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
Here is one of AY’s arguments:
“The argument about Texas not being able to is BULL SHIT period. Read the Articles of Annexation……Its a fucking contract…If slavery is an issue to you and it was to them because no state could be formed north of the Mason Dixon line that would violate the terms and condition of the Missouri compromise…breached the contract…I would say…seems like a good reason to break the rest of the contract…..but see we got even….we let the village idiot out so that could come spend joy…..we get even…..And my History and Geography is real fuzzy right now….but exactly what other state was annexed? Help me, will ya?”
Let’s take a look at the actual conditions that Congress proposed and Texas agreed to.
There were three of them:
“That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, 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 government, –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, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six.”
So Texas had to comply by the end of 1845. It did so, and Congress admitted (not annexed) it as a state. Both parties complied with the condition. Nothing here about secession.
“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 and armaments, and all other means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain 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 discharging 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.”
Both sides complied. Again, nothing about secession.
“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 the 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 the 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 shall 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.”
Texas never tried to split into smaller states, so this provision was never breached. Nothing here about secession, either.
When the Missouri Compromise was repealed in 1854, is was done by law, and Texas (which had voting Senators and Congressmen at the time) became bound by the U.S. law, under the Supremacy Clause, as it agree to when it became a state.
Besides, the repeal favored Texas, a slave state, because it now allowed slavery above the Missouri Compromise line (not the Mason Dixon line) if approved by popular sovereignty.
Because no so-called “covenants” were every breached, Texas never would have had a cause to secede, even if the admission of a State to the Union were a contract, which it is not.
All that happened in 1861 to “provoke” secession was the lawful, peaceful, democratic election of a candidate that they voted against. But Texans bound themselves to comply with the outcome of elections when their State was admitted (not annexed) to the Union.
This applies also even if Texas had been annexed, which it was not. No other state was ever “annexed,” because no state has ever been “annexed,” since the Constitution only provides for states to be “admitted.”
Buckle up, its the law.
Funny.
Larry finally admits that he does not know the answer to his own question.
Sad.
“Larry, stop wasting everybody’s time and answer your own question already.
How many electrons have to die?”
Finally, admittance from Vince that he will never answer my questions. The Lincoln cult is afraid of facts.
Mike, what was that link supposed to show?
Larry, stop wasting everybody’s time and answer your own question already.
How many electrons have to die?
AY: “…certain covenants were made to run withe the land…they were breach…”
Well, when most lawyers want to know if a covenant that runs with the land has been breached, they go to the land records of the jurisdiction, like the Register of Deeds, and they look up the written records to find any and all covenants and restrictions.
AY has yet to supply any written records of any of his mythical “covenants.”
The “deed” in this case is the Joint Resolution that said “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.”
There are no covenants, easements, equitable servitudes, or any other conditions or restrictions anywhere in the so-called “contract” documents that support his notions.
Sorry, but AY is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law, so he does what every lawyer does in that situation.
He pounds the table and scrams his head off.
Funny how Vince and Mike claimed earlier that I’m a “troll” but yet Vince continually talks about the OFF TOPIC issue of Texas [being off topic is one of the staples of being a troll] and they continually IGNORE my ON topic questions about LINCOLN [what this article is about], but yet “I’m” the troll???
Funny.
Now, Mike OR VInce, when will you answer my questions?:
“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?”
“Why didnt Lincoln attempt to free ALL slaves? ONLY SOUTHERN states were mentioned in the EC. NORTHERN STATES got to keep their slaves—-why????” [remember, it doesnt matter that the Northern states stayed in the Union, because slavery is slavery]
AY “You argue Dicta quite well….NOT LAW…”
I have cited and linked two Joint Resolutions enacted by Congress and signed by the President.
Buckle up, those Resolutions are the law.
They say TX was admitted on an equal footing.
No, Mike…..you are playing the “You arent answering MY questions so I wont answer YOUR questions even though you asked YOUR questions first” game. MY questions were asked FIRST, you IGNORED them then began asking questions. THEN, when I didnt answer yours [because I am waiting for MINE to be answered], you claim it’s because I’m not answering YOURS! That 1st grader tactic has already been done on me and it won’t work.
IF you had an answer to my questions [which you don’t] you would just answer them, right? You claim you read my posts in full but you only acknowledge about 1% of them in your posts! Because you can’t debunk them? Right?
You claim Tootie is a white supremacist??? For pointing out Lincoln was a racist, Tootie is a white supremacist??? Now, THAT’S funny! So, EXPOSING and CONDEMNING a white supremacist means Tootie IS one???? If anyone is a white supremacist it’s the people on this thread who PROTECT a white supremacist….Lincoln!
AY: “The resolutions of annexation were in essence contracts…”
They were not contracts.
They were laws.
Even if they were contracts, which they were not, they were never breached.
The contract was to admit Texas a state. The US lived up to it, and admitted Texas on an equal footing.
TEXAS tried to breach that contract by rebelling and engaging in insurrection, as its citizens waged war against the United States, witnessed by more than two witnesses.
Where was it written down in 1865 that Texas had a right to secede?
Nowhere.
Ay has had nearly a year to post those word, and never has, because they do not exist.
Ay cannot post the covenants that allowed Texas to secede because they do not exist.
There never was a treaty. The senate never ratified.
There was a contract to admit Texas as a state on an equal footing with the original states.
That contract was never breached. Texas has remained a state continuously to this day.
There was no breach, so no remedy is needed.
A link to what Tootie and her friends are all about.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/shawna-forde-convicted_n_823206.html
Well thank you Mike S.,
I have no ability to unilaterally change the status quo…. There are a number of folks that would like to…but, I do not think that once the impairment of contract issue was resolved by the war….that Texas can do it anymore…
This is what Vince fails to see….The resolutions of annexation were in essence contracts…. Just as enforceable as a Treaty that was made….and if a treaty is breached what is the remedy?
My questions and comments IGNORED again by the Lincoln cult———oh, that’s right, I forgot Mike…..Vince “already answered them” way before I came to the thread and asked them! LOL
Tootie, the article I wrote about Henry Clay on my blog was in response to a left-winger who loves Lincoln…Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. Here’s my story:
http://realtruthonline.blogspot.com/2011/02/bonesman-dana-milbank-rewrites-history.html
Milbank was insulting Rand Paul for speaking FACTS about Henry Clay during Paul’s first senatorial speech, but I easily debunk Milbank in my article as easily as I have debunked Vince and Mike here [this is why they keep ignoring my comments and my questions].
Mike, since you claim you don’t ignore me, then answer these two questions. Remember I said ANSWER them…it’s not enough just to acknowledge them:
“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?”
“Why didnt Lincoln attempt to free ALL slaves? ONLY SOUTHERN states were mentioned in the EC. NORTHERN STATES got to keep their slaves—-why????” [remember, it doesnt matter that the Northern states stayed in the Union, because slavery is slavery]
Tootie, watch as they are ignored AGAIN.
“.certain covenants were made to run withe the land…they were breach…”
Cut the BS, AY.
There were no covenants.
If they were, post them here.
“I argued that Texas had the right to get out once the original contract was broken…”
AY,
You know I like you and appreciate you. I also know that any State that produced Willie, Waylon and Wills, not to mention some great people and politicians, has to have some good things going for it.
However, given the overall negative effect that Texas politics, money and repressiveness have had on this country, if you all can secede, please do.
Vince,
Go ahead cross the border let me know and let me know…I’ll meet you and maybe we can have dinner…
“My prediction came true——you IGNORED the Lincoln quotes again—and my questions!!! MY questions were asked first!”
Larry,
Your comments are turning from tedious posts, ignoring points already made, into comic fun. I am enjoying your discomfiture immensely, especially because you so steadfastly refuse to actually read and comprehend anything that disagrees with your view on this issue. Then have the gall to accuse others of not continually answering your questions, that have already been answered and skewered. You have turned to the white supremacist Tootie as your only ally on this thread and refuse to answer my very relevant question as to whether you too are a white supremacist, whose views on State’s right’s would posit the belief that individual States have the right to impose Jim Crow and slavery in their own venues?
Vince,
So you do not agree with a source so you disagree with it….Man if I was being charged with insider trading….I’d want you as my attorney….you can’t seem to think outside the box….Bet you don’t eat at the bell huh?
Vince,
Everything that you disagree with or do not accept is bunk or maybe I should say you consider dicta….You have you beliefs…and I have mine…You have not lived here so you really do not know…..suffice it to say…..
I argued that Texas had the right to get out once the original contract was broken… the things that you seem to miss under contract law….certain covenants were made to run withe the land…they were breach….I never said they got out of the Union as you imply….they were readmitted we agree upon and I further said that after that they waived any defects….
The problem with you is that you do not appear to understand contract law….or you could have answered the other impairment of contract issues….
You argue Dicta quite well….NOT LAW…
Andrew Breitbart? now there’ a videographer I can have faith in.