Restricted Lincoln and Colonization

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
How many Northerners pre War wanted Abolition? Do you have a source?
As we've discussed in other threads, the Abolitionists- in all of the US- were small in number. According to Dr. Blight, at its height, Abolitionists made up at most 15% of the Northern population. <David W. Blight, The Civil War and Reconstruction (HIST 119). Yale Courses, Number 5. About the 15 minute point.>
 
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
How many Northerners pre War wanted Abolition? Do you have a source?
I'm pretty sure it was a minority, per WJC's previous post. However, toleration did not imply approval. The history of the era indicates that most Northerners were hostile to slavery's expansion. They may not have felt like imposing their views on Southerners where slavery already existed, but they didn't want to see the system expanded, and they certainly didn't want slavery where they were. That much is clear. Only the war convinced most Northerners that slavery needed to be abolished, because its continued existence anywhere was then understood to be a threat to everyone, everywhere.
 
Last edited:
You need to read up on Frank Blair Jr. too

Do you mean this Frank Blair, Jr.?

Two separate excerpts from COLONIZATION AND COMMERCE.
AN ADDRESS BEFORE THE YOUNG MEN’S MERCANTILE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION OF CINCINNATI,
OHIO, NOVEMBER 29, 1859.


By FRANK P. BLAIR, Jun., OF MISSOURI




"I say that measures must be taken, by which the people of the slave States can relieve themselves of it, or we shall soon cease to exist as a free people. Already, since the Revolution, the slaves have increased ten fold, mounting up from half a million to near five millions; an increase in the same proportion for the same length of time will make their number fifty millions. The country will be incapable of sustaining such a burden.

"What I propose is no measure of rashness or inconsiderate haste, but the deliberate and matured thought of the most far-seeing and sagacious of all our statesmen. It is simply to provide an asylum, in the congenial regions of the
American tropics, for such of our negroes as are now free, or who hereafter may be enfranchise by States or individuals, and who may choose to go there, and to offer them such inducements, by securing them self-government, free homesteads, and protection against foreign or domestic molestation, as they will not and cannot refuse to accept."

"When the Indians began to encumber our Northwestern and Southwestern Territories, we bought their old homes, purchased new homes for them, paid for their removal to these new homes, and then paid them annuities, to induce
them to remain there in peace and quiet. These Indians had been our enemies; the negroes have always been our friends and dependents, spending their lives in our service. Certainly we can do for a friendly people what we have so often done for our enemies. Those who believe that the negroes are an inferior race will rejoice in a complete separation of the races, and thus avoid that contact which deteriorates our own; nor is it possible for those who think differently to oppose the opening of new regions, where the negroes shall be invited to go, and take up free homesteads and enjoy free government under the protection of the United States."
 

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
As we've discussed in other threads, the Abolitionists- in all of the US- were small in number. According to Dr. Blight, at its height, Abolitionists made up at most 15% of the Northern population. <David W. Blight, The Civil War and Reconstruction (HIST 119). Yale Courses, Number 5. About the 15 minute point.>

I wonder if the 15% includes people who supported abolitionist. In some areas the locals must have at least at a certain level either supported abolition or perhaps tolerated the activities of the abolitionist. I have recently read a couple books about the underground railroad and find it hard to believe that others who lived near people engaged in the underground railroad members did not know, or at least suspect, their neighbor was working with the underground railroad.

For example I read of late night movement of escaping slaves. I find it hard to believe that some neighbor did not wonder about the movement of a neighbor's wagon at midnight. Heck I live in the city and some of my neighbors wonder why I drove to the store at 11PM.
 
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
I wonder if the 15% includes people who supported abolitionist. In some areas the locals must have at least at a certain level either supported abolition or perhaps tolerated the activities of the abolitionist. I have recently read a couple books about the underground railroad and find it hard to believe that others who lived near people engaged in the underground railroad members did not know, or at least suspect, their neighbor was working with the underground railroad.

For example I read of late night movement of escaping slaves. I find it hard to believe that some neighbor did not wonder about the movement of a neighbor's wagon at midnight. Heck I live in the city and some of my neighbors wonder why I drove to the store at 11PM.
Uncle Tom's Cabin sold a million copies
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
I wonder if the 15% includes people who supported abolitionist. In some areas the locals must have at least at a certain level either supported abolition or perhaps tolerated the activities of the abolitionist. I have recently read a couple books about the underground railroad and find it hard to believe that others who lived near people engaged in the underground railroad members did not know, or at least suspect, their neighbor was working with the underground railroad.

For example I read of late night movement of escaping slaves. I find it hard to believe that some neighbor did not wonder about the movement of a neighbor's wagon at midnight. Heck I live in the city and some of my neighbors wonder why I drove to the store at 11PM.
Thanks for your response.
I don't know for sure, but I've taken it to mean just those who called themselves Abolitionists. I agree that just like assisting runaways, there were probably others who didn't openly participate but believed it morally correct.
 
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
That it did but how can one be sure those that read it supported abolition? Uncle Tom's Cabin did seem to give a boost to the abolitionist movement.
Well, all of the main characters except for Simon Legree, so all the sympathetic main characters, were slaves. I surmise that if a person had no compassion or empathy at all for Southern slaves, they would have been relatively unlikely to have purchased a copy of the book just to be entertained. On the other side, many of those million copies likely were read by more than one person, and many who never happened to read it may also have been sympathetic to its message.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012

Edited by Moderator


During 1861 Frederick Douglass supported James Redpath, who was the General Agent of Emigration to Haiti, and his colonization efforts that led to more than a thousand Blacks from the US settling in that country during that year. Even Douglass's assistant editor from his newspaper, William J. Watkins, was one of Redpath's recruiters. By 1863, Frederick Douglass's interests in colonization changed and he was adamantly against it.

When Lincoln learned that Black colonists on Ile a Vache had been abandoned without support and that nearly 100 had died from disease, he ordered the United States Navy to bring back to the U. S. any of the Black colonists who wished to return:

CONFIDENTIAL. I WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington City, February 8, 1864.
Brig. Gen. M. C. MEIGS, Quartermaster- General:
GENERAL: The following order has been made by the President:
Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War:

SIR: You are directed to have a transport (either a steamer or sailing vessel as may be deemed proper by the Quartermaster-General) sent to the colored colony established by the United States at the island of Vache, on the coast of San Domingo, to bring back to this country such of the colonists there as desire to return. You will have the transport furnished with suitable supplies for that purpose, and detail an officer of the Quartermaster's Department who, under special instructions to be given, shall have charge of the business. The colonists will be brought to Washington, unless otherwise hereafter directed, and be employed and provided for at the camps for colored persons around that city. Those only will be brought from the island who desire to return, and their effects will be brought with them.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
O.R. Series III, Vol. IV, pg. 75

Lincoln's ordering their return was rather a strange, uncompelling act for someone, who according to you, was supposedly insistent on a national extirpation of all Blacks. All 368 surviving colonists returned to the U. S. on the Navy ship.
He is still a racist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
I do, sometimes. But if a poster thinks a particular source has some especially relevant point to make about a current discussion, he can show that he actually understands the source he is recommending, and its relevance, by summarizing it.
Or at least give a hint what specifically he/she recommends we look for.
After all, in this collegial environment, surely our objective is to share information and opinions so that we can learn about our common interest.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
As we've discussed in other threads, the Abolitionists- in all of the US- were small in number. According to Dr. Blight, at its height, Abolitionists made up at most 15% of the Northern population. <David W. Blight, The Civil War and Reconstruction (HIST 119). Yale Courses, Number 5. About the 15 minute point.>

Many of those didn’t believe in Immediateism. Colonization isn’t Immediateism. Those who wanted Colonization believed Free Blacks were just as big a problem as Slavery. If you remember Lincoln told the group of Black Leaders it was time for them to go. They were actually Republicans, not the poor, uneducated Slave. The North wanted along with Lincoln to remove Free Blacks:

Hand in hand with the development of proslavery nationalism was the flowering of the movement to return blacks to their African fatherland. From the end of the Revolution, southerners, particularly Virginians, inched toward African colonization as an alternative to emancipation, a course of action necessitated by their reverence for Revolutionary ideology and their general acceptance of the American slavery, which together posed a twin evil for society, that is, servitude (a denial of liberty) and the Negro (an alien race). When southern leaders finally attempted to deal with the problem of slavery after the turn of the century, they saw the colonization could lead to the creation of an unflawed society, But at the very moment they began rallying to this scheme, proslavery nationalists were arriving at much the same conclusion. The merging of the two impulses, one from the South and other largely from the North, provided a second occasion for the expression of proslavery sentiments prior to the 1820s and the rise of abolitionism.

After penning a vehement defense of slavery in which he discussed degestc of the Negro character, Walsh in his Appeal for nationalism described the one way in which the abolition of slavery could be achieved in America" "Colonization is, in fact, the only reliance in this great question. Without it, no plan of abolition can be effectual for the security of the whites, or the good of the blacks; since the permanence of the latter, free or enslaved, within the abode or the neighborhood, of the former, is the main danger," As long as the Negro remained, whether as slave or freeman, America would have "a two-fold, or a motley nation: a perpetual, wasting strife, or a degeneracy from the European standard of excellence both as to body and mind." After fortifying slavery with the bulwarks of traditional proslavery arguments, Walsh concluded that the real evil in America society was not slavery but rather the presence of an inferior and potentially volatile race of men. Proslavery by Larry E Tise pp50-51

Colonization wasn't Garrison Abolition. The Norths as well as the Souths response to Colonization was ProSlavery. The North thought of it as AntiSlavery but it was the same argument against Immediateism as the Souths ProSlavery argument. The 1860s argument was the same as what happened in the 1820s.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Many of those didn’t believe in Immediateism. Colonization isn’t Immediateism. Those who wanted Colonization believed Free Blacks were just as big a problem as Slavery. If you remember Lincoln told the group of Black Leaders it was time for them to go. They were actually Republicans, not the poor, uneducated Slave. The North wanted along with Lincoln to remove Free Blacks:

Hand in hand with the development of proslavery nationalism was the flowering of the movement to return blacks to their African fatherland. From the end of the Revolution, southerners, particularly Virginians, inched toward African colonization as an alternative to emancipation, a course of action necessitated by their reverence for Revolutionary ideology and their general acceptance of the American slavery, which together posed a twin evil for society, that is, servitude (a denial of liberty) and the Negro (an alien race). When southern leaders finally attempted to deal with the problem of slavery after the turn of the century, they saw the colonization could lead to the creation of an unflawed society, But at the very moment they began rallying to this scheme, proslavery nationalists were arriving at much the same conclusion. The merging of the two impulses, one from the South and other largely from the North, provided a second occasion for the expression of proslavery sentiments prior to the 1820s and the rise of abolitionism.

After penning a vehement defense of slavery in which he discussed degestc of the Negro character, Walsh in his Appeal for nationalism described the one way in which the abolition of slavery could be achieved in America" "Colonization is, in fact, the only reliance in this great question. Without it, no plan of abolition can be effectual for the security of the whites, or the good of the blacks; since the permanence of the latter, free or enslaved, within the abode or the neighborhood, of the former, is the main danger," As long as the Negro remained, whether as slave or freeman, America would have "a two-fold, or a motley nation: a perpetual, wasting strife, or a degeneracy from the European standard of excellence both as to body and mind." After fortifying slavery with the bulwarks of traditional proslavery arguments, Walsh concluded that the real evil in America society was not slavery but rather the presence of an inferior and potentially volatile race of men. Proslavery by Larry E Tise pp50-51

Colonization wasn't Garrison Abolition. The Norths as well as the Souths response to Colonization was ProSlavery. The North thought of it as AntiSlavery but it was the same argument against Immediateism as the Souths ProSlavery argument. The 1860s argument was the same as what happened in the 1820s.
Thanks for your response and yet another facet of this complex issue.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Many of those didn’t believe in Immediateism. Colonization isn’t Immediateism. Those who wanted Colonization believed Free Blacks were just as big a problem as Slavery. If you remember Lincoln told the group of Black Leaders it was time for them to go. They were actually Republicans, not the poor, uneducated Slave. The North wanted along with Lincoln to remove Free Blacks:

Hand in hand with the development of proslavery nationalism was the flowering of the movement to return blacks to their African fatherland. From the end of the Revolution, southerners, particularly Virginians, inched toward African colonization as an alternative to emancipation, a course of action necessitated by their reverence for Revolutionary ideology and their general acceptance of the American slavery, which together posed a twin evil for society, that is, servitude (a denial of liberty) and the Negro (an alien race). When southern leaders finally attempted to deal with the problem of slavery after the turn of the century, they saw the colonization could lead to the creation of an unflawed society, But at the very moment they began rallying to this scheme, proslavery nationalists were arriving at much the same conclusion. The merging of the two impulses, one from the South and other largely from the North, provided a second occasion for the expression of proslavery sentiments prior to the 1820s and the rise of abolitionism.

After penning a vehement defense of slavery in which he discussed degestc of the Negro character, Walsh in his Appeal for nationalism described the one way in which the abolition of slavery could be achieved in America" "Colonization is, in fact, the only reliance in this great question. Without it, no plan of abolition can be effectual for the security of the whites, or the good of the blacks; since the permanence of the latter, free or enslaved, within the abode or the neighborhood, of the former, is the main danger," As long as the Negro remained, whether as slave or freeman, America would have "a two-fold, or a motley nation: a perpetual, wasting strife, or a degeneracy from the European standard of excellence both as to body and mind." After fortifying slavery with the bulwarks of traditional proslavery arguments, Walsh concluded that the real evil in America society was not slavery but rather the presence of an inferior and potentially volatile race of men. Proslavery by Larry E Tise pp50-51

Colonization wasn't Garrison Abolition. The Norths as well as the Souths response to Colonization was ProSlavery. The North thought of it as AntiSlavery but it was the same argument against Immediateism as the Souths ProSlavery argument. The 1860s argument was the same as what happened in the 1820s.

Was colonization forced by Lincoln on slaves and freedmen?
 

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Location
Central Florida
You've said and implied much about Lincoln on this issue.

At least your tardy admission that Lincoln did NOT force slaves and freedmen to colonize, is a small step towards historical fact vice personal interpretation.

No... angelic lincoln supporters ignore lincoln's wanton desire to export freedmen... His insistence that White men were superior to Black men...

Edited by moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
No... You angelic lincoln supporters ignore lincoln's wanton desire to export freedmen... His insistence that White men were superior to Black men...
I think nearly everyone here would agree that Lincoln was no angel, and that he believed in white superiority, as nearly all white persons alive in his time, perhaps even most abolitionists. However, no proof or cogent argument has been given that having advocated for colonization was evidence of an individual's moral perfidy or hypocrisy.

Yeah, Lincoln was a "racist." But he was a racist whose actions freed four million people and saved the only democracy then on earth.

Edited by moderator
 
Last edited:

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Was colonization forced by Lincoln on slaves and freedmen?

The Department Of Negro Deportation lost its Records. Wonder Why? When the Republicans were negotiating with the English, they asked if they would take Slaves. Lincoln shopped the Negroes all over the World, and got no takers. So, if he had, who knows? Hopefully the story someday will be told.

Colonization from the White Mans prospective was not for the benefit of the Negro. That whole Narritive is a Whitewash. Whites didn’t want to live with them.
 
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Colonization from the White Mans prospective was not for the benefit of the Negro. That whole Narritive is a Whitewash. Whites didn’t want to live with them.

If the benefit of white people had been the only consideration, they would have been looking to sell the slaves to other slaveholding countries, not to set them up in a free colony at all. Could it be that the colonization advocates just might have considered colonization to have been a positive outcome for all concerned?

Edited by moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:

E_just_E

Captain
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Location
Center Valley, PA
Folks, please let's tone it down a bit. This is about Lincoln and Colonization and not about the other posters. Please discuss the topic and opinions and not the posters. I edited out a whole bunch of "you this" and "you that". Next will be thread banning and locking.

Thank you.
 
Incorrect. Lincoln was up front with the Black Clergy he called to the White House on August 14, 1862 and explained that colonization was every bit to benefit the White man as it was the Black freeman. He made no bones about it and spelled it out to them They politely listened and then told Lincoln nicely to go pound sand.




Transcript of Lincoln's August 14, 1862 remarks on colonization to Black clergy at the White House:

"Why should people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss ; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated.You here are freemen, I suppose?

"Perhaps, you have long been free for all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoys. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you. I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact about which we all think and feel alike, I and you. We look to our condition. Owing to the existence of the two races on this continent, I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of slavery.

"I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition—the country engaged in war—our white men cutting one an other's throats—none knowing how far it will extend—and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of slavery, and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence. It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. I know that there are free men among you who, even if they could better their condition, are not as much inclined to go out of the country as those who, being slaves, could obtain their freedom on this condition. I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe that you can live in Washington, or elsewhere in the United States, the remainder of your life as easily, perhaps more so, than you can in any foreign country; and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country.

"This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case. You ought to do something to help those who are not so fortunate as yourselves. There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us. Now, if you could give a start to the white people, you would open a wide door for many to be made free. If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by slavery, we have very poor material to start with. If intelligent colored men, such as are be fore me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed.

"There is much to encourage you. For the sake of your race you should sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people. It is a cheering thought throughout life, that something can be done to ameliorate the condition of those who have been subject to the hard usages of the world. It is difficult to make a man miserable while he feels he is worthy of himself and claims kindred to the great God who made him. In the American Revolutionary war sacrifices were made by men engaged in it, but they were cheered by the future. General Washington himself endured greater physical hardships than if he had remained a British subject, yet he was a happy man because he was engaged in benefiting his race, in doing something for the children of his neighbors,having none of his own.

"The colony of Liberia has been in existence a long time. In a certain sense it is a success. The old President of Liberia, Roberts, has just been with me—the first time I ever saw him. He says they have within the bounds of that colony between three and four hundred thousand people, or more than in some of our old States, such as Rhode Island or Delaware, or in some of our newer States, and less than in some of our larger ones. They are not all American colonists or their descendants. Something less than 12,000 have been sent thither from this country. Many of the original settlers have died ; yet, like people elsewhere, their offspring outnumber those deceased.

"The question is, if the colored people are persuaded tp go anywhere, why not there? One reason for an unwillingness to do so is that some of you would rather remain within reach of the country of your nativity. I do not know how much attachment you may have toward our race. It does not strike me that you have the greatest reason to love them. But still you are attached to them at all events.

"The place I am thinking about having for a colony is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia—not much more than one fourth as far as Liberia, and within seven days' run by steamers. Unlike Liberia, it is a great line of travel—it is a highway. The country is a very excellent one for any people, and with great natural re sources and advantages, and especially because of the similarity of climate with your native soil, thus being suited to your physical condition. The particular place I have in view is to he a great highway from the Atlantic or Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean, and this particular place has all the advantages for a colony. On both sides there are harbors—among the finest in the world.

"Again, there is evidence of very rich coal-mines. A certain amount of coal is valuable in any country. Why I attach so much importance to coal is, it will afford an opportunity to the inhabitants for immediate employment till they get ready to settle permanently in their homes.

"If you take colonists where there is no good landing, there is a bad show ; and so where there is nothing to cultivate and of which to make a farm. But if something is started so that you can get your daily bread as soon as you reach there, it is a great advantage. Coal land is the best thing I know of with which to commence an enterprise.

"To return—you have been talked to upon this subject, and told that a speculation is intended by gentlemen who have an interest in the country, including the coal-mines. We have been mistaken all our lives if we do not know whites, as well as blacks, look to their self-interest. Unless among those deficient of intellect, everybody you trade with makes something. You meet with these things here and everywhere.

"If such persons have what will be an advantage to them, the question is, whether it cannot be made of advantage to you? You are intelligent, and know that success does not so much depend on external help as on self-reliance. Much, therefore, depends upon yourselves. As to the coal-mines, I think I see the means available for your self-reliance.

"I shall, if I get a sufficient number of you engaged, have provision made that you shall not be wronged. If you will engage in the enterprise, I will spend some of the money intrusted to me. I am not sure you will succeed. The government may lose the money; but we cannot succeed unless we try; and we think, with care, we can succeed.

"The political affairs in Central America are not in quite as satisfactory a condition as I wish. There are contending factions in that quarter; but, it is true, all the factions are agreed alike on the subject of colonization, and want it and are more generous than they are here.

"To your colored race they have no objection. I would endeavor to have you made the equals, and have the best assurance that you should be, the equals of the best.

"The practical thing I want to ascertain is, whether I can get a number of able-bodied men, with their wives and children, who are willing to go when I present evidence of encouragement and protection. Could I get a hundred tolerably intelligent men, with their wives and children,and able to 'cut their own fodder,' so to speak? Can I have fifty? If I could find twenty-five able-bodied men, with a mixture of women and children,—good things in the family relation, I think,—I could make a successful commencement.

"I want you to let me know whether this can be done or not. This is the practical part of my wish to see you. These are subjects of very great importance—worthy of a month's study, instead of a speech delivered in an hour. I ask you, then, to consider seriously, not pertaining to yourselves merely, nor for your race and ours for the present time, but as one of the things, if successfully managed, for the good of mankind—not confined to the present generation, be, the lay but as
'From age to age descends the lay
To millions yet to be
Till far its echoes roll away
Into eternity.'"
 
Top