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
There is some funny stuff at this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Texas
“In January 2004, Timothy Paul Kootenay in jail in Aspen, Colorado, claimed that the state of Colorado had no jurisdiction to extradite him to California on a probation warrant, on the grounds that he was a citizen of the Republic of Texas. He claimed that the sliver of land which contains Aspen was a part of the original Republic of Texas and, as such, he was not a citizen of the United States. His claim was rejected by the courts.”
And another one:
“In 1995, a petition was filed with the ICJ by Richard L. McLaren asking that the Republic of Texas be declared to still exist. The clerk at the ICJ refused to file the case and wrote back, ‘I have to inform you, however, that the function of the International Court of Justice is confined to the settling, in accordance with international law, of legal disputes submitted to it by States, and to the rendering of advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized international organs and agencies. It follows that neither the Court nor its Members can consider applications from private individuals, or other entities, or provide them with legal advice, or assist them in their relations with the authorities in any country. As a result, no action will be taken on your letter.'”
As Jackie Gleason used to say, “Har, har, hardy har har”!
No, Rick Perry, No, AY: Texas cannot secede:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/no-texas-cannot-secede-no-texas-cant-split-itself/
AY can go to the Texas State Library and look up the Joint Resolution.
“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
Admitted.
Into the Union.
On an equal footing.
With the original States.
In all respects whatever.
As James Thurber said, You Could Look It Up.
Now, AY started this issue on another thread by claiming that Texas had some contract right to secede because it was the only state annexed to the Union, and claiming no other state was annexed. Well, No state has ever been “annexed.” All states have been admitted. Including Texas. But while answering the posts on how Texas was admitted, elf seems to have forgotten about secession.
“I have completely disproven AY’s claim that Texas ever had a separate right of secession. There has not been a peep out of him since then.”
Still nary a peep about special right of Texas to secede.
Texas never left the Union. Although it is often said that Texas was “readmitted” in 1870, the law actually was an act to admit Texas to representation in Congress. Congress voted to accept the Texas delegation because Texas once again had a republican form of governmentas required by the Constitution.
“An Act to admit the State of Texas to Representation in the Congress of the United States. March 30, 1870 ”
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/30march1870.html
II. More Wiki problems.
Later on the article says “The original controversy about the legality of the annexation of Texas stems from the fact that Congress approved the annexation of Texas as a territory with a simple majority vote approval instead of annexing the land by Treaty, as was done with Native American lands.”
This is incorrect and very confused. Congress approved admission of Texas as a State by joint resolution. It had rejected the annexation of Texas as a Territory. It never in fact ” approved the annexation of Texas as a territory with a simple majority vote approval.”
“This Ordinance of Annexation was submitted and approved by the House and Senate of the United States and signed by the President on December 29, 1845. While this was an awkward, if not unusual, treaty process it was fully accepted by all parties involved, and more importantly all parties performed on those agreements making them legally binding (see Contract Law). In addition, the United States Supreme Court decided in the case of DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901), that annexation by a joint resolution of Congress is legal.[18]”
Wrong, this was not a “treaty process” at all. The treaty process failed in the Senate. The DeLima case is irrelevant. DeLima ruled on the acquisition of Puerto Rico as a territory, not the admission of a State under Article IV.
It is true that “all parties performed on those agreements making them legally binding,” but it fails to state that the agreements were that Texas would be admitted as a State, and that it would be on an equal footing with all the other states. There was never a “treaty process.”
Just wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Annexation
At 9:45 AM, AY quoted an excerpt from a wiki article. This article is not new to this thread. Blouse posted the same article above. It contains numerous errors, and responded thoroughly in a long series of postings.
But, once again, step by step, here are the mistakes:
I. Errors in Wikipedia article.
“James K. Polk, a Democrat and a strong supporter of territorial expansion, was elected president in November 1844 with a mandate to acquire both the Republic of Texas and Oregon Country.[7] After the election, the Tyler administration realized that public opinion was in favor of annexation, consulted with President-elect Polk, and set out to accomplish annexation by means of a joint resolution.[8]”
Wrong. They did not “set out to accomplish annexation by means of a joint resolution,” but set out to accomplish admission (not annexation) of Texas as a State by joint resolution. The Senate had failed to ratify annexation of Texas as a territory by treaty in 1844.
“The resolution declared that Texas would be admitted as a state as long as it approved annexation by January 1 1846, that it could split itself up into four additional states, and that possession of the Republic’s public lands would shift to the state of Texas upon its admission.[8] ”
Correct, the resolution declared Texas would be “admitted as a state.” Wrong, it did not require Texas to approve “annexation,” it required Texas to approve admission. The resolution never said “annex” or “annexation” in its text, only in the short titled added by a clerk.
“On 26 February 1845, six days before Polk took office, Congress passed the joint resolution.[8] ”
Wrong, it was passed March 1, 1845, and was signed by Tyler the next day.
“Not long afterward, Andrew Jackson Donelson, the American chargé d’affaires in Texas and the nephew of former president Andrew Jackson, presented the American resolution to President Anson Jones of Texas.[9]”
Correct, but it should be added that he presented the resolution for admission as a State.
“In July 1845, the Texan Congress endorsed the American annexation offer with only one dissenting vote and began writing a state constitution.[10]”
Wrong, Texas did not approve an “annexation offer,” it approved an offer of statehood by endorsing the exact language of the Joint Resolution.
“The citizens of Texas approved the new constitution and the annexation ordinance in October 1845 and Polk signed the documents formally integrating Texas into the United States on December 29 1845.[11]”
Wrong, they did not approve an “annexation ordinance,” although that was its informal, unofficial title. It was an “annexation ordinance” in name only. Legally, they approved an offer by the United States to admit Texas as a State. In substance and reality, the approval was given to statehood, not annexation.
The document signed by Polk did in fact formally integrate Texas into the U.S., but it did so by admitting Texas as a State on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatsoever.
Vince,
As scholastic as you wanna appear what are your thoughts on Michener….who put a book out with his name on it describing Texas and a movie was even made based upon his interpretation….There is some truth to the book…but its not accurate on all accounts….a lot was left out….but its a good spin….
Geeze Vince,
I can’t wait long enough for your answers about the car and real estate….think outside the box….step outside of your safety zone….
Anonymously Yours 1, February 11, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I submit that Vince does not know as much as he proclaims to know. Therefore the savagery of his message is debunked based upon his lack of clear understandably of the history in Texas…….
Then again….maybe you do not understand another reason that Lincoln was shot….something about the spoils of war and the forfeiture of real estate….Johnson almost got his ass shot over that….ever heard of 40 acres and a mule?
****************************************
Would you care to take a stab at this statement…..
Vince Treacy 1, February 11, 2011 at 12:44 pm
AY[m] sic, Texas was not annexed.
It was admitted to the United States as a State under Article V, section 3, just like all the other states after the original 13.
All States in the Union are on an equal footing. No State has any greater or lesser status or rights because of the circumstances of its admission.
That is the law. AY is entitled to his own opinion.
Any “contract annexation,” which AY has never linked or spelled out, was expressly made subject to the Constitution. When Texas was admitted, it agreed to the Supremacy Clause.
Repeat, Texas agree that the Constitution was supreme when it accepted admittance to the Union.
The law is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
*************************
Personal attacks aside Vince…. You quoted YahooAnswers as a source I am using Wiki…….
Annexation by joint resolution
James K. Polk, a Democrat and a strong supporter of territorial expansion, was elected president in November 1844 with a mandate to acquire both the Republic of Texas and Oregon Country.[7] After the election, the Tyler administration realized that public opinion was in favor of annexation, consulted with President-elect Polk, and set out to accomplish annexation by means of a joint resolution.[8] The resolution declared that Texas would be admitted as a state as long as it approved annexation by January 1 1846, that it could split itself up into four additional states, and that possession of the Republic’s public lands would shift to the state of Texas upon its admission.[8] On 26 February 1845, six days before Polk took office, Congress passed the joint resolution.[8] Not long afterward, Andrew Jackson Donelson, the American chargé d’affaires in Texas and the nephew of former president Andrew Jackson, presented the American resolution to President Anson Jones of Texas.[9] In July 1845, the Texan Congress endorsed the American annexation offer with only one dissenting vote and began writing a state constitution.[10] The citizens of Texas approved the new constitution and the annexation ordinance in October 1845 and Polk signed the documents formally integrating Texas into the United States on December 29 1845.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Annexation
Vince, I did not write this…I am just like you espousing cites to support what I have learned…. Is it wrong to disagree with Vince….Apparently so… You have no tolerance for anyone that disagrees with you…if the person was of a different nationality…would that make you a racist? Some would think so….
Vince Treacy 1, February 11, 2011 at 12:36 pm
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Attributed to the late, great Pat Moynihan.
AY, the fact is that Lincoln did not support deportation, and never had a draft amendment requiring deportation, and opinions that he did so are just opinions, not fact.
********************************
An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cult
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
“Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom have a vested interest in [him] and who are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him.”
Since very few Americans have spent much time educating themselves about Lincoln and nineteenth-century American history (much of which has been falsified anyway), it is easy for members of what I call the Lincoln Cult to dismiss all literary criticisms of Lincoln as the work of “neo-Confederates,” their code-word for “defenders of slavery” (as though anyone in America today would defend slavery), or “racist.” Although they label themselves “Lincoln scholars,” the last thing they want is honest scholarship when it comes to the subject of Lincoln and his war. They are, at best, cover-up artists and pandering court historians who feed at the government grant trough, “consuming” tax dollars to support their “research” and their overblown university positions.
Lincoln not only talked like a white supremacist; as a state legislator he supported myriad laws and regulations in Illinois that deprived the small number of free blacks in the state of any semblance of citizenship. Bennett gives us chapter and verse of how he supported a law that “kept pure from contamination” the electoral franchise by prohibiting “the admission of colored votes.” He supported the notorious Illinois Black Codes that made it all but impossible for free blacks to earn a living; and he was a “manager” of the Illinois Colonization Society that sought to use state tax revenues to deport blacks out of the state. He also supported the 1848 amendment to the Illinois constitution that prohibited the immigration of blacks into the state. As president, he vigorously supported the Fugitive Slave Act that forced Northerners to hunt down runaway slaves and return them to slavery for a bounty. Lincoln knew that this law had led to the kidnapping of an untold number of free blacks who were thrown into slavery.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo139.html
Vince just because you disagree with someone does not make them wrong…. Heck he even supported them not being in his own state….
I do not perceive myself as a racist…. or heck even someone that endorses slavery… I believe in the Truth…. regardless of the color….
Vince Treacy 1, February 11, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Lerone Bennett is not a serious historian, and his views have been refuted. His view of the Emancipation Proclamation is preposterous. It led to the enlistment of 180,000 freed slaves in the Union Army. His attacks on Lincoln actually mirror the attacks made for 150 years by southern white apologists for the rebels.*********************
You disagree with Mr. Bennett…so therefore he is not serious…..so people disagree with Lincoln…does that make his not a serious historian in your mind?
Myth or Fact is based upon what Vince perceives as the truth….
Blouise,
One more thing for the sake of transparency. The lady in the clip with the hat (“Momma Donna”) mentions the name Andrew. That would the Andrew Breitbart. The proprietor of Breitbart online and the person filming the video.
He can be seen in the video yelling “let’s go to Applebees”.
🙂
Blouise: You are so generous. Thank you for supplying my need.
Oh, and I wanted to add this lovely video (below). Just to bolster my argument about what is really the true nature of the left/progressive/liberal/Democrat.
Now, this could be a fake, but the video has been around for about two weeks and I haven’t heard that it is a fraud. Yes, the left now loves Lincoln. But it is not because he freed the slaves (he didn’t). It is because he murdered Americans and Democrats and leftists need a reason to justify their desire to murder those they oppose politically.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc&w=640&h=390]
Vince the displaced Pollock,
I will respond in the morning…..I had an exhausting day at work…mind is fried…. well, whats left of it….. but then again I have a purpose….so await….I will return…. not to be confused with I shall return….
Yeah, Tootie–and in 1861 Lincoln ordered the postmaster general to put a stop on all mail delivery to over 100 NORTHERN newspapers who did editorials on the war [in 1861, nearly all newspaper deliveries were made by mail]. Gee, Vince and Mike…..why would Lincoln SILENCE NORTHERN newspapers, shut them down, stop mail delivery on them and imprison their editors???
Because he was such a champion of emancipation?
ANOTHER question that will be IGNORED.
Tootie wrote- “At this point in history that mass murder would be of the right-wingers.” …. by knuckle-headed, stupid, moronic, fetus-killing, rich, criminal, bigoted, racist, brown-supremacist, Christophobic, hate-mongers on the left. (Tootie obviously forgot to include all that, so I figured I’d help him/her out … it’s my good deed for the day.)
Larry, that is correct.
Northern papers did oppose Lincoln as did the many thousands bold and brave citizens he arrested in the North. Even staunch abolitionists despised what he was doing. They could see he was exploiting the slavery issue to steal power, to steal money, to murder, and to trample the Constitution.
Most Americans haven’t yet come to understand this because the lies continue.
Those who know the truth and deny it need the Lincoln myth to justify, should they think it necessary in their warped little minds, the mass murder of Americans they do not like. At this point in history that mass murder would be of the right-wingers.
“Moe is their leader.” – Homer J. Simpson