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
“Some artists should never go solo.
He was much better when Curly and Moe were in the band.”
As can be said for our ongoing amusement, you just can’t make this stuff up.
“The word “troll” is so old fashioned. It’s like, what, 10 years ago? These old fuddy-duddies wouldn’t have much excitement around here if it weren’t for the “trolls’.”
Tootie,
What you see as excitement, I see as amusement, at the never ending human ability to spout and believe nonsense irrespective of contrary evidence.
“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.”
Larry,
Are you that much of an egotist that you don’t read what’s already been written? Scroll up the thread a bit and you’ll find the same quote posted and referred to. I suspect though that you’d rather listen to your own hubristic inner voice.
“You laud Lincoln, as I do, for the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, but you gloss over the abolition of involuntary servitude.”
HenMan,
I agree with you about the Draft. It is often forgotten that during the Civil War, those drafted could buy their way out of service. This was true in Viet Nam too, except it was called joining the National Guard and I know at least one friend who bought his way out, besides what we know of G.W. Bush.
“that since you had moved South, you had seen the light ”
Wow, Tootie, if you wrote this…that’s ANOTHER thing we have in common! I moved to the south and saw the light too…..
I can not wait to leave……..
“I will wait in anticipation how the dumbed-down Lincoln cultists try to squirm out of THIS Lincoln quote! Ignore it flat out maybe?”
Larry,
i’m not squirming. The CSA were traitors, living in a society that prospered of the backs of the human misery they created. They aggressively pushed slavery for years pre-bellum and they precipitated the war by their actions. Beyond that they have been into the oligarchic model for almost the entire history of our nation and got the suport of their white working men by assuring them that no matter how bad their lot may be, they were of a higher status than the Blacks. I think Lincoln was a great man and one of our greatest Presidents. However, even if he were the pig that you and Tootie proclaim him to be, someone needed to end slavery and he did.
Now in truth slavery was then turned into Jim Crow institutionalized racism, but then Lincoln’s assasination and his successors giving into the Southern traitors, helped make this possible. To really be blunt about it the South may have temporarilly lost the war, but in truth they retained great power and developed an excellent propaganda machine of which “Birth of a Nation” and “Gone With the Wind” are examples.
AY,
Thanks. I didn’t realize my phone was dead.
“My faith in the public’s basic intelligence is restored.”
roflol
“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”
So this is the writing of some minimum wage, uneducated, now Southern, white woman? My faith in the public’s basic intelligence is restored.
Buddha,
You need to get a longer extension cord……..Also, the Three Stooges are having a marathon on I think the Sleuth Channel…
Vince,
Quit being a theocrat…..The way I take your posting which turns into assaults is that it is your way of thinking or the highway….You have a lot of knowledge…I will give you that….But when you start denouncing something in which I believe you only have peripheral knowledge but yet hold yourself out as the self appointed expert tends to rub this grain (goy) the wrong way….
This link came out of the Texas State Library…I am sure because you disagree with it it is therefore wrong or greatly misinterpreted or distorted…..
Lets just say this….I consider you ill-informed on this topic therefore I am dismissing what else you have had to proffer…oh yes…you as much stated that in your previous posting…..
Q: Was Texas annexed to the United States by one vote?
A number of votes were needed before Texas could be annexed to the United States. The “one vote” admission story is based on the February 27, 1845 vote in the United States Senate on the Joint Resolution to admit Texas. The original vote in the Senate was a tie at 26-26. Senator Henry Johnson of Louisiana changed his vote, allowing the measure to pass 27-25. Thus, it can be said with some justification that Texas annexation was the result of a single vote.
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/annexation/part5/question12.html
Texans voted in favor of annexation to the United States in the first election following independence in 1836. However, throughout the Republic period (1836-1845) no treaty of annexation negotiated between the Republic and the United States was ratified by both nations.
When all attempts to arrive at a formal annexation treaty failed, the United States Congress passed–after much debate and only a simple majority–a Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States. Under these terms, Texas would keep both its public lands and its public debt, it would have the power to divide into four additional states “of convenient size” in the future if it so desired, and it would deliver all military, postal, and customs facilities and authority to the United States government. (Neither this joint resolution or the ordinance passed by the Republic of Texas’ Annexation Convention gave Texas the right to secede.)
In July 1845, a popularly-elected Constitutional Convention met in Austin to consider both this annexation proposal as well as a proposed peace treaty with Mexico which would end the state of war between the two nations, but only if Texas remained an independent country….
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/index.html
If you will note….I also include the following: “(Neither this joint resolution or the ordinance passed by the Republic of Texas’ Annexation Convention gave Texas the right to secede.)”
While I agree with it is principal…..I disagree with it in application for the following….The Ratification in essence was sealing the contract…..go back to basic contract law…a meeting of the minds….Offer, Acceptance and Consideration….The other states did not have the ability to consent or not….Texas was an Independent REPUBLIC…..Not gain by war or purchased….This makes this Contract different than the others….as this Contract was BI-Lateral…..each offering to do certain things based upon certain conditions….Once the ability to own slaves which was bargained for consideration was taken away…..NOT ILLEGAL until the 13th Amendment was passed and ratified by the necessary number of states did it became ILLEGAL… once this was taken away there is an argument that the contract failed….
Now I will agree with you that once the south did not do as good as it should have during the conflict between the states based upon Northern aggression and it was READMITTED to the Union….then this Contractual provision was waived as in any contract….Failure to timely object…Useage of Trade etc…. it was waived…
See the following which caused aggression by Mexico against the US and The Republic of Texas:
The Republic of Texas was an independent nation in North America, bordering the United States and Mexico, that existed from 1836 to 1846.
Formed as a break-away republic from Mexico by the Texas Revolution, the state claimed borders that encompassed an area that included all of the present U.S. state of Texas, as well as parts of present-day New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming based upon the Treaties of Velasco between the newly created Texas Republic and Mexico. The eastern boundary with the United States was defined by the Adams-Onís Treaty between the United States and Spain, in 1819. Its southern and western-most boundary with Mexico was under dispute throughout the existence of the Republic, with Texas claiming that the boundary was the Rio Grande, and Mexico claiming the Nueces River as the boundary. This dispute would later become a trigger for the Mexican–American War, after the annexation of Texas by the United States.
In reality if Texas had not agreed to be annexed to the US…..they would not have gotten the necessary support from Taylor to defend the outright thievery from Mexico….but then again Mexico stole it from Spain…..That is how that chain worked….
I end this with saying there are and were a lot more competing interests going on than one could imagine….not did you learn….
I know very little about Louisiana…Oh I can tell you a few things but not much…..
Now kindly not tell me I do not know Texas history or I will assail your miserable ass again…..Do we understand?
“Look. I don’t support what the South did.”
Tootie,
Really? In your earlier writings, which frankly I don’t need back the bother of referring to because my memory is clear and you are frankly not worth the effort, you stated (paraphrase) that since you had moved South, you had seen the light and then of course there were your rants about the whites losing their place in the country. I’m still suspicious too of your evolution in writing style, which bespeaks someone who was really not who they purported to be.
Mike S.,
Some artists should never go solo.
He was much better when Curly and Moe were in the band.
“Larry wrote: “If Lincoln wanted to free slaves, he would have by compensated emancipation.”
Larry,
It would be helpful to real all the comments on a thread you are posting to. In that way you wouldn’t keep us rehashing previous presentations. Now had your read the thread in its entirety, then you might have moved the discussion along by disagreeing with VT’s refutation of your statement above. I get it that you want people to read your blog, but frankly your tactics and lack of preparation provide little incentive to do so.
“Here’s my story”
Larry,
The truth is, judging by what you’ve written and the constant mention of your blog, that you’re here, just trying to promote yourself. Nothing wrong with that except it iws probably an indication of your own inflated self importance.
Larry asked “Why didnt Lincoln invade the states that rejected his offer of compensated emancipation?”
Well, Larry, I think it may be because those states remained in the Union and did not engage in an armed and treasonous insurrection.
The white slaveowners in the southern states did, after all, attack the United States. They fired first. Lincoln defended the United States of America against an armed attack by insurrectionists.
At 10:23 AM, Tootie quoted the following sentence from DiLorenzo:
[quote] 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.” [unquote]
This is truly amazing, because, at 10:07 PM, I had posted the exact words of Lincoln at Cooper Union:
[quote] In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.”
Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution – the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery. [unquote]
I added the observation that Lincoln did not favor deportation. Jefferson did, in the language that Lincoln quoted.
This brings a good focus onto DiLorenzo’s so-called “scholarship.”
The person who advocated deportation and jobs to be filled up with free white laborers was Jefferson, not Lincoln.
Lincoln never said that. Jefferson did.
This guy DiLorenzo is so blinded by his single minded desire to destroy Lincoln that he cannot even see quotation marks. As a so-called scholar, he cannot even attribute a quotation correctly. He attributed the words of Jefferson to Lincoln. Pathetic.
One more time, DiLorenzo and Tootie: it was Jefferson’s words, not Lincoln’s, that supported deportation at Cooper Union.
Here is the link to the text of the speech:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm
The historical fact is that Lincoln did support plans for voluntary emigration, but dropped them in favor of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment.
At 1:09 AM, HenMan“asked: “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?”
That is a good question. Here are the two cases, with links.
Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=245&invol=366
In Arver, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the draft in World War I.
United States v. Holmes, 387 F.2d 781 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 936 (1968)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=391&invol=936
In Holmes, the lower court rejected a challenge to the Vietnam and Cold War era draft. The Supreme Court denied cert, but Justice Douglas filed an opinion .
So under current law, a military draft is constitutional, and the issue is not likely to arise again in the courts because the draft ended in 1973.
An interesting question involves these persistent proposals for years mandatory community service for all 18 year olds, including both military and civilian duties. I personally think it would be unconstitutional, since the draft is based on military needs and national defense.
My hero!!
He’s worse than George W Bush
=============================
hyperbole much?
Larry
The word “troll” is so old fashioned. It’s like, what, 10 years ago? These old fuddy-duddies wouldn’t have much excitement around here if it weren’t for the “trolls’.
🙂