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
Mike S.,
I will admit that I am reading W’s book….and it angers me so….the things that were known to the government that could have been prevented….I had a client get extra special attention for blowing up a vehicle on August 28, 2001….it was known then and it is known now….History is written based upon the person writing such….
I will say this but is like I still feel that the Germans were allowed to experiment on live humans until the world cried out in outrage….It would be interesting to see what Mengele had to say about the work that he took so many meticulous notes about….I wonder if from his perspective if he saw any atrocities in Germany…..
Why was he allowed to escape detection and relocation to South America….with the assistance and direction of the Vatican…. and I presume with full knowledge of our super clever government…..
Mike we only know smidgens of History…..
Mespo,
Per Mt. Rushmore…
I’ll take FDR over Teddy.
“If it matters….how do you think this plays out in 50 years.”
AY,
One of the advantages, or disadvantages of being 66 is that I have lived through the past 50 years and more. To be honest I never could have imagined what that time would be like, or given the “Cold War and Nukes,” whether humanity would survive.
My guess though on what you specifically mention is that it won’t matter either way in 50 years. This is not because it is unimportant, but because people of that ilk never let facts get in the way of a good story. Don’t we have people blaming the deficit on Obama, when in fact it was caused by lowering the tax rates on the super-rich and fighting two unneeded wars.
that’s very recent history.
Texans usually do know their Texas history. As for me, I have my rural Illinois republican grandmother’s original Lincoln plate, and I was born in a city that held a Lincoln Douglas debate. Always been a big fan of Lincoln.
Mike S.,
I will not argue that McNamara was not a hubristic schmuck.
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?
Buddha,
“The fog of War” was quite sobering, yet though I felt some sympathy for him, I watched it thinking what a hubristic schmuck he was.
Blouise,
Thanks for the Harper’s article, which I’m sure is true. My point was more aimed at how most people are affected by the times they live in and make pre-judgments based on their intrepretation of those times. If we put it into today’s terms I think a majority of the people and certainly the presumed pundits view what is happening to this country in terms of the left/right dichotomy. I personally don’t believe that to be the case, preferring to view our problems as being caused by a corporate oligarchy, but even feeling that I’m often drawn into that left/right meme.
If you grow up in a time, or environment of prejudice, then even the fairest minded people are tarnished by it, perhaps unknowingly. When it comes to black people I was very lucky to have parents who abhored prejudice, yet my own father when talking to a black person would lapse into an accent mimicking what he perceived as a “black accent.” Lincoln grew up in a time when slavery was accepted by many, but more importantly even those with abolitionist tendencies, thought the white race superior. We can’t take the person, any person including myself, out of the context of the time in which they live, nor the environment that surrounds them.
By the way I make no argument that Lincoln was a “perfect” person, none of us are, but I think he was more advanced than most of the citizenry he governed intellectually. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t wrong a lot, just that I think he was right about a lot more.
Tom Wood,
I submit that unconstitutional and a mistake reflected in precedent are two distinct things. Had not Lincoln suspended habeas corpus – Constitutional though his actions may have been – it would have been much harder for the Bush Administration to ramrod suspending habeas corpus through Congress when there was neither a rebellion nor an invasion in progress. That evil can spring from good or right is the root of the saying “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
And right now, aside from our corrupt and compromised SCOTUS, there is little more evil in the legal and political arena than the abominations done to the Constitution under the Patriot Act.
An act that would have faced sterner challenge had not Lincoln set the precedent – again, rightful legally though he may have been – of suspending habeas corpus.
The real question is why did Lincoln suspend habeas corpus?
Necessity or expediency?
The situation suggests necessity, but much of his application (to jail political opponents and harass newspapers critical of him) suggests expediency.
It bugs me that people talk about Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus as though it were an unconstitutional act. The constitution says “Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” If the civil war was not a rebellion, then I don’t know what is. Now you might argue that public safety didn’t require it, but that’s a view open to interpretation & debate; so it is not an unreasonable statement to claim that Lincoln acted reasonably.
raff,
Sadly, most of them probably aren’t. Have you seen the documentary by Errol Morris, “The Fog of War”? About McNamara? I’ll have to say I was shocked at how human (and conflicted) he seemed over some of his actions vis a vis Vietnam, but it only confirmed that many in the administrations he had to deal with were simply evil men. Love McNamara or hate him, it’s an interesting film (like all of Morris’ documentaries).
“This is an inflammatory posting about Lincoln that gives a false and incomplete impression of his record on slavery.” (Vince Treacy)
I am going to disagree with you for this is exactly the kind of post that gets a real conversation going … the Prof seems to like stirring the pot every once in awhile.
If I am to take Mike Spindell’s suggestion and view Lincoln from the standpoint of his times (“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.” Mike Spindell) then I am going to have to consider the fact that ‘for much of his administration, Lincoln was an unpopular president. His political strength rested greatly on how the Union military was faring at any given time. On July 4, 1863, the Union victories at Gettysburg (Pennsylvania) and Vicksburg bolstered his stature, but failure to bring the war to a speedier closure weakened the president again. After securing renomination by the Republicans in 1864, Lincoln’s reelection was due in large part to Union military victories, particularly the fall of Atlanta on September 1, 1864.’
True or false?
(http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/0131.html)
Buddha,
You are right. I meant to say “since” WWII. Vietnam still haunts me, so I hope it haunts the Braniacs who pushed men and women to die are haunted as well.
It’s a topic that doesn’t lend itself to trollery.
The political irons in the fire are either cold from time or moved to a new part of the fire.
raff,
As far as I can tell, there were only three wars of necessity during the course of American history: the War for Independence, the Civil War and WWII. I’ll give our involvement in WWI a pass as we were aiding allies defending unprovoked aggression. All others were, as you say, just an excuse for desk jockeys to play chess with people’s lives, wars by proxy or scams to make money. Sometimes, like Vietnam, they were all three of those “optional reasons” for warfare.
I would also like to agree with Blouise and Nal that the discussion here has been educational and provactive. What more could you ask for?
Wow! Honest Abe, say it aint so! I have to agree with Mike S. that we have to review historical figures in the context of their time. As Buddha mentioned, Lincoln led a tragic life and he still found a way to do the right thing.
I also agree with Vince that the draft was a necessary program in order to defeat the Japanese and the Nazi’s in WWII. I don’t agree with the draft,but I understand why it was needed at that time. It wasn’t needed during Vietnam, except to allow politicians to play their games with other people’s lives. I don’t think we have had a war or a military action that compares to the necessity of WWII.
Finally,
I am not sure that I care how Texas became a State or why, but I do wish they would leave.
I agree with Blouise. The comments really enhance my understanding of the topic.
There was a proposed treaty of annexation between Texas and the U.S. in 1844. It was “The Treaty of Annexation – Texas; April 12, 1844, A Treaty of Annexation, concluded between the United States of America and the Republic of Texas.”
The operative language read:
“The Republic of Texas, acting in conformity with the wishes of the people and every department of its government, cedes to the United States all its territories, to be held by them in full property and sovereignty, and to be annexed to the said United States as one of their Territories, subject to the same constitutional provisions with their other Territories.”
Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/texan05.asp
That treaty was submitted to the Senate on April 22, 1844, with the presidential message, but was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 35 No to 16 Yes on June 8. 1844.
So they tried to annex Texas as a territory and failed.
Then they did admit Texas as a State.
Texas was admitted, not annexed.
I have found this history very interesting.