Dixie's dilemma

... because there are so many statements by Lincoln supporting colonization.

EXACTLY!

Where is the evidence in the record between 1865 and 1892 that Butler met with Lincoln and discussed these things? Butler is the only source that I have seen advanced.

What, you think Butler IGNORED the summons by Lincoln to come to Washington issued in January 1865?

You won't make the record show anything else -- and you cannot quote Lincoln as favoring colonization in 1863, 1864 or 1865.

Butler quotes Lincoln, and it's documented that Lincoln summoned him to Washington in 1865.

Lee was a bum.

This is your definition of a bum? May the LORD give America many more bums like Lee!

i do NOT know EVEN ONE person who TODAY would defend chattal slavery.

nonetheless, slavery caused the WBTS in the same exact way that fish cause floods.

FRee dixie,sw

It was felt to be the only way to get slaveholders and the general White population to tolerate the idea.

No doubt that would help its cause, but Lincoln certainly seemed to embrace it himself on idealogical grounds. He stated so before and after being elected. I don't see it as a big deal that he did, it was the 1800s.

As it became clear that slavery had essentially collapsed, and that there would be no compensated emancipation, interest in colonization waned. The strong sentiment of Blacks against emigration, and the achievements of Black troops in battle further weakened support for resettlement.

I would say the later power moves of the radicals is what curbed it. Preventing the allocation of funds did the most damage outright, because that stopped it dead in its tracks. No funding meant no purchase of lands, no contracts to research possible locales or for experimental runs, etc. If Lincoln had abandoned the idea on idealogical grounds, it seems there would clear statements either direct or indirect, demonstrating that. Not necessarily a "I no longer support such and such" type quote, but just some that clearly indicated an alternative idea. The radicals were very opposed to the idea of colonization, and after 1863 Lincoln had to make deals with them he never would have made otherwise. His lack of publically pushing it coincided with the rise of their influence.

As you note, colonization had generally gone hand in hand with emancipation. But this wasn't a particular feature of Lincoln's mind. It certainly wasn't something unique to him. It was part of the political landscape of the era, at least outside small radical circles.

He had always maintained a support for gradual emancipation combined with colonization prior to being elected, and then afterwards referenced his previous beliefs. In that speech before congress about the emancipation amendment he pretty well tied the two together. I don't see any shame in that for Lincoln, it was the 1850s, and he did oppose slavery and believe blacks were entitled to freedom. No one can take that away from him. When I used the "ship them off to Africa" phrase or "clear the way to the docks" or whatever it was I said to the other poster, it was in the heat of debate, and I was giving what I got. I in no way condemn Lincoln for supporting colonization. Historical perspective.

I wouldn't want to be so determined and impassioned in attacking colonization that I made advocates and champions of slavery look good.

I must have misled you. My statements to the other poster were not intended to condemn Lincoln for his colonization beliefs. My statements, in exasperation, were more of a very direct presentation of the truth to firmly establish the falseness of his revisionist position and statements. Previously, and on other threads as well, he had repeatedly demonstrated a maniacal denial of the historical record. I honestly believe, to put it bluntly, that if he were to enter heaven today, he would ask The Almighty what He was doing sitting on Abe's throne. I give what I get, and have handled him as he has handled me. Yes, I have brutally made a point here or there, but only in utter frustration at a continuing and deliberate perversion of truth on his part. Many times I have stated the purpose of those posts, so others would not think I was judging or condemning Lincoln for his race beliefs and added how important historical perspective is. Many times I did that. By the same token, I will not give in to his extreme revisionism that paints a grandly false picture of him. WP can greatly laud Lincoln with perfect legitimacy without having to admit to or focus on the negative (by today's standards) aspects, but he chooses instead to ascribe to Lincoln attributes and motivations which fly in the face of truth, and Lincoln's own words. By confronting him with those other aspects, I was attempting to make him admit he had vastly misreprented the historical record. Lincoln was ALWAYS against slavery. He ALWAYS believed that blacks had the right of freedom. But when someone quotes from a speech claiming it's "proof" Lincoln advocated giving blacks citizenship at such and such a time, and in that same speech Lincoln strongly denies that very thing, they should be corrected. When someone claims that a particular letter "proves" something it doesn't even discuss, they should be corrected. etc., If it got heated, well, that happens.

Lincoln played no great role in the colonization movement, but willingly or unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously, he played a great role in bringing that movement to an end. If he'd wanted resettlement, he would have pushed harder for it. Instead he let it die away. He didn't slam the door shut on emigration, but neither did he promote or urge it on the country or the Black population, when it became clear that it wasn't wanted.

Actually, I'd say he did play a great role in the colonization movement. He was a long time proponent of it, and a member of the ACS, and just a few weeks before the enaction of the EP he stood before congress and strongly advocated it. A president in wartime, asking for a constitutional amendment to which he connected it. To me that's playing a pretty big role, but that's me. As far as bringing it to an end, I would say the radicals have more claim to that. His death put an end to many issues, and the radicals took complete control and killed it forever. If he had not died in the last days of the war, I and many historians think there is reason enough to believe he would have challenged the radicals on that issue once the war was over. As for him not pushing it harder in the last 2 years, he certainly didn't reverse what he had already advocated. The radicals that opposed him on that issue put a stop to it. Thanks to Booth, that is one of many issues left open to debate. The endless what-ifs...

The quotations posted here by others bear this out.

Not in the least. Not by any means. IMO.

What Lincoln's critics seem to want is some unequivocal condemnation of colonization as evil. Given the attitudes of the day that couldn't have happened. Columnists and essayists can make such declarations. Politicians and statesmen are jugglers, keeping a different ideas and policies in the air, some that have to be implemented, some that have outgrown their usefulness or possibility, and others whose time hasn't yet come. What matters is the result achieved, not a set of fine position papers with no concrete achievements to show for them.

I have not asked for some unequivocal condemnation of colonization. I only asked for something that shows he had abandoned the idea. Go beyond colonization by name. Where are his statements of what would be done with the millions of newly freed slaves? The other poster has given a quote saying Lincoln advocated voting rights for "the very intelligent" and those that served as soldiers, but what of the rest. He was clearly making distinctions. Was it his intention to create a subserviant class of freedmen with lesser rights? Is that Lincoln's emancipation? I don't think so, he spoke many times in the past that an idea like that was not anything he supported or would support. Did he change his mind, or did he intend something else for them? That one statement (which I haven't seen the source for) is the only one presented that indicated anything about his post-war "goals" for black Americans. It has been proffered as "proof" that Lincoln had abandoned colonization ideas. If one will but look at, it answers nothing, but yields a hundred questions instead.

Lincoln's motivations are hard to sort out.

Amen to that, he was a consumate politician. The book you referenced earlier treats that well.

Radical Republicans might have had some effect. Flattery and the adulation of freedmen for Lincoln might also have played a part in changing his mind. But an appreciation the fighting ability, tenacity, desire for freedom and committment to the country of the Black population was likely to be the major factor.

I know many recent historians say that, and give quotes from letters and addresses praising black soldiers to "prove" it. Lincoln and many others feared that black soldiers would not be accepted either by the military or the citizens, and that they may prove inadequate. That was a tremendous worry to Lincoln, who wanted very much to use them, botht to subvert manpower from the South and strengthen his own army. Statements lauding the attributes of black soldiers, when placed back in the whole context from which they are taken, seem to say no more than "our fears of their acceptance and success" were wrong. I haven't seen quotes yet, that when you read the whole statement, say any more than that.

So, yes, Lincoln didn't share our accepted ideas about race and integration. Neither did Washington or Jefferson or Jackson, or Polk or Theodore Roosevelt or Wilson or FDR, or the majority of those who favored or opposed such statesmen.

I agree whole-heartedly. I have repeatedly proclaimed the need for historical perspecive when reviewing Mr. Lincoln's race views.

Lincoln would have been ahead of most of his contemporaries or the Founders themselves.

I believe that is a true statement. I in no way wish to take from Mr. Lincoln what is his in regards to race. He Always was against slavery, and Always believed blacks were entitled to freedom. Two things that most Americans and many politicians did not believe.

Many Confederate types condemn Lincoln for attitudes he shared with many others in his day, before and later.

:) Some just point out the hypocricy of some neo-unionist types (WP), who being embarassed by Lincoln's commonly held race views, become either evasive on the issue or completely deny he held them. Kind of rubbing his nose in it a bit you might say. :) As for myself, I have repeatedly, even in the heat of debate, clarified that I did not condemn or judge Mr. Lincoln for his stated beliefs, but was only presenting that part of the picture which someone else (WP) had tried to erase due his embarassment that it existed. (I have let much of his evasiveness slide by.) Mr. Lincoln should be afforded all that he is deserved, and I have pointed out more times than I remember that Mr. Lincoln was always against slavery, and had always believed that blacks were born with the right of freedom. I have also pointed out repeatedly that any race views he held should be viewed with historical perspective. He should not be judged by modern standards, for that would indeed be a gross injustice.

But hold the founders -- and indeed, the Confederates -- to such standards and no one will be left standing, though it is likely that Federalists and Whigs will end up looking better than Jeffersonians or Jacksonians on racial issues.

Basically a true statement, but I wouldn't use the word "none". There were some, but I will admit the percentages were uneven, to say the very least. But let us not forget historical perspective, it is ever so important.

Your logic leaves much to be desired. If X has attribute A, that does not necessarily mean that X is a symbol of A. George Washington owned slaves. But Washington is not a symbol of slave-owners. Washington had wooden teeth. But he is not a symbol of wooden denture wearers. In determining whether something is a symbol of something else, it matters a great deal what the majority of people think.

And so, you, maro, are the final arbiter in regards to not only what the true symbolism of this or that will be but also “what the majority of the people think”?

The U.S. military has honored former foes by naming warships and U.S. Army bases after them for a century and a half. However, in your prior post, you decreed that this is not acceptable because it ran contrary to your own personal opinion.

I provided you a link documenting that the Orleans Parish, La. school board stripped George Washington’s name from a public school because the school board considered him a symbol of slavery. To quote from the article, “Why should African-American children learn about freedom in a school that honors a man who denied the most basic of liberties to their ancestors? “ You may deny it if you wish but that Orleans Parish, La. school board did consider George Washington to be a symbol of slavery and did strip his name from a public school because of it, renaming the school Dr. Charles Richard Drew Elementary.

One can and should understand slavery and other human behaviors in historical and cultural context. But one should also have moral opinions in the here and now. And in the here and now, I say to you that slavery is and was evil. I thought you (like the vast majority of Americans) would of course agree with that simple proposition. I am not so sure now.

And here we have the classic Liberal race-baiting. “Agree with my point of view in the argument about the Confederate battle flag or you be will be labeled as someone who does not believe that slavery was evil”.

Not too long ago, when that silly TV show, “The Dukes of Hazzard” was on the air, America watched a show that featured a car named “General Lee” with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof. Nobody, let alone “a majority”, equated that car with racism any more than they equated the little Confederate battle flags they sell at the Gettysburg souvenier shops with racism.

It has only been since relatively recently that a very vocal group of race-baiters in the NAACP has embarked on a campaign to equate the display of the Confederate battle flag as proof of racism.

"When you don’t vote, you let another church explode. When you don’t vote, you allow another cross to burn. . . . Vote smart. Vote Democratic for Congress and the U.S. Senate."

Quite a lot of symbolism there, maro.

If you do not agree with the NAACP’s support of the Democrat Party, you are a cross burning, church bombing racist.

If you do not agree with the NAACP’s interpretation of the One True Meaning of the symbolism of the Confederate battle flag, you are a racist. You, maro, then add that it also means that you do not believe that slavery was evil.

Maybe you can get someone else to cave in to your NAACP race-baiting, maro. However, you won’t have any success with me.

Read Post # 129. I think this fellow thinks that the enslavement of people who would be "lifted up" by slavery is perfectly OK. This is the very same argument that 19th century Southern slave owners used to justify slavery.

I tire of your fatuous, brainless inability to distinguish between my position on the rebel flag from the extreme positions of, for example, the NAACP on other issues, or of ultra-liberal school boards on George Washington.

Your position, maro, is simply that everyone has to agree that the Confederate battle flag is “tainted” and to wear it is analogous to wearing a swastika in order “to celebrate Auschwitz” at worst or a symbol of "white power" at best. (Post 56)

If someone does not agree with your position, maro, then you proclaim them to be ”brainless” (Post 209) or accuse them of not being believing that slavery is evil (Post 200).

Your arguments, maro, are identical to the NAACP's race-baiting:

“If you do not agree with my position on ( insert topic here ), then you are ( insert ad hominem attack and accusation of racism here ) .”

Although U.S. Army bases were named in honor of Confederate warriors at a time when the Union veterans of the Grand Army of the Republic were still alive and had absolutely no objections to such an honor, you, maro, who obviously have no military background, have decreed that such men's names have “no place in the armed forces”.

Although the Stars and Stripes was flown by U.S. white soldiers at the Cherokee Trail of Tears and black Buffalo Soldiers in the West during the Indian Wars, you, maro, take it for granted that a descendent of the Sioux such as “sarasmom” or a descendent of the Cherokee such as “stand waite” will not equate the Stars and Stripes with the ethnic cleansing of vast portions of 19th Century America.

Your position, maro, is simply that you have decreed that the flag flown in battle by Virginians when defending Virginia from invasion from men from Massachusetts, Indiana and Ohio is "tainted" and it's dislay is analogous to the display of the Nazi swastika but that the flag flown in battle by black Buffalo Soldiers killing Indians to ethnic cleanse the American Frontier should be perfectly acceptable to all.

In short, maro, you, have taken it upon yourself to decree which military men and military flags in American History shall be considered Politically Correct and which military men and military flags in American History shall be considered Politically Incorrect.

You, maro, have taken it upon yourself to decree which modern Americans have a moral right to honor their warrior ancestors and which modern Americans must not do so lest they offend someone.

You have taken it upon yourself to decide which modern Americans have a right to demonize the ancestors of other modern Americans without question and which modern Americans merely have the duty to accept that demonization without question.

Sarasmom’s comments to you bear repeating:

*********************************************
To maro:

As a transplanted yankee, born and raised in the North, I understand your attitude, and I hope you can come to understand what the South considers the extremely offensive and naked hypocrisy of the North.

This country endured a vicious and brutal civil war. The death toll was huge, on both sides. The actual battlefields were primarily located in the Southern states, who did indeed lose that war. Northern women were not brutally raped by invading soldiers. Northern homes were not burned to the ground. Northern landowners were not summarily deprived of family owned property. Northerners did not endure the decades of poverty and subjugation and the attempt of the "victors" to completely erradicate a society.

After all these years, one would think the North would get over their pride of victory and attempt to deal honestly with history and reality.

BTW, speaking historically on behalf of my Sioux ancestors, why don’t you all get off my lands, and take your slaves with you? LOL!

Or am I, and my people, not an equally deserving minority who obviously would be mortally offended by the sight of a particular flag? ......Sarasmom.
*********************************************

“Tainted” and analogous to wearing a swastika in order “to celebrate Auschwitz”.....according to maro.

Buffalo Soldier, 25th Infantry......Sorry, "sarasmam" and "stand waite". Native Americans are not on Maro's list of which modern Americans have the right to be mortally offended by the warrior ancestors of other modern Americans.

Confederate veterans of Pickett's Division and Union veterans of the Philadelphia Brigade trading ceremonial battle flags on July 3, 1913 at the Gettysburg 50th Anniverssary Reunion.

"Comrades and friends, these splendid statues of marble and granite and bronze shall finally crumble to dust, and in the ages to come, will perhaps be forgotten, but the spirit that has called this great assembly of our people together, on this field, shall live for ever."...........-Dr. Nathaniel D. Cox, July 2, 1913 at Gettysburg.

Sorry, Dr. Cox. You were wrong. People like Maro have decreed that the Bloody Shirt should be dug up and waved again and that selected groups of Americans should once again engage in the sport of demonizing the ancestors of other fellow Americans.

BRAVO!!! Well said. A most eloquent defense of truth, objectivity, and history itself. I say again, BRAVO!

"Let me get this straight. You believe in secessionism? I don't."

Whooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeee! You obviously don't believe in how this country came about then. But if you will read carefully the Declaration of Independence, which is where our American ideals were first put into written form, then you would see that Secession is a right of the people when they feel the government no longer works on their behalf. You must first understand that in the American system of government the way the Founders set it up, the ultimate authority is the people (i.e. States) ... not Congress, not the Supreme Court, not the Federal Government. The Federal government was ceeded certain limited powers by each state, but control over a State's own domestic institutions was not one of them.

"It is true that I never was in the armed forces, but I don't know what that has to do with anything."

Anyone who has served knows that the enemy's common foot soldier, or sailor, or marine is only doing his duty according to what his superiors prescribe. The common foot soldier does not make policy ... all he does is to fight. You, having never been in the military understand very little of a soldier's life, or how he feels, or what he truly believes in, or what keeps him going on when others would quit. Do you truly understand the way the soldier views duty and honor? You must see these things from a soldier's perspective, before you can sit in judgement upon one.

"Let me ask you this: are U.S. soldiers permitted to wear a Confederate flag T-shirt in the mess hall in today's integrated army?"

Soldiers are authorized to wear what ever regulations prescribe. Usually in a mess hall they will be in a regulation uniform. In Vietnam soldiers flew the Confederate Battle flag from tanks, or other vehicles. They are allowed to have them in their rooms, they can probably wear it unless it it no longer authorized.

As for being fixated on the Confederate Battle Flag, it was my ancestors flag, and it is my flag. It stood for a fight for the liberty of self-determination, not subjugation as the Yankee myth makers would have you believe. Like I suggested before, go back and study the Founder's original intent ... be open minded and you might just come away from your studies surprised at what you've learned. A good book to start with is 'The American Ideal of 1776, Twelve Basic American Principles' - by Hamilton Abert Long. Then pick up the book 'A Constitutional History of Secession'- by John Remington Graham. Both of the authors are lawyers so they understand the law well.

Lastly ... all this imbroglio about the Confederate Battle Flag is another result of feeble minded Americans ascribing to Political Correctness. Now if you want the government to tell you what is acceptable thought, or speech, then you would've made a good little Communist. But free thought, free speech among other liberties are what the Founder's bequeathed to posterity (all of us). Freedom means growing a "thicker skin" ... all of this sensitivity crap is what is undermining our moral fibre.

Let me address just one point: you misunderstand free speech. The First Amendment prohibits "state action" that inhibits the expression of speech, especially political speech. The First Amendment generally does not apply to the legitimate policy choices that the Government makes to favor one idea over another, for example by prohibiting certain symbols in public schools, unless the "public forum" doctrine applies. That's what prevents Nativity scenes from being sponsored in front of City Hall. (I kind of disagree with those cases, but that is the law.) And public schools are not a public forum in that sense. Thus, the Government cannot prevent you or any other American from wearing any kind of flag you please on the street. But that doesn't prevent the Government, if it chooses, from prohibiting the Stars and Bars in a public school. This has to be the law; if it were otherwise, there would be a Constitutional barrier to banning Osama bin Laden T-shirts as well in the public schools. Finally, I think the bottom line of your fiery rhetoric is that you believe in secessionism, and think that is built into the American Constitution. That is OK; you have a First Amendment right to that opinion. But you must realize that this is a decidedly minority opinion, in the general electorate as well as amongst people who identify themselves as conservatives.

Where is the evidence in the record between 1865 and 1892 that Butler met with Lincoln and discussed these things? Butler is the only source that I have seen advanced.

What, you think Butler IGNORED the summons by Lincoln to come to Washington issued in January 1865?

There's no corroboration that he even met Lincoln.

Walt

... because there are so many statements by Lincoln supporting colonization.

EXACTLY!

There are many statements of Lincoln's supporting equal rights for blacks, too.

Walt

There's no corroboration that he even met Lincoln.

The point is that Lincoln summoned Gen. Butler to meet him in Washington via telegram. Do you really think Butler refused to meet Lincoln?

Common sense will also tell you that 1/4 of the people were not providing 3/4 of the revenue. But lies are the currency of the "southern heritage".

How would common sense tell me that? 1/4 of the people paid 84% of the taxes in the year 2000. I don't find this hard to believe at all.

Name calling is the currency of liberals who have no facts.