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’s 2 more Lincoln quotes that the Lincoln faithful will find it difficult to spin [so they will most likely ignore them]:
“…in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you… I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that ‘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”.
“Resolved: that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”
From Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
So, a month later he interfered with Southern slavery [by invading them] and gave the middle finger to states rights????
My hero!!
He’s worse than George W Bush!
Vince Treacy-
I’m a bit late for the party, but I must respectfully disagree with you on one point. You laud Lincoln, as I do, for the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, but you gloss over the abolition of involuntary servitude. You say, “The Supreme Court has held that the 13th Amendment does not apply (to the draft). That is the law.” Can you give me the name and date of the case you are referring to? I’m not questioning your legal expertise- I would really like to see how the Supreme Court managed to prove that “involuntary servitude” doesn’t really mean “involuntary servitude”. Before I was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1964, I gave some thought to refusing induction on 13th Amendment grounds. The reasons I didn’t are several: 1.My Dad died two months before I was drafted, so I was occupied with other problems. 2.I didn’t have any money for a lawyer. 3. I didn’t know anything about the ACLU. 4. Even at the tender age of 22, I knew that when the government wants to do something, it does it- legal or illegal.
I can tell you from first hand knowledge that, if being forced to serve 2 years in the Army against your own will isn’t involuntary servitude, then there is no such thing as involuntary servitude. I think we all know the definition of “involuntary”. Merriam-Webster’s first definition of “servitude” is: “a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one’s course of action or way of life.”
This is a perfect definition of life in the Army.
Nor was I drafted “as punishment for a crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”. To the contrary, I was given Secret, Secret SRD(having to do with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954), and Crypto clearances for the purpose of assembling a classified nuclear artillery weapon.
Vince, I hope you will re-think whether the draft is in any way legal under the 13th Amendment if words mean what they mean- Supreme Court or no Supreme Court. I know the draft is involuntary servitude and I know it’s illegal.
Mespo—-why is everyone who disagrees with you a “troll”? Me and Tootie are actually the complete OPPOSITE of a troll. A troll is someone who comes on message boards and posts off topic comments so they can stir up people’s emotions on the blog when they have said nothing constructive and on-topic. Me and Tootie couldnt be more ON topic!! In fact, our posts are actually in line with the posted story! You’re closer to being a troll than me and Tootie is! LOL. But since you disagree we are “trolls”. It’s safe to say that your credibility is shot to hell about Lincoln when you have no clue what the meaning to the word “troll” is.
As for Lincoln’s “so-called” “anti-slavery” “anti-mandatory deportation” comments. Are you all saying that Lincoln NEVER EVER EVER once contradicted himself? His idol, Henry Clay, “supposedly” was a champion for freedom too. He “supposedly” was against slavery, yet he owned slaves!!
I’m going to post a quote now, and you tell me who said this:
“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements.”
Unbelievably, the above quote was said by Abe Lincoln himself on January 12, 1848. My oh my did his views change drastically 13 years later!!! I will wait in anticipation how the dumbed-down Lincoln cultists try to squirm out of THIS Lincoln quote! Ignore it flat out maybe?
i didnt mean to write “she” and then “he” about Tootie—I have no clue what sex Tootie is. I dont care.
Mespo you ass, I meant Tootie is right about everything she says about Lincoln HIMSELF, not about his personal OPINIONS like saying he was right to suspend HC. That was his personal OPINION, not a statement about a FACT about Lincoln the man and his actions.
“Larry, one more time, Lincoln offered compensated emancipation to the border states during the war and they rejected it. There is no reason to believe the seceding states would have accepted it. This has been explained to you over and over. He offered and it was rejected. What is the problem with that concept?”
They rejected it huh? So, Lincoln left them off the hook by rejecting his offer huh? Why didnt he leave the South off the hook when they seceded? Secession is constitutional—so why weren’t thy left off the hook? Rather, they were invaded. Why didnt Lincoln invade the states that rejected his offer of compensated emancipation? Know why??? Because he HAD NO PROBLEM with slavery. Why do you IGNORE all the direct QUOTES I post?
what a depressing thought.
“what” got dropped
The reason phd’s in econ make such good part-time philosophers and historians is because they track human behavior statistically, by the numbers–Counting pennies, pounds, rubles, or yuans–and often have more to offer about what drives mankind than any other group of thinkers
=================================================================what a depressing thought
where was it written that the love of money is the root of all evil?
raff,
I’d have loved to been a fly on the wall when that realization broke for McNamara.
Buddha,
I was surprised to see he had a conscience as well. I think the enormity of the losses just finally got through his thick D.C. skin.
raff,
It struck me as penance and “too little, too late” as well, however, one must have a conscience to feel guilt.
I was frankly surprised to see he had even a bit of one.
Tootles,
Some economists make good economists. Most don’t make it that far even. And markets and the study of markets is not the study of the entirety of human behavior. They are constructs that reflect very narrow spectra of human behavior. Therefor, any psychological and philosophical insight economists my provide is limited too. And often wrong.
mespo,
It is good sport, I cannot deny.
Buddha,
I am sorry to take so long to respond. I have seen Fog of War and it was excellent, but it made me sick. I think McNamara was trying to do his penance for his shameful actions to kill over 50,000 americans and an untold number of Vietnamese. I woiuld have been more impressed with McNamara if he brought this out during the Vietnam War.
Amen to your thoughts of Mcnamara Mike S.!
Mespo,
For a so-called racist war mongerer, Mr. Lincoln could sure put some nice words together! Good stuff in that inaugural address.
mespo:
I had in mind that William’s great-grandparents were slaves.
And economics and the role it plays in history is generally always the purview of a phds in economics.
The reason phd’s in econ make such good part-time philosophers and historians is because they track human behavior statistically, by the numbers–Counting pennies, pounds, rubles, or yuans–and often have more to offer about what drives mankind than any other group of thinkers.
BIL/Buckeye:
I am finding this troll baiting excellent sport. I was going to point out to Tootie that her expert, “Dr.” Walter Williams, has a doctorate in economics not history so any statement he makes in that field has no more credibility that one by Tootie’s hairdresser, but why spoil her fun. I like a person who respects her betters no matter how immense that pool of persons may be.
Gyges,
Apparently so.
But you know what they say . . . spare the rod, spoil the troll.
You’d think I’d quit being surprised when they volunteer for the beating though.
And when I say surprised, I might mean amused.
Vince: YOU were the one who presented the mobs as holding back congress from voting. Now you get around to admitting they were in recess?
LOL
Like I said, the courts were open. If the mob committed illegal acts they could still be arrested. The government was not collapsing. The South did nothing less than the founders themselves did.
Look. I don’t support what the South did. I’m a Yankee by birth and I learned the story it YOUR way. But I do not, in any way support the blood-thirsty thug: Abraham Lincoln. I’m trying to be fair. I want the whole truth, but only got only half of it from government schools.
And as far as I am concerned there is a reason the government schools hid the other half of history (or slanted it) and made a saint out of Lincoln. That reason is government wants the power to mass murder American citizens if it so chooses and it wanted cover up Lincoln’s evil deeds.
From Dr. Walter Williams (a black man)
“As DiLorenzo documents – contrary to conventional wisdom, books about Lincoln, and the lessons taught in schools and colleges – the War between the States was not fought to end slavery; Even if it were, a natural question arises: Why was a costly war fought to end it? African slavery existed in many parts of the Western world, but it did not take warfare to end it. Dozens of countries, including the territorial possessions of the British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, ended slavery peacefully during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Countries such as Venezuela and Colombia experienced conflict because slave emancipation was simply a ruse for revolutionaries who were seeking state power and were not motivated by emancipation per se.
Abraham Lincoln’s direct statements indicated his support for slavery; He defended slave owners’ right to own their property, saying that “when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives” (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).
Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a political gimmick, and he admitted so in a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase: “The original proclamation has no…legal justification, except as a military measure.” Secretary of State William Seward said, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free. ” Seward was acknowledging the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in states in rebellion against the United States and not to slaves in states not in rebellion.
The true costs of the War between the States were not the 620,000 battlefield-related deaths, out of a national population of 30 million (were we to control for population growth, that would be equivalent to roughly 5 million battlefield deaths today). The true costs were a change in the character of our government into one feared by the likes of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Calhoun …”
Tootie and Larry lecturing Vince, Mespo and just about everyone else.
Is this the synopsis of a new movie “Lilliputians Do Wonderland”?
Dilorenzo:
In my book I note how Lincoln made many statements about deportation throughout his career, not just the one Masugi prefers to quote. In his 1852 eulogy to Henry Clay he said “there is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children” and that deportation would mean “the ultimate redemption of the African race.” In his December 1, 1862, message to Congress he said, “I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization.” In his February 27, 1860 Cooper Union speech he advocated “deportation” so that the jobs of black laborers could be “filled up by free white laborers.”
Lincoln was in fact obsessed with “colonization,” which caused abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison to denounce him as the “slave hound from Illinois” who had “not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins.”