure heaven.
But I give you a solo: (this is a superb performance … ignore the trendy mall scene at the beginning … )
sorry about that … kept going to moderation land and wasn’t quite sure as to why so tried a couple of different forms.
Vince Treacy
1, February 14, 2011 at 8:12 am
…..
The best single-volume history of the Civil War is the Pulitzer Prize winning Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, by James M. McPherson. …..
===================================================
Also available at Barnes and Noble in nookbook (ebook) for 9.99 and for the Kindle at Amazon for 8.69
According to a well published Professor of American History (Revolutionary War and Constitution specialty) at a private research university with whom I correspond, authors get a higher percentage of the profits from ebook sales than from hard cover sales. Just thought you all might be interested in that fact.
Blouise
1, February 14, 2011 at 11:52 am
Vince Treacy
1, February 14, 2011 at 8:12 am
Warren was a novelist, not a historian, and his version of the Civil War was vividly imagined fiction, not history.
The best single-volume history of the Civil War is the Pulitzer Prize winning Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, by James M. McPherson.
=================================================
Also available at Barnes and Noble in nookbook (ebook) for $9.99 and for the Kindle at Amazon for $8.69
According to a well published Professor of American History (Revolutionary War and Constitution specialty) at a private research university with whom I correspond, authors get a higher percentage of the profits from ebook sales than from hard cover sales. Just thought you all might be interested in that fact.
“Part of the insidiously ugly truth of slavery was the economic factor and that I suspect had some bearing on Jefferson’s actions”
Blouise,
Good point.