Liz Cheney replies to Ted Cruz: "My party, The Republican Party, saved the Union"

twitter ^ | Nov 13 | Rep. Liz Cheney

[RandFan]

@Liz_Cheney

I know you’re posturing for the secessionist vote, Ted. But my party, the Republican party, saved the Union. You swore an oath to the Constitution. Act like it.

[jeffersondem]

“I would think even then the Republican party was divided, and it would be more LIncoln and Grant saved the Union... Not so much the Republican party, a Trump sort of guys who bucked the tide.”

I’ve heard President Trump invoke Lincoln’s name. I didn’t object to that because many have been conditioned to respond favorably to Abe’s legacy - “he fought to free the slaves.” And George Washington cut down the apple tree.

Both great stories.

My personal favorite is Paul Bunyan and his Big Blue Ox.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I see you are re-stacking the same wood; the pile does look bigger this time until you notice there are huge holes in it."

I see you are still hoping to defeat facts & logic with mere mockery, and we should expect nothing else since you are, self-proclaimed, a Democrat, it's what Democrats do.

[mewzilla]

The only reason two parties still exist is to give voters the illusion of choice.

A pol is either loyal to our former republic or to Deep State.

Cheney is Deep State.

[dirtboy]

You just got your azz kicked out of the Wyoming Republican Party. Go suck eggz.

[jeffersondem]

“I see you are still hoping to defeat facts & logic with mere mockery . . .”

It was more like a parable.

[BroJoeK]

"It was more like a parable."

Mockery illuminated by imagination -- still just mockery.

[woodpusher]

The Republican party was born as the anti-slavery party -- anti-slavery is what killed off the old Whigs.

Some of the GOP leaders had the strangest way of expressing and demonstrating their heartfelt abolitionism.

GOP Senate candidate Lincoln in an address at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857 (CW 2:407; 408-09):

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races....

A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together... Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization... The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'where there is a will there is a way;' and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time, favorable to, or at least not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.

GOP Presidential candidate Lincoln an address at New York City, February 27, 1860 (CW 3:541):

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.''

Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution—the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery.

GOP President-elect Lincoln to Duff Green, December 28, 1860 (CW 4:162):

I declare that the maintainance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection, and endurance of our political fabric depends—and I denounce the lawless invasion, by armed force, of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as the gravest of crimes.

GOP President Lincoln, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861 (CW 4:262-63):

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you.

I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.'' Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.''

Spoken like a true abolitionist.

And then there was General Grant. It is notorious that during the war, his wife Julia Dent Grant, visited him on multiple occasions, accompanied by one of her slaves, demonstrating abolitionism.

[DiogenesLamp]

I declare that the maintainance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection, and endurance of our political fabric depends—and I denounce the lawless invasion, by armed force, of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as the gravest of crimes.

This one is particularly funny.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "Some of the GOP leaders had the strangest way of expressing and demonstrating their heartfelt abolitionism."

And, as per usual, you're here arguing pure nonsense.
Your argument amounts to this: Lincoln's Black Republicans were not 2021 Woke Democrats, therefore they were not anti-slavery, and therefore they were really pro-slavery.
Seriously?
Even your limited brain-power should be able to think through the fallacies here -- so why would you expect anybody else to buy them?

woodpusher: "And then there was General Grant.
It is notorious that during the war, his wife Julia Dent Grant, visited him on multiple occasions, accompanied by one of her slaves, demonstrating abolitionism."

Pre-war, Grant was a Democrat, as were his wife's family.
Grant became Republican during the war, at roughly the time of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

[glennaro]

What the hell is this idiot spouting off about now. The need for attention is a powerful emotional driver.

[woodpusher]

woodpusher: "Some of the GOP leaders had the strangest way of expressing and demonstrating their heartfelt abolitionism."

[...]

GOP President Lincoln, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861 (CW 4:262-63):

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you.

I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.'' Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.''

Spoken like a true abolitionist.

And, as per usual, you're here arguing pure nonsense.

Your argument amounts to this: Lincoln's Black Republicans were not 2021 Woke Democrats, therefore they were not anti-slavery, and therefore they were really pro-slavery.

Seriously?

Very seriously, Lincoln and the Republican Party were NOT ABOLITIONIST, despite your ridiculous claim. You argue in the fashion of a 2021 Woke Democrat.

The repeated quote by Abraam Lincoln as President-elect, and as President was taken directly from the Republican Party Platform of 1860, see plank #4:

4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

There was no ABOLITION plank. The racists opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories, with an express purpose of keeping it for free White people, and free of all Black labor.

Lincoln, Greenville, Illinois, September 13, 1858, CW:3:96.

In a most able manner did Mr. Lincoln clear up and refute the charges that he was an Abolitionist, and an Amalgamationist, and in favor of placing negroes upon a social and political equality with the whites. He asserted positively, and proved conclusively by his former acts and speeches that he was not in favor of interfering with slavery in the States where it exists, nor ever had been. That he was not even in favor of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, unless a majority of the people of the District should be in favor of it, and remuneration should be made to masters who might be unwilling to give up their slaves without compensation; and even then he would want it done gradually.

Lincoln, Chicago, Illinois, July 10, 1858, CW 2:492, emphasis added.

I have said a hundred times and I have no no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have said that always..

Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 23, 1858, CW 2:471.

I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion, neither the General government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.

Lincoln at Bloomington, Illinois, on September 4, 1858, CW 3:87.

We have no right to interfere with slavery in the States. We only want to restrict it to where it is.

Lincoln at Ottawa, Illinois, on August 21, 1858, CW 3:16, italics added.

I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Lincoln at Quincy, Illinois, October 13, 1858 CW 3:277.

I expressly declared in my opening speech, that I had neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence of the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in doing as they pleased with slavery or any other existing institution.

Lincoln, Columbus, Ohio, September 16, 1859, CW 3:435.

We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution, and the peace of the country, both forbid us. We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law, because the constitution demands it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lincoln, Kalamazoo, Michigan, August 27, 1856, CW 2:363.

Have we no interest in the free Territories of the United States—that they should be kept open for the homes of free white people?

Lincoln, Carlinville, Illinois, August 31, 1858, CW 3:79.

Is it not rather our duty to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories?

Lincoln, Alton, Illinois, October 15, 1858, CW 3:312.

"Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home—may find some spot where they can better their condition—where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. [Great and continued cheering.] I am in favor of this not merely, (I must say it here as I have elsewhere,) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over—in which Hans and Baptiste and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life."

Lincoln, Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858, CW 3:16.

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position.

Lincoln, Galesburg, Illinois, October 7, 1858, CW 3: 221-22.

I have all the while maintained that inasmuch as there is a physical inequality between the white and black races that should produce a perfect social and political equality, it was an impossibility.

Lincoln at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, CW 2:248.

I wish to MAKE and to KEEP the distinction between the EXISTING institution, and the EXTENSION of it, so broad, and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Even your limited brain-power should be able to think through the fallacies here -- so why would you expect anybody else to buy them?

Surely someone of your unlimited, vastly superior brainpower, on the order of Einstein, can read the quotes above and see that neither Lincoln nor the Republican Party were abolitionist.

woodpusher: "And then there was General Grant. It is notorious that during the war, his wife Julia Dent Grant, visited him on multiple occasions, accompanied by one of her slaves, demonstrating abolitionism."

Pre-war, Grant was a Democrat, as were his wife's family. Grant became Republican during the war, at roughly the time of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

Pre-1954, nobody was a Republican. Pre-war, Grant was a slave owner and slave driver. DURING THE WAR, when his wife came visiting him, she was accompanied by one of her slaves. That would be before and after the Emancipation Proclamation which had no effect in the Union states. Julia and the slaves helped to maintain the family farm while Grant was away. Julia was accompanied by her slave Jule (Julia) who used an opportunity in Kentucky to run away to freedom in 1863 or 1864. I guess she was not waiting for abolition to come to her.

In 1863, Grant wrote to Elihu B. Washburn: “I never was an Abolitionist, [n]ot even what could be called anti slavery, but I try to judge farely and honestly and it become patent to my mind early in the rebellion that the North and South could never live at peace with each other except as one nation, and that without slavery.” The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, Volume 9: July 7-December 31, 1863, Ed. John Y. Simon (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1982), 217-218.

[Dead Corpse]

Liz, start acting like a Republican or just STFU.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "Very seriously, Lincoln and the Republican Party were NOT ABOLITIONIST, despite your ridiculous claim.
You argue in the fashion of a 2021 Woke Democrat."

And yet... and yet... the fact remains that Lincoln's Black Republicans were absolutely anti-slavery, anti-slavery enough to drive Southern Democrat Fire Eaters into berserkly declaring first secession then war on the United States -- that's what they said at the time, later denials notwithstanding.

And you have not even denied 1860 Republicans were anti-slavery, you have only argued nonsensically that they were not all 2021 Woke Democrat abolitionists.

woodpusher: "There was no ABOLITION plank.
The racists opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories, with an express purpose of keeping it for free White people, and free of all Black labor."

Now there is a beautiful piece of Woke Democrat logic!
Even though Republicans were plenty anti-slavery enough to drive Southern Democrats into berserker secession, 1860 Republicans were still way too, too racist for your 2021 Woke Democrat tender sensibilities.

woodpusher: "Surely someone of your unlimited, vastly superior brainpower, on the order of Einstein, can read the quotes above and see that neither Lincoln nor the Republican Party were abolitionist."

And yet... and yet... the fact remains that Lincoln's Black Republicans were absolutely anti-slavery, anti-slavery enough to drive Southern Democrat Fire Eaters into berserkly declaring first secession then war on the United States -- that's what they said at the time, later denials notwithstanding.

woodpusher: "Pre-1954, nobody was a Republican. Pre-war, Grant was a slave owner and slave driver.
DURING THE WAR, when his wife came visiting him, she was accompanied by one of her slaves.
That would be before and after the Emancipation Proclamation which had no effect in the Union states. "

Well... the usual telling of Grant's story says:

"In the 1856 presidential election, Grant cast his first presidential vote for Democrat James Buchanan, later saying he was really voting against Republican John C. Frémont over concern that his anti-slavery position would lead to southern secession and war and because he considered Frémont to be a shameless self-promoter.[106]"

On Grant's slave ownership:

"The same year, Grant acquired a slave from his father-in-law, a thirty-five-year-old man named William Jones.[100]
Although Grant was not an abolitionist, he was not considered a "slavery man", and could not bring himself to force a slave to do work.[101]
In March 1859, Grant freed William by a manumission deed, potentially worth at least $1,000, when Grant needed the money.[102][j]"

Back to politics:

"For the 1860 election, he could not vote because he was not yet a legal resident of Illinois, but he favored Democrat Stephen A. Douglas over the eventual winner, Abraham Lincoln, and Lincoln over the Southern Democrat, John C. Breckinridge.[111]
He was torn between his increasingly anti-slavery views and the fact that his wife remained a staunch Democrat.[112]"

Grant becoming increasingly abolitionist, 1863:

"Vicksburg's fall gave Union forces control of the Mississippi River and split the Confederacy.
By that time, Grant's political sympathies fully coincided with the Radical Republicans' aggressive prosecution of the war and emancipation of the slaves.[205] "

On Grant's wife Julia's slaves:

"According to Julia, "Eliza, Dan, Jule, and John belonged to me up to the time of President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation",[7] which exempted Missouri slaves from emancipation.
Even after that date, Jule continued her service to Julia.
In January 1864, Jule, Julia, and Julia's young son Jesse left Nashville for St. Louis.[7]
On the trip, Jule left the group.
Julia later recalled. "I suppose she feared to lose her freedom if she returned to Missouri."[7]
According to Julia, Jule married soon afterwards.[7]"

Finally, here's an interesting comment which pretty well sums it up:

"Grant’s legacy as the respected Commanding General of the Union Army, and his efforts as president to protect black citizenship have long obscured his personal slave-ownership, as well as that of his beloved wife."

And so, arguing like a typical Woke Democrat, woodpusher, you'd like to reverse all that, and make Grant's one-time slave ownership totally obscure his efforts as president to protect black citizenship.

[jeffersondem]

“Mockery illuminated by imagination — still just mockery.”

Wow, your judgment is so harsh.

Most people seemed to have received my comments as great literature.

[BroJoeK]

"Most people seemed to have received my comments as great literature."

;-)

[Mr. K]

Both are true: our party did free the slaves, but the Civil War was about States rights.

[mewzilla]

The only reason two parties still exist is to give voters the illusion of choice.

The letter after the name means jack anymore.

A pol is either loyal to our former republic or to Deep State.

Cheney is and always has been Deep State.

[x]

Nobody threatened the rights of states. It was the “rights” of slaveowners that was the issue.

[jeffersondem]

“Nobody threatened the rights of states.”

That is an interesting comment.

The rights of states today are threatened by the federal government; or do you deny that too?

IF you can agree that the federal government is today threatening states’ rights, how and when did that happen in your opinion?

Did it occur for the first time in 2020?

[woodpusher]

woodpusher: "Very seriously, Lincoln and the Republican Party were NOT ABOLITIONIST, despite your ridiculous claim.

You argue in the fashion of a 2021 Woke Democrat."

And yet... and yet... the fact remains that Lincoln's Black Republicans were absolutely anti-slavery, anti-slavery enough to drive Southern Democrat Fire Eaters into berserkly declaring first secession then war on the United States -- that's what they said at the time, later denials notwithstanding.

And yet, Lincoln tried and tried to explain, in terms powerful enough to penetrate the impenetrable brain of BroJoe that that there was a clear distinction between opposing the EXISTING institution, and the EXTENSION of it. Nobody could ABOLISH slavery where it did not already exist.

Lincoln at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, CW 2:248.

I wish to MAKE and to KEEP the distinction between the EXISTING institution, and the EXTENSION of it, so broad, and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me.

Lincoln took great pains to make clear that he was NOT an ABOLITIONIST. You can ignore this quotable fact, and I can repeat it as often as you pretend you are unable to see the words.

Lincoln, Greenville, Illinois, September 13, 1858, CW:3:96.

In a most able manner did Mr. Lincoln clear up and refute the charges that he was an Abolitionist, and an Amalgamationist, and in favor of placing negroes upon a social and political equality with the whites. He asserted positively, and proved conclusively by his former acts and speeches that he was not in favor of interfering with slavery in the States where it exists, nor ever had been. That he was not even in favor of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, unless a majority of the people of the District should be in favor of it, and remuneration should be made to masters who might be unwilling to give up their slaves without compensation; and even then he would want it done gradually.

Lincoln, Chicago, Illinois, July 10, 1858, CW 2:492, emphasis added.

I have said a hundred times and I have no no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have said that always..

Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 23, 1858, CW 2:471.

I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion, neither the General government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.

Lincoln at Bloomington, Illinois, on September 4, 1858, CW 3:87.

We have no right to interfere with slavery in the States. We only want to restrict it to where it is.

Lincoln at Ottawa, Illinois, on August 21, 1858, CW 3:16, italics added.

I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Lincoln at Quincy, Illinois, October 13, 1858 CW 3:277.

I expressly declared in my opening speech, that I had neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence of the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in doing as they pleased with slavery or any other existing institution.

Lincoln, Columbus, Ohio, September 16, 1859, CW 3:435.

We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution, and the peace of the country, both forbid us. We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law, because the constitution demands it.

And you have not even denied 1860 Republicans were anti-slavery, you have only argued nonsensically that they were not all 2021 Woke Democrat abolitionists.

See your eye doctor. I have argued they were not ABOLITIONISTS. They did not argue for abolition of slavery where it existed. They argued against the spread of slavery to where it did not exist.

The 1860s Republicans had no abolition plank in their platform. Deal with it.

The 1860s Republicans adopted, as part of its 1860 platform,

That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

There is not a hint of how it was contemplated to overcome the controlling opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The official policy was to espouse anti-slavery and declare there was not a thing they could do about it. Slavery was an inviolate right of the states, in the Constitution, and firmly established in U.S. Supreme Court precedent at the birth of the Republican party.

The U.S. Supreme Court had opined,

The full recognition of this right and title was indispensable to the security of this species of property in all the slaveholding states; and, indeed, was so vital to the preservation of their domestic interests and institutions, that it cannot be doubted that it consti­tuted a fundamental article, without the adoption of which the Union could not have been formed. Its true design was to guard against the doctrines and principles prevalent in the non-slave­holding states by preventing them from intermeddling with, or obstructing, or abolishing the rights of the owners of slaves.

[woodpusher]

There was no ABOLITION plank.

The racists opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories, with an express purpose of keeping it for free White people, and free of all Black labor."

Now there is a beautiful piece of Woke Democrat logic!

Even though Republicans were plenty anti-slavery enough to drive Southern Democrats into berserker secession, 1860 Republicans were still way too, too racist for your 2021 Woke Democrat tender sensibilities.

There was no attempt to hide the intent. It was broadcast as loudly as possible.

Lincoln, Kalamazoo, Michigan, August 27, 1856, CW 2:363.

Have we no interest in the free Territories of the United States—that they should be kept open for the homes of free white people?

Lincoln, Carlinville, Illinois, August 31, 1858, CW 3:79.

Is it not rather our duty to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories?

Lincoln, Alton, Illinois, October 15, 1858, CW 3:312.

"Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home—may find some spot where they can better their condition—where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. [Great and continued cheering.] I am in favor of this not merely, (I must say it here as I have elsewhere,) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over—in which Hans and Baptiste and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life."

The Black exodus from the South did not happen until 1879 with a large exodus to Kansas and Indiana. It ended abruptly in early 1880. Whatever took them so long to run to paradise into the welcoming arms of their saviours? Did they overlook their invitations? And why did the exodus end so abruptly? Could they not find the promised land?

What the establishment really wanted was to move what they considered excess population out of the States, as they essentially did with the native Indians. Those who had been anti-slavery largely favored emancipation with deportation. Lincoln never stopped trying to find a place to send them until he died.

And let us look at that great anti-slavery proponent, Thomas Jefferson.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Jefferson/Slavery-and-racism

Although he believed that slavery was a gross violation of the principles celebrated in the Declaration of Independence, he also believed that people of African descent were biologically inferior to whites and could never live alongside whites in peace and harmony. They would have to be transported elsewhere, back to Africa or perhaps the Caribbean, after emancipation. Because such a massive deportation was a logistical and economic impossibility, the unavoidable conclusion was that, though slavery was wrong, ending it, at least at present, was inconceivable. That became Jefferson’s public position throughout the remainder of his life.

https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/jefferson-s-attitudes-toward-slavery/

Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of ending slavery never changed. From the mid-1770s until his death, he advocated the same plan of gradual emancipation. First, the transatlantic slave trade would be abolished. Second, slaveowners would “improve” slavery’s most violent features, by bettering (Jefferson used the term “ameliorating”) living conditions and moderating physical punishment. Third, all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free, followed by total abolition. Like others of his day, he supported the removal of newly freed slaves from the United States. The unintended effect of Jefferson’s plan was that his goal of “improving” slavery as a step towards ending it was used as an argument for its perpetuation. Pro-slavery advocates after Jefferson’s death argued that if slavery could be “improved,” abolition was unnecessary.

Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his racial beliefs. He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully in the same country. Jefferson’s belief that blacks were racially inferior and “as incapable as children,” coupled with slaves’ presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson’s emancipation scheme. Influenced by the Haitian Revolution and an aborted rebellion in Virginia in 1800, Jefferson believed that American slaves’ deportation—whether to Africa or the West Indies—was an essential followup to emancipation.

Jefferson owned about 600 slaves and freed only a select few, related to Sally Hemings, the slave half-sister to his first wife, who served as his unofficial second wife, or intimate slave for want of a better term.

Clearly, Jefferson is one of the shining lights of anti-slavery. He wrote those stirring worlds in the Declaration of Independence. And he remained anti-slavery his entire life while owning 600 slaves and dying a slaveowner.

As deportation of blacks was the lifetime goal of Jefferson, let us look at what Republican Lincoln had to say.

Lincoln, Sprijngfied, Illinois, June 26, 1857, CW 2:409

I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform—opposition to the spread of slavery—is most favorable to that separation.

Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one; but ``when there is a will there is a way;'' and what colonization needs most is a hearty will.

A very large proportion of the Republican party favored a seperation of the races by colonization—anywhere but here.

Lincoln, Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861, CW 5:48

Under and by virtue of the act of Congress entitled “An act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes,” approved August, 6, 1861, the legal claims of certain persons to the labor and service of certain other persons have become forfeited; and numbers of the latter, thus liberated, are already dependent on the United States, and must be provided for in some way. Besides this, it is not impossible that some of the States will pass similar enactments for their own benefit respectively, and by operation of which persons of the same class will be thrown upon them for disposal. In such case I recommend that Congress provide for accepting such persons from such States, according to some mode of valuation, in lieu, pro tanto, of direct taxes, or upon some other plan to be agreed on with such States respectively; that such persons, on such acceptance by the general government, be at once deemed free; and that, in any event, steps be taken for colonizing both classes, (or the one first mentioned, if the other shall not be brought into existence,) at some place, or places, in a climate congenial to them. It might be well to consider, too,---whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization.

To carry out the plan of colonization may involve the acquiring of territory, and also the appropriation of money beyond that to be expended in the territorial acquisition. Having practiced the acquisition of territory for nearly sixty years, the question of constitutional power to do so is no longer an open one with us. The power was questioned at first by Mr. Jefferson, who, however, in the purchase of Louisiana, yielded his scruples on the plea of great expediency. If it be said that the only legitimate object of acquiring territory is to furnish homes for white men, this measure effects that object; for the emigration of colored men leaves additional room for white men remaining or coming here. Mr. Jefferson, however, placed the importance of procuring Louisiana more on political and commercial grounds than on providing room for population.

Lincoln, July 12, 1862, Appeal to Border State Representatives to Favor Compensated Emancipation, CW 5:318

I do not speak of emancipation at once, but of a decision at once to emancipate gradually. Room in South America for colonization, can be obtained cheaply, and in abundance; and when numbers shall be large enough to be company and encouragement for one another, the freed people will not be so reluctant to go.

Lincoln, August 14, 1862, Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes, CW 5:370-71

This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. They were introduced by the Rev. J. Mitchell, Commissioner of Emigration. E. M. Thomas, the Chairman, remarked that they were there by invitation to hear what the Executive had to say to them. Having all been seated, the President, after a few preliminary observations, informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress, and placed at his disposition for the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or a portion of them, of African descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had for a long time been his inclination, to favor that cause; and why, he asked, should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.

Lincoln, June 29, 1864, To the Senate, CW 7:417

To the Senate Executive Mansion,
of the United States. Washington, D.C., June 29, 1864.

I herewith communicate a report from the Secretary of the Interior, in response to the resolution of the Senate of the 25th. of March last, from which it will be perceived that all the official information possessed by the Department on the subject of colonization has already been communicated to the Senate.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Usher Report of June 29, 1864, CW 7:417

On the 25th of March last the Senate passed a resolution in the following words, viz: “Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to furnish to the Senate the Report of the Commissioner of Emigration for 1863, with his account of the existing contracts and other necessary information on the question of emigration.” This resolution you referred to this Department, with a request for the report therein called for. In reply, I have the honor to state, that I am not aware of the existence of any such office as that of “Commissioner of Emigration,” and consequently that no such official document as that alluded to by the resolution of the Senate has been or could have been made.

Commissioner of Emigration? Never heard of any such official office. Report? What report?

James Mitchell, Letter on the Relation of the White and African Races in the United States Showing the Necessity of the Colonization of the Latter, Addressed to the President of the United States, Washington, Government Printing Office, May 18, 1862

That Mitchell guy who introduced a Committee of colored men to President Lincoln at the White House, August 14, 1862? The one on the government payroll until separated by President Johnson? Who?

https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.3583800/?st=gallery

From James Mitchell to Abraham Lincoln [With Endorsement by Lincoln], September 2, 1864. Mitchell was an Indiana minister whom Lincoln appointed the commissioner of emigration in 1862, Here he gives Lincoln some political advice.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/mss/mal/429/4295200/4295200.pdf

Library of Congress

Abraham Lincoln papers

From James Mitchell to Abraham Lincoln¹, June 1864

¹ Mitchell, an Indiana minister, was appointed the commissioner for emigration in August 1862.

Private

Emigration office
Washington D C. Jne/64

Permit me to furnish the report, called for by the Senate resolution of March 25th ult — so that it may be forwarded to them.²

² The Senate had passed a resolution on March 25, 1864 that requested the president to furnish the report of the commissioner of emigration for 1863. See John P. Usher to Lincoln, June 29, 1864.

https://www.nytimes.com/1863/01/04/archives/news-from-washington-compliments-to-gen-butlerthe-general-makes-a.html

NY Times, January 4, 1863

REPORT OF THE AGENT OF EMIGRATlON.

A Report on Colonization and Emigration has recently been made to the Secretary of the Interior by Rev. JAMES MITCHELL, Government Agent of Emigration.

The way the Old Party worked back in the day was just Grand.

Well... the usual telling of Grant's story says:

And history relates the strange sight of senior Union generals being visited by their wives, accompanied by their slaves.

And so, arguing like a typical Woke Democrat, woodpusher, you'd like to reverse all that, and make Grant's one-time slave ownership totally obscure his efforts as president to protect black citizenship.

Grant owned one slave. He worked the family farm of his father-in-law who owned more. Grant was a slave driver on the plantation, overseeing the slaves. From 1857-1859 he was given complete oversight of White Haven, the family plantation. I doubt he will receive any accolades from the Black community for being a good massa.

You advocate revising history. It is like Baghdad Bob reporting on a war.

https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-formerly-enslaved-household-of-the-grant-family

After Grant resigned from the U.S. Army in 1854, he faced financial hardship. Having received eighty acres of land as a wedding gift from Julia’s father, the Grants returned to Missouri to live off the land. There, Ulysses Grant became increasingly involved in slavery at White Haven. Grant farmed alongside enslaved field workers daily, while also working with them to build a new home—this log cabin would come to be known as “Hardscrabble.” Grant left no record of how he felt about his new proximity to the institution of slavery, but he and Julia benefitted from their free labor after moving to White Haven.

Between 1857 and 1859, Julia’s father—aging and widowed—granted Ulysses Grant almost complete oversight of White Haven and the enslaved laborers there, truly testing Grant’s newfound knowledge of farming and labor management. A letter from Grant to his sister, Mary, in 1859 describes the progress he had made at White Haven in the supervision of both crops and enslaved people: “I now have three negro men, two hired by the year and one of Mr. Dents, which, with my own help, I think, will enable me to do my farming pretty well.” Though impossible to know how Grant felt about these interactions, Julia’s sister, Emma Dent Casey, wrote that “although I know that he [Grant] was opposed to human slavery as an institution I do not think that he was at any time a very rank abolitionist or that he opposed it so violently that the acceptance of Julia’s slaves had to be forced upon him.”Grant’s involvement in slavery eventually went beyond the “acceptance” and management of the Dent family’s enslaved laborers — Grant himself came into ownership of a man named William Jones from his father-in-law at some point during the 1850s. ...

Mrs. Grant did not have to survive without Jules for long. Although the fates of Dan, Eliza, and John are unknown, it is clear that upon leaving Illinois Julia reclaimed control of Jules, her most trusted enslaved nurse, when Ulysses Grant became a Colonel in the Union Army at the start of the American Civil War in 1861. As Grant rose through the ranks, ultimately assuming his position as Commanding General, Julia followed Grant through battle-ridden cities across America, with Jules in tow.

Returning to the master plan to deport freed Blacks, while it traced from Jefferson to Lincoln, it did not stop there. The “anti-slavery” folks never lost hope in the deportation of free Blacks out of the States.

President Grant, Eighth Annual Message to Congress, December 5, 1876, on his rejected plan to annex Santo Domingo and to colonize freed blacks to the island:

The island is but sparsely settled, while it has an area sufficient for the profitable employment of several millions of people. The soil would have soon fallen into the hands of United States capitalists. The products are so valuable in commerce that emigration there would have been encouraged; the emancipated race of the South would have found there a congenial home, where their civil rights would not be disputed and where their labor would be so much sought after that the poorest among them could have found the means to go. Thus in cases of great oppression and cruelty, such as has been practiced upon them in many places within the last eleven years, whole communities would have sought refuge in Santo Domingo. I do not suppose the whole race would have gone, nor is it desirable that they should go. Their labor is desirable--indispensable almost--where they now are. But the possession of this territory would have left the negro "master of the situation," by enabling him to demand his rights at home on pain of finding them elsewhere.

Grant on African Colonization, New York Herald, 26 July 1878, pg 6

African Colonisation. …

The story of mismanagement in the case of the emigrants to Liberia, as published in yesterday's HERALD is not encouraging even to those who believe that the negro race which was torn from Africa should, out of the unfailing justice of time, be sent back to Africa furnished with the civilizing forces which it has acquired in America. To those who have a sly idea that a whole­sale exodus of the Southern negroes would bring the Southern whites to their senses and make the latter more considerate of their colored brethren the dismal story of the emigrants of the Azor must also be dispiriting. After the camp meeting enthu­siasm under the influence of which the poor people have been induced to pay their money to bungling, if not corrupt, leaders has been coolod by hearing of the actual experience of those who have gone to the west coast of Africa we do not think that the movement will find many more dupes. The dream of regenerating Africa while making their own fortunes rapidly will not tempt many who hear of the swindled band left at Monrovia with a three weeks’ supply of food and months of labor before them—months in which they can realize nothing for themselves. It is worthy of note in reference to this question of negro colo­nization that ex-President Grant in one of his historic talks with a HERALD correspondent in Europe gave as a reason for favoring the St. Domingo annexation project that it would be an es­cape valve for the negroes. They certainly could reach the West Indies without any of the suffering of the “middle passage,” but how very much better they would be off in St. Domingo in sharp competition with the whites, who would also rush in for a share of the coffee planting, is not easily answer­able. One thing can be said for it—namely, that they would still have the American surroundings they were born to.

The resolve for the plan harkens to a Coach Jimmy Valvano speech, “Don't give up . . . don't ever give up.”