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
Once recognized by Congress, their Senators and Representatives were seated.
Leaving Texas history to AY, I will just talk about the U.S. Constitution, because I know a little bit about it.
Under the Constitution, Texas was admitted under Article IV just like every other state admitted after the original thirteen, and on the same footing as all the states.
Here is the Joint Resolution that admitted Texas as a State after it had approved its Ordinance:
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of Texas shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.”
Approved, December 29, 1845; Source, Texas State Library:
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/dec1845.html
Admitted. As a State. Of the Union. On an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.
That is what the law said.
There was no annexation.
Texas was not annexed as a territory, as the rejected treaty proposed. The only difference between Texas any many other states was that Texas, unlike the others, was not a territory at the time of its admission, but then neither was Maine.
There seems to be a lot of confusion here. The U.S. did in fact try in 1844 to annex Texas, but the treaty of annexation failed in the Senate. Then, a year later in 1845, Texas was “admitted as one of the States of this Union.”
Texas was not “readmitted” to the Union after the Civil War. Like the other states of the so-called confederacy, it never left the Union, and its star stayed on the flag. Those states became areas of the United States in a condition of insurrection, without republican forms of government.
After the war, new lawful state governments were established in the states that had rebelled. Once recognized by Congress, their Senators and Representatives. This was all spelled out at the thread on Uncivil Action, and will not be repeated here.
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/09/24/uncivil-action-was-lincoln-wrong-on-secession/
At that thread, AY said “FYI. Texas did have the right to withdraw from the Union…why? Because they were the only State not stolen or purchased….We were annexed….”
I disagreed there,and I disagree now, since I agree with the Texas State Library that “(Neither this joint resolution or the ordinance passed by the Republic of Texas’ Annexation Convention gave Texas the right to secede.)”
Once again, I agree with the Texans at the Texas State Library, who I think know a little about Texas history.
AY also said “Texas does in deed have the right independent to withdraw from the Union based upon a breach of contract or a failure of consideration…
There was an offer by the US, and acceptance by Texas, and a meeting of the minds that Texas was to be a State of the Union. The Texas Ordinance agreed to the language of the Joint Resolution, which expressly admitted Texas as a State, and did not annex it.
If Texas had wanted to reserve the right to secede, then they should have put it in writing, but they did not, so they did not have the right.
“A verbal contract ain’t worth the paper it’s written on.”
There could have been no contractual agreement allowing secession, in any event, since the Supremacy Clause made the Constitution the supreme law of the land in Texas as in the rest of the nation. The Constitution, according to the Supreme Court in Texas v. White, does not permit secession.
Chan,
You are assuming I’m exploiting people.
You know what they say about assumptions.
As to “I am not going to get into it with you but only to say that if the exchange is a free exchange and no one is coerced to engage then what they make or what I make is irrelevant.”
That’s simply another rationalization of greed.
If you don’t like that I buried you in your own words?
Too bad. It’s not just my vocation, but my avocation. $250 an hour? You mistake a preference for socialized civil support systems for a desire to completely do away with free markets in favor of a general command economy. This is largely because of your indoctrination into the cult of “greed is good” that you perpetually fail to realize socialism is a spectrum of behaviors, some of which rely upon free market segments in addition to socialized systems (namely democratic socialism). I have no problem with fair market values for goods and services as long as the emphasis is on the word “fair”, unlike your manifestly inequitable and unjust “company store” model which is historically abusive and exploitative. At $250/hour, I’d be a bargain.
Get a better education, skills set and modus operandi.
“So, Vince, if you enter MY house [invade my home] and I fire first, that means [because I fired first] that I started the conflict????”
Larry,
you’re going from the ridiculous to the sublime. Are you really likening the firing on Fort Sumpter to a home invasion? Really?
There were forts all over what was then the US and its’ territories. That’s what a government does in uncertain times. The US in those days was in uncertain times with much of it being frontier. Also Fort Sumpter, particularly overlooked an important harbor. Remember the War of 1812 and the sacking of D.C.?
Why is it that Southern congressman fight so hard to keep military encampments operative in their States? They want the money. Your argument is ridiculous on so many levels that I can only conclude your blog is filled with the same drivel. The concept of States’ rights was and always will be bogus. Why? The States are arbitrary lines drawn by the exigencies of the 18th and 19th Centuries where there was much change an remapping. Their citizenry was never homogeneous and frankly their utility has outlived itself.
Larry,
I’m having a party. My wife is in the living room when an unruly guest declares that it’s his living room, and shoots my wife for trespassing, and then I and a few other guest subdue him.
Who’s the aggressor?
“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.”
So, Vince, if you enter MY house [invade my home] and I fire first, that means [because I fired first] that I started the conflict???? Are you saying the home invader can sue YOU for firing first because in firing first the homewowner STARTED the conflict?
Wow!!!
Buddha:
I am not going to get into it with you but only to say that if the exchange is a free exchange and no one is coerced to engage then what they make or what I make is irrelevant.
And as I have said before if someone is making say $15/hour in salary another $1.13/hour Social Taxes and another $300-600/month in medical benefits doesn’t that entitle me to make a few bucks per hour off of their labor?
How do you think they would remain employed if the employer makes nothing on their labor?
You are a lawyer, why should you make $250/hour and a plumber only make $60/hour? If a plumber can live on $60/hour surely a lawyer can as well. You are exploiting people.
Vince said:
“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.”
LOL. Yeah, the South fired first but WHERE did the firing happen? In SOUTH CAROLINA, after the NORTH had already invaded their state. I guess it matters not to you that NO ONE DIED in that assault, huh? Tootie already mentioned that, but like all other facts, you IGNORE it. If the South had fired first in a NORTHERN state, you’d have a point, but they didn’t.
It was because those states “remained in the Union”? Oh really? My prediction came true that you [and others] would IGNORE the 1848 quote by Lincoln when he said:
“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.”
It appears that in 1848 Lincoln had NO PROBLEM with secession because he said “any people ANYWHERE have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a NEW one”, but you’re telling us all now Vince that he didn’t invade the states that offered compensated emancipation because they remained “in the Union”? What does remaining in the Union matter to Lincoln? He admitted [CORRECTLY] in 1848 that people have the right to form new governments. I guess he changed his mind the day he was elected President. Like George W Bush, the Constitution sounded good until the day they gain the highest office, then the rules change huh?
As for Mike Spindell, your posts are just one big ad hominem attack. You IGNORE the actual Lincoln quotes I post. It’s not me and Tootie that are enemies of Lincoln….it’s Lincoln himself. Lincoln’s OWN quotes incriminate him, but me and Tootie just REPEATING his quotes makes us his enemy? Quite funny.
Mike, you conveniently IGNORED the quote by Lincoln in his first inaugural where he said “…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”. Instead, you only refer to the OTHER one that begins with “Resolved:…” just to mention that it was previously mentioned. Care to address Lincoln’s quote that he promised in his first inaugural that he wouldn’t interfere with Southern slavery? Im waiting.
You said:
“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 debunked his “refutation”. He keeps ignoring my refutation of his “refutation”. He keeps repeating the LIE that Lincoln wanted to save the Union. How do you “save” a Union by continually ignoring the Constitution? So, let me get this straight…..you have to destroy the Union [by ignoring the constitution] in order to save it?? LOL.
What you guys fail to comprehend is that the United States is not some consolidated entity, it is a Confederation of states, each state being free, independent and sovereign. I actually have the facts to back up this claim, it’s in the Constitution. When King George signed the peace treaty with our newly formed government, he didn’t sign it with “The United States” as a joined together entity, he signed it mentioning EACH INDIVIDUAL state.
Bob,
I think it was a stake through the heart of his version of unrestrained capitalism.
What happened? Was it a troll or a stake through the heart of capitalism?
Tootie:
Didnt William Wilberforce almost singlehandedly help end slavery? And didnt Britian shut down the slave trade? So esentially it was generally peaceful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce
What I want to know is whatever happened to anon nurse and Empire Cookie?
Bob,
Byron stormed off in a huff. It may have even been a snit. I didn’t get a good look at the vehicle.
Buddha
You are still loved, adorned and followed…. I hope to never miss the opportunity to lighten up your day……
Whatever happened to Byron?
“So I can determine that I want to stomp on the individual rights of another people? I think H. L. Mencken must have been a fool.”
That is precisely what you advocate when you say things like “Damn straight I intend to exploit the shit out of anyone I can. If I can make a buck off someone elses labor, I will be all over it. That is what they teach us here, exploit the commie workers and make them buy their work gloves at the company store.” (Chan L. 1, February 2, 2011 at 7:57 pm)
Exploitation means either using something for a purpose (synonymous with “use”) or (and often as in your example) the act of using something in an unjust or cruel manner.
Therefor, by logical extension, you too are a fool seeking unjust usury of the rights and property of others.
Tootie:
“The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination: it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.””
So I can determine that I want to stomp on the individual rights of another people? I think H. L. Mencken must have been a fool.
AY,
It was not a challenge.
Merely an observation.
That trolls, much like rust, never sleep?
What can I say?
It is simply their nature.
Mikes S.,
If you are not aware….it is our own BUDDHA that gave the trollery an open invitation to visit this thread…. He put the challenge out and they accepted… Someways…. it kinda of like shooting fish in a barrel with an AK-47….
How is your health….How is Mrs. Spindell…It was kind of her to keep the Blawg informed of your status….Thank her again… Apparently she is quite intelligent…I recall reading she did the research for your procedure…You are a very lucky person, indeed…
ekeyra:
“I could give two shits what the constitution says.”
Where did you learn that? I think you have been reading too much Rothbard.