Posted on 04/28/2015 12:18:27 PM PDT by concernedcitizen76
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Just my own humble opinion, but it would be nice if maybe someday we have a revolution and in the result of that revolution everyone has to be interviewed. Those who are found to be Americans, who are productive, who speak English, and who contribute in some way to the country (even if it’s just by their example as individualists) will be welcome to stay and will receive citizenship in the new republic.
The other types, for whom English is and always will be a second language, and who cannot fathom the idea of supporting themselves, and who think that other people should support them, and who think that stealing wealth from others is the path to happiness...all of these people will be sent to the Mexican border, airdropped on Syria, or anywhere else stupid enough or anarchic enough to take them.
Those who remain, be they white, black, or etc. will be Americans and they will build the new Republic whose Constitution will not be a mere suggestion, but will be the law.
The combination of the Emancipation Act, institution of a draft in which the wealthy could purchase substitutes, and the resentment of Irish immigrants to being treated more poorly and with less respect than free blacks (and a bit of encouragement by the local Democratic Party ... some things don’t change) all combined to foment the worst riots in American history.
The older I get, the more I discover that true history is not always what I had been led to believe.
I agree. No matter how much is wasted on those with a big chip on their shoulder who show no respect for other human beings or even a conscience, it will never be enough—and only feed the problem, not solve it.
“According to a House Budget Committee Report, the federal government spent $799 billion on 92 programs to combat poverty: $100 billion on food aid; $200 billion spent on cash aid; $90 billion on education and job training; $300 billion on health care; and $50 billion on housing, in fiscal year 2012 alone.”
Poverty Up 30.5% for Americans 18 to 64 Since LBJ Declared War on Poverty
June 4, 2014
By Ali Meyer
(CNSNews.com) — The percentage of 18- to 64-year olds who live below the poverty level has increased 30.5% since 1966, two years after Lyndon Johnson declared the War on Poverty, according to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
“We have declared unconditional war on poverty. Our objective is total victory. I believe that 30 years from now Americans will look back upon these 1960s as the time of the great American Breakthrough toward the victory of prosperity over poverty,” said then-President Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
According to a House Budget Committee Report, the federal government spent $799 billion on 92 programs to combat poverty: $100 billion on food aid; $200 billion spent on cash aid; $90 billion on education and job training; $300 billion on health care; and $50 billion on housing, in fiscal year 2012 alone.
According to the Census, there were 26,497,000, or 13.7% of 18- to 64-year olds, living below the poverty level in 2012. In 1966, the same age group reported 10.5% — 11,007,000 people out of 105,241,000 — living below the poverty level.
This means that since 1966 the percentage of 18- to 64-year olds living in poverty has increased 30.5% — from 10.5% to 13.7%. The Census did not report data for this age group in years 1965 and 1964.
When looking at all ages, the House Budget Committee Report shows that, since 1965, the poverty rate decreased from 17.3% to 15%.
“The incidence of poverty rates varies widely across the population according to age, education, labor force attachment, family living arrangements, and area of residence, among other factors. Under the official poverty definition, an average family of four was considered poor in 2012 if its pre-tax cash income for the year was below $23,492,” according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report entitled, Poverty in the United States: 2012.
“The Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds form the basis for statistical estimates of poverty in the United States,” says the CRS report. “The thresholds reflect crude estimates of the amount of money individuals or families, of various size and composition, need per year to purchase a basket of goods and services deemed as “minimally adequate,” according to the living standards of the early 1960s.”
“Persons are considered poor, for statistical purposes, if their family’s countable money income is below its corresponding poverty threshold,” CRS states.
Sorry, Proclamation, not Act.
P.J. O’Rourke said years ago that you’re never too poor to clean up your own front yard.
"Amidst this prospect of evil, I am glad to see one good effect. It has brought the necessity of some plan of general emancipation & deportation more home to the minds of our people than it has ever been before. Insomuch, that our Governor has ventured to propose one to the legislature. This will probably not be acted on at this time. Nor would it be effectual; for while it proposes to devote to that object one third of the revenue of the State, it would not reach one tenth of the annual increase. My proposition would be that the holders should give up all born after a certain day, past, present, or to come, that these should be placed under the guardianship of the State, and sent at a proper age to S. Domingo. There they are willing to receive them, & the shortness of the passage brings the deportation within the possible means of taxation aided by charitable contributions. In this I think Europe, which has forced this evil on us, and the Eastern states who have been it's chief instruments of importation, would be bound to give largely. But the proceeds of the land office, if appropriated, would be quite sufficient."
Who was that?
"Deportation" implies forced expulsion. Lincoln considered resettlement of freed slaves in Africa, Latin America, or the Caribbean (as many Americans of his day did), but there's no indication that it was ever expected to be anything other than voluntary.
Lincoln's late support for citizenship and the vote for African-Americans who had served in the war (and his closer relations with Frederick Douglas and other Black notables) strongly suggests that he'd given up ideas of recolonization on any major scale.
Sometimes it's not what you come to believe either.
Lincoln’s attitudes were considered mainstream for the times. If he was racist, then so was most of America of 1860.
Native people in Africa who rounded them up the FIRST time, would do it again and sell them ELSEWHERE!
That may have something to do with the noticeable difference between American blacks and African blacks. African blacks and American blacks in general don’t get along all that well. It could be their “black privilege” American blacks detect and find offensive.
Right. Lincoln explored voluntary emigration - not forced deportation as the article implies.
Non sequitur. The fact that Lincoln was very Racist does not have anything to do with Thomas Jefferson.
That remains to be seen. I am always open to newly discovered evidence.
Yes it was. Unequivocally the US of 1860 was an extremely racist place.
So you don't hate all racists, just one. I see now.
Cultural, or their 15% (on average) admixture of white genes?
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.