Restricted Lincoln and Colonization

Borderruffian

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Location
Marshfield Missouri
So let me get this straight. Lincoln, who signed the EP effectively ending slavery in this country,is a racist because at one point he voiced approval of colonization?
You realize many, abolitionists prior had done the same .right? You realize his stance wasn't new to the abolition movement righ?
Judging him by 20th/21st century standards is weak.He should only be judged by the standards of his day not the standards of modern days.
And I"m no fan of Abe,but for other reason,
 

Freddy

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Location
Worcester, MA
The American Colonization Society (ACS) was formed in 1816. In 1818 Congress gave the ACS $100,000. James Madison served as President of the ACS. Not a single Black was forced to leave the US for any foreign land. Many who supported the ACS felt Blacks and Whites could not live together in the US and were doing good works. Many did not want free Blacks anywhere in the US due to their racist views. Lincoln, a follower of fellow Whig, Henry Clay, sided with the former from 1848 through 1863.
 

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Location
Central Florida
@Rebforever, @Viper21 another secret exposed... @unionblue, @Copperhead-mi, @Bee Lincoln exposed again...

Here WE GO! It seems Lincoln kept pursuing his Colonization goal even after he signed the Emancipation Proclamation...

But they argued that a new trend in Civil War research suggests that he continued to pursue colonization policies quietly, behind the scenes, after he issued the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, the date historians we contacted cited as the point of no return for colonization.

He changed tactics...

"Far from turning away from the policy after Jan. 1, 1863, Lincoln actually shifted strategies away from the colonization arrangements with private contractors mentioned in his public appeals and toward a new approach of conducting colonization by way of a series of agreements with foreign governments that were willing to accept black colonists on a voluntary basis," Magness wrote to PolitiFact.

Like these deals...

These included an agreement to send up to 50,000 African-American recruits to British Honduras (now Belize), approved by the president in June 1863 and continuing until it faltered for political reasons at the end of the year, Magness said. He added that Lincoln's administration negotiated and signed a formal treaty in 1863 with the government of the Netherlands to permit the voluntary colonization of freed slaves in their Caribbean colony of Suriname, though in early 1864 political reasons again prevented its submission to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

Butler said...

He added that Union Gen. Benjamin F. Butler recalled in his memoirs that Lincoln approached him about resuming some form of colonization program in Central America in April 1865, only a few days before his assassination. Magness acknowledges that Butler’s claim is "hotly contested" among historians.

Money trail...

Cornelius said it took until July 2, 1864, for Congress to officially end disbursement of funds for colonization. So, even after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, "Lincoln did need to continue to try to accommodate a range of opinion in his party, as well as try to oversee in some small manner the funds that Congress had appropriated," Cornelius said. "At the same time, he was also trying to accommodate those few African-Americans who did wish to try colonizing other lands."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ther-look-lincoln-and-colonization-ex-slaves/
 
Last edited:

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Location
Central Florida
OMG... Here is a detailed look at the Dutch deal... Historians chose to ignore... The cult of Lincoln strikes...

Let's Ignore it...

When historians in the twentieth century reviewed Civil War colonization, they arrived at a general consensus most clearly enunciated in the words of James McPherson: “As a practical solution of the Negro question, colonization was a failure from the beginning.” Indeed, if winners write history, or if historians concerned themselves only with victorious ideologies, then colonization should not take much of a place in the history of the war.

Look here...

Historians have long known that in the summer of 1862 the Lincoln administration announced its intention to negotiate with foreign powers concerning the colonization of African Americans abroad. Over the next two years, federally funded initiatives to settle African Americans in Chiriqui, Panama, and Île-à-Vache, Haiti, both failed.

Abraham Lincoln kept colonization proposals alive well after the Emancipation Proclamation. From their analysis, it is now clear that American negotiations with officials representing Panama, Haiti, British Honduras, British Guiana, and Dutch Suriname continued well after 1863 and indeed throughout the course of the war.

Here ... foreign sources saved the truth...


Of all the Civil War colonization schemes with known diplomatic discussions, Dutch Suriname drew the lowest number of mentions in the American press and remains today probably the least known. Suriname’s neglect in Civil War colonization literature is unfortunate because the Dutch plan provides an additional and alternative case demonstrating the seriousness and depth of the Lincoln administration’s interest in colonization.

Here is my link to the PDF File you should read it ...

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Colonize_African_Americans_in_Dutch_Suriname

Here is a link...

(PDF) The Lincoln Administration’s Negotiations to Colonize African Americans in Dutch Suriname. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Colonize_African_Americans_in_Dutch_Suriname [accessed Jun 16 2018].
 
Last edited:
So let me get this straight. Lincoln, who signed the EP effectively ending slavery in this country,is a racist because at one point he voiced approval of colonization?
You realize many, abolitionists prior had done the same .right? You realize his stance wasn't new to the abolition movement righ?
Judging him by 20th/21st century standards is weak.He should only be judged by the standards of his day not the standards of modern days.
And I"m no fan of Abe,but for other reason,

I suggest that those few on this thread accusing Lincoln of being racist or a white supremacist due to his support of voluntary colonization, may want to research the African Civilization Society (ACS), an organization that promoted Black colonization among some of its goals. The ASC's founders and membership included prominent Black abolitionists and religious leaders such as Henry Highland Garnet, Martin R. Delaney, Rufus L. Perry, Richard H. Cain, Amos N. Freeman, and John Sella Martin.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
No one has to make accusations about Lincoln being a racist or a white supremacist.
It is historical facts written by Lincoln. That is exactly what he was. I see no problem here, just discussing history. Did he like slavery, of course not. Was he going to live with
Blacks, no.
 
No one has to make accusations about Lincoln being a racist or a white supremacist.
It is historical facts written by Lincoln. That is exactly what he was. I see no problem here, just discussing history. Did he like slavery, of course not.

My comment was made in reference to a few on this thread who claimed Lincoln's support of voluntary colonization was "racist."


Was he going to live with Blacks, no.

Please provide documentation that Lincoln ever stated such.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
One of Lincoln's most representative public statements on the question of racial relations was given in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857.6 In this address, he explained why he opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have admitted Kansas into the Union as a slave state:

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...

Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, "must be effected by colonization" of the country's blacks to a foreign land. "The enterprise is a difficult one," he acknowledged,

but "where there is a will there is a way," and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
 

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Location
Central Florida
I suggest that those few on this thread accusing Lincoln of being racist or a white supremacist due to his support of voluntary colonization, may want to research the African Civilization Society (ACS), an organization that promoted Black colonization among some of its goals. The ASC's founders and membership included prominent Black abolitionists and religious leaders such as Henry Highland Garnet, Martin R. Delaney, Rufus L. Perry, Richard H. Cain, Amos N. Freeman, and John Sella Martin.

The black community was not completely behind the ACS... They only wanted just and fair treatment...


Despite these various efforts, emigration and colonization had always met with strong opposition from the black community. The Negro Convention movement, black America's most important arena for political expression and protest during the nineteenth century, was a direct response to the formation of the American Colonization Society and Liberian colonization.
In 1818, three thousand free African Americans answered a call from James Forten and the Bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Richard Allen, to convene in Philadelphia. The assembly denounced the ACS's colonization scheme as an "outrage having no other object in view than the slaveholding interests of the country." They expressed the idea that the United States was their home, and though they recognized the inequalities they faced, they maintained that:

"if the plan of colonizing is intended for our benefit, and those who now promote it will never seek our injury, we humbly and respectfully urge, that it is not asked for by us: nor will it be required by any circumstances, in our present or future condition, as long as we shall be permitted to share the protection of the excellent laws and just government which we now enjoy, in common with every individual of the community."

Individual African Americans also noted their views on the subject. In 1834 Peter Williams, an Episcopal priest in New York City, objected to the idea that African Americans were best suited to colonization in Africa. "We are NATIVES of this country," he asserted, and "ask only to be treated as well as FOREIGNERS . . . we ask only to share equal privileges with those who come from distant lands, to enjoy the fruits of our labor. Let these modest requests be granted, and we need not to go to Africa nor anywhere else to be improved and happy."

http://www.inmotionaame.org/migrati...833571529119731222?migration=4&topic=7&bhcp=1
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
So let me get this straight. Lincoln, who signed the EP effectively ending slavery in this country,is a racist because at one point he voiced approval of colonization?
You realize many, abolitionists prior had done the same .right? You realize his stance wasn't new to the abolition movement righ?
Judging him by 20th/21st century standards is weak.He should only be judged by the standards of his day not the standards of modern days.
And I"m no fan of Abe,but for other reason,

I thought it was the 13th Amendment that freed the slaves! The Union had slaves until the 13th was passed.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
"""If all earthly power were given me," said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, "I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land." After acknowledging that this plan's "sudden execution is impossible," he asked whether freed blacks should be made "politically and socially our equals?" "My own feelings will not admit of this," he said, "and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not ... We can not, then, make them equals."""5

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

Now, in Lincoln's own words, here is racist act.
 
One of Lincoln's most representative public statements on the question of racial relations was given in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857.6 In this address, he explained why he opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have admitted Kansas into the Union as a slave state:

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...

Once again context is everything. Lincoln was not talking about himself but of Stephen Douglas:

"Three years and a half ago, Judge Douglas brought forward his famous Nebraska bill. The country was at once in a blaze. He scorned all opposition, and carried it through Congress. Since then he has seen himself superseded in a Presidential nomination, by one indorsing the general doctrine of his measure, but at the same time standing clear of the odium of its untimely agitation, and its gross breach of national faith; and he has seen that successful rival Constitutionally elected, not by the strength of friends, but by the division of adversaries, being in a popular minority of nearly four hundred thousand votes. He has seen his chief aids in his own State, Shields and Richardson, politically speaking, successively tried, convicted, and executed, for an offense not their own, but his. And now he sees his own case, standing next on the docket for trial.

"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races; and Judge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope, upon the chances of being able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. If he can, by much drumming and repeating, fasten the odium of that idea upon his adversaries, he thinks he can struggle through the storm. He therefore clings to this hope, as a drowning man to the last plank. He makes an occasion for lugging it in from the opposition to the Dred Scott decision. He finds the Republicans insisting that the Declaration of Independence includes ALL men, black as well as white; and forthwith he boldly denies that it includes negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does, do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and sleep, and marry with negroes! He will have it that they cannot be consistent else. Now I protest against that counterfeit logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either, I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others."
From Abraham Lincoln's June 26, 1857 Speech on the Dred Scott Decision



Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, "must be effected by colonization" of the country's blacks to a foreign land. "The enterprise is a difficult one," he acknowledged,

but "where there is a will there is a way," and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

Again, context. There is nothing in the following that claims Lincoln will not live with Blacks:

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform---opposition to the spread of slavery---is most favorable to that separation.

"Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one; but ``when there is a will there is a way;'' and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body.

"How differently the respective courses of the Democratic and Republican parties incidentally bear on the question of forming a will---a public sentiment---for colonization, is easy to see. The Republicans inculcate, with whatever of ability they can, that the negro is a man; that his bondage is cruelly wrong, and that the field of his oppression ought not to be enlarged. The Democrats deny his manhood; deny, or dwarf to insignificance, the wrong of his bondage; so far as possible, crush all sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him; compliment themselves as Union-savers for doing so; and call the indefinite outspreading of his bondage 'a sacred right of self-government.'

"The plainest print cannot be read through a gold eagle; and it will be ever hard to find many men who will send a slave to Liberia, and pay his passage while they can send him to a country, Kansas for instance, and sell him for fifteen hundred dollars, and the rise.
Ibid.
 

Mike Griffith

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
This sounds like DiLorenzo's tunnel-vision attacks on Lincoln. The context that the colonization argument ignores is (1) that for decades even many ardent abolitionists backed colonization, and (2) that the war caused Lincoln to change his views to the point that he moved heaven and earth to pass the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery and he came out in support of allowing educated blacks to vote.

It is worth adding that at times during the war, Lincoln personally intervened to inquire about cases of reported mistreatment of blacks by white Union soldiers.

DiLorenzo's claim that Lincoln really did not care about blacks or slavery is invalid. The claim is based on a selective presentation of the relevant record.
 
"""If all earthly power were given me," said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, "I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land." After acknowledging that this plan's "sudden execution is impossible," he asked whether freed blacks should be made "politically and socially our equals?" "My own feelings will not admit of this," he said, "and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not ... We can not, then, make them equals."""5

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

Now, in Lincoln's own words, here is racist act.

So are Henry Highland Garnet, Martin R. Delaney, Rufus L. Perry, Richard H. Cain, Amos N. Freeman, John Sella Martin and other prominent Blacks of the day who promoted colonization, racist also?
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
'The depth of Lincoln's devotion to Clay and his ideals was expressed in a moving eulogy delivered in July 1852 in Springfield, Illinois. After praising Clay's lifelong devotion to the cause of black resettlement, Lincoln quoted approvingly from a speech given by Clay in 1827: "There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children," adding that if Africa offered no refuge, blacks could be sent to another tropical land. Lincoln concluded:15

If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery, and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost fatherland, with bright prospects for the future, and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation.

In January 1855, Lincoln addressed a meeting of the Illinois branch of the Colonization Society. The surviving outline of his speech suggests that it consisted largely of a well-informed and sympathetic account of the history of the resettlement campaign.16

In supporting "colonization" of the blacks, a plan that might be regarded as a "final solution" to the nation's race question, Lincoln was upholding the views of some of America's most respected figures."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
So are Henry Highland Garnet, Martin R. Delaney, Rufus L. Perry, Richard H. Cain, Amos N. Freeman, John Sella Martin and other prominent Blacks of the day who promoted colonization, racist also?

Of course. Why else would they want to leave.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
@Rebforever, @Viper21 another secret exposed... @unionblue, @Copperhead-mi, @Bee Lincoln exposed again...

Here WE GO! It seems Lincoln kept pursuing his Colonization goal even after he signed the Emancipation Proclamation...

But they argued that a new trend in Civil War research suggests that he continued to pursue colonization policies quietly, behind the scenes, after he issued the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, the date historians we contacted cited as the point of no return for colonization.

He changed tactics...

"Far from turning away from the policy after Jan. 1, 1863, Lincoln actually shifted strategies away from the colonization arrangements with private contractors mentioned in his public appeals and toward a new approach of conducting colonization by way of a series of agreements with foreign governments that were willing to accept black colonists on a voluntary basis," Magness wrote to PolitiFact.

Like these deals...

These included an agreement to send up to 50,000 African-American recruits to British Honduras (now Belize), approved by the president in June 1863 and continuing until it faltered for political reasons at the end of the year, Magness said. He added that Lincoln's administration negotiated and signed a formal treaty in 1863 with the government of the Netherlands to permit the voluntary colonization of freed slaves in their Caribbean colony of Suriname, though in early 1864 political reasons again prevented its submission to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

Butler said...

He added that Union Gen. Benjamin F. Butler recalled in his memoirs that Lincoln approached him about resuming some form of colonization program in Central America in April 1865, only a few days before his assassination. Magness acknowledges that Butler’s claim is "hotly contested" among historians.

Money trail...

Cornelius said it took until July 2, 1864, for Congress to officially end disbursement of funds for colonization. So, even after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, "Lincoln did need to continue to try to accommodate a range of opinion in his party, as well as try to oversee in some small manner the funds that Congress had appropriated," Cornelius said. "At the same time, he was also trying to accommodate those few African-Americans who did wish to try colonizing other lands."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ther-look-lincoln-and-colonization-ex-slaves/

(Sigh!)

"You can rob me, you can starve me, you can beat me, you can kill me...,
Just don't bore me
." -- Gunny Highway, in the movie, Heartbreak Ridge.
 
Top