Fact vs Interpretation, What We Have to Unlearn.

Status
Not open for further replies.
If people believe that white Southerners are to be applauded for the election of black men to Congress after the Civil War, then that is something that must be unlearned.

As a matter of fact, white former Confederates did not support the idea of black politicians. Rather they sought to assassinate them, or otherwise remove them from office. The only reason blacks were elected to office is because the United States, through a number of actions, forced southern states into allowing black men to hold office. But white southerners hated it.

After the collapse of the federal Reconstruction regime, the former Confederates showed their true colors. After 1901, and the primacy of Home Rule throughout the South, there was not a single black southerner in Congress until after the Civil Rights movement.

Black politicians during Reconstruction was not an innovation or creation of white southerners. It was an innovation and creation of white northerners and black southerners. The idea that these former Confederates deserve credit for the existence of black southern politicians is preposterous. If it was up to the former Confederates, the CSA would have won the war, and black men who were politicians would be picking cotton.

In his 1881 book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Chapter XXVI, former CSA president Jefferson Davis spoke for white southerners about what he felt was natural relationship between blacks and whites, which would obviously prohibit black officeholding:

Their (the negroes') servile instincts rendered them contented with their lot, and their patient toil blessed the land of their abode with unmeasured riches. Their strong local and personal attachment secured faithful service to those to whom their service or labor was due. A strong mutual affection was the natural result of this life-long relation, a feeling best if not only understood by those who have grown from childhood under its influence.​
Never was there happier dependence of labor and capital on each other.​
The tempter came, like the serpent in Eden, and decoyed them with the magic word of "freedom."​

These men deserve no credit for post war black officeholding. Overwhelming they considered blacks holding office an abomination. Once these men achieved home rule, they couldn't eliminate black officeholding, and even black voting, fast enough.

- Alan
This is a little nutty. A bunch of African Americans were elected to state and national office because of the Reconstruction governments, the carpetbaggers and scalawags and southern blacks and overbearing federal authorities that we hear so many complaints about, and despite white southerners. When white southerners were in charge again, they drove African American officials from office and African American voters from the rolls.
I realize people can get a little worked up in a debate, but let's not lose sight of reality.


Why didn’t the North try to install Black Congressmen? Why the Social Experiment in the South, not in the North? MA was one of the Yankee States to Refuse Negro refugees. North rejected Negro Voting for several years after forcing it on the South.

It was evident by 1876 with the expulsion of the Radical Republicans and the flipping of over 90 Congressional seats to the Democrats, the Racist Yankees didn’t approve of Black voting or Black Representatives. The Republicans wanted blacks to vote in the South politically they could have a political majority. A social experiment they used in the South but Refused in the North. By the end of Reconstruction and after adding Western States. Republicans faced the reality they would lose the the house, put would keep the Senate and Presidency. No more use of the Negro, they abandoned him.
 
Last edited:
@lelliott19 shared a few newspaper articles with me which discussed Colonization. She is one of our Resident Historians. I hope she will post them for us. It would advance our discussion. They are interesting and I would be grateful for her Contribution.
Found them. These articles are from northern newspapers, mostly from late 1862, in response to Lincoln's end of year address. (I don't think it was called State of the Union Address back then, but I don't know what it was called.) I'm not suggesting that these articles definitively prove that there was a plan to colonize formerly enslaved people to foreign countries, but they do suggest that people in northern states believed there was a colonization plan. So I'll add them in chronological order in reply to the question below. I'm sure there are a ton more of these; this was just one very quick search using the terms Lincoln and colonization. These are snips from articles. If anyone would like links to the entire articles, I am happy to find them for you.
There were no deportation plans. Unless you can prove what nobody here has done yet (and I estimate there is a 0% chance you will do so).

This is how falsehoods get spread on the Internet. Somebody spreads the false/baseless claim that Lincoln was out to deport people, it's repeated, and then somebody says, "guess what I heard on CWTalk? If they said it, it must be true."

But it's NOT true.

- Alan
First up - reply to a speech made by President Lincoln, apparently suggesting that Lincoln had announced a plan to colonize free African Americans to Nicaragua. It's important to note that this plan may have been for "voluntary colonization." A few of the others I'll post below seem much less "voluntary"
1584823534596.png

The National Republican.(Washington, D.C.), 05 Nov. 1862, page 2.
 
Next up, a snip from an Indiana newspaper reporting on the refusal by the Governor of Massachusetts to allow five hundred families to make temporary residence until they can be colonized. Again, this example may or may not be people who are interested in colonizing voluntarily.
1584823922231.png

Daily State Sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.), 08 Nov. 1862, page 2.
 
Next up, a snip from an Indiana newspaper reporting on the refusal by the Governor of Massachusetts to allow five hundred families to make temporary residence until they can be colonized. Again, this example may or may not be people who are interested in colonizing voluntarily.
View attachment 351760
Daily State Sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.), 08 Nov. 1862, page 2.

This is a Great Article. The Historical accounts I have read about MA refusing Negro Refugees didn’t disclose the purpose was to ready these people for Colonization. MA refused them. Had no intention of giving them aid, permanently or temporarily. Looks like the Klan was active in MA, lets bring back the Black Codes. MA had them before, before they ran all of their Blacks off. We can see Racial attitudes precluded that Southern Negroes were not welcome. Northern Racial attitudes toward Southern X Slaves were far more Harsh than toward their own Free Blacks.
 
By December 5, 1862, word of the content of Lincoln's year end address had made it's way across the country and Indiana and Ohio newspapers are reporting the content.
View attachment 351761

It appears Ohio thought Lincoln had a Colonization Plan. 19 Century Lincolnites didn’t reject Colonization. I will go out on a limb and say the Ohio Democrats didn’t either,
 
Found them. These articles are from northern newspapers, mostly from late 1862, in response to Lincoln's end of year address. (I don't think it was called State of the Union Address back then, but I don't know what it was called.) I'm not suggesting that these articles definitively prove that there was a plan to colonize formerly enslaved people to foreign countries, but they do suggest that people in northern states believed there was a colonization plan. So I'll add them in chronological order in reply to the question below. I'm sure there are a ton more of these; this was just one very quick search using the terms Lincoln and colonization. These are snips from articles. If anyone would like links to the entire articles, I am happy to find them for you.

First up - reply to a speech made by President Lincoln, apparently suggesting that Lincoln had announced a plan to colonize free African Americans to Nicaragua. It's important to note that this plan may have been for "voluntary colonization." A few of the others I'll post below seem much less "voluntary"
View attachment 351759
The National Republican.(Washington, D.C.), 05 Nov. 1862, page 2.

Good article about Central America. People in Central America were familiar with the scheme of Lincoln’s Colonization efforts. Not in my Back Yard. It appears Lincoln shopped these poor Blacks, in every warm climate country.
 
This...my 1990s history books and teachers said "states' rights" and that was it. Way...waaaaaaaay more complicated than that.

Sure you were listening? :rofl: (Sorry, I hit a former student with that one last week on Facebook. You could hear him sputtering all the way to my house--but he was a talker, and...)
 
Here we see a snip from an Ohio newspaper article reporting on the content of Lincoln's message.

He proposed to amend the Constitution of the United States, so as to declare, first, that all slaves made free by the war shall be free; second, to give Congress power to provide emancipation within the States, by paying the owners of slaves the value of them; third, to provide for the colonization of free colored persons by transportation to other countries. The first proposal is clear admission that the acts of Congress confiscating slaves, and his threatened Emancipation are nullities in law.​
The next proposal, to purchase and emancipate the slaves of such States as may agree to it, is an assumption that Slavery is such an evil that it should be got rid of, at the common charge, by an exercise of power somewhat like that of eminent domain. We agree with Mr. Lincoln that the North is as much responsible as the South for the present existence of Slavery, by the encouragement given to its labor and therefore, if it be such an evil, it should be got rid of at the common charge....​
1584826685130.png

1584826804529.png
 
Here's a report from a Washington DC newspaper on a bill prepared by Noell of Missouri to submit Lincoln's propositions to the State of Missouri. This one seems to be a proposed plan for voluntary colonization of emancipated persons from Missouri.

Mr. Noell, of Missouri, had prepared a bill which he will introduce in the House to submit the propositions of President Lincoln to the State of Missouri. That upon adoption by the State of a system for the immediate abolition of slavery there-in, to take effect on or before January, 1864, the United States will provide for the compensation of loyal owners of the slaves therein, to the amount of twenty millions of dollars, in United States bonds, redeemable in thirty years, and will remove to some place out of the United State and colonize such of the emancipated slaves as shall elect to leave the state.​

1584827129825.png

1584827998977.png

EDIT TO ADD: That's all I have time for right now. If there's anything particular you would like me to search, I am happy to help.
 
Last edited:
How about another fact vs interpretation? Slavery would have soon died out if there was no Civil War. Little or no facts, but a bunch of interpretation. No one knows when of if slavery would have ended without the Civil War. If the Southern states had not seceded we have no idea when chattel slavery in the United States would have ended. There are no facts that it would have ended in the 1870s, and no facts chattel slavery would have not been around until the 1970s, perhaps even later.

If the Union had allowed the South to go peacefully again there are no real facts. Slavery might have ended in an independent Confederacy in the late 19th Century, it might have ended some time in the 20th Century, or perhaps sill exist today.

I lean towards the 1960s to 1970s, but I have no real proof. Anyone who says chattel slavery would have ended in the late 19th Century has no more proof than I do, it is all interpretation and no one has any real proof when chattel slavery would have ended. The only real fact we have is that slavery ended as a result of the Civil War. Chattel slavery ending soon after 1860 if there was no Civil War, is almost pure interpretation unsupported by facts.
 
Here we see a snip from an Ohio newspaper article reporting on the content of Lincoln's message.

He proposed to amend the Constitution of the United States, so as to declare, first, that all slaves made free by the war shall be free; second, to give Congress power to provide emancipation within the States, by paying the owners of slaves the value of them; third, to provide for the colonization of free colored persons by transportation to other countries. The first proposal is clear admission that the acts of Congress confiscating slaves, and his threatened Emancipation are nullities in law.​
The next proposal, to purchase and emancipate the slaves of such States as may agree to it, is an assumption that Slavery is such an evil that it should be got rid of, at the common charge, by an exercise of power somewhat like that of eminent domain. We agree with Mr. Lincoln that the North is as much responsible as the South for the present existence of Slavery, by the encouragement given to its labor and therefore, if it be such an evil, it should be got rid of at the common charge....​
View attachment 351772
View attachment 351773

Great article. Ohio newspaper agrees with Lincoln that the North is just as responsible for Slavery as the South. North benefiting from the advantage of its Labor.
 
Might want to check out the facts on AA's & the US Congress. Took until 1929 for a Yankee state to elect their first AA to the US Congress. Former Confederate States had elected 20 by that time.

There may be more reasons for this than first appears.
For example, we know that Blacks in the South benefited by Reconstruction. Once Blacks had the franchise, Republican Party organizers were very active in getting out the 'Black vote'. At the same time (at least early on) there were restrictions on White ex-Confederates voting. The large numbers of Black voters swept their candidates into office. No such climate existed in the North, where there was not a comparable ratio of Black voters to White voters.
 
There may be more reasons for this than first appears.
For example, we know that Blacks in the South benefited by Reconstruction. Once Blacks had the franchise, Republican Party organizers were very active in getting out the 'Black vote'. At the same time (at least early on) there were restrictions on White ex-Confederates voting. The large numbers of Black voters swept their candidates into office. No such climate existed in the North, where there was not a comparable ratio of Black voters to White voters.
I don't disagree with what you're suggesting. I would ask though, how long were Confederate Veterans restricted from voting..?

Also, I wasn't aware that only Black voters voted for Black candidates.
 
I don't disagree with what you're suggesting. I would ask though, how long were Confederate Veterans restricted from voting..?

Also, I wasn't aware that only Black voters voted for Black candidates.
Thanks for your response.
As I said, the restrictions on White ex-Confederates was only a factor initially. One can only speculate on whether it had a long-lasting effect by allowing the 'Black vote' to become established. And even at that, post-Reconstruction laws changed whatever advantage Blacks enjoyed.
I'm not suggesting that "only Black voters voted for Black candidates". What I am suggesting is that Reconstruction introduced a large number of Blacks into the voting population and that a very effective Republican 'machine' worked diligently to get them to vote for their candidates, many of whom happened to be Blacks.
 
It appears Ohio thought Lincoln had a Colonization Plan.
I know I said that's all I had time for, but I just ran across this one that I had saved before. This one seems to suggest that some northerners believed Lincoln was in favor of colonization as early as 1861.
1584837491294.png

The Hancock Jeffersonian. (Findlay, Ohio), 20 Dec. 1861, page 4.
Seems I've now exhausted the ones I had previously saved from one specific search of northern newspapers, for the terms Lincoln and colonization, limited by date to Dec 1861- Dec 1862. There are more I didn't save and I'm sure there are lots more results to be had when a search is run on different combinations. If there are any specific ones anyone would like me to run, I am happy to help. Just let me know.
 
OTE="uaskme, post: 2217579, member: 18906"]
It appears Ohio thought Lincoln had a Colonization Plan. 19 Century Lincolnites didn’t reject Colonization. I will go out on a limb and say the Ohio Democrats didn’t either,
[/QUOTE]
As has been made abundantly clear in other threads, Colonization was accepted by most Americans as the best solution for providing for freed slaves. The only opposition came from a minority of Abolitionists who demanded equal rights for Blacks, the free Black population, and the slaveholders themselves who refused to consider giving up their slaves under any circumstances.
The idea only died as Blacks showed their dedication to our country by their service in the USCT and as the Lincoln Administration's colonization proposals were rebuffed by foreign governments. Put bluntly, foreign governments composed of Blacks or mulattos were against allowing our ex-slaves into their countries: they viewed them as their inferiors!
It is important to understand that colonization was not seen as a bad thing at the time. Rather it was seen as a plan to give former slaves a new start where they could prosper unfettered by the hostility of Whites. It was thought by proponents that after centuries of unspeakable mistreatment and abuse, Blacks and Whites could not live together peacefully.
This view was not solely the view of Whites in the North as some would like us to believe. Virginian Thomas Jefferson was an early proponent. Colonization was supported by some free Black leaders who actually attempted to set up colonies after the war. Some historians have likened domestic Jim Crow laws and segregation to colonization. Both called for separating Blacks from Whites; both had some of the same arguments: 'They can never live together in peace." and "It really is better for the Blacks.".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top