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
Yes! A real debate over an issue(s) worth the time it takes to read the different opinions. One of the reasons I love this blog.
AY has not spelled out an argument or defined terms, but I have looked at his sources.
First of all, I took a look at Britannica for the definition of Annexation: “annexation, a formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto outside its domain. Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition.”
Now it is clear from history that Texas was not annexed in this sense, because the admission of Texas as a State was not a unilateral act by the U.S. Both Texas and the U.S. gave their consent.
The operative language of the Joint Resolution itself said that Texas was “admitted” as one of the States of this Union: “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to, the republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government, adopted by the people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union.”
There is language in the Whereas clause talking about annexation, but the operative language expressly states that Texas is to be “admitted” as a State.
Then I looked at the Ordinance of the Convention of Texas, July 4, 1845, at this site:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/texan03.asp
The Texans consented to the first and second sections of the Joint Resolution: “Now, in order to manifest the assent of the people of this Republic as required in the above recited portions of the said Resolutions; We the Deputies of the people of Texas in Convention assembled, in their name and by their Authority, do ordain and declare’ that we assent to and accept the proposals, conditions and guarantees contained in the first and second Sections of the Resolution of the Congress of the United States aforesaid.”
So Texas consented to be admitted to the Union as a State, on the operative terms of the congressional resolution; they did not agree to be annexed.
Finally, the Constitution only provides for new states to be “admitted.” There is no provision for a separate status as an annexed State. There are only admitted States. (As a general rule, areas that were annexed to the United States without their consent are called territories, not states).
The Constitution provides: ‘Article IV, Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
The Ordinance did not reserve any right for Texas to secede from the Union, so Texas had no greater or lesser rights of secession than any other state.
Texas did reserve a right for new states to be created within its bounds with its consent, but every state has that right. Massachusetts consented to the admission of Maine in 1820 (present day Maine was part of Massachusetts when the Constitution was ratified).
So I conclude that Texas was “admitted” to the Union as a State, like all other states, and that it was not annexed in any way that gave it any more or fewer rights than any other state. That is my opinion, and I have supported it with the language of the Constitution and of Congress and the State of Texas.
The greatest Texan of them all, Sam Houston, opposed secession.
mespo said, “I’d take the man who saved the Union, freed the slaves, and had the magnanimity not to humiliate a vanquished foe over any President in my lifetime.That he did so in the midst of personal tragedy almost too hard to bear, places him at the top of the list of those who value duty over self-pity.
That he was not perfect tells me nothing; that he is reviled by neo-conservatives only adds to his lore; that his legacy might be tarnished by these allegations is a castle in the air.”
Got to agree with that even though Lincoln (as is well known) is far from my favorite President. His flaws? Oh yeah, he had some. But he was still head and shoulders above the corporatist rabble that call themselves politicians these days.
I’d take the man who saved the Union, freed the slaves, and had the magnanimity not to humiliate a vanquished foe over any President in my lifetime. That he did so in the midst of personal tragedy almost too hard to bear, places him at the top of the list of those who value duty over self-pity.
That he was not perfect tells me nothing; that he is reviled by neo-conservatives only adds to his lore; that his legacy might be tarnished by these allegations is a castle in the air.
They don’t carve your likeness into the side of a mountain because you enjoy only fugacious appeal.
Vince,
Suffice it to say….I have been a lot of places and have lived in NY and the Midwest and I will without a question say that those places are more racist than the south….Want to talk about racism….join the military……oh yeah….Blacks were not qualified to serve in the regular army…..now who was the C-I-C? That escapes me….
ek has some questions.
ekey: “Also please address the fact that every other country in history ended slavery peacefully.”
The difference in the United States was that the white slaveowners in the south began a shooting war by bombarding Fort Sumter. It was the white south that “decided to solve its social problems through violence and bloodshed.” They started the war, not Licoln. Lincoln finished it.
The white south swore to keep their slaves forever, and never, ever, entertained any measures for peaceful emancipation. To the contrary, Lee’s troops sought to round up free blacks during his invasion of Pennsylvania in 1863 and to return them to the south to be sold into slavery. Those are historical facts.
The white south did not approach slavery very peacefully.
ekey “if Lincoln made life so great for black people why were they still having to fight for their civil rights a century after the civil war ended?”
Black people were still fighting after 100 years because of the white racists in the south and elsewhere. The fact is that Lincoln died in 1865. It was the former white slaveowners in the southern states, not Lincoln, who imposed segregation and Jim Crow discrimination, allowed rampant lynchings and denial of voting rights, and enforced a system of coerced prison labor for over 100 years.
The draft and slavery? Sorry, they are completely different. The draft is a temporary imposition necessary as a matter of national defense for the survival of the nation. The Supreme Court has held that the 13th Amendment does not apply. That is the law.
I do know that without the draft, Germany and Japan would have won the Second World War. That is my opinion, but I think it is well grounded in history and supported by reason. ekey does not address that possibility.
Vince,
You say Texas was not Annexed….I supposed based upon your theory about one writer being dismissed because of what you call incorrect information, means that all of your writings are based upon Bunk and you don’t truly understand anything about Texas or the South…..Therefore I need not read as I am hoping to gain intelligent insight to truthful communication…….
Please on your spare time take the time to really read about Texas history….it is probably a struggle to have to acknowledge that Texas History is not your forte…..
Annexation of Texas
The Southern people were anxious to have the State of Texas annexed to the United States, and such a desire was a prevailing feeling in that sovereign State. The proposition, when formally made, was opposed by the people of the North, because the annexation would increase the area and political strength of the slave power, and lead to a war with Mexico. But the matter was persisted in by the South, and, with the approbation of President Tyler, a treaty to that effect was signed in Washington, D. C., April 12, 1844, by Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of State, and Messrs. Van Zandt and Henderson on the part of Texas. It was rejected by the Senate in June following. The project was presented at the next session of Congress in the form of a joint resolution. It had been made a leading political question at the Presidential election in the autumn of 1844.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/texas/annexation-texas.htm
Not all people who respond on here, willy nilly submit to Vince’s Goddance…..
Tom and others……
You all seem to have picked up on my sentiments… No all is as it appears….
I feel as I am living an Alice in Wonderland epic moment trying to communicate with Vince…..
As Alice was trying to explain…..the Queens Temper flared….
Mike S.,
I cannot disagree with this…It is true and thought provoking….I had to reread it two times before I think I fully understand what you were saying and I agree..
Therefor what I am trying to say….in life and with politician…one tends to double speak.. Take for instance the GOP initiative to lower taxes and to balance the Budget.. while expecting historical revenue shortfalls they promise not to balance it on the backs of the people that can least afford it….so what happens is they get people in Historically Democratic areas to support “Revenue Sharing Decreases” ie Taxes to support the nominal budget reductions affecting K-12….so that the ones that are Republicans living in marginal seats do not have to cast dispersion on voting for this reduction, so that they can use this as a campaign piece for reelection…..hence both are insulated…..
If it matters….how do you think this plays out in 50 years….some people will remember….some people will be filled in on the facts….and others will just have opinions of what happened….but alas….it is written so it must be true that the GOPer was a defender of education because he did not vote against cutting funding……
Vince, nice to see you denounce slavery and support the draft in the same breath. Not even a whiff of irony. I would expect nothing less. Also please address the fact that every other country in history ended slavery peacefully. Or is it that america must always solve its social problems through violence and bloodshed?
One more thing, if lincoln made life so great for black people why were they still having to fight for their civil rights a century after the civil war ended? Is it possible that government edicts do not erase or even address the philosophical and psychological conditions of people’s prejudice and intolerance and rely only on violence as a means of influencing behavior?
Let’s have some real history for a change.
The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress:
Congress, Joint Resolution1, February 1, 1865
A Resolution; Submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of both Houses concurring,) That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the said Constitution, namely;
ARTICLE XIII.
Section 1. Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime; whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2, Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Schuyler Colfax Speaker of the House of Representatives
H. Hamlin Vice President of the United States
and President of the Senate
Approved, February 1. 1865.
[ Signed by Lincoln:]
Abraham Lincoln
Attest: J. W. Forney
Secretary of the Senate
Edwd McPherson
Clerk of the House of Representatives
In the Senate, April 8, 1864.
[ Followed by 58 Signatures]
In the House of Representatives, January 31, 1865
[ Followed by 120 Signatures]
[Note 1 This is a copy of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery in the United States, signed by members of the House and Senate. The amendment had passed the Senate in April of 1864, and the House by the necessary two thirds vote, on January 31, 1865. Though he was not required to do so, Lincoln also signed the joint resolution. The amendment then required ratification by three fourths of the states, with Illinois, to Lincoln’s gratification, the first to do so.]
See the image of this ceremonial copy, with the signature of the Great Emancipator, at the Library site:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mal&fileName=mal3/436/4361100/malpage.db&recNum=0&tempFile=./temp/~ammem_Vcwy&filecode=mal&next_filecode=mal&prev_filecode=mal&itemnum=5&ndocs=100
Once again, that is the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, as signed by Abraham Lincoln.
While I am not nearly as well informed as Vince, I think I generally agree with him.
But I would like to raise one issue with the distinction between “forced” versus “voluntary” emigration. The way anti-black racism plays out in the US, many people end up making technically “voluntary” decisions that are clearly not in their best interest. When the South turned against Reconstruction (with the North’s acquiescence), many people “voluntarily” remained share-croppers for decades, despite it being obviously a bad deal for them. If the US had implemented a “voluntary” colonization program, I am confident that it would have ended up working for the benefit of “white” Americans and against the self-interests of the “voluntary” black-American participants. I have no idea whether or not we should judge that Lincoln understood the way that the system was (is) rigged, and if he was knowingly exploring what I think would have become simply a new way to exploit disadvantaged people.
Either way, another issue here is that even voluntary emigration of black-Americans out of the US was a cop-out versus the challenge of integrating them as full citizens (or even the challenge of what actually happened – integration as largely second class, semi-citizens.) It was an attempt at a dodge rather than addressing the problem directly.
The subtitle of this article repeats the lede from the Washington Times article, which claims that “President Lincoln laid the groundwork to ship freed slaves overseas to help prevent racial strife in the U.S.”
But all the article reveals is “an order authorizing a British colonial agent to begin recruiting freed slaves to be sent to the Caribbean in June 1863.”
The phrase “to ship” freed slaves overseas implies compulsion or coercion, but all the article supports is a plan to recruit volunteers for settlement outside the U.S.
Respected historians McPherson and Burlingame have confirmed that Lincoln never wanted to ship any people overseas against their wills.
Thanks, Nal. That NY Times review is by James McPherson, the outstanding Civil War historian of our time, and author of Battle Cry of Freedom, the best single volume history of the war.
McPherson concisely dismantles Bennett’s views on “colonization”:
“By then, Lincoln had long since abandoned his ”dream” of colonizing blacks abroad, or what Bennett insists on calling ”deportation” even though, as Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles noted in 1862, ”the President objected unequivocally to compulsion. Their emigration must be voluntary and without expense to themselves.” Nor were Lincoln’s motives as sinister as Bennett suggests. In 1862 the president told a black delegation, ”Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people.” The legacy of that wrong in the form of discrimination, Lincoln feared, would long prevent them ”from being placed on an equality with the white race.” If Lincoln still believed in 1865 that to get ahead, blacks would have to get out of the United States, he was no longer saying so. Bennett nevertheless insists that ”deportation” was ”the only racial solution he ever had. . . . Racial cleansing became, 72 years before the Third Reich, 133 years before Bosnia, the official policy of the United States.” Here we have Bennett’s conclusion: Abraham Lincoln was no better than Adolf Hitler.”
Ekey said: “Even though the emancipation proclamation only liberated slaves in confederate states and then only if they did not rejoin the union.”
Again, a poster totally ignores the facts that I have set out.
Once again, Lincoln freed the slave by laws freeing slaves in the territories, in D.C., and by the confiscation acts.
His efforts were indispensable for passing and ratifying the 13th Amendment.
But ekey still repeats the 150 year old canard about the Emancipation Proclamation, ignoring the fact of Lincoln’s indispensable support of the 13th Amendment.
Because the Proclamation was based on military necessity, it could ONLY apply in areas of rebel control, because only slaves in those area were of use to the military efforts of the slaveowners.
The fact is that Lincoln freed all the slaves by his combined acts of signing laws, by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, and by supporting passage the 13th Amendment.
But the modern day supporters of the slaveowner rebellion are entitle to their opinions.
Lincoln the Devil
But Bennett gets more wrong than he gets right. The book suffers from crucial flaws.
…
More significant are distortions in interpretation.
…
And because Lincoln’s proclamation exempted the border slave states, as well as portions of the Confederacy already controlled by Northern troops (Tennessee and parts of Virginia and Louisiana), Lincoln freed slaves where he had no power to do so and left in bondage all those in areas where he did have power, Bennett asserts. Moreover, Lincoln’s exemptions actually re-enslaved a half-million blacks freed by the Confiscation Act.
All parts of this interpretation are wrong, and the re-enslavement thesis is absurd.
…
The Emancipation Proclamation, moreover, was based on the president’s war powers as commander in chief to seize enemy property (i.e. slaves) being used to wage war against the United States. Since Union-controlled exempted areas were not at war with the United States, Lincoln had no constitutional power over slavery in those areas.
AYm, 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.
“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.
ekey, the fact is that the Constitution authorizes suspension in time of rebellion. That is the fact.
Congress enacted the draft and the income tax, and Lincoln signed. I lived through the 20 Century, during the years when we used the draft and the income tax in our efforts to win World War II and the Cold War, defeating the nazis, the Japanese, and the soviets, all evil empires. But you think there is something evil about the tax and the draft. So be it.
That is just an opinion.
I will take our victory over the totalitarian enemies over a pathetic objection to tax and draft. The confederates had a draft too. Journalist have always been limited in wartime. There was never a free press in the south. Anti-slavery literature was banned there.
Vince,
If you are addressing myself, please do note the same. I ask that only in common decency. One thing that I have learned in years of being a political operative is the silent bullets are the ones that stray not far….
Your vehemence is over powering. I think you are well educated and you have a lot to share, but you lose the target audience by the assails… When asked by people off line about what I think of you…I generally say that you are well educated and about the only one of a few with guts to put the real name on the blawg…Suffice it to say… that take courage.
I bet your clients are well represented with the disposition that is expressed here…..However, I had to learn that not every time I am right…nor is it necessary to win every conversant battle of words. Sometimes, knowing you are correct is the best revenge.
This will take us back to the previous thread mentioned by you. Texas did have the right to get out of the Union…NO other state had that right as they were not annexed hence the terms and conditions were spelled out….if you are too blind to read that into the contract/annexation….then I do feel pity for the clients that you cannot represent as you cannot see the other side of a coin…..there really are two sides Jimmy….
AY,
One of the greatest mistakes of even ostensibly smart people is to view a historical figure in today’s context. Lincoln should be viewed in the context of his time. Many of the most passionate abolitionists for instance felt that blacks were inferior to whites, but did recognize their humanity. The 19th century gave rise to the eugenics and phrenology movements, which were popular with intellectuals and yet had innate belief in the superiority of the “white race.” There are a respected anthropologists today who believe the pictures of Neanderthals were depicted as such, because of the belief in the superiority of the cro-magnons (whites). My belief is that a person should be judged more by what they do, than by what they supposedly profess or even believe.