PDA

View Full Version : Lincoln asked Britain to help set up colony for freed slaves



T_igger_cs_30
10 Mar 11,, 15:23
AR Sir, I came across this article this morning, thought you maybe interested in it.
Another aspect of the civil war I was unaware of, sure you are though. Anyway I found it interesting.

Lincoln asked Britain to help set up colony for freed slaves - This Britain, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/lincoln-asked-britain-to-help-set-up-colony-for-freed-slaves-2233616.html)

Mihais
10 Mar 11,, 15:40
The recent info on Lincoln is not really new per se.What's new is the fact that it gets more media attention.

It has to be somehow about Obama:biggrin:

That being said,perhaps Lincoln had the right idea at the time.A lot of suffering and internal troubles would have been probably avoided.

T_igger_cs_30
10 Mar 11,, 15:49
The recent info on Lincoln is not really new per se.What's new is the fact that it gets more media attention.

It has to be somehow about Obama:biggrin:

That being said,perhaps Lincoln had the right idea at the time.A lot of suffering and internal troubles would have been probably avoided.



The recent info on Lincoln is not really new per se.What's new is the fact that it gets more media attention.

Oh for sure Mihais, just the Civil war has never been any part of my serious reading untill the last few years, still not my main topic of interest but I do find it fascinating now, which I never did in my younger years.


That being said,perhaps Lincoln had the right idea at the time.A lot of suffering and internal troubles would have been probably avoided

You know, we had a modern day politician who made some similar type comments back in the 60's..... he was shot down by others without the same vision and courage to face the future.


It has to be somehow about Obama:biggrin:

He is under a bit of pressure aint he, poor chap.
...

astralis
10 Mar 11,, 16:12
mihais,


That being said,perhaps Lincoln had the right idea at the time.A lot of suffering and internal troubles would have been probably avoided.

i doubt it. colonization was never appealing to blacks even when oppressive slave states were around. doubly so after they became citizens.

rj1
10 Mar 11,, 21:49
Liberia.

Although it wasn't a British colony.

Albany Rifles
11 Mar 11,, 04:04
Thanks, RSM!

As has been said in the article and by others, Lincoln's views on colonization are pretty well known amongst serious students of the ACW. Its only as we approach the 150th Anniversary that the greater public is "discovering" this "new" information!

It was well known as far back in 1991..when I wrote a paper in grad school on this very subject! I remember getting into some pretty cool archival material back then during the research phase that semester.

It is actually fairly well known that Lincoln was a member of a colonization society for quite some time prior to the entering the White House. While not a full blown abolitionist he was fully committed to the slave population returning from where their ancestors were brpought from. He believed it was a in the best interests of the US to end slavery. He was also not opposed to compensated emancipation.

So while some may see this as some sign of a weakness or shortcoming on Lincoln's part I actually see it as a further proof of Lincoln's greatness....here was a man who saw what he believed was the greatest evil in American society and grappled with the problem as a man. He looked at every possible way to come to a solution. So what we see is a man rising to the occasion.

So once again, thanks for the article. I enjoyed it and I am glad that some light is being shined into some unknown aspects of the ACW. Most people are usually only aware of the UK - US relationship vis-a-vis the Trent Affair. They are not aware of the yeoman's effort put in by the State Department in Europe during the war. Most people are going to see a lot of great information coming to light in popular history as we move into the 150th Anniversary.

I am sure I will be busy along with others in these spaces in the coming years!

T_igger_cs_30
11 Mar 11,, 04:11
It was well known as far back in 1991..when I wrote a paper in grad school on this very subject! I remember getting into some pretty cool archival material back then during the research phase that semester

You are very welcome Sir, I must admit the ACW is slowly creeping more and more into my reading habits.
If you still have a copy of that paper you wrote in 1991! I would enjoy reading it if you would not mind?

JAD_333
11 Mar 11,, 05:29
Thanks Tigger...

The negro Lincoln most admired and respected was Frederick Douglass, a former slave who escaped and settled in New Bedford, Massachusetts, in 1838, and became a quite prominent abolitionist. He spent time in England on the lam. Two years after he returned he published a scathing rebuttal to the argument gaining favor at the time that the only sensible post-emancipation course was to return American negroes to Africa. Of course, emancipation was still a distant goal.

He wrote his rebuttal 11 years before the Civil War began. The date offers some perspective as to how Lincoln already favored the idea when he became president in 1861. Later in the war, Lincoln met with Douglass several times at the White House. They talked about emancipation. But whether they ever discussed colonization, I don't know. Albany may be able to shed some light on that.




COLONIZATION
by Frederick Douglas

Published in The North Star Rochester: 26 January 1849

In order to divert the hounds from the pursuit of the fox, a "red herring" is sometimes drawn across the trail, and the hounds mistaking it for the real scent, the game is often lost. We look upon the recent debate in the Senate of the United States, over this wrinkled old "red herring" of colonization as a ruse to divert the attention of the people from the foul abomination which is sought to be forced upon the free soil of California and New Mexico, and which is now struggling for existence in Kentucky, Virginia and the District of Columbia. The slaveholders are evidently at a stand to know what trick they shall try next to turn the scorching rays of anti-slavery light and truth from the bloodshot eyes of the monster slavery. The discussion of it is most painful and agonizing; and if it continues, the very life of this foul, unnatural and adulterous beast will be put in imminent peril; so the slaveholding charmers have conjured up their old familiar spirits of colonization, making the old essence of abomination to flounder about in its grave clothes before the eyes of Northern men, to their utter confusion and bewilderment. A drowning man will catch at a straw. Slavery is sinking in public estimation. It is going down. It wants help, and asks through Mr. Underwood, of Kentucky, how much of the public money (made by the honest toil of Northern men) will be at its service in the event of emancipation, "as some are in favor of emancipation, provided that the Negroes can be sent to Liberia, or beyond the limits of the United States."

Here we have the old colonization spirit revived, and the impudent proposition entertained by the Senate of the United States of expelling the free colored people from the United States, their native land, to Liberia.

In view of this proposition, we would respectfully suggest to the assembled wisdom of the nation, that it might be well to ascertain the number of free colored people who will be likely to need the assistance of government to help them out of this country to Liberia, or elsewhere, beyond the limits of these United States--since this course might save any embarrassment which would result from an appropriation more than commensurate to the numbers who might be disposed to leave this, our own country, for one we know not of. We are of the opinion that the free colored people generally mean to live in America, and not in Africa; and to appropriate a large sum for our removal, would merely be a waste of the public money. We do not mean to go to Liberia. Our minds are made up to live here if we can, or die here if we must; so every attempt to remove us will be, as it ought to be, labor lost. Here we are, and here we shall remain. While our brethren are in bondage on these shores, it is idle to think of inducing any considerable number of the free colored people to quit this for a foreign land.

For two hundred and twenty-eight years has the colored man toiled over the soil of America, under a burning sun and a driver's lash--plowing, planting, reaping, that white men might roll in ease, their hands unhardened by labor, and their brows unmoistened by the waters of genial toil; and now that the moral sense of mankind is beginning to revolt at this system of foul treachery and cruel wrong, and is demanding its overthrow, the mean and cowardly oppressor is meditating plans to expel the colored man entirely from the country. Shame upon the guilty wretches that dare propose, and all that countenance such a proposition. We live here--have lived here--have a right to live here, and mean to live here.--F.D.

Bigfella
11 Mar 11,, 08:52
Impressive man Douglass, and correct into the bargain. Having kidnapped, killed, enslaved & profitted from negroes the idea of simpy dumping them en masse back on the shores of Africa was nothing more or less than a collective evasion of responsibility for the sin of slavery. As they say in the shop, you broke it you bought it.

T_igger_cs_30
11 Mar 11,, 13:04
Amazing read, thanks Jad.

Albany Rifles
11 Mar 11,, 14:36
You are very welcome Sir, I must admit the ACW is slowly creeping more and more into my reading habits.
If you still have a copy of that paper you wrote in 1991! I would enjoy reading it if you would not mind?


Only if anyone knows how to convert a Wordstar document on 5 1/4 inch floppy to Office 2007!

Unfortunately, I did a lot of my work in grad school on a variety of platforms...settled on the early Mac.

Most of my grad school work as well as Mrs. AR's work in her nursing grad program got trashed trying to move to newer platforms.

I have electrons for my thesis and a bound copy of my thesis but that is about it.

And I have to say, if the scholarship which came to light over the past 15 years was available when I was writing my thesis I may have come to some different conclusions.

As to the subject here is the Wikipedia page which covers it fairly well.


American Colonization Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonization_Society)

I recall some of those titles in the sources section from my research. Also, since I went to an historically black university for my MA they had some access to primary sources on the subject matter.

Albany Rifles
11 Mar 11,, 14:46
The following is an excerpt from from David W. Blight's , Frederick Douglass’ Civil War: Keeping Faith in Jubilee
Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass - Abraham Lincoln's Classroom (http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/Library/newsletter.asp?ID=118&CRLI=166)




Blight wrote: “To the extent that their goal was the improvement of the lot of black people, Douglass occasionally acknowledged the good intentions of colonizationists, yet whatever benevolent features colonization represented could not mask what he saw as the central problem – racial prejudice.” Blight wrote that “Douglass believed that the colonization debate ultimately served the ends of white supremacy: to postpone emancipation and to deny blacks any claim to American nationality. He simply did not consider credible the belief held by some colonizations that their plans would hasten emancipation by making it safe.” According to Blight, “Douglass knew that the colonizationist threat rested on certain assumptions: that white prejudice was unconquerable; that blacks naturally gravitated toward tropical climates and, indeed might become extinct if they did not; that color was a natural barrier to racial intermarriage; that race determined physical and intellectual aptitude; and that the ‘character’ of the black and white races had determined that they must separate. To Douglass, the debate over colonization was a struggle to refute this scheme of racial determinism.”22

Douglass biographer Blight wrote: “In September, 1862, through Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, the Lincoln administration tried officially to enlist Frederick Douglass’ aid in its colonization scheme. Douglass had written a letter of protest to Senator Pomeroy, and Blair sought to demonstrate the black editor’s ‘misapprehension’ of the enterprise. Blair assured Douglass that there was ‘no question of superiority or inferiority involved in the proposed removal.’ He invoked the reputation of Thomas Jefferson to underscore the idea of racial separation. The minority race, argued Blair, must go elsewhere to imitate the civilization established by the majority race; the propriety of colonization stemmed from ‘the differences between them..., and it seems as obvious to me as it was to...the mind of Jefferson that the opinion against which you protest, is the necessary result of indelible differences thus made by the Almighty.’”23

President Lincoln’s draft Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862 thrilled Douglass. Historian James Oakes wrote: “Frederick Douglass was beside himself. ‘Abraham Lincoln,’ he exclaimed, ‘in his own peculiar, cautious, forbearing and hesitating way, slow, but we hope sure, has, while the loyal heart was near breaking with despair, proclaimed and declared’ that as of the following January 1 the slaves in the rebellious South ‘Shall be Thenceforward and Forever Free.’ Emancipation once proclaimed was irreversible, Douglass argued. ‘Abraham Lincoln may be slow, Abraham Lincoln may desire peace, but Abraham Lincoln is not the man to reconsider, retract and contradict words and purposes solemnly proclaimed over his official signature.’”24 Douglass was further energized by the issuance of the final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. He was in Boston at a rally awaiting word when word came: “It is comin! It is on the wires! A black preacher led the audience in singing “Sound the loud trimbrel o’er Egypt’s dark sea, Jehovah hath triumphed, his people are free.”25

Historian Stephen B. Oates wrote: “The flood of antislavery legislation delighted Frederick Douglass. ‘I trust I am not dreaming,’ he wrote Sumner, ‘but the events taking place seem like a dream.’ But he was grievously disappointed in Lincoln’s colonization moves, which he did not fully understand. Hurt and perplexed by them, Douglass damned the President for ‘his pride of race and blood, his contempt for Negroes and his canting hypocrisy.’ And he warned that the Union cause ‘would never prosper till the war assumed an anti-slavery attitude, and the Negro was enlisted on the loyal side.’”26



As you can see Douglass was an ardent foe of colonization. And it would appear that the 2 men never spoke of it face to face. Lincoln chose to use Blair as a go between so he could distance himself.

I certainly never across anything to the contrary in my research 20 years ago...but then I wasn't looking at that.

I believe Lincoln was looking to the time he would need Douglass' support in enlisting black soldiers.

T_igger_cs_30
11 Mar 11,, 14:50
Only if anyone knows how to convert a Wordstar document on 5 1/4 inch floppy to Office 2007!

:confused:

No worries Sir, thanks for the link......... give me a month or two and I may have a couple of questions for you :biggrin:

JAD_333
11 Mar 11,, 19:58
Impressive man Douglass, and correct into the bargain. Having kidnapped, killed, enslaved & profitted from negroes the idea of simpy dumping them en masse back on the shores of Africa was nothing more or less than a collective evasion of responsibility for the sin of slavery. As they say in the shop, you broke it you bought it.

Different time. Different perspective. Slavery began when manpower was in short supply and grew to become an indispenible factor in the southern economy, none of which makes it right. When it began, exploitation of primitive people was not considered so abhorrent as it is now. Again, that doesn't make it right. Once politicians in the 19h century realized slavery was doomed in the US, they faced the prospect of assimilating millions of illiterate, formerly dependent blacks into white society. Abolitionists, like liberals in all times, glossed over the problem. Objective thinkers grappled with the real questions: what disruption would several million former slaves entering the paid work force cause; how would white society accept blacks that have been regarded even by fair-minded whites as an inferior race; how will political institutions fare with large numbers or black voters added to the rolls. The idea of colonization sidestepped all these problems; it made perfect sense, if not pratical sense. Douglass laid down the challenge: whites created the problem and they would have to fix it, and we've been doing it ever since a little at a time. The election of a black president is a kind of culmination of the process for both whites and blacks. There is a way to go yet in the economic and social spheres. I expect progress to continue until the NAACP and other black organizations are no longer relevant.

JAD_333
11 Mar 11,, 20:16
And it would appear that the 2 men never spoke of it face to face. Lincoln chose to use Blair as a go between so he could distance himself.

I certainly never across anything to the contrary in my research 20 years ago...but then I wasn't looking at that.

I believe Lincoln was looking to the time he would need Douglass' support in enlisting black soldiers.

You are far more well read on the subject than I. Is it true that Lincoln met alone at least once with Douglass, or alone with just one of his personal secretaries present, Hay or Nickolay? If memory serves, one of them wrote extensively about Lincoln's time in office. I wonder if they wrote of the meetings.

Albany Rifles
11 Mar 11,, 21:28
You are far more well read on the subject than I. Is it true that Lincoln met alone at least once with Douglass, or alone with just one of his personal secretaries present, Hay or Nickolay? If memory serves, one of them wrote extensively about Lincoln's time in office. I wonder if they wrote of the meetings.

The 2 met on several occasions with Hay and/or Nickolay present. There are extensive writings from Hay on those visits.

I do not know if the 2 men ever met alone.

Bigfella
12 Mar 11,, 02:04
Different time. Different perspective. Slavery began when manpower was in short supply and grew to become an indispenible factor in the southern economy, none of which makes it right. When it began, exploitation of primitive people was not considered so abhorrent as it is now. Again, that doesn't make it right. Once politicians in the 19h century realized slavery was doomed in the US, they faced the prospect of assimilating millions of illiterate, formerly dependent blacks into white society. Abolitionists, like liberals in all times, glossed over the problem. Objective thinkers grappled with the real questions: what disruption would several million former slaves entering the paid work force cause; how would white society accept blacks that have been regarded even by fair-minded whites as an inferior race; how will political institutions fare with large numbers or black voters added to the rolls. The idea of colonization sidestepped all these problems; it made perfect sense, if not pratical sense. Douglass laid down the challenge: whites created the problem and they would have to fix it, and we've been doing it ever since a little at a time. The election of a black president is a kind of culmination of the process for both whites and blacks. There is a way to go yet in the economic and social spheres. I expect progress to continue until the NAACP and other black organizations are no longer relevant.

JAD,

I understand & agree with pretty much everything here, but I don't think it contradicts what I am saying. However proponents of returning slaves to Africa explained it to themselves, it was essentially an attempt to avoid the negative consequences of centuries of slavery. Far easier to remove blacks to Africa then have to try to find a place for them in the society that benefitted from their original imprisonment. A classic case of trying to have your cake & eat it too.

JAD_333
12 Mar 11,, 05:12
JAD,

I understand & agree with pretty much everything here, but I don't think it contradicts what I am saying. However proponents of returning slaves to Africa explained it to themselves, it was essentially an attempt to avoid the negative consequences of centuries of slavery. Far easier to remove blacks to Africa then have to try to find a place for them in the society that benefitted from their original imprisonment. A classic case of trying to have your cake & eat it too.

BF:

I wasn't thinking along the lines of contradicting you, because you pretty much nailed it. I was just kicking the helm over a bit to cover a little more ground.

Bigfella
12 Mar 11,, 07:00
BF:

I wasn't thinking along the lines of contradicting you, because you pretty much nailed it. I was just kicking the helm over a bit to cover a little more ground.

gotcha. I think this is one of those 'in furious agreement' moments.

zraver
12 Mar 11,, 08:13
they faced the prospect of assimilating millions of illiterate, formerly dependent blacks into white society. Abolitionists, like liberals in all times, glossed over the problem.

That comment is severely biased and racist. Blacks were not dependent, they were depended on. They grew the food, grew the cash crops, built the homes, made the bricks, shod the horses, cut the timber, cleaned, cooked etc. Southern whites were the welfare class living on another's labor.



Objective thinkers grappled with the real questions:

Those questions seem to be straight out of a planter's handbook. I think real objective thinkers were asking more important questions like how can we be a free people if we own slaves?

Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils.
Benjamin Franklin, An Address to the Public, November 1789

“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
—George Washington

[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.”
—John Adams

[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil.”
—Charles Carroll

“As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they …[c]urse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery].”
—John Dickinson,

“That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part.”
—John Jay

“Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts… by agreeing to this duty.”
—Richard Henry Lee

Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity… It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.”
—Benjamin Rush

“Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law… The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all.”
—James Wilson

“It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others… and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force.”
—John Witherspoon

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil."
-- Patrick Henry,

[The Convention] thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."
-- James Madison

Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States ... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in ... abhorrence."
-- John Adams

Now do you think that list of empty headed liberals ever had some objective discussions on the matter? Or do trivial things like the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and The Constitution show that your charge is baseless.


what disruption would several million former slaves entering the paid work force cause;

Simple answer, not much. Blacks had jobs and most would have stayed in the South as they did until they were recruited away by industrialists who needed labor in the north in WWI. As history shows, the land owners would have developed a system that keep profits high and mobility low.


how would white society accept blacks that have been regarded even by fair-minded whites as an inferior race;

Jim crow and segregation, ending slavery does not automatically equate with power sharing. We still don't accept blacks as equals.


how will political institutions fare with large numbers or black voters added to the rolls.

Power, the Republicans used freedmen to good effect for several elections. The Democrats are now using them to good effect.


The idea of colonization sidestepped all these problems; it made perfect sense, if not practical sense.

The first US colonization effort (Liberia) was set up by slave owners to deport freedmen out of the South. Ostensibly to "give them more freedom", in truth it was more likely it was to remove their influence among the black community.

Mihais
12 Mar 11,, 09:25
That comment is severly biased and racist. Blacks were not dependent, they were depended on. They grew the food, grew the cash crops, built the homes, made the bricks, shoed the horses, cut the timber, cleaned, cooked etc. Southern whites were the welfare class living on anothers labor.

Yep,racist scum.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.That might have been low on his/theirs priorities,but fact is that happened.How about a bit of gratitude from the freed towards those that freed them.
Now,you tell me that the middle and poor class whites could not or would not cut their timber or shoe their horses and I call that a view severely biased towards the presumed ecoomic importance of the blacks.The nation could have survived without blacks.

What those who now accuse those men of being hypocrits miss is that they had to put in balance the costs of integrating blacks in the society.That price is now paid and it's all good and done,thus the modern perspective of their perspective is severely altered.
I find nothing ignoble in the idea of returning former slaves to their native land,if I put myself into the shoes of men 150 years ago.Some whites screwed it.Others would have fixed it.
Hard and absolutely what if-esque questions -would have been better for the blacks to have their own country elsewhere?Would have been better for the rest of the nation if it hadn't experienced the trauma of integrating it's colored minority?

zraver
12 Mar 11,, 09:46
Yep,racist scum.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.That might have been low on his/theirs priorities,but fact is that happened.How about a bit of gratitude from the freed towards those that freed them.

That comment was from a wabbit, not a long dead president who didn't send whites to die for thier freedom.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free


Now,you tell me that the middle and poor class whites could not or would not cut their timber or shoe their horses and I call that a view severely biased towards the presumed ecoomic importance of the blacks.The nation could have survived without blacks.

We are not talking the nation but the antebellum South. Whites were either poor farmers, intellectuals (lawyers, doctors, shop keepers etc) or planters. Physcial labor depended on blacks who were also the ones with the skill base.


What those who now accuse those men of being hypocrits miss is that they had to put in balance the costs of integrating blacks in the society.That price is now paid and it's all good and done,thus the modern perspective of their perspective is severely altered.

The price was a fasle choice.

Mihais
12 Mar 11,, 11:01
I suppose you meant JAD's comment since you quoted him.So now the truth is racism:confused: ?Were the vast majority of blacks illiterate at the time or not?

I challenged you to argue that the nation,or even the South if you like it so,would have been finished without the low cost labor of blacks.I have yet to go in deeply in the structure of the Southern economy before the war,but if you tell me that poor farmers communities did not had blacksmiths,lumberjacks and all the other low cost,labor intensive jobs I have to ask for proof.Give me a link,a book or a statistic.
And even if that is the case,any deficit would have been filled.It's called capitalism and it tends to do just that.

''The price was a false choice''. Elaborate please.The huge political and financial effort to convince the majority to accept the blacks as equals that was paid in the end was quite real.The price the blacks had to pay for their coexistence with the whites was also both real and tangible at times.
In the mid-late 1800's that future was still avoidable.One way trip and good luck in your new home.

zraver
12 Mar 11,, 11:12
I suppose you meant JAD's comment since you quoted him.So now the truth is racism:confused: ?Were the vast majority of blacks illiterate at the time or not?

He called them the dependent class.


I challenged you to argue that the nation,or even the South if you like it so,would have been finished without the low cost labor of blacks.I have yet to go in deeply in the structure of the Southern economy before the war,but if you tell me that poor farmers communities did not had blacksmiths,lumberjacks and all the other low cost,labor intensive jobs I have to ask for proof.Give me a link,a book or a statistic.

Physical labor was the role of the blacks. whites who farmed tended to be subsistence farmers. So while a villag emight have had a farrier, who do you think is doign thr work in Charleston, Raliegh, Atlanta, New Orleans etc.


And even if that is the case,any deficit would have been filled.It's called capitalism and it tends to do just that.

How would the deficit have been filled? The planters did not want to pay. Migration was from the South until WWII. What evolved was the share cropper system that ressited all attempts to end it until mechnization.


''The price was a false choice''. Elaborate please.The huge political and financial effort to convince the majority to accept the blacks as equals that was paid in the end was quite real.The price the blacks had to pay for their coexistence with the whites was also both real and tangible at times.

Far more has been paid to keep the races apart. The planter class managed to keep control and is still the basis of a lot of southern political power.


In the mid-late 1800's that future was still avoidable.One way trip and good luck in your new home.

There were other ways to avoid it. An early adoption of the share cropper system would have secured black freedom, and secured the labor.

Shek
12 Mar 11,, 12:26
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free

Z,
Dig just a a little bit deeper, and I think you'll find a much different interpretation of this letter.

zraver
12 Mar 11,, 19:40
Z,
Dig just a a little bit deeper, and I think you'll find a much different interpretation of this letter.

Not really, Lincoln is on record repeatedly as saying he would leave slavery in-tact if it would prevent war, end the war. He did not emancipate slaves in states that stayed in the Union and reversed some of his field commanders who had freed slaves. Plus at least part of his political philosophy was from the free soil movement which opposed the expansion of slavery on economic not moral grounds.

heck, even the emancipation proclamation was aimed more at public sentiment in England and France.

JAD_333
12 Mar 11,, 22:44
That comment is severely biased and racist. Blacks were not dependent, they were depended on. They grew the food, grew the cash crops, built the homes, made the bricks, shod the horses, cut the timber, cleaned, cooked etc. Southern whites were the welfare class living on another's labor.


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.

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.


Those questions seem to be straight out of a planter's handbook.

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.

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.


I think real objective thinkers were asking more important questions like how can we be a free people if we own slaves?

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.



Now do you think that list of empty headed liberals ever had some objective discussions on the matter? Or do trivial things like the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and The Constitution show that your charge is baseless.


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.



Simple answer, not much. Blacks had jobs and most would have stayed in the South as they did until they were recruited away by industrialists who needed labor in the north in WWI. As history shows, the land owners would have developed a system that keep profits high and mobility low.

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.




Jim crow and segregation, ending slavery does not automatically equate with power sharing. We still don't accept blacks as equals.

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.



Power, the Republicans used freedmen to good effect for several elections. The Democrats are now using them to good effect.

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.


The first US colonization effort (Liberia) was set up by slave owners to deport freedmen out of the South. Ostensibly to "give them more freedom", in truth it was more likely it was to remove their influence among the black community.

I haven't researched that effort in particular. But I have read that later colonization efforts (pre-emancipation) also focused on freedmen. The fact that freedmen were having difficulty assimilating with whites even in the North was an argument the colonizers used. It didn't go down well with Douglass, as we know.

T_igger_cs_30
13 Mar 11,, 00:33
Thanks all I am really enjoying this thread..............

Shek
13 Mar 11,, 03:45
Not really, Lincoln is on record repeatedly as saying he would leave slavery in-tact if it would prevent war, end the war. He did not emancipate slaves in states that stayed in the Union and reversed some of his field commanders who had freed slaves. Plus at least part of his political philosophy was from the free soil movement which opposed the expansion of slavery on economic not moral grounds.

heck, even the emancipation proclamation was aimed more at public sentiment in England and France.

Z,
When did he write this letter? Where was it published? Why did he write it? What had happened six weeks earlier? What happened five weeks earlier? What happened four weeks later? What was happening ten weeks or so later? Context is extremely important, as the answers to the questions above will all lead you a very specific interpretation of this particular letter.

zraver
13 Mar 11,, 04:05
Z,
When did he write this letter? Where was it published? Why did he write it? What had happened six weeks earlier? What happened five weeks earlier? What happened four weeks later? What was happening ten weeks or so later? Context is extremely important, as the answers to the questions above will all lead you a very specific interpretation of this particular letter.

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.

zraver
13 Mar 11,, 04:56
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
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
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 (http://backstoryradio.org/three-civil-war-specials/)

You can also do the Podcast.

zraver
15 Mar 11,, 16:50
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
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
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
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:


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.