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
Damnit AY I wasn’t referring to you at all. One of the mistakes I continually make here is to assume on a given thread people understand me from what I’ve written. The argument that you and Vince have had regarding “annexation” is one that I’ve stayed out of, because frankly it doen’t interest me and is not to my mind germane to the thread. I have stated such, but have thrown in a few jibes about Texas. You do a lot of “jibing” here, so why am I not entitled? That post above was strictly meant for tootie and the blowhard. Stop
projecting crap onto me, you should know where I’m coming from now with respect to you and yet this is the second time you’ve taken offense on this thread. Enough already.
Vince,
You, I think started the person attacks….. I just elevated them…. I have seen this done of this blawg before and I think you have had leveled your fair share of insults ….. think about the thread in which you were shut down on…. Dicta is not law and you profess it is….
I never said that slavery was right….
My only statements were and still are…that this was a contractual claim if Texas had wanted to get out at the time…Pure and simple….. Then evinces the hyperbole…..
Mike S., suffice it to say….I don’t play down the middle…. I expected more of you than your last statement… I thought you were better than this….But hey…. You speak your truth and I’ll speak mine….. Vince will speak his….and History will tell if any of us were right….
George Bush the II will go down as a Great President…. I think different….But the spin has been cast….. People generally with money and influence can rewrite history…. I have seen it happen and I have seen cases decided on an incorrect punctuation if the person and/or attorney were gifted… You know no more than what you have been taught and how that makes you feel….That makes up the person right or wrong… Think about it…before you respond…
“I believe that story about Shawna Ford is about someone being “anti-ILLEGAL immigration”—-BIG difference. I suppose you are FOR illegal immigrants in the country?”
That story is about the killing of a mother and daughter who were tsurmised to be illegal immigrants. From your dismissal of it I would conclude that your solution to the illegal immigration problem would be to kill them all. It’s funny because there is a large colony of Irish illegal immigrants living in Maspeth and Sunnyside, sections of Queens County in NY. If we just rounded them up and shot them down I suppose you would be fine with that?
However, you see for you and tootie that isn’t the problem. It’d those brown skinned, Spanish speaking ones that are the problem.
Just as you justify slavery in your Lincoln arguments, for that is in fact the bottom line of your position carried to its logical conclusion, your real position is the maintenance of white supremacy in the US. Now everyone has the right to their opinions, but it would be nice if you two had the courage of your convictions and honestly admitted your hatred for people of color.
Instead you hide behind arguments that consist of isolating issues contextually and obfuscating your true motives. It is typical of those on your side today and in truth you two are but lower levels in your movement, merely parroting the Goebbels like propaganda handed down to you by those you consider your betters. honestly though, is it really necessary for you to whine and become hysterical as if you were victims? That was rhetorical since the answer is it is necessary, simply because in order to keep your faith, when confronted with truth you defensively find ways to shut it out.
“My work here on history and law is done. I will spare the electrons and get out of this exchange now. Have the last word. I am back only to correct errors of fact and law.”
Vince,
Thank you for the yeoman effort and I must say I agree that your work here is over. You have made and won each case you dealt with and yet there are still a few who don’t engage you in debate, by refuting your arguments, but instead choose to reiterate that which you have already demolished. This reminds me of the Obama birth certificate debate we had sometime back. You supplied point after point demolishing the other side and they responded by simply ignoring what you’ve written, while continually resubmitting their debunked “evidence.” Once you prove your case where is it you can go, when those you are debating simply ignore, rather than refute your proofs?
Suffice it to say that again you’ve enlightened me and along the way provided me with knowledge that I surmised existed, but was edified by receiving. The role I’ve played on this thread is to get beyond the facts/arguments which you copiously provided and look at the underlying basis of the attackers. To me although this argument was ostensibly about Lincoln, its’ underlying theme
was to justify the Southern treasonous rebellion and absolve the
genocidal slave owners greediness and brutality.
The continuing thread of the right wing and its’ Christian Fundamentalist auxiliary is their self victimization. Even while all they do is attack mercilessly with propagandist lies, they pitiably whine that they are being picked on. Poor Larry, who has blithely ignored all you have written complains that you won’t address his points, which you already have addressed.
“As for my other question, you just pass it off on Vince as if he had the psychic ability to answer a question of mine BEFORE I asked it.”
No doubt we both notice here how Larry feels he has the right to post on a thread, ignoring all that has been written before he came aboard. In your case about 22 long posts chock with details that debunked his arguments before they were made. Same tactic as used by the birthers in that long thread.
Finally, as I am almost done here myself the bottom line is that if all the claims of the “Southernfiliacs” and States’ rights advocate were indeed valid, does that mean that slavery should have been allowed to continue and expand in the US, as under their constitutional theories. This is the question that they refuse to answer, which goes to the heart of this debate and given their silence I can only conclude that they would be fine with slavery, bigotry and xenophobia.
Turkey….Turley….spell chech is amazing….
Vince,
Go back to the contract argument…..that is my position…. All LAW are SOCIAL CONTRACT…..I have seen that DICTA before a word you should be familiar with…..
If it is a law it is a contract….therefore….think in those terms….Just like any other contract….
Vince, Your familiar with what a contact is correct? You can spot one when you see one correct…..able to comprehend ?
Hey Vince….Using the Turkey site do you have a Contract to use this site? or is it a License? Can you tell the difference?
Vince Treacy 1, February 15, 2011 at 4:38 pm
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
And I said exactly what….Now you are quoting me as an authority…..What were my words?
Vince,
It is a simple contractual law argument…. That is what you seem to have missed…Period…Nothing more….Nothing else….
Bdaman,
Thank you for your kind words…it great to lump you with Vince…
The rest of AY posts sink into profanity, insult, and bigoted ethnic slur (as he has done before) as his last refuge.
Just for you AY
I have rarely seen any argument lost so completely on every possible point as AY’s “defense” of the myth of Texas secession.
AY says “You agreed that it was a contract.” I never said that. AY has been told this but keeps repeating it.
AY is painfully unable to describe the terms of the supposed “contract” and still has not stated what so-called “covenant” or “condition” was breached, if there had been a contract, which there was not. One last time. Even if there were a contract, and there was not, it was not breached.
AY does not know the difference between a contract and law.
AY has not shown any knowledge about the United States Constitution and its laws, never quoting citing any provision of the Constitution or the laws.
AY never shows understanding of the admission of States to the Union or of “equal footing.”
AY says “Texas was not like any other state….” Wrong. Texas is like every other state. It was admitted to the Union just like all the others after the first thirteen. It was admitted on an equal footing in every respect whatsoever.
Texas was not annexed as a state, nor annexed by treaty as a territory. It was admitted. It never reserved a special right to secede. That is a myth.
AY talks history, but on Texas history, the Texas State Library says he is wrong.
The rest of AY posts sink into profanity, insult, and bigoted ethnic slur (as he has done before) as his last refuge. Who cares? Consider the source. It is a lot like being insulted by someone you have no respect for, like Coulter, Beck or O’Reilly.
My work here on history and law is done. I will spare the electrons and get out of this exchange now. Have the last word. I am back only to correct errors of fact and law.
Maybe Larry’s prayers go unanswered because no one thinks he will understand the answers.
He is so misinformed.
He got an element of the Compromise of 1850 completely backwards. He has shown he does not know what the Court in Dred Scott actually ruled. The legal basis for the Emancipation Proclamation has been explained repeatedly to him, to no avail.
The vast majority of historians now agree that the Civil War was about slavery. They agree that the aspect of slavery that sparked the war was not its continued existence in the slave states where it already existed.
The issue was the right of southern slaveowners to take their slaves into all federal territories, north and south.
The south favored this. Lincoln always opposed expansion, and was elected President on a platform promising to halt expansion. His lawful democratic election was the ONLY reason for southern secession.
Since he believed the Constitution did not allow Congress or the President to interfere with slavery where it existed, he said so. So the war was in fact about slavery — the expansion of slavery.
The military necessity for the Emancipation Proclamation gradually emerged as the south used more and more slave labor as an essential element of its war effort. Lincoln’s order denied this help to the south.
Historians like Eric Foner have pron that the Proclamation did in fact free some slaves on the day is was issued. It was read to African Americans in Union controlled areas of the Outer Banks of North Carolina.
So the statement that the Proclamation never freed a single slave is a lie. A barefaced lie. A 150-old Lost Cause lie. It freed some slaves immediately, and nearly two million before the end of the war. It let over 180,000 brave African Americans fight for every American’s freedom, against vicious opponent who refused to recognize them as soldiers and often shot them when they were captured.
What is so hard about this? Historians have known for 150 years that the Proclamation did not apply in the north because there was no military necessity for it in the north, since they were of no use to the southern war effort.
I don’t expect Larry to comprehend any of this, but hope it is useful to someone.
So I am ending this exchange, cheerfully predicting that Larry will not understand a word of it.
There are plenty of decaffeinated brands on the market that taste as good as the real thing.
“I’m sorry if I was being too subtle for you. Lest you don’t know Tootie and her pals are staunchly anti-immigrant. The link showed where her white supremacy pals and the rhetoric they spout is going to lead.”
I believe that story about Shawna Ford is about someone being “anti-ILLEGAL immigration”—-BIG difference. I suppose you are FOR illegal immigrants in the country?
Probably so. You already show your love for anti-American dictators like Lincoln!
“Funny.
Larry finally admits that he does not know the answer to his own question.
Sad.”
HUH? I’m asking YOU a DIRECT question. YOU said the war was about slavery and that Lincoln was anti-slavery, right??? SO, IF that is true [which it’s not] my questions stand:
“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]
THIS is hilarious: [from Mike]
“I’ve held back until now, but I must comment that your question is idiotic based on its’ illogical structure. War had broken out, so how would issuing the Emancipation “end slavery peacefully?” You think that this is a cogent question……Really?
“Why didnt Lincoln attempt to free ALL slaves? ONLY SOUTHERN states were mentioned in the EC. NORTHERN STATES got to keep their slaves—-why????”
Vince already answered your question, with citations. Lincoln could only Constitutionally do that since those Southern States were in rebellion and at war. That is why the constitution needed to be amended to finish the job.
There I’ve answered one of you questions and shown you why the other question is ridiculous.”
You’ve “held back”??? LOL—funny. War had ALREADY been “broken out” for almsot TWO YEARS when Lincoln finally DID issue the EC!!! So, your point about “war had broken out” is utterly irrelevant. The only difference between issuing the EC when Lincoln DID issue it in 1863 and when he SHOULD have in 1861 [if he hated slavery] is a couple hundred thousand deaths. My question couldnt be ANY MORE logical. If he HATED slavery, why didnt Lincoln issue the EC right away and prevent all the bloodshed and war????
Your BRILLIANT answer to my question? “War had broken out”—–LOL!!!!!! Mike, you’re a GENIUS! This is the intelligent answer I was waiting for? Because war had broken out??? If the issue was slavery, the war never had to break out IN THE FIRST PLACE, right??? But, you’re saying the reason why Lincoln COULDN’T issue the EC right away is because “war had broken out”? LOL. I’m pissing my pants!
Was the war NOT still going on when Lincoln DID issue the EC??? Yes, I believe it was! So, what is your response to the fact that the war was still in progress when Lincoln DID issue the EC? I mean, after all, according to YOU, “war breaking out” was the reason he didn’t issue the EC two years prior, but in 1863, the war was still going on……so, according to YOUR logic [I use that term loosely] Lincoln shouldn’t have issued the EC even in 1863 because, as YOU have stated, “war had broken out”.
So, why did he issue the EC in 1863 then? War was STILL in progress Mike—right?????
Are you saying that the real reason Lincoln WAITED two years to issue the EC is because he WANTED to murder a couple hundred thousand Southerners FIRST???? I DO believe that is what you’re saying Mike! The truth finally comes out! You LOVE the fact that Southerners DIED, don’t you???
To answer your question “How would issuing the EC in 1861 end slavery peacefully?”——-uhhhh, REAL easy Mike……..FIRST, Lincoln had OVER a month to issue the EC WITHOUT WAR. From March 4—April 12, there was peace. Lincoln had this time to issue the EC without a single death. SECOND—–even AFTER April 12, he could have issued the EC WITHOUT death, because it was LINCOLN who ordered the troops to invade the South. NO ONE DIED AT FORT SUMTER—-do you READ that part or do you just put your hands over your eyes whenever me and Tootie say that?
Now, I have ANSWERED your question. BUT, you have still FAILED to answer mine. Saying “war had broken out” is NOT an answer. You didn’t “show me why the question was ridiculous”. You didn’t say ANYTHING but “war had broken out”———I thoroughly debunked that EASILY.
As for my other question, you just pass it off on Vince as if he had the psychic ability to answer a question of mine BEFORE I asked it. LOL. Then you said “Lincoln could only Constitutionally do that since those Southern States were in rebellion and at war. That is why the constitution needed to be amended to finish the job.”
Lincoln COULD NOT constitutionally do that since the Supreme Court made slavery Constitutional in 1857. This is EXACTLY why he said during his first inaugual:
“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.”
In other words, the war was NOT ABOUT SLAVERY.
Lincoln was right…he had NO lawful right to do so. And NEVER once during his administration EVER say the war was about slavery.
Do you realize how bad you put your foot in your mouth Mike when you said:
“That is why the constitution needed to be amended to finish the job.”———-wait a minute….if the Constitution needed to be AMENDED as a result of slavery, then you just ADMITTED in that sentence that the South was NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG ABOUT SLAVERY! You’re saying the Constitution needed to be CHANGED is the EXACT same thing as saying “They were NOT violating it and did NOTHING wrong”. Lincoln even ADMITS they werent doing anything wrong—I just quoted him in his first inaugural saying he had NO LAWFUL RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH SOUTHERN SLAVERY.
That only has ONE meaning: The war was NOT about slavery!!
Vince,
You agreed that it was a contract…Now you are saying you don’t agree…damn…circular argument….
Vince,
I may have reading comprehension issues….but at least I know a contract….laws are in essence a contract…a social contract if you will…either allowing some or prohibiting others….they are either civil or criminal in nature….
If you can not comprehend that…then is it I who really has a comprehension issue…..
Texas was not like any other state….there was no other state in your words admitted into the Union…. they were either bought or stolen…. You fail to understand the difference…which is not my problem…..
I do not hold out today and say that they can get out of the union….. my thought process is when they were admitted back into the union they ratified the previous wrong (breach of contract)….which you fail to see and or understand…. However, prior to that I think that they had a good faith argument to rescind the admittance (Annexation) to the union… based upon a number of factors…
If you knew anything about Texas history you would understand that there was this tenuous relationship with Mexico….there was also the pissed off folks that objected to the use of union troops in Texas and that this caused the President of the US to not win the reelection……. maybe you cannot comprehend that one than one thing was going at the time….
Sometime juggling balls takes more than 1 hand…. But suffice it to say….You don’t know shit about Texas History and you have continually demonstrated your lack of education in this area…..Not that it matters….but the subject is closed as you have a think skull….maybe you are really Irish….You can always tell em…but you can’t tell em anything….
“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?”
Larry,
I’ve held back until now, but I must comment that your question is idiotic based on its’ illogical structure. War had broken out, so how would issuing the Emancipation “end slavery peacefully?” You think that this is a cogent question……Really?
“Why didnt Lincoln attempt to free ALL slaves? ONLY SOUTHERN states were mentioned in the EC. NORTHERN STATES got to keep their slaves—-why????”
Vince already answered your question, with citations. Lincoln could only Constitutionally do that since those Southern States were in rebellion and at war. That is why the constitution needed to be amended to finish the job.
There I’ve answered one of you questions and shown you why the other question is ridiculous. Seriously though, when did you stop beating your wife? As I’ve said before, but as you disingenuously ignore all of your points have been addressed. Now that being the case it is up to you to refute the answers already given, rather than repeatedly citing sources and facts that have already been addressed and answered. You like to play interlocutor but you lack the chops.
“Funny how Vince and Mike claimed earlier that I’m a “troll”
Get the facts straight Larry, I’ve never called you a troll. Frankly, you lack the skill. Tootie, on the other hand……
“You claim Tootie is a white supremacist??? For pointing out Lincoln was a racist, Tootie is a white supremacist???”
Tootie is a white supremacist because she has stated that people of color and/or other ethnicity are taking over the country from white people. That fits the description of white supremacy. I’m not sure where you stand on this because you haven’t bothered to answer. However, you seems to be a big believer in State’s Rights. given that I would extrapolate that you feel a given State could re-institute segregation if it chose and the Federal government would have no right to interfere. The difference is that whereas Tootie has been up front about her leaning on race/ethnicity/religion, you haven’t been and so I hesitate to assume about you, what I justifiably could suspect.
“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?”
No, I can debunk them, but as I keep telling you they already have been debunked by Vince whose research and intelligence I respect. I have explained to you over and over again that i refuse to play your game and continually go over the same ground.
The same games were played last year regarding President Obama’s citizenship and birth certificate. The clowns doing that used the same tactics you are using.
“Mike, what was that link supposed to show?”
I’m sorry if I was being too subtle for you. Lest you don’t know Tootie and her pals are staunchly anti-immigrant. The link showed where her white supremacy pals and the rhetoric they spout is going to lead.
Thanks, Mespo.
Lincoln’s eloquence resonates through the ages.
“Florida?! But that’s America’s Wang!”
Bob,
Bugs can’t be wrong! Great clip.