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
Gee.
JT had a thread on this very topic nearly two years ago, when Texas Governor Ranger Rick Perry infamously ran his mouth about secession:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/16/republic-of-texas-governor-raises-the-prospect-of-secession-from-the-union/
JT noted that “Texas, however, does not have an express authority to secede — a common myth.”
And there was this post by Anonymously Yours:
“I do believe that Texas can divide into 4 states. There is some debate as to whether Texas may succeed from the Union as it is. The Dallas Morning News stated last night that Texas does not have that right. I believe it was the Historical Library that stated this.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/16/republic-of-texas-governor-raises-the-prospect-of-secession-from-the-union/#comment-47619
Vince:
“Lincoln is NOT saying it is a contract.
His rhetorical question is: if the US is not a government, but an association by contract, can it be unmade without the consent of all the parties. One party can break it, but it requires all to rescind it.
Lincoln did not say that it was a contract, but that if were, it would take the consent of the other parties to dissolve it.”
***********************
As quoted above, here is precisely what Lincoln said on the issue of contract versus charter:
“Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”
Bugs: “South America, take it away!”
Duly noted, Mike. 🙂
“Heellooo dere! My name is Herr Officer Heisenberg.”
Buddha,
I dispute you on Principle and on attempted bad accent.
AT is having the same problem with Lincoln.
“Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?”
elf: “Damn Vince….it appears that Lincoln is saying its a contract….”
Lincoln is NOT saying it is a contract.
His rhetorical question is: if the US is not a government, but an association by contract, can it be unmade without the consent of all the parties. One party can break it, but it requires all to rescind it.
Lincoln did not say that it was a contract, but that if were, it would take the consent of the other parties to dissolve it.
“On the other side if Texas is allowed to go away…we will still have access to the internet etc….so if, you don’t want us to post on the site…unless we are blocked…its gonna happen…”
AY,
Why in hell would you think that I wouldn’t want you (especially you)or other Texans to post on this site. when have I ever asked that anyone be banned? I’m saying in all truthfulness though, that while there probably millions of Texans who are good people, the State has done and is doing harm to the country as a whole. That doesn’t mean that other States, North, South, East and West aren’t also doing harm to the country, many are. It just means that via your governor Rick, it is the only presently noxious State that has threatened to secede and so I’d like to take him up on his offer/threat.
If Texas did secede why should that preclude them from posting here? In any event I know that was your attempt at humor, but I do want to take the opportunity to state that at least for me, everyone should be allowed to post here, possibly save for those who make personal threats. I don’t even mind Tootie and Larry posting here, even though they both appear to be white supremacists. It is always good to keep your enemies close as my old Mafia connections used to say.
“What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.”
There is a reading comprehension failure by AY:
“Vince even agrees in his post that there was a contract….so if slavery was an issue….then would not some say that the contract could be avoided…”
Vince never agreed to that. Vince stated: “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.”
See also the extended discussion:
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/02/11/lincoln-the-great-colonizer-new-book-details-plans-by-lincoln-to-ship-freed-slaves-to-english-colonies/#comment-202267
“I have always said that it was a contract…..and as Vince stated it is a contract…”
Vince never stated that.
“Thank you Vince for agreeing with me….that it was a contract and Texas performed its obligations….” Thanks for nothing. Never said that. Never agreed with AY on that.
AY: “Texas performed all of its conditions and therefore had justifiable reliance that the other party would not breach its obligations….”
The US never breached any obligation. Slavery? It NEVER interfered with slavery in Texas before it seceded, and Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed as late as 1861.
“Therefore….if breached or the other part caused a condition to not exist at the time of performance then the contract can be voided…..” Say what?
The US never “caused a condition to not exist at the time of performance.” There was “no deviation from the terms of the contract.” The US never interfered with slavery in Texas. Its only change was to expand the potential reach of slavery by repealing the Missouri Compromise, and Texas participated in voting for that change. The US even stiffened the fugitive slave law in 1850.
This is getting ridiculous. It is a classic bogus type of argument. You falsely state the terms of the opponent’s argument, and then refute your own false restatement.
Repeat. They never were contracts. Even if they were, which they were not, they were not breached. The US lived up to each and every condition spelled out in the joint resolution and the ordinance.
Even if it were a contract, which it was not, AY has not identified a single breach of any condition or covenant. I do not waste time on rhetorical questions. AY says “the US breached its portion of the contract….” He just won’t say how, when, where or to what extent.
Sorry, electrons.
Done and done, Bob.
Thanks!
Buddha,
Check your email.
“Heellooo dere! My name is Herr Officer Heisenberg. I’d like to talk to you about some unauthorized spooky action at a distance . . . “
Somebody call the quantum cops!
Who’s killing the electrons and how?
Lets thing corrected to…
Lets see how things work….
Thanks mespo.
I am quoting your comments regarding the first inaugural address..
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Damn Vince….it appears that Lincoln is saying its a contract….
Thats rich….
Vince,
Of course a person is going to vote for more….But can you tell me the Voting record of the Texas Senators and Representatives….also were the seats all filled….did anyone not vote…..was there any tie barring of legislation….were there any sell out……
Lets thing…..does any of the tie barring happen….of course….bury 150 million in the education budget for military/police…. but education get a 250 million decrease to the states….. does a Senator or Congress person vote for this or against this? One would say against the increase in military spending…… ah the catch…. Campaign ads hit the street… Sen/Rep soft on crime… you see there was money appropriated for an increase in the local police departments… but this yahoo voted against it….remember this when you vote…. It has more impact because no line item veto…. You are familiar with the above concepts aren’t your Vince?
Well folks it appears Vince does not understand the principals of contract formation….it is apparent the reason he cannot or will not answer why the sellers in either the car or real estate case can’t interfere after the sell is that the buyer would have grounds for recession…revocation….all sorts of remedies….
Just as in anything else….there has to be a meeting of the minds….for a sale to occur…..for Vince’s edification I will go over the basic Contract Formation Principals….They are Offer, Acceptance and Consideration… without these no contract exists…. Now, if a contract had been executed and somehow interfered with or a bi-lateral mistake occurred or impossibility of performance existed these are all valid reasons to negate a valid contract…..Vince even agrees in his post that there was a contract….so if slavery was an issue….then would not some say that the contract could be avoided….just as it pertains to Texas an Independent Republic? Not purchased or stolen from someone else….
These are some research notes that maybe useful for him to take a refresher….
http://law.anu.edu.au/colin/Lectures/off_acc.htm
Now Breach of Contract is as follows:
The basic rule is that parties to contracts must perform as specified in the contract unless (1) the parties agree to the change in the contract’s terms, or (2) the actions of the party who deviates from the terms of the contract are implicitly accepted (“ratified”) by the action or non-action of the other party.
If there is no acceptance of deviation from the terms of the contract, and the deviation is serious enough to make any real difference in the intended result of the contract, then the deviating party is said to have breached the contract. His justified prevention or interference with the performance of the other party is also a breach.
Of course if one party fails more or less entirely to perform the contract, or totally prevents the performance of the contract by the other party, the situation is straightforward. The situation becomes more complex where the argument is over the quality of materials, the timing of work, or something of that sort.
Breach of contract leaves the nonperforming or improperly performing party open to a claim for damages by the other party. The non- breaching party is relieved of his obligations under the contract by the other party’s breach.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/bul08.htm
This is the part that Vince seems to wants to totally ignore…
I have always said that it was a contract…..and as Vince stated it is a contract…. and Texas performed all of its conditions and therefore had justifiable reliance that the other party would not breach its obligations….
Therefore….if breached or the other part caused a condition to not exist at the time of performance then the contract can be voided…..
Thank you Vince for agreeing with me….that it was a contract and Texas performed its obligations….
Where we disagree is that the US breached its portion of the contract….. I say they did and you say they didn’t….and a war was fought over it…..damn you’re good…
Mike S,
On the other side if Texas is allowed to go away…we will still have access to the internet etc….so if, you don’t want us to post on the site…unless we are blocked…its gonna happen…
“…answer your own question already.”
“How many electrons have to die?”
And how is this happening?