Restricted Lincoln and Colonization

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Leftyhunter
Co is just a typo. I never said the 13th Amendment granted citizenship. Logic dictates first slavery has to be ended. We can't criticize Lincoln for not introducing the 14th Amendment since Lincoln was assassinated by Booth a Confederate supporter.
If we throw stones at Lincoln for being a racist leader wht do we givw Davis a pass or was Davis less racist?
Leftyhunter
You said, "Lincoln gave black Americans citizenship" that is not a true statement. That is what I originally responded to.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Oh yes, there is... let's call it the Lincoln Admiration Society but they have all gone to ground after post #43 on this thread was posted... Lincoln pursued his colonization policy long after the EP was signed... all in secret...

Gone to ground?

If that equates to not wanting to waste time on another made-up cat fight or participate on a thread designed to simply cause attention and not instruct, you got it.

And just one question for all those jumping on the bandwagon.

How many slaves and freedmen did Lincoln FORCE to colonize?

Edited.
 

uaskme

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
The Foreign Office had "received communications from a gentleman named Henderson, a native of the United States, who is now in this country with the object of making large purchases of different kinds on behalf of the Federal Government. . . he further states as a result of the conversation with Mr. Steward that the United States government would be glad to receive a proposal for carrying these 100,000 recently freed slaves now in Pennsylvania. London made it clear it did not want U.S. burdens offloaded upon them--"no person should be sent who from old age or sickness were unfitted for field labour." No, said London, those to be deported should be "exclusively of the agricultural class and . . .pure African, "not "any persons of colour of the various shades" who Washington "would be the most anxious to be relieved from"; these deportees would be "under indentures for three years." From Government House in Demerara, in the nation that was to become Guyana, there was enthusiasm for this proposal, in light of the vast territory there and the sparse population. "Contraband" Negroes, i.e., escapees from the South, "border state" Negro slaves, "liberated Africans"--i.e., those caught on slavers--all would be welcome.

But as time passed, it seemed that London was arriving at the conclusion that U.S. Negroes should stay put. The Deepest South pp179-180 by Gerald Horne
 

uaskme

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
In September 1862, when London's representative in Washington reported in "confidential" words that he "had another conversation with Mr. Seward. . . he told me that the President was still anxious to carry out his scheme" but Guatemala and "San Salvador" were "against the importation of any Negroes. . . Mr. Seward expressed his conviction that the British colonies would be far better adapted than any other destination for Negro Emigrants," and the "French Government" too did not want to be excluded, as they "were anxious to obtain a share of any Negro emigration" and the "Danish" in St. Croix remained interested too. Seward remained engaged, telling London in a highly detailed proposal that "the number of this class of persons," i.e., deportees, was "augmenting and will continue to increase." Indeed the " "President" had "authorized" Seward to "enter into negotiations upon the subject." Seward informed me," said London's representative in mid October 1862, "that the Government would shortly have an embarrassing influx of Negroes upon their hands. " London was then suggesting as a way to foil CSA skepticism of this plan "embarkation" of these Negroes form the Northeast--New York, Philadelphia, Boston--not least to "preclude the appearance of taking an unfriendly part against the Southern States near their own borders." But London continued to press difficult questions. As late as 17 January 1863, President Lincoln was asking London if they would accept deportees if they could "avoid all risk of the complications which might be caused if we received Africans claimed as slaves"--this could only complicate relations with the Slave South. The Slave South pp180 by Gerald Horne
 

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Location
Central Florida
Therefore black American's would of been better off if the Confederacy won?
Leftyhunter

No, but if Lincoln had lived many may have been shipped off...

If we throw stones at Lincoln for being a racist leader wht do we givw Davis a pass or was Davis less racist?

Historians did not hide Davis's racism but they did hide Lincoln's for decades... taking away the whitewash...

Gone to ground?

Yes, Check out the book forum ...

Edited.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
' All gone to ground ' would mean anyone who admires Lincoln is hiding in shame? The thing is, there's just no refuting made-up stuff. There's simply no need for a ' Lincoln Admiration Society ' . No one is going to gasp, refuse to use pennies or visit the plethora of towns named Lincoln, avoid using any road named for him or show up at the Lincoln Memorial in mass protest, and A few determined loathers of Lincoln will not convince anyone his contributions were less than they were.

It's just silly. You know, we have so much terrific History to explore from the era. It was an awful, barbaric war. As is usual for the human race, men and women emerged who were challenged by the worst and found where their best lived. It's these people we should be spending our time celebrating- lessons in hope. No matter how dark it gets, people provide the light.

If you do not choose to believe Abraham Lincoln was one of them, it's your opinion- free to have those because a lot of Americans died for that principle. How you use that freedom is up to you. What no one is free to do is instruct anyone else all about what their opinion must be.

That is EXACTLY what is being posted. I don't hate anyone. Too old for that. But I do believe everyone should know what was going in that time period besides a terrible war! I would expect everyone to be able to take the truth on the chin and just claim it like is done with other topics of dislikes.
 

uaskme

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
The Deepest South is about Brazil. Has a chapter on Colonization: Part 3 of the British Story:

Days before the Emancipation Proclamation was to take effect, Lord Lyons in Washington was reporting in a "confidential" message that "Mr. Seward proceeded to speak at some length on the general question of the Emigration of the Coloured Population. M."
en, he said, of very great weight, and indeed the President himself inclined to the opinion that the most desirable thing for both races was to separate them and to reserve North America exclusively for the Whites, On the other hand, the more ardent members of the Emancipation Party strongly objected to the removal of the Negroes. . . it was asked whether it was wise to deprive the country of so much muscle and sinew, whether it was prudent to add to the strength of nations which might not be always friends of the United States." Reflecting the sensitivity of the discussions, Lord Lyons added tersely, "I do not think" Seward "would like them {his opinions} to be made public."

In late April 1863, London was still enmeshed in protracted negotiations with Washington about the fate of U.S. Negroes. It was then that "mr Hodge, the agent of the British Honduras Company. . . arrived" with Mr Pomeroy, Senator for Kansas. . . he has also had an audience with the President. He tells me," said Lord Lyons, "that he has met with so much encouragement and made so much progress that he hopes to be soon in a position to request me to inform the Lieutenant Governor of Honduras that the time [has]come for proclaiming the Ports in the United States for the shipment of Negroes, under the Act of the Colonial Legislature."

But London seemed to be souring on the grand scheme, as concern grew that they were being manipulated against the interest of the CSA, which "might lead to embarrassing complications." From Jamaica came the suspicion that the entire "scheme" had "originated with speculators." Others thought that U.S. Negroes might wind up being a Trojan horse for Washington, while Radical Republicans in the U.S. fretted that ousting Negroes would be akin to scoring an own goal. Thus by the summer of 1863, Lord Lyons was cooling to Washington's ideas. particularly accepting "contraband" or escaped slaves from below the Mason-Dixon line--"serious political embarrassment might be caused at the end of the Civil War by our having taken away Negroes of their class," he insisted. London would accept free Negroes, but many of them had little desire to emigrate or were viewed suspiciously by British planters. Hence, the scheme passed into stillbirth--and Lincoln was then poised to "evolve" to the point of accepting the continued presence of U.S. Negroes, not least since his desire to send them away was being extinguished for lack of finding a place to deposit them. The Deepest South pp180-182 by Horne.
 

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Location
Central Florida
Here is Lincoln... to Panam... snippets...

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/lincolns-panama-plan/

On Aug. 14 1862, Abraham Lincoln hosted a “Deputation of Free Negroes” at the White House, led by the Rev. Joseph Mitchell, commissioner of emigration for the Interior Department. It was the first time African Americans had been invited to the White House on a policy matter. The five men were there to discuss a scheme that even a contemporary described as a “simply absurd” piece of “charlatanism”: resettling emancipated slaves on a 10,000-acre parcel of land in present-day Panama.

Lincoln immediately began filibustering his guests with arguments so audacious that they retain the ability to shock a reader 150 years later. “You and we are different races,” he began, and “have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races.” The African-American race suffered greatly, he continued, “by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence.” Lincoln went on to suggest, “But for your race among us, there could not be war,” and “without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.” The only solution, he concluded, was “for us both … to be separated.”

“For many white Americans,” the historian Eric Foner has written, “colonization represented a middle ground between the radicalism of the abolitionists and the prospect of the United States’ existing permanently half slave and half free.” Needless to say, few blacks agreed, seeing colonization efforts as, at best, a distraction from abolition and, at worst, a form of slavery by other means.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Another bad moment showing Lincoln racist bias...

Here is a note of Lincoln's failed colonization project...

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3087




I gather from your post(and its title), that you are claiming Lincoln's support for colonization, was proof of Lincoln's racism

First of all, we must have your definition of 'racist' before Lincoln can be so identified.

All slave owners were racist, but, not all racist's believed in slavery. Do you believe there was no difference in the quality of their racism as compared with the other?
 
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Another bad moment showing Lincoln racist bias...

For much of his political career, Lincoln, like his political idol Henry Clay, was an advocate of colonization, based on his belief that "the great mass of white people" would refuse to extend equal rights to African Americans. This assumption and prediction, Lincoln believed, "whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded."

In 1862, the President met with a group of African Americans at the White House (no previous President had dreamed of inviting blacks to the White House), and, in what was perhaps the lowest point of his presidency, seemed to blame blacks for the Civil War and predicted that they would have to migrate overseas. Lincoln said "your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people...but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours."

Frederick Douglass condemned the President's remarks. "No sincere wish to improve the condition of the oppressed has dictated" his words, Douglass wrote. “It expresses merely the desire to get rid of them, and reminds one of the politeness with which a man might try to bow out of his house some troublesome creditor or the witness of some old guilt."

In that year, 450 African Americans were recruited to settle on the Island of Vache, off the coast of present-day Haiti. Small pox and mismanagement by a white government-appointed manager contributed to the colony's failure. The transport ship dispatched by President Lincoln picked up only 368 survivors.

Here is a note of Lincoln's failed colonization project...

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3087
There is a fundamental fallacy implicit in your opening post that if one believed in white racial superiority, one could not possibly have despised black slavery for either principled or moral reasons. Many whites who had little or no sympathy for African slaves despised slavery because of its corrosive effects on white democracy and it's insult to the dignity of free labor. Furthermore, believing that members of an inferior race should be treated humanely, or even that they should be sent somewhere else where they could be truly free, was not inconsistent with a belief that whites were superior. There is every reason to believe that Lincoln genuinely opposed slavery for principled reasons for his entire life.

Some, on the other hand, are anxious to obfuscate this critical point, because they wish to deprive those who opposed the spread of slavery of the moral high ground. People who understand American history will see through that ploy.
Edited.
 
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Whether Lincoln was a racist by contemporary lights is not even an interesting question. His life and his actions hastened the demise of slavery. Moreover, the essential role the freedmen played in saving the Union caused him to revise his opinions concerning what the nation owed the former enslaved, and what they were capable of. He grew.
 

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Location
Central Florida
Many whites who had little or no sympathy for African slaves despised slavery because of its corrosive effects on white democracy and it's insult to the dignity of free labor. Furthermore, believing that members of an inferior race should be treated humanely, or even that they should be sent somewhere else where they could be truly free, was not inconsistent with a belief that whites were superior. There is every reason to believe that Lincoln was in this category for most of his life.

I do not argue that Lincoln treated black men humanly and respectively but he was a racist. He through the white race was superior to the black race and they could not live together. I will agree with his views of the black man were changing during the war as they fought for the union.

You, on the other hand, are anxious to obfuscate that critical distinction, because you wish to deprive those who opposed the spread of slavery of the moral high ground. People who understand American history will see through your ploy.

Many of those who oppose slavery expansion feared competition. They wanted the western lands for the white man and free labor and did not want to compete against the slave interest in land and labor. After the war, they did not want the free slaves to go west either competing for land... Look up Francis Blair Jr. he was the epidemy of this group that opposed slavery moving west... It was not about opposing slavery but the fear of competing against it that fuel the anti-expansion of slavery westward before the war.

What American living in the antebellum period was not a racist by today's standards?

True...

Maybe, maybe not. It never hurts a discussion to insist on a common understanding of key terms.

True...
 
Top