Posted on 02/10/2011 7:41:41 AM PST by Altura Ct.
The Great Emancipator was almost the Great Colonizer: Newly released documents show that to a greater degree than historians had previously known, President Lincoln laid the groundwork to ship freed slaves overseas to help prevent racial strife in the U.S.
Just after he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, Lincoln authorized plans to pursue a freedmen’s settlement in present-day Belize and another in Guyana, both colonial possessions of Great Britain at the time, said Phillip W. Magness, one of the researchers who uncovered the new documents.
Historians have debated how seriously Lincoln took colonization efforts, but Mr. Magness said the story he uncovered, to be published next week in a book, “Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement,” shows the president didn’t just flirt with the idea, as historians had previously known, but that he personally pursued it for some time.
“The way that Lincoln historians have grappled with colonization has always been troublesome. It doesn’t mesh with the whole ‘emancipator,’ ” Mr. Magness said. “The revelation of this story changes the picture on that because a lot of historians have tended to downplay colonization. … What we know now is he did continue the effort for at least a year after the proclamation was signed.”
Mr. Magness said the key documents he and his co-author, Sebastian N. Page, a junior research fellow at Oxford, found were in British archives, and included an order authorizing a British colonial agent to begin recruiting freed slaves to be sent to the Caribbean in June 1863.
By early 1864, the scheme had fallen apart, with British officials fretting over the legality of the Emancipation Proclamation and the risk that the South could still win the war, and with the U.S. Congress questioning how the money was being spent.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Truly moronic headline. Lincoln never considered deportation, which implies force. He promoted the idea of voluntary colonization, which seems perfectly reasonable and defensible to me.
When it became obvious there was little support among American blacks for the idea, and few “returnees” would be forthcoming, the project was quietly dropped.
It would have foundered anyway on the cost issue. Transporting, settling and subsidizing millions or even hundreds of thousands of people would have been prohibitively expensive at the time, and really even now. Jefferson and the others who supported the idea apparently couldn’t do basic math.
Historians rewriting history again.
The Civil War highlighted the weakness of the Articles of Confederation, and the strengths of Federalism when it came to fighting a war.
Many conservatives accurately trace the beginnings of the rampant Federalism we now suffer under to this period under Lincoln. Of course, Lincoln was a great President. Because of the "disease" of slavery, we had to take some strong medicine. The medicine cured us of the disease, but the side effects are still a problem to the system.
Do you have a reference for these “Lincoln worshippers” and this “standard claim”? Do they hold regular services?
Yes, you are correct.
“As president, Monroe supported the work of the American Colonization Society to create a home for freed African slaves in Liberia. ...”
Yah... On it’s face the idea seems completely reasonable. A whole population was forcibly moved from Africa to America... and once the institution that brought them here (slave labor) was gone, it seems kinda obvious that moving them back might be a good idea.
It turned out to be wildly impractical. Not to mention that by then many, if not most, of the slaves were born here and had no real connection to Africa and nothing in common with Africans. They’d be as far out of place there as anywhere.
32 years with that stupid name and I’d be violent too! LOL
CC
This is the best that I've heard this expressed. While I've known this for a number of years, I never learned it in school, and expect that very few Americans do.
Wrong.
The muslims could have sold them again.
Actually Liberia was started BEFORE Lincoln was elected. There is a reason the capital is named “Monrovia;” Monroe was president at the time...
Agreed.
Lincoln sought repatriation.
Who would be against that?
But their title will sell better.
As it turns out, Alex Haley, the author of "Roots," had to pay an IMMENSE fortune to Frank Yerby, the author of "Mandingo." It seems that Haley swiped lengthy passages and plots from Yerby's book .... verbatim. Good typist, though.
The cost of plagiarism was well worth it, as "Roots," became a billion-dollar industry, and Frank Yerby's only place in literary history is on the dusty bookshelves of thrift shops.
Just BTW, the other great plagiarist of the age is Andrew Lloyd Weber, whose haunting melodies always seem familiar to fans of their original composers. He's paid through the nose as well. Part of the deal is silence, no info afterward.
Haley I can forgive (a little because he is retired USCG)...but this Weber ... he stole from Rudolph Friml ... from Humperdinck ... from von Suppé ... half the obscure composers in Naples ... and 3/4 of the Austrians in Vienna. Wadda guy. Massive fraud! Massive billionaire!
Actually it was a book called "The African," by Harold Courlander that Haley was found to have ripped off. Haley settled for $650,000.
And Frank Yerby didn't write "Mandingo." Kyle Onstott did.
By 1865 it is probable that something way over 75% of the slaves were born in America, probably well over 95%. Importation had been illegal for almost 60 years at that point.
Slaves were smuggled in right up to the start of the war, of course, but not in large quantities. Southern juries were loath to convict, if the feds even brought charges.
BTW, during Lincoln’s administration they finally hanged a slave importer as a pirate, the legal definition of the crime.
Good for Abe.
This is a classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy.
Lincoln did what was necessary to win the war. After the war, with the exception of Reconstruction, the relationship between the states and the federal government returned to pretty much where it had been before.
It wasn't until the Progressives of the late 19th century and in particular TR got going that the federal government began its continuous march to power. This was 25 years or so after Lincoln. To blame everything bad that has happened in this country since 1865 on Lincoln requires us to assume the Progressives wouldn't have come along if Lincoln had acquiesced in southern secession. This assumption is based on absolutely nothing.
We must also assume that two nations, inherently hostile to each other, could have co-existed on this continent without necessarily increasing government power in each. Given the massive increase in government power, complete with huge standing armies, that took place under similar circumstances in Europe at the same time, this seems a remarkably inapt assumption.
Is it your view that Lincoln was supportive of deportation until the end of his life? If you do, we don’t disagree.
No. I’ve seen no evidence to support that contention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.