Lincoln asked Britain to help set up colony for freed slaves

**zraver** · 13 Mar 11,, 04:56

Originally Posted by JAD_333

You might have asked me what I meant by "dependent" before you called me a racist.

In fact, the word is very apt in the context in which I used it. While you are right that masters depended on slaves to do all the work, so could have hired workers done all the work. The difference is, a hired worker in those day could come and go as he pleased, own property, petition to settle disputes in court, legally learn to read and write, vote, and otherwise enjoy all the benefits of freedom. A slave could not. He was dependent on his owner for everything he had and everything he had could be taken from him legally. The land he tilled was the master's land, the tools he used were the master's tools, the food he ate was the master's food, and so on.

This is what I meant by dependent. It went to the question of what happens when several million slaves are freed all at once. Obviously their dependency ends abruptly. The freed slave has no land, no tools, no horses, no nothing but perhaps the clothes on his back.

The slave owner's dependency on slavery takes a different form. When the slaves on whose labor he depends for his livelihood are set free against his will he is, as you suggest, in a pickle too. But he still has his land, livestock, and tools. He has equity he can borrow on to hire paid labor. He may make less profit as a result, but he not destitute.

As it turned out the cost of slave and share cropper is about the same. Who would the master hire? There were already laws on the books restricting the movement and employment of blacks free and slave.

If one sets aside the prejudices of the day, the specter of several million slaves (never mind their race), without pot to piss in, entering the institutions of the day as free men presents one hell of a problem. Add back into the equation the racial prejudices of the day, and the problem becomes exponentially larger. No wonder some thinkers of the day advocated sending the former slaves out of the country. Poof, problem solved. Of course, it was pie in the sky.

Such thinkers were not in the south were laws carefully controlling free blacks already existed.

Not at all. Those were the questions being asked by fair-minded politicians and thinkers of the day--fair-minded as fair-minded would have been thought of then.

Not really fair minded thinkers would have noted that many blacks were literate, that they had established a continental scale system to smuggle people and learned about every physical trade there was and spoke the common tounge. Something the majrity of the immigrant population could not claim. Or maybe they would have looked at new Orleans (placage), church attendence or frontier racial mixing....

I assume by the "questions in a planters handbook" you mean all the lame arguments for continuing slavery, why the negro is inferior to whites, that segregating the races is God's wish, etc.

It's true that the people who advocated colonization were very much influenced by these arguments, but not necessarily because they themselves believed in them. The evidence is they believed a good deal of strife would emanate from those arguments, And they could see no better way around it than colonization. In other words, their view was, if two cats are going to get in a fight, take one to the next county.

Most of the colonization schemes resolved around kicking the blacks out.

That's a red herring. The subject of this thread is the colonization movement. The contradiction between the ideal of freedom and the institution of slavery is well established. I don't see anyone arguing to the contrary.

You said abolitionists were like typical liberals, they were not.

What's going on here? Shoot first and ask questions later. I said to wit that liberals in general, many of whom favored colonization, do not always think through the practical aspects of what they propose. [/quote]

No first you link abolintionists to liberals in th emodern sense then you used the term all

Put yourself in their shoes and allow yourself to see things as they saw them. They did not foresee all the events that came later. Punditry was as bad then as it is now. At least, they were half right. The races did have enormous difficulty assimilating. There is ample evidence of that now. They were, however, wrong that it could not be done, and, therefore, wrong about colonization being the only solution.

The problems with assimilation was post-war planter assimilation. The union of black and poor whites under the Republican umbrella shows this. As did numeorus pre-war examples.

What do you mean by equality? To me, race doesn't enter into whether one man is equal to another. I start from the position that we're all equal under the law. After that, I have no other claim to equality with anyone. Then it becomes a matter of personal compatibility, interests, likes, dislikes, character, integrity, accomplishment, behavior, manners, civility--and all those other things you look for in your friends, acquaintances, workers, and employers. Blacks today, sometimes with good reason, see lack of social or political acceptance by whites as a sign they are not accepted as equals because of race. While they may be right in some cases, they are not right in all. There are other reasons not to accept someone socially. So, yeah, we have a way to go yet, but we've also come a long way.

further in some areas less so in others.

One of the self-serving sides of campaign politics, but not altogether bad, because at least the party seeking votes of a minority to win has to deliver something. It's progress by tiny steps, but progress nonetheless.

blocks have always existed in US politics.

**JAD_333** · 13 Mar 11,, 08:18

Originally Posted by zraver

As it turned out the cost of slave and share cropper is about the same. Who would the master hire? There were already laws on the books restricting the movement and employment of blacks free and slave.

My point was that newly freed slaves would not be like free men who own property, can read, vote and are assimilated into society, but rather would own nothing, likely be illiterate and have no political base. If freed en masse they would face enormous difficulties assimilating into society, compounded by white racial prejudice against them. The colonists anticipated this.

Such thinkers were not in the south were laws carefully controlling free blacks already existed.

Well, of course, southerners weren't for colonization. They wanted to keep their slaves.

Not really fair minded thinkers would have noted that many blacks were literate, that they had established a continental scale system to smuggle people and learned about every physical trade there was and spoke the common tounge. Something the majrity of the immigrant population could not claim. Or maybe they would have looked at new Orleans (placage), church attendence or frontier racial mixing....

First of all, fair-minded thinkers see all sides and sincerely look for a solution best for all. They would have seen that many free blacks were educated, skilled and responsible members of the community. But they would have also seen they suffered racial discrimination despite all their accomplishments, even in the north. That was all grist for the mill when, envisioning the day all black men would be set free, they believed assimilation would be near impossible. The idea of colonization seemed the best solution to them.

Those are the facts. If you want to argue with a bunch of dead men, go ahead. I am already convinced it was a bad idea.

Most of the colonization schemes resolved around kicking the blacks out.

The one Congress was considering at the time was voluntary. They figured, wrongly as it turned out, that literate freed blacks would lead other blacks to a new country where they would be free, first-class citizens like whites here.

The problems with assimilation was post-war planter assimilation. The union of black and poor whites under the Republican umbrella shows this. As did numeorus pre-war examples.

Seems contradictory. You're saying assimilation was a problem, only that it came from a different quarter than expected.

**Shek** · 13 Mar 11,, 12:58

Originally Posted by zraver

To whom - Horace Greely editor New Yro Tribune
why- rebuttal to the "prayer of twenty millions" accusing Lincoln of ignoring the slaves to be emancipated and slave recruitment into the sarmy under the
confiscation act.

six weeks earlier- formation of the first colored infantry regiment.
five weeks earlier- Second Confiscation Act, Lincoln lets the border states know they will face gradual emancipation.

four weeks later- Antietam*
ten weeks later- McClellan foired for not pursuing he ANV

How do those events lead me to a different conclusion from that stated by Lincoln? The EP was a politcal tool aimed at England and France and Antietam gave him the chance to issue it from a possition of strength.

Z,

All above correct, although most of them are off target for gaining better insight into the letter. Remember, Lincoln is the President of the United States, and so he has very specific authorities in the Constitution and he is also the grand strategist for the United States. Thus, he controls certain policy means and Congress controls others, and so he has to shape the environment with the ways he can affect to achieve the ends.

Six weeks earlier, in the wake of being pushed back to the Peninsula, McClellan sends his Harrison Landing letter, where he advocates to Lincoln that slaves should not be touched as part of the Union war effort. Lincoln rebuffs McClellan through a non-response and within a week announces to his Cabinet his intention on issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. At this point, Lincoln recognizes the seriousness of Southern willpower to continue the Civil War, and the need to apply greater means, and so he's willing to use his powers as the CinC to free the slaves where his war powers extend - those states in rebellion. An additional consideration to only affect those states in rebellion is to ensure the continued loyalty of the border states - the time was not yet ripe to push for forced emancipation there.

Out comes Greely's letter, which then puts Lincoln in a position to offend constituencies. Knowing that important Congressional elections are only ten weeks away and that he will issue the EP after the next Union victory (which then happens to come four weeks later), he cannot afford to be tarnished as a radical, and so he must preserve his maneuver space politically while shape efforts towards his new war aim, freeing the slaves. Thus, he very poignantly in a very public fashion writes his response that places the Union as the consideration above all else, while privately, he knows given the context that slavery to the extent he can as the CinC is now a target. While the EP was a diplomatic success (although less powerful than is often portrayed), it did free slaves to the tune of 5 digits instantly and then created the de facto emancipation, even if Lincoln had not been able to push the 13th Amendment through Congress in 1864 and it had withered on the vine later.

**JAD_333** · 14 Mar 11,, 00:44

Mike:

Excellent analysis. I was hoping you would get around to it. I could see the superficiality of taking Lincoln's words at face value, but had nowhere near the insight you've given us.

**Albany Rifles** · 14 Mar 11,, 14:43

Dang, I take a weekend off to work on a Scout's Eagle project and do some yardwork (what a beautiful weekend in Virginia it was!) and this breaks out.

A little divergent but I heard a fantastic hour long program on my local NPR station last night on Secession. I have heard a few of their programs before but never one so well done. I highly recommend you check it out. The self depracating American History Guys are three of the best from the current and past faulty at UVA....and Ed Ayres is the president of the University of Rochmond.

Civil War 150th | BackStory with the American History Guys

You can also do the Podcast.

**zraver** · 15 Mar 11,, 16:50

Originally Posted by Shek

Z,

All above correct, although most of them are off target for gaining better insight into the letter. Remember, Lincoln is the President of the United States, and so he has very specific authorities in the Constitution and he is also the grand strategist for the United States. Thus, he controls certain policy means and Congress controls others, and so he has to shape the environment with the ways he can affect to achieve the ends.

All true, but immaterial to the discussion which was sparked by the following comment, "When all is said and done,that's the President that sent hundreds of thousands whites to die,among others for the freedom of the blacks."

The war had already been raging for sometime, not only without moves by the federal government to liberate the slaves, but orders from Lincoln preventign such when attempted by local commanders. While Lincoln was anti-slavery in beleif, he was not ardently so and was willing to let slavery die on the vine as free states gained control of congress. He did not send hundreds of thousands to die to the freedom of African-Americans. Thier freedom was a war time policy tool not an ad initio jus cause bellum war aim.

**Shek** · 15 Mar 11,, 17:09

Originally Posted by zraver

All true, but immaterial to the discussion which was sparked by the following comment, "When all is said and done,that's the President that sent hundreds of thousands whites to die,among others for the freedom of the blacks."

The war had already been raging for sometime, not only without moves by the federal government to liberate the slaves, but orders from Lincoln preventign such when attempted by local commanders. While Lincoln was anti-slavery in beleif, he was not ardently so and was willing to let slavery die on the vine as free states gained control of congress. He did not send hundreds of thousands to die to the freedom of African-Americans. Thier freedom was a war time policy tool not an ad initio jus cause bellum war aim.

Z,

You have to define the year.

Initially, agreed. By the time Lincoln wrote this letter, it wasn't simply a policy tool as per the 1st and 2nd Confiscation Acts passed by Congress - it was an end in and of itself. Once he actually issued the EP, soldiers voted on ending slavery as a war aim by re-enlisting or walking - there is plenty of published literature discussing how soldiers often framed their reenlistment decision this way and agreed by in large. Some did choose to leave the service, but many, many more stayed.

Once slavery became an end for the North, it essentially raised the stakes for the South to all or nothing, which meant that hundreds of thousands of whites did fight for the freedom of blacks whereas it might have been possible to have negotiated a settlement that left intact the social fabric of the South had it not been an explicit end. If you look at the peace overtures in 1864 and 1865 from the South, Lincoln's precondition to any talks was the end of slavery.

**zraver** · 15 Mar 11,, 17:47

Originally Posted by Shek

Z,

You have to define the year.

Initially, agreed. By the time Lincoln wrote this letter, it wasn't simply a policy tool as per the 1st and 2nd Confiscation Acts passed by Congress - it was an end in and of itself. Once he actually issued the EP, soldiers voted on ending slavery as a war aim by re-enlisting or walking - there is plenty of published literature discussing how soldiers often framed their reenlistment decision this way and agreed by in large. Some did choose to leave the service, but many, many more stayed.

Once slavery became an end for the North, it essentially raised the stakes for the South to all or nothing, which meant that hundreds of thousands of whites did fight for the freedom of blacks whereas it might have been possible to have negotiated a settlement that left intact the social fabric of the South had it not been an explicit end. If you look at the peace overtures in 1864 and 1865 from the South, Lincoln's precondition to any talks was the end of slavery.

Shek, whites enlisted on both sides of the issue, but these personal motivations are not Lincoln's motivations. His comment reflects some common but false assumptions about the ACW. 1. That Lincoln was goign to/ was set upon to free the slaves after his election. 2. hundreds of thousands of union dead. In relaity, Lincoln tried to avoid war and made the South fire the first shot and then did not move on the anti-slavery issue for some 18 months. Nor did hundreds of thousands die in battle. Only about 1 in 3 Union war dead was a battlefeild loss. Environment and disease were bigger killers.

**Shek** · 15 Mar 11,, 19:04

Originally Posted by zraver

Shek, whites enlisted on both sides of the issue, but these personal motivations are not Lincoln's motivations. His comment reflects some common but false assumptions about the ACW. 1. That Lincoln was goign to/ was set upon to free the slaves after his election. 2. hundreds of thousands of union dead. In relaity, Lincoln tried to avoid war and made the South fire the first shot and then did not move on the anti-slavery issue for some 18 months. Nor did hundreds of thousands die in battle. Only about 1 in 3 Union war dead was a battlefeild loss. Environment and disease were bigger killers.

Z,

You're drifting off into left field here. Here's the comment that the conversation revolves around:

Originally Posted by Mihais

When all is said and done,that's the President that sent hundreds of thousands whites to die,among others for the freedom of the blacks.

As of the EP, a Union war aim was to end slavery in those states in rebellion. Any Union soldier that dies after 1 Jan 63 is dying, "among others for the freedom of blacks", whether he dies from a bullet or from dysentary caused by being a member of a formation fighting in the ACW. In determining whether adding the end of Southern slavery to Union war aims changed behavior for the Confederacy, we can turn to Lee's 10 Jan 63 letter to SecWar Seddon:

In view of the vast increase of the forces of the enemy, of the savage and brutal policy he has proclaimed [i.e., the Emancipation Proclamation], which leaves us no alternative but success or degradation worse than death, if we would save the honor of our families from pollution, our social system from destruction, let every effort be made, every means be employed, to fill and maintain the ranks of our armies, until God, in his mercy, shall bless us with the establishment of our independence. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, R. E. Lee, General.

In turning specifically to Lincoln, we know that ending Southern slavery was a war aim adopted by Lincoln prior to his letter to Greely. Bottomline, it wasn't an original war aim, but it became one within 18 months. Mihais' comment is correct, but it could also be improved by adding this nuance/caveat/whatever you want to call it.