New audiobook release: An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes

Librivox ^ | 8/4/23

[jmacusa]

For what it’s worth to you when you start launching ad hominems you’ve lost your argument.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I object. On the following grounds:"

Of course, you object on those grounds because you don't care at all what Lincoln believed or meant.
Just like woodpusher, you only care about ways to take Lincoln's words out of context and apply them to circumstances that he had not imagined or intended.

Y'alls' is the fine art of propagandizing, which woodpusher is at great pains to denounce when he imagines seeing it in others, but is blinded to his own misuse of historical facts.

[jeffersondem]

“Lincoln said nothing about globalist slaveocrats unhappy with tariff rates or Fugitive Slave laws.”

Are you sure Lincoln said nothing about Fugitive Slave laws?

Lincoln is on record as supporting the Fugitive Slave Clause and supporting it through legislation.

Said he in his first inaugural address:

“There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

“It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “shall be delivered up” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?”

I’m not being critical of you. There is no way you could have known what Lincoln said in his first inaugural address.

[woodpusher]

Lincoln's speech expressly referred to all or any people.

As I quoted Lincoln in the post in your response is a blatant lie:"

The fact is that Lincoln was talking about the Mexican War and you don't know if he intended his words to apply to disgruntled Southern slaveocrats.

Lincoln:

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 their territory as they inhabit.

There is no way in hell that the stated position of Lincoln refers ONLY to the Mexican war. It applies to "any people anywhere." It applies to "liberate the world." Lincoln was rapping that what Texans were doing was the right of all people in the world, to revolutionize, and make their own, so much of the territory as they inhabited.

In 1861, Lincoln found his stated position of 1848 to be inconvenient. In 1848, Lincoln's stated opinion agreed precisely with what the southern states were doing in 1860-1861.

In 2023, Brother Joe Pravda finds inconvenient, the stated position of Lincoln in 1848.

Lincoln's words are not up for debate or hypothization. They are quoted from the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. No quote that made it into that gold standard collection has ever been proven false.

You sound like Karine Jean-Pierre or John Kirby making believe Biden's statement that he never talked to Hunter about his business did not really happen. Now he never did business with Hunter. On numerous phone calls to meetings he only discussed the weather.

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK: "Lincoln said nothing about globalist slaveocrats unhappy with tariff rates or Fugitive Slave laws.”

jeffersondem: "Are you sure Lincoln said nothing about Fugitive Slave laws?
Lincoln is on record as supporting the Fugitive Slave Clause and supporting it through legislation."

Sure, because that's how your mind works, you must take my words regarding young Whig Congressman Lincoln's 1848 speech lambasting Democrat Pres. Polk's invasion of Mexico, in which Lincoln said nothing about slavocrats disgruntled over tariffs or Fugitive Slave laws, and you apply my words to Pres. Lincoln's 1861 Inaugural in which he did indeed, discuss such matters.

What was your objection before? Irrelevant and immaterial?

jeffersondem: "I’m not being critical of you. There is no way you could have known what Lincoln said in his first inaugural address."

{sigh}

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "In 1861, Lincoln found his stated position of 1848 to be inconvenient.
In 1848, Lincoln's stated opinion agreed precisely with what the southern states were doing in 1860-1861."

And so you keep repeating, over and over and over.
Still, as John Adams first said and Ronald Reagan liked to quote, "facts are stubborn things" and in this case the facts include several items contrary to your claims.

1. Even in 1848, young & arguably naive Whig Congressman Lincoln included a qualifier of three short words, "having the power", which speaks to a broad spectrum of issues and necessary calculations.
   Think about it, young Lincoln is saying, in effect, the "right to secede" comes from "having the power" to secede, so without "having the power", there is no right.
   It almost sounds like "might makes right" though I'm pretty sure that's not how Lincoln intended it.

   Clearly, young Lincoln's words imply that if you thought & calculated you had the "power to secede", but in a contest of arms you are defeated militarily, then, in fact, you did not have the "power to secede" and so you also had no "right to secede".

   As I said, in 1848 Lincoln was young and arguably naive and so I doubt if he gave these particualr words as much thought as they needed.

2. So far as I know, young Whig Congressman Lincoln in circa 1848 said nothing about the alleged right of slaveocrats to declare secession over tariffs, slavery or even a presidential election they didn't like.

   However, we do know that young Whig Congressman Lincoln was befriended and mentored by then very old Congressman, ex-President John Quincy Adams, from whom Lincoln is said to have learned that a civil war would grant the President the authority to declare rebels' slaves as "contraband of war".
   Adams himself knew of it because that's what the Brits did during the Revolutionary War.

   So Lincoln may have understood even in 1848 that civil war would lead to emancipations of rebel slaves.

3. You claim, "Lincoln's stated opinion agreed precisely with what the southern states were doing in 1860-1861.", but that is far from true.
   In fact, in 1860 & 1861 Confederate Democrats miscalculated their "having the power", imagining they could command more power than proved available to them -- i.e., military support from Britain & France.
   Then, lacking the power they picked a military fight with what proved to be one of the strongest military and political powers on earth.

   And Confederate Democrats lost their power and so, turns out, they had no right after all, at least according to the formulation of young Lincoln in 1848.

4. Lincoln's actions in early 1861 are more or less consistent with his generalization in 1848, with qualifiers hidden behind the phrase, "having the power" revealed step by reluctant step over the course of several months, as I spelled out in post #277 above.

[jeffersondem]

“. . . you must take my words regarding young Whig Congressman Lincoln's 1848 speech lambasting Democrat Pres. Polk's invasion of Mexico, in which Lincoln said nothing about slavocrats disgruntled over tariffs or Fugitive Slave laws, and you apply my words to Pres. Lincoln's 1861 Inaugural in which he did indeed, discuss such matters.”

I cited Lincoln's first inaugural address to give insight into his thinking on the Fugitive Slave Clause and fugitive slave law.

You claim, without offering proof, Lincoln's inaugural address does not reflect his thinking in 1848 on fugitive slave laws.

Comes now Matson v Ashmore, the still controversial case of slavocrat Robert Matson seeking to return to bondage a family of five human beings.

Slavocrat Robert Matson, and his hired lawyer Abraham Lincoln, argued in court that runaway slaves should be returned under the Fugitive Slave Clause and fugitive slave laws.

This was an early insight into Lincoln's thinking on fugitive slave laws.

Of course, Matson v Ashmore occurred in mid-October 1847 a good 10 weeks before the January-December magic window of 1848 which you have repeatedly expressed concern.

I know full-well you will say Lincoln's views in October 1847 gives no insight into his views ten weeks later.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "You claim, without offering proof, Lincoln's inaugural address does not reflect his thinking in 1848 on fugitive slave laws."

No, FRiend, it's you who "claim without proof" that I said Lincoln's inaugural address does not reflect his thinking in 1848 on fugitive slave laws.
In fact, what I said, accurately, was that Lincoln's 1848 speech on the Mexican War said nothing about Southern secession over Fugitive Slaves or anything else, nor did he ever in 1848, so far as I know.

Of course, I've never read every Lincoln quote, so possibly there are such quotes from 1848 which I've never seen.
If you know of any from 1848, feel free to post them here.

[woodpusher]

[BroJoeK #252] Lincoln's speech, often quoted by woodpusher and others, refers to Americans in Texas declaring independence from Mexico and can be put under the category of a "right of revolution". Of course, everyone recognizes a "right of revolution" under certain circumstances, the debatable issue is, what exactly are those circumstances?

Texas declared independence from Mexico, March 2, 1836. Texas became a state in 1845. The Mexican War 1846-1848 was between the United States and Mexico, where Mexico invaded Mexico, and the United States repelled the "invaders" from half of Mexico. As for Texas, its freedom resulted in that Mexican territory, free under Spanish and Mexican law, converting into a slave state.

[BroJoeK #267] I'll refrain from calling your words here a lie, but the fact remains that young Congressman Lincoln's 1848 speech was devoted entirely to the Democrat Pres. Polk's war against Mexico.

[BroJoeK #277] In this particular case, my point remains valid, that Lincoln was generalizing on the specific case of people living in the disputed land between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers.

[BroJoeK #280] You're right, Whig Congressman Lincoln was lambasting Democrat Pres. Polk for starting the Mexican war on the flimsiest pretexts similar, as jeffersondem so often refers to, Democrat Pres. Johnson's notorious 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incidents.

[BroJoeK #286] Even in 1848, young & arguably naive Whig Congressman Lincoln included a qualifier of three short words, "having the power", which speaks to a broad spectrum of issues and necessary calculations.

woodpusher: "In 1861, Lincoln found his stated position of 1848 to be inconvenient.

In 1848, Lincoln's stated opinion agreed precisely with what the southern states were doing in 1860-1861."

And so you keep repeating, over and over and over.

And unlike you, it says the same thing every time I quote it, over and over.

[BroJoeK #286] Even in 1848, young & arguably naive Whig Congressman Lincoln included a qualifier of three short words, "having the power", which speaks to a broad spectrum of issues and necessary calculations.

Now we have the young and naive excuse. At that age, I had completed 20 years of active duty and was drawing a monthly retirement check from the military.

[BroJoeK #286] Think about it, young Lincoln is saying, in effect, the "right to secede" comes from "having the power" to secede, so without "having the power", there is no right.

Ah yes. Any people anywhere being inclined, 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 their territory as they inhabit. This is a most valuable—a most sacred right—but unless you win a war the right does not exist. The right to rise up and try only exists if you subsequently win the war. That is surely what Lincoln was saying.

It's like trial by water. Throw the woman in the water. If she survives she has the right to live. If she drowns, she is a witch and she never had that sacred right.

[BroJoeK #286] "young & arguably naive," "young," "young & arguably naive," "young."

At nearly forty years old, Lincoln had barely been weaned from his favorite binky. He was like Hunter Biden, not responsible for what he said and did, because he was young and arguably naive.

In #252, Brother Joe Pravda said, "everyone recognizes a "right of revolution" under certain circumstances, the debatable issue is, what exactly are those circumstances." Now we know what the circumstances are. If you win a war after rising up, you exercised your sacred right, otherwise you were a mere criminal.

Now, if you did not have the sacred right to begin with, but you won the war, you would be free and independent, and have all the sacred rights.

In #267, Brother Joe Pravda stated, "young Congressman Lincoln's 1848 speech was devoted entirely to the Democrat Pres. Polk's war against Mexico." The Republic of Texas was established in 1836. The Texians had a Mexican POW agree to withdraw Mexican troops to the Rio Grande. The Mexican government did not recognize the Rio Grande as the border, but rather the Rio Nueces.

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutions#:~:text=Prior%20to%20Texas's%20independence%2C%20the,and%20renounced%20claims%20to%20Texas.

Prior to Texas's independence, the Nueces River was recognized as the northern boundary of Mexico. Spain had fixed the Nueces as a border in 1816, and the United States ratified it in the 1819 treaty by which the United States had purchased Florida and renounced claims to Texas.

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutions

The Adams-Onís Treaty of February 22, 1819

https://archive.org/details/geographicaldesc00mel

Melish's Map

by Melish, John, 1771-1822
Published 1818

Texas became a state of the United States in 1845. Exactly what revolution was going on during the Mexican War, 1846-1848?

We wanted a bunch of Mexican land and we took it. At the end of the war, we took the Rio Grande Texas border territory, Nevada, and Utah; and parts of what are now the states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming—about half of Mexico. We had the sacred right because of Manifest Destiny and we won the war, meaning that God decided we deserved the land.

9 Stat. 9

May 13, 1846

CHAP. XVI. — An Act providing for the Prosecution of the existing War between the United States and the Republic of Mexico.

Whereas, by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that Government and the United States: ....

Passed the House of Representatives 174-14.

In December 1847, Lincoln had proposed his Spot Resolutions, making his case that the contested territory was NOT the territory of either Texas or the United States, but the sovereign territory of Mexico.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=019/llcg019.db&recNum=115

Congressional Globe, Thirtieth Congress, First Session, December 22, 1847, p. 64.

RESOLUTIONS

Mr. LINCOLN moved the following preamble and resolutions, which were read and laid over under the rule:

Whereas the President of the United States, in his message of May 11th. 1846, has declared that "The Mexican Government not only refused to receive him" [the envoy of the United States,] "or listen to his propositions, but, after a long continued series of menaces, have at last invaded our teritory, and shed the blood of our fellow citizens on our own soil:

And again, in his message of December 8, 1846 that "We had ample cause of war against Mexico, long before the breaking out of hostilities; but even then we forbore to take redress into our own hands, until Mexico herself became the aggressor, by invading our soil in hostile array, and shedding the blood of our citizens"

And yet again, in his message of December 7, 1847 that "The Mexican Government refused even to hear the terms of adjustment which he [our minister of peace] "was authorized to propose; and finally, under wholly unjustifiable pretexts, involved the two countries in war, by invading the teritory of the State of Texas, striking the first blow, and shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil."

And whereas this House desires to obtain a full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish whether the particular spot of soil on which the blood of our citizens was so shed, was, or was not, our own soil, at that time; therefore,

Resolved by the House of Representatives, that the President of the United States be respectfully requested to inform this House—

1st. Whether the spot of soil on which the blood of our citizens was shed, as in his messages declared, was, or was not, within the teritories of Spain, at least from the treaty of 1819 until the Mexican revolution.

2nd. Whether that spot is, or is not, within the teritory which was wrested from Spain, by the Mexican revolution.

3d. Whether that spot is, or is not, within a settlement of people, which settlement had existed ever since long before the Texas revolution, until its inhabitants fled from the approach of the U.S. Army.

4th. Whether that settlement is, or is not, isolated from any and all other settlements, by the Gulf of Mexico, and the Rio Grande, on the South and West, and by wide uninhabited regions on the North and East.

5th. Whether the People of that settlement, or a majority of them, or any of them, had ever, previous to the bloodshed, mentioned in his messages, submitted themselves to the government or laws of Texas, or of the United States, by consent, or by compulsion, either by accepting office, or voting at elections, or paying taxes, or serving on juries, or having process served upon them, or in any other way.

6th. Whether the People of that settlement, did, or did not, flee from the approach of the United States Army, leaving unprotected their homes and their growing crops, before the blood was shed, as in his messages stated; and whether the first blood so shed, was, or was not shed, within the inclosure of the People, or some of them, who had thus fled from it.

7th. Whether our citizens, whose blood was shed, as in his messages declared, were, or were not, at that time, armed officers, and soldiers, sent into that settlement, by the military order of the President through the Secretary of War.

8th. Whether the military force of the United States, including those citizens, was, or was not, so sent into that settlement, after Genl. Taylor had, more than once, intimated to the War Department that, in his opinion, no such movement was necessary to the defence or protection of Texas.

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutions

One of several congressional resolutions opposing the war, it was never acted upon by the full Congress. Lincoln's action temporarily earned him a derisive nickname, "spotty Lincoln," coined by one Illinois newspaper.

On January 12, 1848 Lincoln waxed eloquently to Congress that,

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 their territory as they inhabit.

Whatever has that to do with the people of the United States in 1846-1848? The people of the United States rose up to steal half of Mexico in response to the Mexican "invasion" of the Rio Grande area of Mexico. When that Spotty Lincoln got on a roll, he could even make grand theft sound noble and sacred.

On February 15, 1848 Lincoln wrote to his law partner William Henry Herndon.

Dear William: Washington, Feb. 15. 1848

Your letter of the 29th. Jany. was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is, that if it shall become necessary, to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line, and invade the teritory of another country; and that whether such necessity exists in any given case, the President is to be the sole judge.

Before going further, consider well whether this is, or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are first, that the soil was ours where hostilities commenced, and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President, for that reason was bound to defend it, both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact, as you can prove that your house is not mine. That soil was not ours; and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position: Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

[jeffersondem]

“Of course, I’ve never read every Lincoln quote, so possibly there are such quotes from 1848 which I’ve never seen. If you know of any from 1848, feel free to post them here.”

If the facts are against you, argue the law.

If the law is against you, argue the facts.

If everything is against you, argue that your opponent has the responsibility for validating the preferences you have been bouncing around.

No thanks. I’d rather just watch you twist in the wind (in a friendly sort of way.)

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "And unlike you, it says the same thing every time I quote it, over and over."

Lincoln is not alive to explain or expand on his quotes.
Regardless, the key fact about them, so far as I can tell, is that they don't mean what you claim they mean.

woodpusher: "Now we have the young and naive excuse.
At that age, I had completed 20 years of active duty and was drawing a monthly retirement check from the military."

Was that before or after you went insane with lies and anti-American hatreds?

woodpusher: "Any people anywhere being inclined, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one"

And so, we notice immediately that you've left off Lincoln's important qualifier, "having the power", as if having a right comes from mere desire alone, and not also from the ability.
Let me suggest an analogy -- suppose you want to buy something large and expensive, let's say a yacht, and setting aside the question of whether it's for sale, you can assert an absolute right to buy that yacht, but it's true only if you also have "the power", meaning, in this case the money.
If you have no money, then you have no power and so no "right" to buy the yacht.
That's a fact.
Much less do you have a "right" to demand the owner hand over his yacht to you free gratis.

woodpusher: "This is a most valuable—a most sacred right—but unless you win a war the right does not exist.
The right to rise up and try only exists if you subsequently win the war.
That is surely what Lincoln was saying.
It's like trial by water.
Throw the woman in the water.
If she survives she has the right to live.
If she drowns, she is a witch and she never had that sacred right."

Sure, I understand, your hatred for America and Americans knows no limits and so you are super eager to put words in Lincoln's mouth that Lincoln never said or even imagined.
It's your nature to do that, it's your Democrat-at-heart soul doing it's Democrat thing to reduce America.
How, exactly, you got there I have no clue, but you are far from the only one.

Here are the real facts: Lincoln only gave us three words in this particular speech, "having the power" to qualify his definition of what we'd call a "right of revolution".
What, exactly he meant by those three words, and whether he intended them to apply to disgruntled Southern slavocrats, he never said, so far as I know.

woodpusher: "At nearly forty years old, Lincoln had barely been weaned from his favorite binky.
He was like Hunter Biden, not responsible for what he said and did, because he was young and arguably naive."

In January of 1848, young Whig Congressman Lincoln was still 38.
In the US Congress today there are about 20 congressmen & congresswomen younger than 38, the most notorious of which is New York's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, at almost 34 she has now been reelected twice, meaning she already has three-times more experience in Congress than Lincoln ever gained.
By comparison to even AOC, Lincoln in 1848 was arguably young and naive.

woodpusher: "Now we know what the circumstances are.
If you win a war after rising up, you exercised your sacred right, otherwise you were a mere criminal.
Now, if you did not have the sacred right to begin with, but you won the war, you would be free and independent, and have all the sacred rights."

Of course, those are words Lincoln never spoke, but in your hatred of all things American and your Democrat rage against what's good & decent, you are super-eager to shove such words down Lincoln's throat and make his corpse choke on them.
How sick is that?

woodpusher: "We wanted a bunch of Mexican land and we took it.
At the end of the war, we took the Rio Grande Texas border territory, Nevada, and Utah; and parts of what are now the states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming—about half of Mexico.
We had the sacred right because of Manifest Destiny and we won the war, meaning that God decided we deserved the land."

And so now you've gone from just crazy to totally berserker in your rage & hatred against America.
Of course, I can't relitigate the Mexican war of 1846-48, and maybe give away through legal or moral arguments what was won in military battles; however, we might notice that political control of the US Southwest is being rapidly returned to people of Spanish descent.
Is that a good thing, or bad?
Well, if they love America and respect each other, then I'd much rather have them in charge than our lunatic anti-American Democrats.
Of course, that's just me...

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "If everything is against you, argue that your opponent has the responsibility for validating the preferences you have been bouncing around.
No thanks. I’d rather just watch you twist in the wind (in a friendly sort of way.)"

And so, the truth is revealed to be that you have no facts to contradict anything Lincoln said, or that I said about him.

And I'm OK with that, in a very FRiendly sort of way.

[woodpusher]

[BroJoeK #280] Young Lincoln said people have a right to chose their government, but questions if there were actually Americans in the disputed territory.

If Lincoln thought there were no Americans in the Rio Grande area of Mexico, who were the people Lincoln talked about on January 12, 1848 when he waxed so eloquently to Congress that,

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 their territory as they inhabit.

Was he just talking to the wind with nobody in mind? Was he talking about Mexican peasants?

Of course, we "know" from your past statements that Lincoln's speech was devoted exclusively to Polk's war against Mexico, and that Lincoln was generalizing on the specific case of people living in the disputed land between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers. If Lincoln believed no Americans were there, and that Congress had never annexed, or tried to annex, that land, who was he generalizing about?

[BroJoeK #267] I'll refrain from calling your words here a lie, but the fact remains that young Congressman Lincoln's 1848 speech was devoted entirely to the Democrat Pres. Polk's war against Mexico.

[BroJoeK #277] In this particular case, my point remains valid, that Lincoln was generalizing on the specific case of people living in the disputed land between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers.

The war was ongoing when Abe became Spotty Lincoln. The war was over when Lincoln gave his speech 21 days before the Treaty was signed. What was Lincoln trying to accomplish after the war was over?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

The U.S. Army, under Major General Winfield Scott, invaded the Mexican heartland and captured the capital, Mexico City, in September 1847.

Although Mexico was defeated on the battlefield, negotiating peace was a politically fraught issue. Some Mexican factions refused to consider any recognition of its loss of territory. Although Polk formally relieved his peace envoy, Nicholas Trist, of his post as negotiator, Trist ignored the order and successfully concluded the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. It ended the war, and Mexico recognized the cession of present-day Texas, California, Nevada, and Utah as well as parts of present-day Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The U.S. agreed to pay $15 million for the physical damage of the war and assumed $3.25 million of debt already owed by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. Mexico relinquished its claims on Texas and accepted the Rio Grande as its northern border with the United States, a loss of 55% of its territory.

https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/mexican-american-war

Finally, on Feb. 2, 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, establishing the Rio Grande (and not the Nueces River) as the U.S.-Mexican border. Under the treaty, Mexico also recognized the U.S. annexation of Texas, and agreed to sell California and the rest of its territory north of the Rio Grande for $15 million plus the assumption of certain damage claims.

The net gain in U.S. territory after the Mexican-American War was roughly 525,000 square miles, an enormous tract of land—nearly as much as the Louisiana Purchase’s 827,000 square miles—that would forever change the geography, culture and economy of the United States.

As Trist had been relieved of his position, he had no authority to speak for or obligate his country.

Abraham Lincoln, Speech to Congress, January 12, 1848:

If I should claim your land, by word of mouth, that certainly would not make it mine; and if I were to claim it by a deed which I had made myself, and with which, you had had nothing to do, the claim would be quite the same, in substance—or rather, in utter nothingness. I next consider the President's statement that Santa Anna in his treaty with Texas, recognised the Rio Grande, as the western boundary of Texas. Besides the position, so often taken that Santa Anna, while a prisoner of war—a captive—could not bind Mexico by a treaty, which I deem conclusive—besides this, I wish to say something in relation to this treaty, so called by the President, with Santa Anna. If any man would like to be amused by a sight of that little thing, which the President calls by that big name, he can have it, by turning to Niles' Register volume 50, page 336.And if any one should suppose that Niles' Register is a curious repository of so mighty a document, as a solemn treaty between nations, I can only say that I learned, to a tolerable degree [of] certainty, by enquiry at the State Department, that the President himself, never saw it any where else.

Lincoln here clearly referred to the "Treaty" of 1936, as shown by the reference to Niles Register volume 50. For reading amusement, the little thing called by the big name TREATY, from the cited Niles' Register.

https://ia902304.us.archive.org/33/items/sim_niles-national-register_1836-07-16_50_1295/sim_niles-national-register_1836-07-16_50_1295.pdf

Niles' National Register; Baltimore, Vol. 50, Iss. 1295, pg. 336 (Jul 16, 1836)

Articles of an agreement entered into between his Excellency David G. Burnet, President of the Republic of Texas, of the one part, and his Excellency General Santa Anna, President-General-in-Chief of the Mexican army, of the other part

Article 1st. General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna agrees that he will not take up arms, nor will he exercise his influence to cause them to be taken up, against the people of Texas, during the present war of independence.

Article 2nd. All hostilities between the Mexican and Texan troops will cease immediately, both by land and water.

Article 3rd. The Mexican troops will evacuate the territory of Texas, passing to the other side of the Rio Grande Del Norte.

Article 4th. The Mexican army, in its retreat, shall not take the property of any person without his consent and just indemnification, using only such articles as may be necessary for its subsistence, in cases when the owner may not be present, and remitting to the commander of the army of Texas, or to the Commissioners to be appointed for the adjustment of such matters, an account of the value of the property consumed, the place where taken, and the name of the owner, if it can be ascertained.

Article 5th. That all private property, including cattle, horses, negro slaves, or indentured persons, of whatever denomination, that may have been captured by any portion of the Mexican army, or may have taken refuge in the said army, since the commencement of the late invasion, shall be restored to the commander of the Texan army, or to such other persons as may be appointed by the Government of Texas to receive them.

Article 6th. The troops of both armies will refrain from coming into contact with each other; and to this end, the commander of the army of Texas will be careful not to approach within a shorter distance than five leagues.

Article 7th. The Mexican army shall not make any other delay, on its march, than that which is necessary to take up their hospitals, baggage, &c., and to cross the rivers; any delay not necessary to these purposes to be considered an infraction of this agreement.

Article 8th. By an express to be immediately despatched, this agreement shall be sent to General Vincente Filisola, and to General T. J. Rusk, commander of the Texan army, in order that they may be apprized of its stipulations; and to this end, they will exchange engagements to comply with the same.

Article 9th. That all Texan prisoners now in the possession of the Mexican army, or its authorities, be forthwith released, and furnished with free passports to return to their homes; in consideration of which, a corresponding number of Mexican prisoners, rank and file, now in possession of the Government of Texas, shall be immediately released—the remainder of the Mexican prisoners that continue in the possession of the Government of Texas to be treated with due humanity; any extraordinary comforts that may be furnished them to be at the charge of the Government of Mexico.

Article 10th. General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna will be sent to Vera Cruz as soon as it shall be deemed proper.

The contracting parties sign this instrument for the above mentioned purposes, in duplicate, at the port of Velasco, this 14th day of May, 1836.

DAVID G. BURNET, President.
JAS. COLLINGSWORTH, Secretary of State.
ANTONIO LOPEZ DE SANTA ANNA.
B. HARDIMAN, Secretary of the Treasury.
P. W. GRAYSON, Attorney-General.

Note that Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna was a prisoner of war and had no title.

Id at 337:

[CIRCULAR.]

Department of the army and navy.

His excellency the provisional president of the Mexican republic has been pleased to forward to me the following decree:

DECREE.

The provisional president of the Mexican republic to the citizens,

Be it known, that the general congress has decreed as follows: :

ARTICLE 1. The government will appeal to the patriotism of the Mexican people, and will exert all the means in its power to carry on the war in Texas, until the national honor is vindicated, the interests of the republic secured, and the liberty of the president general restored.

2. The successful co-operation of any native citizen or foreigner, in festoring to liberty the said president general, will be esteemed a-distinguished service by the congress, with the intention of rewarding it in an honorable manner.

3. The government will carry into effect the provisions of the first article, without paying any attention to any stipulations made, or to be made, with the enemy, by the captive president, all of which are declared and are to be considered as null and void.

[There are a few other articles respecting the manner of apportioning the raising of new troops ]

ANTONIO MONTOZA, president of the congress.
JOSE R. MALO, secretary.
RAFAEL DE MONTALVO, secretary.
Let this decree be printed, published and circulated.
JOSE JUSTO CORRO, provisional president.
JOSE MARIA TORNEL, secretary of the army and navy. Palace of the national government, Mexico, May 20, 1836.

Note that Jose Justo Corro was the Provisional President of Mexico, having replaced President Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, and any stipulations made by prisoner of war Santa Ana were declared null and void by the Acting President of Mexico.

- - - - -

[CIRCULAR ]

The provisional president of the Mezican republic to the citizens. Be it known, with a view to manifest the just feeling of the nation and the army, excited by the captivity of that eminent friend of his country, Don Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, the following reguiations are to be observed:

1. In the daily orders of the army, in all garrisons and military bodies, the following words are to be inverted:

“On the 21st of April, 1836, Don Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, president general of the republic, was made prisoner, fighting to preserve the integrity of the national territory.”

2. During the captivity of his excellency the president of the republic, a band of black crape shall be attached to the colors and standards of the troops of the Mexican army.

3. The national flag shall be lowered half-mast until the president general is restored to liberty.

JOSE JUSTO CORRO, provisional president.
JOSE MARIA TORREL, secretary.
Mexico, palace of the national government, May 20, 1836.

[jmacusa]

If your Confederate ancestors had fought as hard as you Lost Causer's bulls**t they might have won the war.

[woodpusher]

For what it’s worth to you when you start launching ad hominems you’ve lost your argument.

For what it is worth, at #240, your daddy was naughty and started the launch of ad hominems. Because he is young and arguably naive, he is not responsible for what he says or does. But he still lost the argument at #240.

[BroJoeK #240] Sure, I fully understand, woodpusher, because you are a Democrat, the US Constitution and laws all require that you must, must blame Republicans for everything, under penalty of death if you refuse -- I "get" that.

FWIW, Brother Joe Pravda's ad hominem attack was in response to my respectful #237. Below shows my quote of his invitation to respond, and the entire text of my words in response. I reserve the right to rhetorically respond in-kind to lying, dog faced pony soldiers and bad dudes, and to drag them out back of the gym, and to bring a chain with me. Brother Joe Pravda should either abandon his unending string of personal attacks on everybody who disagrees with his propaganda, or he should try to improve his research and his lame attacks, lest he be Trumped.

Which part of that do you disagree with, and why?<.i>

I disagree with much of that.

It is likely that the rightful winner of the election was Tilden, and not Hayes.

See, Roy Morris, Jr., Fraud of the Century: Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden, and the Stolen Election of 1876, (2004). It is even better than Wikipedia.

In the deal made to settle the election chaos, the Dems agreed to let the GOP have four more years in the White House, and the GOP sold out the newly freed Blacks who had served their useful purpose, and the GOP ended Reconstruction.

Casting aspersions at R.E. Lee (d. 12 Oct 1870) as having something to do with nullifying or restraining the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments is unwarranted. Lee was dead six years before the Fraud of the Century in 1876. The GOP ended Reconstruction for four more years of power.

None of the Amendments was nullified. The 13th Amendment freed the slaves and they remained free. Slavery did not make a comeback. The 15th Amendment made the freedmen citizens of the United States and the of the State in which they resided. They were not stripped of citizenship.

The GOP removed the military. While the 14th Amendment remained in effect, the GOP removed those who were enforcing it.

The GOP lost the votes of the Blacks who were allowed to be subjected to Jim Crow. For a long time the affected Blacks couldn't vote at all, and when they could, they no longer voted for the party that used them to gain power, and then abandoned them to keep power.

237 posted on 8/22/2023, 5:07:59 PM by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies |

[jmacusa]

You Rebs kill me. You keep dragging the argument into the realm of moral and historical relativism.

[woodpusher]

To me, you are Southern. I’m a natural born Yankee. Being born a Yankee does not infer that I must accept absurd propaganda from wingnuts.

[woodpusher]

If your Confederate ancestors had fought as hard as you Lost Causer's bulls**t they might have won the war.

I have no Confederate ancestors, but if the Yankees were all windbags like you and Brother Joe Pravda, they would have lost the war.

[jmacusa]

I have a Union ancestor. “Windbags’’? Ha.

Ain’t my side that lost Reb.

It was yours.

[Pelham]

“Ain’t my side that lost”

The Red Army used that same line on its Warsaw Pact subjects. Not entirely coincidental considering how many of real Karl Marx’s pals were in the Union Army. Lt Col Joseph Weydemeyer being a shining example of the type.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Weydemeyer