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

woodpusher: "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."

And yet... such fine distinctions of definition were utterly beyond the understandings -- or more importantly the interests -- of Southern Fire Eater Democrats, who were totally satisfied that no matter how mildly Lincoln expressed his anti-slavery opinions, it didn't matter.
What mattered to Fire Eaters was that Lincoln was a Black Republican opposed to slavery, and that's all they needed in their own minds to justify secession and war against the United States.

woodpusher: "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."

I totally see what you're hoping to pull here -- you want to draw a distinction between anti-slavery and abolitionism, a distinction which did indeed matter to Lincoln and other Republicans, but not in the least to Southern Fire Eater Democrats.

Indeed, Lincoln himself laid it out directly to future CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens in January 1861:

"You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted.
That I suppose is the rub."

It was enough of a rub to justify secession, Confederacy and war against the United States.
And, in the end, it turned out that Lincoln was, after all, an abolitionist -- hence the Emancipation Proclamation & 13th Amendment, among other such acts.

woodpusher: "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."

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: "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."

Voluntary recolonization to Liberia, Africa, and elsewhere was official US & state governments policy from the time of Jefferson, Madison & Monroe.
Congress & state legislatures voted hundreds of thousands of dollars (real money in those days) to pay for transportation of freed-blacks back to Africa.
From circa 1822 until the Civil War the numbers of freed-blacks voluntarily "recolonized" totaled up to 15,000.

"Notable members of the American Colonization Society included Thomas Buchanan, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Abraham Lincoln, James Madison, Daniel Webster, John Marshall, and Francis Scott Key.[18]"

The American Colonization Society also included prominent abolitionists:

"Wm. Lloyd Garrison, as he always signed himself, began publication of his abolitionist newspaper, The Liberator, in 1831, followed in 1832 by his Thoughts on African Colonization.
According to President Lincoln, it was “the logic and moral power of Garrison and the antislavery people of the country” that put emancipation on the country’s political agenda.[49]
Garrison himself joined it in good faith.[50]: 63
All the important white future abolitionists supported the Society: besides Garrison, Gerrit Smith, the Tappans, and many others, as can be seen in the pages of the Society's African Repository."

Garrison & other abolitionists eventually came to oppose voluntary recolonization, writing:

"...unless they desire to be laughed at by all sincere and thinking men, they had better abandon the Quixotic plan of colonizing the Southern negroes at the cost of the North, until we can free our own borders from poverty, ignorance and distress."

And there was this: of those who migrated "back to Africa" only about half survived even a few years there.
But President Lincoln still thought the goal of voluntary recolonization worth pursuing and only gave up on it when his own efforts proved as disastrous as history might have suggested they would.

Now it is claimed that Lincoln never did give up on the idea of voluntarily recolonizing freed-blacks, but a detailed report on those efforts says otherwise:

"Lincoln actually had given up on colonization long before Congress repealed funds for the program

Since the departure of the Vache Island colonists in April 1863, the president, while privately continuing to endorse efforts of independent agencies and foreign countries to recruit emigrants, had done nothing to promote colonization. [37]..."

...In fact, there is no reason to believe that Lincoln ever espoused colonization after he issued the Final Emancipation Proclamation.
Scholars who argue that Lincoln still hoped to colonize blacks after the proclamation rely on only two flimsy pieces of evidence...

Bottom line: the idea of voluntarily recolonizing freed-blacks began at least with Thomas Jefferson and was official government policy, supported by both Federal and state appropriations from circa 1822 onwards.
On a very limited scale it was only partially successful, and attempts to scale it up failed disastrously during the Civil War.
Arguably, Lincoln himself gave up on recolonizing in early 1863.
In 1864 Congress withdrew all funding for the project.

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

Grant's presidency ran from 1869 to 1876, his opinions while on vacation in retirement in Europe were just that, opinions.
There was no official recolonization during Grant's presidency, or any time after.

Nobody could ABOLISH slavery where it did not already exist."
And yet... such fine distinctions of definition were utterly beyond the understandings -- or more importantly the interests -- of Southern Fire Eater Democrats, who were totally satisfied that no matter how mildly Lincoln expressed his anti-slavery opinions, it didn't matter.

Following your logic, David Copperfield advertises for people to come to the theater to watch man fly. We know it is impossible for man to fly. And yet... people go to the theater and some fire-eating goober believes David Copperfield flew around the stage. And thus David Copperfield is an aerialist who can fly. The fact that people can't fly... in BroJoe world... does not matter. Some goober thinks Copperfield can fly. That overrules all logic and common sense.

woodpusher: "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."
I totally see what you're hoping to pull here -- you want to draw a distinction between anti-slavery and abolitionism, a distinction which did indeed matter to Lincoln and other Republicans, but not in the least to Southern Fire Eater Democrats.

Nobody was discussing fire-eating Democrats. Being discussed were proclaimed heroes of anti-slavery such as Thomas Jefferson who owned 600 slaves and died a slave owner; or George Washington who never freed his slaves and died a slave owner, and the list goes on. Professing to be an anti-slavery lifelong owner of 600 slaves reveals the term to have been as flexible as beng a "small government" politician of today.

And as for being ABOLITIONISTS, Lincoln took great pains to make clear that the was NOT an ABOLITIONIST. He said it over and over and over. His opinion apparently did not depend on what fire-eating Democrats had to say, but I doubt any of them were abolitionists either.

The 1860s Republicans had no abolition plank in their platform. Deal with it."
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... and yet... the fact remains that there was no abolition plank in the GOP 1860 party platform. Yeah, they were self-professed anti-slavery, just as politicians are anti- big government today. You can tell they are against big government because they keep shrinking the government and cutting spending. Oh, wait.... It's not what they say. it's what they do.

woodpusher: "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."
Voluntary recolonization to Liberia, Africa, and elsewhere was official US & state governments policy from the time of Jefferson, Madison & Monroe.

Sauce?

Congress & state legislatures voted hundreds of thousands of dollars (real money in those days) to pay for transportation of freed-blacks back to Africa.

In the time of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe?

Sauce?

From circa 1822 until the Civil War the numbers of freed-blacks voluntarily "recolonized" totaled up to 15,000.

The American Colonization Society (American Society for Colonizing the Free People of Color of the United States, aka African Colinization Society) founded the colony of Liberia in 1822. In its fund raising, it had received a $100,000 donation from the U.S. Congress. The Colonization Society was not a government entity.

As for "voluntary" deportation, recall the derisive laughter Mitt Romney drew when he suggested such a ridiculous proposition. "Donald Trump on Monday said Mitt Romney’s 'maniacal' and 'crazy' policy of 'self-deportation,' alienated Asian and Hispanic voters and helped cost him the election." Politico, 11/26/2012. Nor were the Blacks crazy or dumb enough to buy such a pantsload. They and you can shovel it, but it can't be sold. Maybe a Black man speaking in 1830 can make it clear to you. No sale!

https://libraries.udmercy.edu/archives/special-collections/index.php?collectionCode=baa&record_id=820

WILLIAMS Peter, Speech of 4 July 1830, Slavery and Colonization (Complete)

1830, [July 4]
Williams, Peter
Discourse Delivered in St. Philip’s
Church, For the benefit of the Coloured
Community of Wilberforce in Upper Canada
Presscopy – New York Public Library – Schomburg Collection

The material featured on this site is subject to copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The documents may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium, provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material, the University of Detroit Mercy Black Abolitionist Archive, must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.

Speech given for the benefit of the "coloured community of Wilberforce" in Upper Canada. Speech addresses efforts of the Colonization Society to relocate free people of color to Africa and Hayti.

-1-
On this day, the fathers of this nation declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
These truly noble sentiments, have secured to their author a deathless fame. The sages and patriots of the revolution, subscribed them with enthusiasm, and “pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honour” in their support.
The result has been the freedom and happiness of millions, by whom the annual returns of this day are celebrated, with the loudest, and most lively expressions of joy.
But although this anniversary affords occasion of rejoicing, to the mass of the people of the U. States, there is a class, a numerous class, consisting of nearly three millions, who participate but little in its joys, and are deprived of their unalienable rights, by the very men who so loudly rejoice in the declaration, that “all men are born free and equal.”
The festivities of this day serve but to impress upon the minds of reflecting men of colour, a deeper sense of the cruelty, the injustice, and oppression, of which they have been the victims. While others rejoice in their deliverance from a foreign yoke, they mourn that a yoke a thousand fold more grievous, is fastened upon them. Alas, they are slaves in the midst of freemen; they are slaves to those, who boast that freedom is the unalienable right of all; and the clanking of their fetters, and the voice of their wrongs,
- - - - - - - - - -
-2-
make a horrid discord in the songs of freedom, which resound through the land.
No people in the world profess so high a respect for liberty and equality, as the people of the U. States, and yet no people hold so many slaves, or make such great distinctions between man and man.
From various causes, (among which we cheerfully admit a sense of justice to have held no inconsiderable rank,) the work of emancipation has within a few years, been rapidly advancing in a number of states. The state we live in, since the 4^th of July 1827, has been able to boast that she has no slaves, and other states where there still are slaves, appear disposed to follow her example.
These things furnish us with cause of gratitude to God; and encourage us to hope, that the time will speedily arrive, when slavery will be universally abolished. Brethren, what a bright prospect would there be before us in this land, had we no prejudices to contend against, after being made free.
But alas! the freedom to which we have attained, is defective. Freedom and equality have been “put asunder.” The rights of men are decided by the colour of their skin; and there is as much difference made between the rights of a free white man, and a free coloured man, as there is between a free coloured man and a slave.
Though delivered from the fetters of slavery, we are opposed by an unreasonable, unrighteous, and cruel prejudice, which aims at nothing less, than the forcing away of all the free coloured
- - - - - - - - - -
-3-
people of the U. States, to the distant shores of Africa. Far be it from me to impeach the motives, of every member of the African Colonization Society. The civilizing and christianizing of that vast continent, and the extirpation of the abominable traffic in slaves, (which notwithstanding all the laws passed for its suppression, is still carried on in all its horrors,) are no doubt the principal motives, which induce many to give it their support. But there are those, and those who are most active and most influential in its cause, who hesitate not to say, that they wish to rid the country of the free coloured population, and there is sufficient reason to believe, that with many, this is the principal motive for supporting that Society; and that whether Africa is civilized or not, and whether the slave trade be suppressed or not, they would wish to see the free coloured people removed from this country to Africa.
Africa could certainly be brought into a state of civil and religious improvement, without sending all the free people of colour in the United States there.
A few well-qualified missionaries, properly fitted out and supported, would do more for the instruction and improvement of the natives of that country, than a host of Colonists, the greater part of whom would need to be instructed themselves, and all of whom for a long period, would find enough to do to provide for themselves, instead of instructing the natives.
How inconsistent are those who say, that Africa will be benefitted by the removal of the free people of colour of the United States there, while they
- - - - - - - - - -
-4-
say, they are the most vile and degraded people in the world.—If we are as vile and degraded as they represent us, and they wish the Africans to be rendered a virtuous, enlightened and happy people, they should not think of sending us among them, lest we should make them worse instead of better.
The colonies planted by white men on the shores of America, so far from benefitting the aborigines, corrupted their morals, and caused their ruin; and yet those who say we are the most vile people in the world, would send us to Africa, to improve the character and condition of the natives. Such arguments would not be listened to for a moment, were not the minds of the community strangely warped by prejudice.
Those who wish that that vast continent should be compensated, for the injuries done it, by sending thither the light of the gospel, and the arts of civilized life, should aid in sending and supporting well qualified missionaries, who should be wholly devoted to the work of instruction, instead of sending colonists, who would be apt to turn the ignorance of the natives to their own advantage, and do them more harm than good.
Much has also been said by Colonizationists, about improving the character and condition of the people of colour of this country, by sending them to Africa. This is more inconsistent still. We are to be improved by being sent far from civilized society. This is a novel mode of improvement. What is there in the burning sun, the arid plains, and barbarous customs of Africa, that is so peculiarly favourable to our improve-
- - - - - - - - - -
-5-
ment? What hinders our improving here, where schools and colleges abound, where the gospel is preached at every corner, and where all the arts and sciences are verging fast to perfection? Nothing, nothing but prejudice. It requires no large expenditures, no hazardous enterprises to raise the people of colour in the United States, to as highly improved a state, as any class of the community. All that is necessary is, that those who profess to be anxious for it, should lay aside their prejudices, and act towards them as they do by others.
We are NATIVES of this country, we ask only to be treated as well as FOREIGNERS. Not a few of our fathers suffered and bled to purchase its independence; we ask only to be treated as well as those who fought against it. We have toiled to cultivate it, and to raise it to its present prosperous condition, we ask only to share equal privileges with those, who come from distant lands, to enjoy the fruits of our labour. Let these moderate requests be granted, and we need not go to Africa nor any where else, to be improved and happy. We cannot but doubt the purity of the motives of those persons who deny us these requests, and who send us to Africa, to gain what they might give us at home.
But they say, the prejudices of the country against us, are invincible; and as they cannot be conquered, it is better that we should be removed beyond their influence. This plea should never proceed from the lips of any man, who professes to believe that a just God rules in the heavens.
The African Colonization Society, is a numer-
- - - - - - - - - -
-6-
ous and influential body. Would they lay aside their own prejudices, much of the burden would be at once removed; and their example (especially if they were as anxious to have justice done us here, as to send us to Africa,) would have such an influence upon the community at large, as would soon cause prejudice to hide its deformed head. But alas! the course which they have pursued, has an opposite tendency. By the scandalous misrepresentations, which they are continually giving of our character and conduct, we have sustained much injury, and have reason to apprehend much more.
Without any charge of crime, we have been denied all access to places, to which we formerly had the most free intercourse; the coloured citizens of other places, on leaving their homes, have been denied the privilege of returning; and others have been absolutely driven out.
Has the Colonization Society had no effect in producing these barbarous measures?
They profess to have no other object in view, than the colonizing of the free people of colour on the coast of Africa, with their own consent; but if our homes are made so uncomfortable that we cannot continue in them; or if like our brethren of Ohio and New Orleans, we are driven from them, and no other door is open to receive us but Africa, our removal there will be any thing but voluntary.
It is very certain, that very few free people of colour wish to go to that land. The Colonization Society know this, and yet they do certainly calculate, that in time they will have us all removed
- - - - - - - - - -
-7-
there.
How can this be effected, but by making our situation worse here, and closing every other door against us?
God in his good providence, has opened for such of us as may choose to leave these States, an asylum in the neighbouring British province of Canada.
There is a large tract of land on the borders of Lake Huron, containing a million of acres, which is offered to our people at $1,50 per acre. It lies between the 42^nd and 44^th degrees of North latitude. The climate is represented as differing but little from this; the soil as good as any in the world; well timbered and watered. The laws are good, and the same for the coloured man as the white man. A powerful sympathy prevails there in our behalf, instead of the prejudice which here oppresses us; and every thing encourages the hope, that by prudence and industry, we may rise to as prosperous and happy a condition, as any people under the sun.
To secure this land as a settlement for our people, it is necessary that a payment of $6000 be made on or before the 10^th of November next.
This sum, it is proposed to lay out in the purchase of 4000 acres, and when paid, will secure the keeping of the remainder in reserve for coloured emigrants, ten years. The land so purchased, is to be sold out by agents, or trustees to emigrants, and the monies received in return, to be appropriated to a second purchase, which is to be sold as at first, and the returns again laid out in land, until the whole tract is in their possession;
- - - - - - - - - -
-8-
and then the capital so employed is to be expended on objects of general utility.
The persons who have bargained for the land, have found it necessary to apply to the citizens of the United States, to aid them by their donations, in raising the amount necessary to make their first purchase; and also to aid a number of emigrants, who were driven away in a cruel manner, and in a destitute condition from Cincinnati, to seek a home where they might, and who have selected the Huron tract as their future abode.
Each of these particulars present powerful claims to your liberality. “Cast thy bread upon the waters,” says the wise man in the text, “and thou shalt find it after many days. Give a portion to seven and also to eight, for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth.” Oh! truly we “know not what evil shall be upon the earth.”
When we look at the course of events, relative to our people in this country, we find reason to conclude, that it is proper we should provide a convenient asylum, to which we and our children may flee, in case we should be so oppressed, as to find it necessary to leave our present homes. The opinion is daily gaining ground, and has been often openly expressed, that it would be a great blessing to the country, if all its free coloured population could be removed to Africa. As this opinion advances, recourse will naturally be had to such measures, as will make us feel it necessary to go. Its operation has been already much felt in various states.
The coloured population of Cincinnati, were an orderly, industrious and thriving people, but the
- - - - - - - - - -
-9-
white citizens, having determined to force them out, first entered into a combination that they would give none of them employment; and finally resorted to violent measures to compel them to go. Should the anxiety to get rid of us increase, have we not reason to fear, that some such courses may be pursued in other places.
Satan is an inventive genius. He often appears under the garb of an angel of light, and makes religion and patriotism his plea for the execution of his designs. Our Lord foretold his disciples, that “the time cometh, when whosoever killeth you, will think that he doeth God service.” Brethren, the time is already come, when many think, that whosoever causeth us to remove from our native home, does service to his country and to God.
Ah! to many in other places besides Cincinnati and New Orleans, the sight of free men of colour is so unwelcome, that we know not what they may think themselves justifiable in doing, to get rid of them. Will it not then be wise for us to provide ourselves with a convenient asylum in time. We have now a fair opportunity of doing so; but if we neglect it, it may be too late; the lands now offered us may be occupied by others, and I know of none likely to be offered, which promises so many advantages. Indeed I feel warranted in saying, that if they are not speedily secured, attempts will be made to prevent our securing them hereafter, and that propositions have actually been made, by influential men, to purchase them, in order that the coloured people may not get them in their possession.
- - - - - - - - - -
-10-
It is true that Africa and Hayti, and perhaps some other countries, will still afford us a place of refuge, yet it will not certainly be amiss, to have Canada also at our choice. Some may prefer going there to any other place. But suppose we should never stand in need of such an asylum, (and some think that our having provided it, will make it less necessary; an effect we should all rejoice in, as we have no wish to go, if we can stay in comfort.)—Suppose we should never stand in need of such asylum, still the amount re- quired to secure it is so small, that we can never regret parting with it, for such an object. What is $6000 to be raised by the coloured people throughout the United States? How few are so poor that they cannot give a few shillings without missing it. Let it have the amount, which is usu- ally spent by our people in this city on the 4^th of July, in celebrating the national independence, and it will make up a very considerable part of it.
I have been informed, that at the suggestion of one of our coloured clergymen, the members of one of the societies, who intended to dine together to-morrow, have agreed to give the money, which would have been paid for dinner-tickets, to this object. This is truly patriotic. I would say to each of you, brethren “go and do likewise.” Give what you would probably expend in celebrating the 4 th of July, to the colony of your brethren in Canada; and on the birth-day of American free- dom, secure the establishment of a colony, in which you and your children, may rise to respectability and happiness.—Give it, and you will be no poorer than if you gave it not; and you will se-
- - - - - - - - - -
-11-
cure a place of refuge to yourselves in case of need.—“Give a portion to seven and also to eight, for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth.”
You are strongly urged to liberality on this occasion, by a regard to your future welfare. No scheme for our colonization, that has ever yet been attempted, has so few objections, or promises so many advantages; but if you withhold your aid until every imaginable objection is removed, you will never effect any object beneficial to yourselves, or to your brethren.
Brethren, it is no time to cavil, but to help. If you mean to help the colony, help now. The amount of the first purchase must be paid by the 10^th of November, or not at all. Brethren, this scheme of colonization, opens to us a brighter door of hope than was ever opened to us before, and has a peculiar claim upon our patronage, because it has originated among our people. It is not of the devising of the white men, nor of foreigners, but of our own kindred, and household. If it succeeds, ours will be the credit. If it succeeds not, ours will be the fault. I am happy, however, to find that it meets the approbation of most, if not of all, of those wise and good men who have for many years been our zealous and faithful friends, and it evidently appears to be specially favoured by Providence. But the occasion has not only an appeal to your interest, but to your charity.
Your brethren exiled from Cincinnati, for no
- - - - - - - - - -
-12-
crime, but because God was pleased to clothe them with a darker skin than their neighbours, cry to you from the wilderness for help. They ask you for bread, for clothing, and other necessaries to sustain them, their wives and their little ones, until by their industry, they can provide themselves the means of support. It is true, there are some among them, that are able to help themselves; but for these we do not plead. Those who can help themselves, will; but as the ablest have been sufferers in the sacrifice of their property, and the expenses and dangers of their forced and hurried removal, they are not able to assist their destitute brethren.
Indeed, most of the wealthy men of colour in Cincinnati, arranged so as to remain, until they could have a chance of disposing of their property to advantage; but the poor were compelled to fly without delay, and consequently need assistance. Brethren can you deny it to them? I know you too well, to harbour such a thought. It is only necessary to state to you their case, to draw forth your liberality. Think then, what these poor people must have suffered, in being driven with their wives and their little ones, from their comfortable homes, late in autumn, to take up their residence in a wide and desolate wilderness. O, last winter, must have been to them a terrible one indeed. We hope that they, by their own efforts will be better prepared for the next; but they must yet stand in need of help. They have the rude forest to subdue; houses to build; food to provide.
- - - - - - - - - -
-13-
They are the pioneers for the establishment of a colony, which may be a happy home, for thousands and tens of thousands of our oppressed race. O think of the situation of these your brethren, whom the hand of oppression has driven into exile, and whom the providence of God, had perhaps doomed like Joseph to suffering, that at some future day, much people may be saved alive.—Think of them, and give to their relief as your hearts may dictate. “Cast thy bread upon the waters,” &c.
- - - - - - - - - -

woodpusher: "Grant on African Colonization, New York Herald, 26 July 1878, pg 6"
Grant's presidency ran from 1869 to 1876, his opinions while on vacation in retirement in Europe were just that, opinions.

Why, if I didn't know better, I would think you were trying to be slick, sly, slippery and deceptive. But I know you wouldn't do that. It must have just been an innocent oversight. As a minor point, Grant's presidency ran EIGHT years, NOT SEVEN from 1869 to 1876, but to March 4, 1877. As you would not try to be slick, sly, slippery and deceptive, I am sure you made an honest mistake and thought Grant gave his Eighth Annual Message to Congress while he was retired and vacationing in France. He did try to advance colonization, but he couldn't get his colonization plan passed by Congress.

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.

Let me REPEAT what I said, and that you are responding to.

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 cooled 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.”

Now it is claimed that Lincoln never did give up on the idea of voluntarily recolonizing freed-blacks, but a detailed report on those efforts says otherwise:
"Lincoln actually had given up on colonization long before Congress repealed funds for the program [in 1864].
Since the departure of the Vache Island colonists in April 1863, the president, while privately continuing to endorse efforts of independent agencies and foreign countries to recruit emigrants, had done nothing to promote colonization. [37]..."
...In fact, there is no reason to believe that Lincoln ever espoused colonization after he issued the Final Emancipation Proclamation.
Scholars who argue that Lincoln still hoped to colonize blacks after the proclamation rely on only two flimsy pieces of evidence...
Bottom line: the idea of voluntarily recolonizing freed-blacks began at least with Thomas Jefferson and was official government policy, supported by both Federal and state appropriations from circa 1822 onwards.
On a very limited scale it was only partially successful, and attempts to scale it up failed disastrously during the Civil War.
Arguably, Lincoln himself gave up on recolonizing in early 1863.

For your claim dismissing the story told by Benjamin Butler, you unfortunately relied on Michael Voren in 1993 whose footnote 40 relied on Mark Neely from 1979, spuriously claiming that "Mark E. Neely, Jr., has shown that Butler fabricated his exchange with Lincoln and that the two men were not even in Washington at the same time when Butler remembered the conversation taking place.

The cited footnote 40:

40. Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: Butler's Book (Boston: A. M. Thayer and Co., 1892), 903. Butler claimed that he persuaded Lincoln to consider a plan to send the armed blacks to dig a canal across the isthmus of Darien (in present-day Panama), a venture quite different from, and lacking the permanence of, the proposals for peaceful colonization Lincoln advocated in 1862. Mark E. Neely, Jr., has shown that Butler fabricated his exchange with Lincoln and that the two men were not even in Washington at the same time when Butler remembered the conversation taking place; see "Abraham Lincoln and Black Colonization: Benjamin Butler's Spurious Testimony," Civil War History 25 (1979):77–83.

Mark Neely proved no such thing. Rather, subsequent discovery of documentation of the meeting having taken place destroyed the claim of Mark Neely. Do try to keep up.

https://philmagness.com/new-lincoln-discoveries/hay-to-butler-4101865-2/

Photocopy of handwritten original at link.

Major General Butler:
Executive Mansion
Washington, 10 April, 1865 The President will be pleased to see you at nine o'clock tommorrow (Tuesday) morning.
Your Obediant Servant,
John Hay
ALS

Noted at CW 8:588 as "Apr. 10. To Benjamin F. Butler, Hay for Lincoln, making appointment for "tomorrow," ALS, DLC-Butler Papers."

http://www.thelincolnlog.org/Results.aspx?type=CalendarDay&day=1865-04-11

Lincoln Day by Day

Tuesday, April 11, 1865.
Washington, DC.
President consults with General Benjamin Butler on freedpeople problem. Daily National Republican (Washington, DC), 11 April 1865, 2d ed., 2:5; Butler, Correspondence, 5:589; CW, 8:588; Daily National Republican (Washington, DC), 12 April 1865, 2d ed., Extra, 1:5-6.

On April 10, 1865 John Hay scheduled a meeting with Lincoln for Benjamin Butler. On April 11, 1865, the meeting took place. The two men were definitely in Washington, in the same rooom, at the same time.

Butler wrote accounts of the meeting in
1884, in a New York Times biographical
1886, in Allen Thorndike Rice, Editor, Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln and
1892, Butler's Book.

In the 1892 account, Butler messed up the timing of the events. This led Neely to proclaim the meeting was a fabrication. The documented meeting is consistent with the 1884 and 1886 accounts, recalled more closely to the event. Professor, do your research. Neely was debunked years ago.

By a stroke of good fortune, I just happen to have a copy of Allen Thorndike Rice, Editor, Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time, copyright 1885, Fifth Edition 1888. Butler recounts the meeting at Chapter VII, pp. 149-154.

Benjamin F. Butler

It will be remembered that, like all Southern men, Mr. Lincoln did not understand the negro character. He doubted very much whether the negro and the white man could possibly live together in any other condition than that of slavery; and early after the emancipation proclamation he proposed to Congress to try the experiment of negro colonization in order to dispose of those negroes who should come within our lines. And, as I remember, speaking from memory only, attempted to make some provision at Demerara, through the agency of Senator Pomeroy, for colonizing the negroes. The experiment was not fully carried out, the reasons for which are of no moment here.
Lincoln was very much disturbed after the surrender of Lee, and he had been to Richmond, upon the question of what would be the results of peace in the Southern States as affected by the contiguity of the white and black races. Shortly before the time, as I remember it, when Mr. Seward was thrown from his carriage and severely injured, being then in Washington, the President sent for the writer, and said, "General Butler, I am troubled about the negroes. We are soon to have peace. We have got some one hundred and odd thousand negroes who have been trained to arms. When peace shall come I fear lest these colored men shall organize themselves in the South, especially in the States where the negroes are in preponderance in numbers, into guerrilla parties, and we shall have down there a warfare between the whites and the negroes. In the course of the reconstruction of the Government it will become a question of how the negro is to be disposed of. Would it not be possible to export them to some place, say Liberia, or South America, and organize them into communities to support themselves? Now, General, I wish you would examine the practicability of such exportation. Your organization of the flotilla which carried your army from Yorktown and Fort Monroe to City Point, and its success show that you understand such matters. Will you give this your attention, and, at as early a day as possible, report to me your views upon the subject." I replied, "Willingly," and bowed and retired. After some few days of examination, with the aid of statistics and calculations, of this topic, I repaired to the President's office in the morning, and said to him, "I have come to report to you on the question you have submitted to me, Mr. President, about the exportation of the negroes." He exhibited great interest, and said, "Well, what do you think of it ?" I said: "Mr. President, I assume that if the negro is to be sent away on shipboard you do not propose to enact the horrors of the middle passage, but would give the negroes the airspace that the law provides for emigrants." He said, "Certainly." "Well, then, here are some calculations which will show you that if you undertake to export all of the negroes—and I do not see how you can take one portion differently from another—negro children will be born faster than your whole naval and merchant vessels, if substantially all of them were devoted to that use, can carry them from the country; especially as I believe that their increase will be much greater in a state of freedom than of slavery, because the commingling of the two races does not tend to productiveness." He examined my tables carefully for some considerable time, and then he looked up sadly and said: "Your deductions seem to be correct, General. But what can we do? " I replied: "If I understand you, Mr. President, your theory is this: That the negro soldiers we have enlisted will not return to the peaceful pursuits of laboring men, but will become a class of guerrillas and criminals. Now, while I do not see, under the Constitution, even with all the aid of Congress, how you can export a class of people who are citizens against their will, yet the Commander-in-Chief can dispose of soldiers quite arbitrarily. Now, then, we have large quantities of clothing to clothe them, large quantities of provision with which to supply them, and arms and everything necessary for them, even to spades and shovels, mules and wagons, Our war has shown that an army organization is the very best for digging up the soil and making intrenchments. Witness the very many miles of intrenchments that our soldiers have dug out. I know of a concession of the United States of Colombia for a tract of thirty miles wide across the Isthmus of Panama for opening a ship canal. The enlistments of the negroes have all of them from two to three years to run. Why not send them all down there to dig the canal? They will withstand the climate, and the work can be done with less cost to the United States in that way than in any other. If you choose, I will take command of the expedition. We will take our arms with us, and I need not suggest to you that we will need nobody sent down to guard us from the interference of any nation. We will proceed to cultivate the land and supply ourselves with all the fresh food that can be raised in the tropics, which will be all that will be needed, and your stores of provisions and supplies of clothing will furnish all the rest. Shall I work out the details of such an expedition for you, Mr. President?" He reflected for some time, and then said: "There is meat in that suggestion, General Butler; there is meat in that suggestion. Go and talk to Seward, and see what foreign complication there will be about it. Then think it over, get your figures made, and come to me again as soon as you can. If the plan has no other merit, it will rid the country of the colored soldiers." "Oh," said I, "it will do more than that. After we get down there we shall make a humble petition for you to send our wives and children to us, which you can't well refuse, and then you will have a United States colony in that region which will hold its own against all comers, and be contented and happy." "Yes, yes," said he, "that's it; go and see Seward."
I left the office, called upon the Secretary of State, who received me kindly, and explained in a few words what the President wanted. He said: "Yes, General, I know that the President is greatly worried upon this subject. He has spoken to me of it frequently, and yours may be a solution of it; but to-day is my mail day. I am very much driven with what must be done to-day; but I dine, as you know, at six o'clock. Come and take a family dinner with me, and afterward, over an indifferent cigar, we will talk this matter over fully."
But that evening Secretary Seward, in his drive before dinner, was thrown from his carriage and severely injured, his jaw being broken, and he was confined to his bed until the assassination of Lincoln, and the attempted murder of himself by one of the confederates of Booth, so that the subject could never be again mentioned to Mr. Lincoln.

woodpusher: "Following your logic, David Copperfield advertises for people to come to the theater to watch man fly.
We know it is impossible for man to fly.
And yet... people go to the theater and some fire-eating goober believes David Copperfield flew around the stage. And thus David Copperfield is an aerialist who can fly.
The fact that people can't fly... in BroJoe world... does not matter.
Some goober thinks Copperfield can fly.
That overrules all logic and common sense."

Hmnmmm... I think I'm beginning to understand that you, woodpusher, are somehow maniacally possessed by the word "ABOLITION", which has apparently sunk down deep into the nether regions of your brain-stem compelling you to walk around zombie-like, pointing at people and exclaiming "ABOLITIONIST" or "NOT-ABOLITIONIST".
It might even be a psychological problem serious enough for you to consult with a therapist about, but truly, nobody else cares!

Certainly 1861 secessionists didn't care:

"...a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.
There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
Mississippi "Reasons for Secession" January 1861
"The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time.
It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States.
The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it.
That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists."
Georgia "Reasons for Secession" January 29, 1861
"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.
They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."
Texas "Reasons for Secession" February 2, 1861
"It is true that among those who aided in this election, there are various shades of Anti-Slavery hostility.
But if African Slavery in the Southern States be the evil their political combinations affirm it to be, the requisitions of an inexorable logic must lead them to emancipation.
If it is right to preclude or abolish Slavery in a territory, why should it be allowed to remain in the States?
The one is not at all more unconstitutional than the other, according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States."
Robert Rhett "Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States" December 1860
"All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning.
It is a species of insanity.
One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were.
They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man.
If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails."
CSA VP Alexander Stephens, "Cornerstone Speech" March 21, 1861

So I conclude that no serious 1860 secessionist made any major distinction between "anti-slavery", "emancipation", "abolition" or, indeed "equality of the races".
Those words were each & all adequate justification in secessionists' minds for secession, Confederacy and war against the United States.
You obsession, woodpusher, with driving home alleged distinctions is a matter between you and your therapist, and should not concern anybody who reads a Free Republic thread.

woodpusher: "Nobody was discussing fire-eating Democrats."

I am only discussing Southern Fire-Eating Democrats because they are the only people who matter here -- they are the ones who declared secession, Confederacy and war against the United States.
Their motives are what matter, and they didn't care in the least about your obsession with distinctions between "anti-slavery" and "ABOLITION".

woodpusher: "Being discussed were proclaimed heroes of anti-slavery such as Thomas Jefferson who owned 600 slaves and died a slave owner; or George Washington who never freed his slaves and died a slave owner, and the list goes on.
Professing to be an anti-slavery lifelong owner of 600 slaves reveals the term to have been as flexible as beng a "small government" politician of today."

Those are total distractions since they were not directly involved in 1860 secession debates.
But since you bring them up, Washington & Jefferson are indeed important generally, since they represent what was the general understanding about slavery in, let's say, 1788.
You may remember that in 1776 about half of Northern delegates at the Philadelphia convention were, or had been, slaveholders.
By the 1787 Philadelphia convention, the number of Northern slaveholders was approaching zero, and most Southerners, including Washington & Jefferson, agreed that slavery was morally wrong and should be abolished eventually, or so they said.

Washington did eventually free his family's slaves and Jefferson did not, however Jefferson did sponsor the national abolition of international slave imports and also the abolition of slavery in our Northwest Territories.
Jefferson was the first to propose national compensated abolition, though that went nowhere.
And other Founders, like Benjamin Franklin, went from slaveholders to abolitionists, so that was the pattern and the expectation of our Founders in, say, 1788.

woodpusher: "And yet... and yet... the fact remains that there was no abolition plank in the GOP 1860 party platform.
Yeah, they were self-professed anti-slavery, just as politicians are anti- big government today."

And yet again it remains the fact that an "abolition plank" in 1860 was totally unnecessary to drive Southern Fire-Eating Democrats into berserkly declaring secession, Confederacy & war against the United States.
Secessionists made no great distinctions among "anti-slavery", "emancipation", "abolition" and "equality of the races" -- all were intolerable, all were sufficient grounds in their own minds for secession & war.

woodpusher: "The American Colonization Society (American Society for Colonizing the Free People of Color of the United States, aka African Colinization Society) founded the colony of Liberia in 1822.
In its fund raising, it had received a $100,000 donation from the U.S. Congress.
The Colonization Society was not a government entity."

The ACS also received large sums over many years from state governments, notably Virginia & Maryland.
These donations made recolonization de facto US government policy.
Proposals for recolonization began with Thomas Jefferson, James Madison lead the ACS for many years, James Monroe was President when Federal money was first voted for it.

woodpusher: "As for "voluntary" deportation, recall the derisive laughter Mitt Romney drew when he suggested such a ridiculous proposition...
...Maybe a Black m0an speaking in 1830 can make it clear to you. No sale!"

And yet... it's reported that up to 15,000 did attempt to recolonize, and some were successful, forming the elite of Liberian society which even today is influential in Liberian politics.

"The ACS as well as several northern state governments and local colonization chapters continued to provide money and emigrants as late as the 1870s.[5]"

"Until 1835, five more colonies were created by the colonization societies of five different states in the U.S. (Republic of Maryland, Kentucky-in-Africa, Mississippi in Africa, Louisiana, Liberia, and that set up by the Pennsylvania state colonization society and one planned by the New Jersey colonization society), and one[which?] by the U.S. government in the vicinity of the ACS settlement."

"In addition to indigenous Liberian chiefs and royal families, upper-class Americo-Liberians and their descendants led the political, social, cultural and economic sectors of the country; alongside indigenous Liberian elites, upper-class Americo-Liberians ruled the new nation from 19th century until 1980 as a small but dominant minority."

woodpusher quoting: "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."

So, it appears that ex-President Grant gave his opinions to a HERALD correspondent in Europe in 1878.
Like I said, opinions, about a program for voluntary recolonization.

Nothing "slick", "sly", "slippery" or "deceptive" about that.

woodpusher: "In the 1892 account, Butler messed up the timing of the events.
This led Neely to proclaim the meeting was a fabrication.
The documented meeting is consistent with the 1884 and 1886 accounts, recalled more closely to the event.
Professor, do your research.
Neely was debunked years ago."

Maybe.
Your reported documentation seems to show Butler did meet Lincoln once, four days before Lincoln's assassination.
But Butler's account says he met Lincoln twice, and the second meeting:

"Will you give this your attention, and, at as early a day as possible, report to me your views upon the subject."
I replied, "Willingly," and bowed and retired.
After some few days of examination, with the aid of statistics and calculations, of this topic, I repaired to the President's office in the morning..."

That morning would be Saturday, April 15, 1865, for which even you have not alleged there's evidence for such a second meeting.
So Butler's misremembering a second meeting throws the entire story into doubt.

But even more -- Butler claims that, after meeting Lincoln he met with Secretary of State Seward the day of Seward's injuries in a carriage accident.

"But that evening Secretary Seward, in his drive before dinner, was thrown from his carriage and severely injured, his jaw being broken, and he was confined to his bed until the assassination of Lincoln..."

Seward's carriage accident was on April 5, six days before Butler's reported meeting with Lincoln -- so the whole story is cockamamie.

But even if, just for sake of argument, we take Butler's tall tale at face value, what does it tell us?
Butler tells us that Lincoln was very worried about possible guerilla warfare in the South between former US Army Colored Troops and white Southerners.
So Butler suggested transporting those still-enlisted troops to dig a canal across Panama.
Butler thinks the colored troops can withstand the climate, will be mostly self-supporting and in due time will send for their wives & families, making Panama a permanent colony.
According to Butler, Lincoln thought it was a good idea and advised Butler to see Seward about it, which allegedly, Butler did, though apparently that was a week before Butler met Lincoln!

What we know actually happened was that a small number of US Army Colored Troops were stationed in the South during reconstruction, and did result in some conflict with white Southerners, who insisted all Union troops be withdrawn.
In due time they were withdrawn and there was no guerilla warfare -- except for attacks by white groups (i.e., Red Shirts) on African American civilians.

Bottom line: in 1862 Congress authorized $600,000 for recolonization of which Lincoln's administration spent only $38,000 with disastrous results, such that Congress withdrew the unspent funds in 1864.
So Lincoln did not spend funds for recolonization when they were available and there's no solid evidence he did anything more about it afterwards.

Here's what the South said about the Republicans.

Correspondence between Gov. A. B. Moore and Alabama's Commissioner to Delaware

"Its animus, its single bond of union, is hostility to the institution of slavery as it exists in the Southern States. Its members, numbering nearly two millions of voters, as evidenced by the late Presidential election, have been collected from all the other various political organizations, and although disagreeing totally upon other important political principles, have nevertheless ignored all these, and been molded into a compact mass of enmity to this particular institution, upon which depend the domestic, social, and political interests of fifteen States of the Union, and which institution was recognized, respected, guarded, and protected by the convention which framed the Constitution and by the people of the States by whom it was ordained and established."

Letter of S.F. Hale, Commissioner of Alabama to the State of Kentucky, to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky

"Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as a change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions --- nothing less than an open declaration of war --- for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans. Especially is this true in the cotton-growing States, where, in many localities, the slave outnumbers the white population ten to one.".

These are just excerpts. There's plenty more.

They understood then the Republicans were pushing abolition. Too bad the Confederacy amen corner can't see it now, 150+ years after slavery was abolished.

woodpusher: "Following your logic, David Copperfield advertises for people to come to the theater to watch man fly.
We know it is impossible for man to fly.
And yet... people go to the theater and some fire-eating goober believes David Copperfield flew around the stage. And thus David Copperfield is an aerialist who can fly.
The fact that people can't fly... in BroJoe world... does not matter.
Some goober thinks Copperfield can fly. That overrules all logic and common sense."
Hmnmmm... I think I'm beginning to understand that you, woodpusher, are somehow maniacally possessed by the word "ABOLITION", which has apparently sunk down deep into the nether regions of your brain-stem compelling you to walk around zombie-like, pointing at people and exclaiming "ABOLITIONIST" or "NOT-ABOLITIONIST".

And yet... and yet... you cannot muster an argument denying that your maniacal proposition yields absurd results that insult the intelligence of the average person,

Certainly 1861 secessionists didn't care:
[meaningless quotes omitted]
Mississippi "Reasons for Secession" January 1861
[meaningless quotes omitted]
Texas "Reasons for Secession" February 2, 1861
[meaningless quotes omitted]
So I conclude that no serious 1860 secessionist made any major distinction between "anti-slavery", "emancipation", "abolition" or, indeed "equality of the races".
Those words were each & all adequate justification in secessionists' minds for secession, Confederacy and war against the United States.

It is YOUR contention that President Lincoln was anti-slavery and an abolitionist because other said or believed he was. It is not the words and deeds of Lincoln that define him, but the words of his political opponents.

Let us put your idiotic proposition to the test.

You profess that if the political opposition defines President Lincoln as something, it matters not what Lincoln said or did. He is anti-slavery or an abolitionist because that was how some of your fellow radical Democrats saw him.

If that idiocy is proper to apply to Lincoln, it should work equally well for other presidents. In fact, it does work equally well, but that is not conceding any point.

According to your idiotic proposition, as your fellow radical Democrats said that Donald Trump was insane, not fit to hold office, should be impeached and removed from office, was a criminal having committed treason, sedition, and having fomented an insurrection in an attempt to overthrow the government; by the idiocy of your proposition, Trump is all those things, and it matters not what Trump actually said or did.

Trump's words and deeds speak for themselves, despite what your favorite radical Democrats said.

In similar fashion, Lincoln's words and deeds speak for themselves. You cannot defend them so you fashion and argument of spewing excrement instead. It matters not one whit what your radical Democrat heroes said or did—their spew cannot define anyone but themselves.

Lincoln explicitly denied he was an abolitionist, and he explicitly denied he had the authority, or the inclination, to disturb slavery where it existed. He explicitly stated he only opposed introducing slavery to a place where it did not exist.

Washington did eventually free his family's slaves and Jefferson did not

You are a supposed professor of history. You therefore should know that your claim is a big, fat falsehood. George Washington NEVER freed his slaves, nor his family's slaves. George Washington died still owning his slaves.

About a year after George's death, Martha Washington freed those who had been slaves of George. Do some research before spewing once in a while and you will not broadcast your ignorance of history. Do you ever fact-check your blather before you spew it? Or are you just having a contest with yourself to see how many false claims you can squeeze into a single post?

Jefferson went to France with his slave Sally Hemings after slavery was banned in France. Sally could have been free for the asking in France. But she reportedly accepted a deal with Jefferson to return to Monticello as his slave on the condition that he free her (future) children. Jefferson did free some of his slaves—Sally's children.

Sally is often described as Jefferson's second wife. Jefferson's original wife died. The father of his original wife had a daughter by one of his own slaves, that being Sally. Sally was the daughter of Jefferson's father-in-law and his original wife's half-sister. Sally was born in 1773.

https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/

Sally Hemings worked for two and a half years (1787-89) in Paris as a domestic servant and maid in Jefferson’s household. While in Paris, where she was free, she negotiated with Jefferson to return to enslavement at Monticello in exchange for “extraordinary privileges” for herself and freedom for her unborn children. Decades later, Jefferson freed all of Sally Hemings’s children – Beverly and Harriet left Monticello in the early 1820s; Madison and Eston were freed in his will and left Monticello in 1826. Jefferson did not grant freedom to any other enslaved family unit.

https://www.monticello.org/sallyhemings/

Unlike countless enslaved women, Sally Hemings was able to negotiate with her owner. In Paris, where she was free, the 16-year-old agreed to return to enslavement at Monticello in exchange for “extraordinary privileges” for herself and freedom for her unborn children. Over the next 32 years Hemings raised four children—Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston—and prepared them for their eventual emancipation. She did not negotiate for, or ever receive, legal freedom in Virginia.

Jefferson had many outstanding qualities, but being an icon of anti-slavery or abolitionism does not appear in his deeds.

The ACS also received large sums over many years from state governments, notably Virginia & Maryland.
These donations made recolonization de facto US government policy.

Of course it does. If Black Lives Matter, or other of your similarly based radical Democrat organizations, receive funds from State governments, that makes their doctrine de facto U.S. Government policy. If only the Southern states had made contributions to the Ku Klux Klan, the doctrine of the KKK would have been de facto U.S. Government policy. Where do you get this crap from?

woodpusher: "As for "voluntary" deportation, recall the derisive laughter Mitt Romney drew when he suggested such a ridiculous proposition...
...Maybe a Black man speaking in 1830 can make it clear to you. No sale!"
And yet... it's reported that up to 15,000 did attempt to recolonize, and some were successful, forming the elite of Liberian society which even today is influential in Liberian politics.

You are a sick man Joe.

‘The real story of Liberia is a story of survival’: Remembering the role of Black and white Marylanders in the creation of Africa’s first republic

By Christina Tkacik
Baltimore Sun |
Jul 01, 2021 at 5:00 AM

Most free Black people rejected the colonization scheme, with some believing it was a ruse to sell them back into slavery. But a few Black leaders believed that West Africa offered them the best chance to escape the racism that so circumscribed their lives in the U.S. Among them were the abolitionist John Brown Russwurm, who founded the first Black-owned newspaper in the U.S. and later became the governor of Maryland in Africa.
Some Black men and women were coerced into leaving. As accounts in the Maryland State Archives Slavery database attest, enslavers here freed or manumitted their enslaved people in their wills on the condition that they emigrate.

It was voluntary emigration. They could get on the ship or remain a slave. Their masters were pro-choice.

Some left voluntarily. Many were dumped ashore with absolutely nothing. Nothing was provided for their subsistence. Many perished. Word of the scam spread. Emigration dried up.

Whether supported by Lincoln, Romney, or you, "voluntary emigration" is held with the same contempt as "separate but equal" which the Supreme Court found to be inherently unequal.

woodpusher quoting: "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."
So, it appears that ex-President Grant gave his opinions to a HERALD correspondent in Europe in 1878.
Like I said, opinions, about a program for voluntary recolonization.

Yea verily. I cited and quoted from Grant's Eighth Annual Message to Congress of December 5, 1876; and also from the New York Tribune of 26 July 1878. Your inane reply was:

woodpusher: "Grant on African Colonization, New York Herald, 26 July 1878, pg 6"
Grant's presidency ran from 1869 to 1876, his opinions while on vacation in retirement in Europe were just that, opinions.

As a supposed history professor who checks his facts, you are the first to find that Grant's two terms totaled seven years and ended in 1876, rather than 1877. Had your claim been correct, then Grant's Eighth Annual Message to Congress would have been mailed in by a Grant vacationing in France. In fact, he was still president until March 4, 1877.

Grant's Eighth Annual Message to Congress expressed his continued support, as President, for annexing Santo Domingo to the United States and using it to colonize freed Blacks. The later NY Trib article only confirmed that his support for such plan did not expire when he left office.

Shortening Grant's term of office and making believe I only addressed his statements after leaving office is pretty low, even for you.

woodpusher: "Following your logic, David Copperfield advertises for people to come to the theater to watch man fly.
We know it is impossible for man to fly.
And yet... people go to the theater and some fire-eating goober believes David Copperfield flew around the stage. And thus David Copperfield is an aerialist who can fly.
The fact that people can't fly... in BroJoe world... does not matter.
Some goober thinks Copperfield can fly. That overrules all logic and common sense."
Hmnmmm... I think I'm beginning to understand that you, woodpusher, are somehow maniacally possessed by the word "ABOLITION", which has apparently sunk down deep into the nether regions of your brain-stem compelling you to walk around zombie-like, pointing at people and exclaiming "ABOLITIONIST" or "NOT-ABOLITIONIST".

And yet... and yet... you cannot muster an argument denying that your maniacal proposition yields absurd results that insult the intelligence of the average person,

Certainly 1861 secessionists didn't care:
[meaningless quotes omitted]
Mississippi "Reasons for Secession" January 1861
[meaningless quotes omitted]
Texas "Reasons for Secession" February 2, 1861
[meaningless quotes omitted]
So I conclude that no serious 1860 secessionist made any major distinction between "anti-slavery", "emancipation", "abolition" or, indeed "equality of the races".
Those words were each & all adequate justification in secessionists' minds for secession, Confederacy and war against the United States.

It is YOUR contention that President Lincoln was anti-slavery and an abolitionist because others said or believed he was. Pursuant to this proposition, it is not the words and deeds of Lincoln that define him, but the words of his political opponents.

Let us put your idiotic proposition to the test.

You profess that if the political opposition defines President Lincoln as something, it matters not what Lincoln said or did. He is anti-slavery or an abolitionist because that was how some of your fellow radical Democrats described him.

If that idiocy is proper to apply to Lincoln, it should work equally well for other presidents. In fact, it does work equally well, but that is not conceding any point.

According to your idiotic proposition, as your fellow radical Democrats said that Donald Trump was insane, not fit to hold office, should be impeached and removed from office, was a criminal having committed treason, sedition, and having fomented an insurrection in an attempt to overthrow the government; by the idiocy of your proposition, Trump is all those things, and it matters not what Trump actually said or did.

In reality, Trump's words and deeds speak for themselves, despite what your favorite radical Democrats said.

In similar fashion, Lincoln's words and deeds speak for themselves. You cannot defend them so you fashion an argument of spewing excrement instead. It matters not one whit what your radical Democrat heroes said or did—their spew cannot define anyone but themselves.

Lincoln explicitly denied he was an abolitionist, and he explicitly denied he had the authority, or the inclination, to disturb slavery where it existed. He explicitly stated he only opposed introducing slavery to a place where it did not exist.

Washington did eventually free his family's slaves and Jefferson did not

You are a supposed professor of history. You therefore should know that your claim is a big, fat falsehood. George Washington NEVER freed his slaves, nor his family's slaves. His will stated, "Upon the decease of my wife, it is my Will and desire, that all the slaves which I hold in my own right, shall receive their freedom." George Washington died still owning his slaves.

Washington's will and desire bound nobody to free his slaves.

About a year after George's death, Martha Washington freed those who had been slaves of George. Do some research before spewing once in a while and you will not broadcast your ignorance of history. Do you ever fact-check your blather before you spew it? Or are you just having a contest with yourself to see how many false claims you can squeeze into a single post?

Jefferson went to France with his slave Sally Hemings after slavery had been banned in France. Sally could have been free for the asking in France. But she reportedly accepted a deal with Jefferson to return to Monticello as his slave on the condition that he free her (future) children. Jefferson did free some of his slaves—Sally's children (Beverly, Harriet, Madison and Eston).

Sally is often described as Jefferson's second wife. Jefferson's original wife died. The father of his original wife had a daughter by one of his own slaves, that being Sally. Sally was the daughter of Jefferson's father-in-law and his original wife's half-sister. Sally was born in 1773.

https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/

Sally Hemings worked for two and a half years (1787-89) in Paris as a domestic servant and maid in Jefferson’s household. While in Paris, where she was free, she negotiated with Jefferson to return to enslavement at Monticello in exchange for “extraordinary privileges” for herself and freedom for her unborn children. Decades later, Jefferson freed all of Sally Hemings’s children–Beverly and Harriet left Monticello in the early 1820s; Madison and Eston were freed in his will and left Monticello in 1826. Jefferson did not grant freedom to any other enslaved family unit.

https://www.monticello.org/sallyhemings/

Unlike countless enslaved women, Sally Hemings was able to negotiate with her owner. In Paris, where she was free, the 16-year-old agreed to return to enslavement at Monticello in exchange for “extraordinary privileges” for herself and freedom for her unborn children. Over the next 32 years Hemings raised four children—Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston—and prepared them for their eventual emancipation. She did not negotiate for, or ever receive, legal freedom in Virginia.

Jefferson had many outstanding qualities, but being an icon of anti-slavery or abolitionism does not appear in his deeds.

The ACS also received large sums over many years from state governments, notably Virginia & Maryland.
These donations made recolonization de facto US government policy.

Of course it does. /s If Black Lives Matter, or other of your similarly based radical Democrat organizations, receive funds from State governments, that makes their doctrine de facto U.S. Government policy. If only the Southern states had made contributions to the Ku Klux Klan, the doctrine of the KKK would have been de facto U.S. Government policy. Where do you get this crap from?

woodpusher: "As for "voluntary" deportation, recall the derisive laughter Mitt Romney drew when he suggested such a ridiculous proposition...
...Maybe a Black man speaking in 1830 can make it clear to you. No sale!"
And yet... it's reported that up to 15,000 did attempt to recolonize, and some were successful, forming the elite of Liberian society which even today is influential in Liberian politics.

You are a sick man Joe.

I can see where that important information influences your perception and opinion.

Sebastian N. Page, Black Resettlement and the American Civil War, Cambridge University Press (2021) at 9 (footnote omitted),

Between the Revolution and the Civil War, the black population of the United States increased by more than 3,500,000. In the same period, slightly more than 20,000 African Americans migrated to Liberia, Haiti, and the British West Indies (combined) via formal emigration agencies, and a similar number to Canada at their own initiative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

The Americo-Liberian settlers did not relate well to the indigenous peoples they encountered, especially those living in the more isolated interior. Colonial settlements were raided by the Kru and Grebo from their inland chiefdoms. Americo-Liberians promoted religious organizations to set up missions and schools to educate the native populace.[9] Americo-Liberians formed into a small elite that held disproportionate political power; indigenous Africans were excluded from birthright citizenship in their own land until 1904.[9][10]
In 1980, political tensions from the rule of William R. Tolbert resulted in a military coup during which Tolbert was killed, marking the end of Americo-Liberian rule in the country and beginning over two decades of political instability. Five years of military rule by the People's Redemption Council and five years of civilian rule by the National Democratic Party of Liberia were followed by the First and Second Liberian Civil Wars. These resulted in the deaths of 250,000 people (about 8% of the population) and the displacement of many more, with Liberia's economy shrinking by 90%.[11] A peace agreement in 2003 led to democratic elections in 2005, in which Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was elected president, making history as the first female president in the continent. National infrastructure and basic social services were severely affected by the conflicts as well as by the 2013–2016 outbreak of Ebola virus, with 83% of the population living below the international poverty line as of 2015.[12]

Being in the influential Ibero-American elite sounds impressive.

‘The real story of Liberia is a story of survival’: Remembering the role of Black and white Marylanders in the creation of Africa’s first republic

By Christina Tkacik
Baltimore Sun |
Jul 01, 2021 at 5:00 AM

Most free Black people rejected the colonization scheme, with some believing it was a ruse to sell them back into slavery. But a few Black leaders believed that West Africa offered them the best chance to escape the racism that so circumscribed their lives in the U.S. Among them were the abolitionist John Brown Russwurm, who founded the first Black-owned newspaper in the U.S. and later became the governor of Maryland in Africa.
Some Black men and women were coerced into leaving. As accounts in the Maryland State Archives Slavery database attest, enslavers here freed or manumitted their enslaved people in their wills on the condition that they emigrate.

It was voluntary emigration, or as Lincoln phrased it, voluntary deportation. They could get on the ship or remain a slave. Their masters were pro-choice.

Some left voluntarily. Many were dumped ashore with absolutely nothing. Nothing was provided for their subsistence. Many perished. Word of the scam spread. Emigration dried up.

Whether supported by Lincoln, Romney, or you, "voluntary emigration" or "self-deportation" is held with the same contempt as "separate but equal" which the Supreme Court found to be inherently unequal.

woodpusher quoting: "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."
So, it appears that ex-President Grant gave his opinions to a HERALD correspondent in Europe in 1878.
Like I said, opinions, about a program for voluntary recolonization.

Yea verily. I cited and quoted from Grant's Eighth Annual Message to Congress of December 5, 1876; and also from the New York Tribune of 26 July 1878. Your inane reply was:

woodpusher: "Grant on African Colonization, New York Herald, 26 July 1878, pg 6"
Grant's presidency ran from 1869 to 1876, his opinions while on vacation in retirement in Europe were just that, opinions.

As a supposed history professor who checks his facts, you are the first to find that Grant's two terms totaled seven years and ended in 1876, rather than 1877. Had your claim been correct, then Grant's Eighth Annual Message to Congress would have been mailed in by a Grant vacationing in France. In fact, he was still president until March 4, 1877.

Grant's Eighth Annual Message to Congress expressed his continued support, as President, for annexing Santo Domingo to the United States and using it to colonize freed Blacks. The later NY Trib article only confirmed that his support for such plan did not expire when he left office.

Shortening Grant's term of office and making believe I only addressed his statements after leaving office is pretty low, even for you.

BroJoeK #121 to woodpusher #120:

Now it is claimed that Lincoln never did give up on the idea of voluntarily recolonizing freed-blacks, but a detailed report on those efforts says otherwise:
"Lincoln actually had given up on colonization long before Congress repealed funds for the program [in 1864].
Since the departure of the Vache Island colonists in April 1863, the president, while privately continuing to endorse efforts of independent agencies and foreign countries to recruit emigrants, had done nothing to promote colonization. [37]..."
...In fact, there is no reason to believe that Lincoln ever espoused colonization after he issued the Final Emancipation Proclamation.
Scholars who argue that Lincoln still hoped to colonize blacks after the proclamation rely on only two flimsy pieces of evidence...
Bottom line: the idea of voluntarily recolonizing freed-blacks began at least with Thomas Jefferson and was official government policy, supported by both Federal and state appropriations from circa 1822 onwards.
On a very limited scale it was only partially successful, and attempts to scale it up failed disastrously during the Civil War.
Arguably, Lincoln himself gave up on recolonizing in early 1863.

The embedded link goes to an article of Michael Vorenberg from the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Volme 14, Issue 2, Summer 1993, pp. 22-45.

Continuing the quote, the 1993 article stated,

Scholars who argue that Lincoln still hoped to colonize blacks after the proclamation rely on only two flimsy pieces of evidence. On July 1, 1864, the day before Congress voted to rescind its colonization appropriations, John Hay, Lincoln's personal secretary, recorded in his diary that "the President has sloughed off that idea of colonization." [39] Benjamin F. Butler, a leading Union general, claimed that early in 1865 Lincoln told him of the black soldiers, "I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves." Yet Butler's account is at best dubious, and Hay's allows for the possibility that Lincoln had given up the idea before July 1864.[40]

The cited footnote 40 states, in relevant part,

Mark E. Neely, Jr., has shown that Butler fabricated his exchange with Lincoln and that the two men were not even in Washington at the same time when Butler remembered the conversation taking place; see "Abraham Lincoln and Black Colonization: Benjamin Butler's Spurious Testimony," Civil War History 25 (1979):77–83.

- - - - - - - - - -

woodpusher #123 to BroJoeK #121

For your claim dismissing the story told by Benjamin Butler, you unfortunately relied on Michael Voren in 1993 whose footnote 40 relied on Mark Neely from 1979, spuriously claiming that "Mark E. Neely, Jr., has shown that Butler fabricated his exchange with Lincoln and that the two men were not even in Washington at the same time when Butler remembered the conversation taking place.
The cited footnote 40:
40. Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: Butler's Book (Boston: A. M. Thayer and Co., 1892), 903. Butler claimed that he persuaded Lincoln to consider a plan to send the armed blacks to dig a canal across the isthmus of Darien (in present-day Panama), a venture quite different from, and lacking the permanence of, the proposals for peaceful colonization Lincoln advocated in 1862. Mark E. Neely, Jr., has shown that Butler fabricated his exchange with Lincoln and that the two men were not even in Washington at the same time when Butler remembered the conversation taking place; see "Abraham Lincoln and Black Colonization: Benjamin Butler's Spurious Testimony," Civil War History 25 (1979):77–83.
Mark Neely proved no such thing. Rather, subsequent discovery of documentation of the meeting having taken place destroyed the claim of Mark Neely. Do try to keep up.

- - - - - - - - - -

BroJoeK #125 to woodpusher #123:

woodpusher: "In the 1892 account, Butler messed up the timing of the events.
This led Neely to proclaim the meeting was a fabrication.
The documented meeting is consistent with the 1884 and 1886 accounts, recalled more closely to the event.
Professor, do your research.
Neely was debunked years ago."
Maybe.
Your reported documentation seems to show Butler did meet Lincoln once, four days before Lincoln's assassination.

NO, my documentation does not "seem" to show Butler met with Lincoln, "once," four days before Lincoln's assassination. My documentation provides a handwritten autograph document of John Hay, then the secretary to the President. The document shows that John Hay, on April 10, 1864 scheduled a meeting between General Butler and President Lincoln for April 11, 1865. The document itself was thoroughly examined, and its provenance was accredited and the content of the document is included in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, the gold standard for authentic documents. No included document has ever been shown to be inauthentic.

The meeting having been held is substantiated by its inclusion in Lincoln Day by Day which includes citation of several contemporaneous publications citing the meeting having taken place.

The only record of the substance of the meeting is that provided by General Butler.

The occurrence of the meeting is no longer in question.

Lincoln Day by Day

Tuesday, April 11, 1865.
Washington, DC.
President consults with General Benjamin Butler on freed people problem. Daily National Republican (Washington, DC), 11 April 1865, 2d ed., 2:5; Butler, Correspondence, 5:589; CW, 8:588; Daily National Republican (Washington, DC), 12 April 1865, 2d ed., Extra, 1:5-6.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0029.103/--benjamin-butlers-colonization-testimony-reevaluated?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Phillip W. Magness, Benjamin Butler's Colonization Testimony Reevaluated, Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2008, pg. 5,

Surviving documents in the papers of General Butler prove beyond any doubt that he met privately with President Lincoln in the White House on the morning of April 11, 1865, a date in the immediate vicinity of the general's claimed recollections and only three days before the president's fateful trip to Ford's theatre.

- - - - - - - - - -

[Lincoln said, (to Butler)] "Will you give this your attention, and, at as early a day as possible, report to me your views upon the subject."
I replied, "Willingly," and bowed and retired.
After some few days of examination, with the aid of statistics and calculations, of this topic, I repaired to the President's office in the morning..."
That morning would be Saturday, April 15, 1865, for which even you have not alleged there's evidence for such a second meeting.
So Butler's misremembering a second meeting throws the entire story into doubt.

Nobody has ever suggested that anyone met with Lincoln on April 15, 1865, the day after he was shot, to converse with his corpse.

But even more -- Butler claims that, after meeting Lincoln he met with Secretary of State Seward the day of Seward's injuries in a carriage accident.

Before quoting your sources to claim "the two men were not even in Washington at the same time when Butler remembered the conversation taking place, try to research whether the two were in the same room at the same place.

Having given up on colonization in early 1863, as you claim, Lincoln must have been surprised when the Senate passed a resolution on March 25, 1864, requesting him to furnish a copy of "the report of the Commissioner of Emigration for 1863, with his account of existing contracts, and other necessary information on the question of emigration." President Lincoln must have been startled upon receiving the Report on Emigration and Colonization In Answer to A Resolution of the Senate Adopted March 25, 1864, and to learn that his appointee as Commissioner of Emigration, James Mitchell, was still his personally appointed Commissioner of Emigration. And then a Mitchell Brief on Emigration & Colonization published in 1865. Lincoln thought he and his administration had abandoned colonization; had sloughed it off. And the Senate wanted a copy of the Report. Oh noes. Whatever did it say?

https://archive.org/details/briefonemigratio00unit

BRIEF ON
EMIGRATION & COLONIZATION
AND
REPORT
IN ANSWER TO
A RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE.
WASHINGTON:
POLKINHORN & SON, BOOK AND JOB PRINTERS.
1865.
- - - - - - - - - -
PROPOSITIONS.
1. “All men are created free and equal. But a separate and independent subsistence for the great families of men, is clearly marked out by the Divine Ruler.”
2. “Society is an ordinance of Heaven, having for its object the happiness, prosperity and peace of its members.”
3. “Governments are designed to guard the peace, prosperity and happiness of society, and to remove all political evils.”
4. “A homogeneous population is necessary to the existance of a sound republic.”
5. “Slaves and peasants, deprived of the right of citizenship, and suffering degradation, are incompatable with the genius of republicanism.”
6. “The United States of North America should be a pure republic.”
7. “There is no salvation for another race that comes in conflict with the Anglo-Saxen race, but in fusion with it. All others that conflict with it will be borne down by it.”
8. “The colored population of this country cannot be other than a class of peasants, if excluded from white society.”
9. “Where men are truly religious and moral, the white and black races of the United States do not mix—so the influence of religion will never effect fusion, or destroy the right of choice in the parties.”
10. “No two races, kept distinct by the refusal of the stronger Cor majority race} to fuse with the weaker (or minority race}, can dwell together in the same country on terms of social equality.”
11. “A heterogeneous population, that will not amalgamate (on righteous terms), sooner or later, becomes a turbulent, restless and revolutionary population.”
12. “The separation of the races, and the erection of the colored race into an independent and separate commonwealth, are the true and only remedies for the disabilities of the colored race.”
—Report to the Indiana Legislature, 1852.
13. Mixed races create the necessity for imperial forms of government, and will sooner or later superinduce a strong central form of rule, to settle conflicting interests.
- - - - - - - - - -
-1-
LETTER ON COLONIZATION.
Honorable and Dear Sir:
Permit me to review the question of colonization, as a policy of the Government, from a political stand-point, as disclosed by the acts of the Government; I leave the merit of the policy for future discussion, and simply ask the question, "What is the policy of the Government thereon?”
In answer I will respectfully state, that the spirit and policy of colonization underlies the enactments of the 37th Congress on the negro question, culminating in the Proclamation of Emancipation of September 22d, 1862, which is a colonization document, both as to words and intention. This measure was asked of Mr. Lincoln and his party, as a condition on the part of the Western Democracy who supported him, and out of which they cannot now be defrauded without endangering the unity of the existing organization, as passing events clearly disclose.
The authority given President Lincoln on this subject is as follows, made and adopted to enable him to meet his obligations to his western supporters. The law for the measure is found in the 12th section of the Confiscation Act, and placed there to make that act a more palatable measure for the western men—approved July 17, 1862.
“And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States is hereby authorized to make provisions for the transportation, colonization, and settlement, in some tropical country beyond the limits of the United States,
- - - - - - - - - -
-2-
of such persons of the African race, made free by the provisions of this act, as may be willing to emigrate—having first obtained the consent of the government of said country to their protection and settlement within the same, with all the rights and privileges of freemen.”
This is the standing authority and instruction given the President, on it he issued to the writer an amended commission, dated August 4th, 1862, which is not dependent on supply bills, but is effective until revoked by the President. The power of the President to make this appointment is not questioned by the Attorney General, his opinion is rendered on salary, made unfortunately on a partial statement of the facts as to funds in the Treasury, so much so as to justify its being set aside; for the books of the Treasury disclose the fact, that on the 31st of July, 1865, there was in the Treasury, subject to requisition for colonization purposes, $205,980, collected under the tax law approved June 7th, 1862, (see the last paragraph of section 12.) “And one-fourth shall also be paid over to said State, as a fund to aid in the colonization or emigration from said State of any free persons of African descend who may desire to remove therefrom to Hayti, Liberia, or any other tropical state or country.”
My commission comprehends the supervision of this fund, so far as the General Government has to do with it, as I was “appointed to aid in the execution of the several laws and parts of laws ” which relate to colonization, and “under the direction of the President.”
The above enactment and settlement of colonization, as policy, was followed, in quick succession, by the Proclamation of Emancipation two months and five days later; and that of January 1st, 1863, dissolved the limitation as to time, and let the fundamental proclamation of September 22 take effect, which unquestionably is a colonization measure of the most solemn and binding character—an instrument “of Providence,” in all its words and terms, against which re-
- - - - - - - - - -
-3-
sistance will prove madness and folly; the same mind that designed it to be an instrument of emancipation designed it to be equally an instrument of colonization—it was intended to be so. It proclaims to the world, “That the efforts to colonize persons of African descend, with their own consent, upon the continent, or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the government existing there, will be continued." This policy, bequeathed to this nation by President Lincoln, in the midst of so much blood, North and South, seals the case beyond the power of parties or men to re-open it.
Again—to add further weight to this policy, and to root it deeper in the national heart and national economy, it has been surrounded with the solemnities of our Holy Religion, and the sanction of the oath has forced it home on the conscience and the heart of the people of the South.
The success of our arms has enabled us to impose the above measure of emancipation on the people of the South, and enabled us to exact an oath binding it on them in all its provisions. Thus it has become a solemn compact and covenant between the two parties late at issue.
It is an obligation of our own making, both as to form and substance. Mr. Lincoln might have been silent on the point of colonization contained therein, but as a true statesmen he did not choose to be so. When the gauge of battle decided against the South—as a generous people should do—they come forward, and, with proper unanimity, assume the obligations imposed, and swear to support the Proclamation of Emancipation, colonization included. Does that assumption impose no obligation, no duty on the maker, the framer of the instrument? is there no corresponding obligation fastened on the people of the North? Surely there is. As one sadly cognizant to the fearful judgment that has swept over the land, and for seventeen years has seen the gathering storm, and warned my people of its approach, (at my request, Indiana placed colonization provisions in her Constitu-
- - - - - - - - - -
-4-
tion fifteen years ago,) I have thus been reluctantly, though intimately, connected for that time with the class of measures and questions in issue. For one I will not be found breaking faith with the people of the South on this subject; it is not well, it is not wise for us to be found amongst the first to disappoint the expectation we have made in such a solemn and formal manner. I have asked Southern statesmen to accept emancipation and unite with us on this policy, and they have done it—for one I dare not deceive them in this.
I intend to calmly take my stand on the Proclamation of Emancipation and its attendant oath, and be found asking the rulers of this nation the fulfillment of the compact, liberal and just as it is—emancipation for the slave, and colonization of a free and voluntary kind. In opposition to the labor-monger, North as well as in the South, and as formidable now in the former as in the latter, we ask nationality for the African race, and finally their undisturbed rule in the Tropical Belt; we ask no hasty action, but calm, equitable, just and well-considered action; yet we protest against retrogression in what has been already done.
If republicanism is to be preserved amongst us, and the imperialism of the hour quickly removed and cut short by the wise policy of the President, I expect to see the American people unite in a noble effort to give this nationality to our freedmen; but if this union comes not in our day, the future will witness the wisdom and success of that policy laid down and settled by Presidents Lincoln and Johnson. But I will be met with the question of expense. I will answer this in a word: we can colonize extensively and wisely and not cost the nation a dollar. In 1863, under the sanction of the President, I formed engagements with the British colonies in the American tropics, for the proper settlement of as many of our freedmen as desire to change their residence. The agents of those colonies agree to muster, ship to, and settle in their fine tropical lands as many
- - - - - - - - - -
-5-
emigrants as desire to remove thereto, without cost to us. They are this day asking me to fulfill this engagement—shall I be permitted to do so, or must I first appeal to the people for their opinion?
Mr. Lincoln thought a world-wide necessity existed for a combination with England on this question, and acted accordingly, believing that a union of two such powers as the United States and Great Britain could bring a third power into being for the benefit of the colored race.
I trust the leaders of the colored race will lend their aid in due time, and that we will recognize the coming future of the African and prepare him by education for the true independence in reserve for him. Undoubtedly the drift of events will carry our freedmen towards the Tropical Belt, where they will become masters of the situation and lords of the soil.
The privilege granted to British colonies, the fulfillment of which is now desired, will cost (as I have stated) this nation nothing. Between the Governments of Washington and London it is but a change of population, we taking the white, they taking the black, whilst in the end the blacks will take the colonies as we drifted off in 1776; whilst, for the time being, the limited imperialism of the one is best adapted to the proper government of the colored and mixed race; whilst republicanism suits the Celt and Saxon best. If this is true, should not our English speaking people, white and black, in Europe and America, consider it. Mr. Lincoln did consider it, and there are men in London who did respect his view. The time may come when the whole policy of the great emancipator—the true friend of the negro—will be fulfilled; for his memory and his views will now be held sacred by all English speaking nations, whether white or black. I shall never forget the fullness and emphasis of his utterance, which flowed from his great heart, when I first brought this colonization of the British colo-
- - - - - - - - - -
-6-
nies to his notice. On asking permission to bring it to the notice of our able Secretary of State, he remarked: “ Surely! If England wants our negroes, and will do better by them than ice can, I say let her have them, and may God bless her!” This was uttered about the 23d of July, 1862, in the following September the Proclamation of Emancipation was issued, and the Secretary of State sealed the matter by his letter of the 30th of that month, addressed to our Foreign Ministers, asking the co-operation of Foreign Governments. The argument as to the intention of the Government is thus made complete.
In the light of the above facts, I think it a far fetched argument to maintain that the repeal of part of the colonization appropriation is an abandonment of the policy— whilst the fact is, the $600,000 supposed to be repealed is not so, but is just devoted to “existing engagements by the parties in interest, meaning Chirique:” to which contract I would have had no objection, if the rights of the colored emigrant had been respected, and which, so far as I am concerned, shall meet with no further opposition, so soon as colored men become the owners and holders of the contract, and are to be the benefited party.
It is no part of the object of this letter to discuss the reasons for colonization, either white or black, but to disclose the policy of the past administration, and to ask you, as a Western statesman of enlarged views, to built on the foundations already laid, and to respect the claims of the men who honestly differ from the radical division of the administration party on this subject.
Since the last of June, 1864, I have conducted the office at my own expense. Through all the time that this policy and the writer have suffered attack, I have been a silent, patient supporter of the administration—not without assurance, however, from President Lincoln, that there would be a change in the administration of the Interior. In that time
- - - - - - - - - -
-7-
I labored, so far as I had influence or skill, to perfect the measures of the administration on the negro question: in that effort I committed myself and political friends, so far as I have any, to the policy of Mr. Lincoln, as disclosed in this letter. I asked my friends of the Border and South to accept the Constitutional Amendment, and it was accepted. I asked them to let the Freedman’s Bureau Bill become a law, promising that it would be carefully and pendently administered in the spirit of the above policy; they granted me this favor too. I may have no power to fulfill this promise, but shall I change front?—others may change front, but, under the circumstances, I cannot.
I have the honor to remain,
Your obedient servant,
JAMES MITCHELL,
Commissioner of Emigration.
- - - - - - - - - -
-8-
[intentionally left blank]
- - - - - - - - - -
-9-
REPORT ON EMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION,
IN ANSWER TO A RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE ADOPTED MARCH 25, 1864.
“Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to furnish the Senate the report of the Commissioner of Emigration for 1863, with his account of existing contracts, and other necessary information on the question of emigration.”
Emigration Office,
Washington, Nov. 24, 1864.
His Excellency, A. Lincoln,
President of the U. S.:
I have the honor to communicate the following statement, relating to the emigration question entrusted to me.
The present condition of our work is one of foundation and formation, having made no attempt to stimulate emigration, considering that more depends upon a proper settlement of the policy, plans and territorial location of our first settlements, than on any spasmodic movement made to be abandoned with discouragement.
In this review of the situation I desire to be careful—to avoid the wrong and follow the right—inasmuch as the future interests and well being of millions of both races depend on the issues of this eventful age. Yet, I am impelled by the strong conviction that wrong can be avoided, peace secured for future generations, and the cause of civilization served by the representative men of both the white and the
- - - - - - - - - -
-10-
black races, considering the things that make for peace in this land, and the absolute want of a higher civilization in distant lands, to which a portion of the shattered and unsettled masses of our freedmen and more educated men of color would be a blessing. The Tropical Belt of the Old and New World is a field interdicted by an all-wise Providence to our healthful habitation—and in equity to the tropical man it should be interdicted to our dominion, and will be when republican economy prevails therein, for then it will be ruled by the actual occupants of the soil.
Our people have made a large number of magnificent States for themselves within a very few years, and under the favor of the Great Ruler, they can surely cut out and help make a few more for the special benefit of their wards, near to or beyond our borders, inasmuch as there are clear indications on the part of the British Empire, whose statesmen feel that they too owe something to the negro as an act of justice for forcing this population on the reluctant colonies. On the authority of our correspondence, I will state that the most important of the British Colonies in the American Tropics, are now legislating in expectation of a liberal emigration of our people of color'to their respective settlements, which they intend making attractive by all the appearance of a wise legislation, a liberal expenditure of wealth in the development of agriculture and commerce, and other means of fostering infant colonies, so successfully used by that limited monarchy, whose Providential mission seems to be the founding and fostering young colonies to the period of national maturity and independence.
The emigration conducted under the authority of the British Colonies will be attended with no expense to us—all they ask is that we give their agents access to our people of color, and protect them in mustering the emigrants, and not restrain by military or civil authority the man of color in the execution of his right to emigrate, as has been done
- - - - - - - - - -
-11-
in some instances, the evidence of which in one case is now before me, forwarded by a Mr. J. Roles, an agent of John Hodge, Esq., who lately represented the claims and wants of the colony of Honduras, and who was permitted and authorized to find emigrants where he could, by our executing to him the following paper:
(Copy)
“Emigration Office,
Washington, D. C., June 11, 1863.
“John Hodge, of London, and S. R. Dickson, agents of the British Colonies of Honduras and Guiana, are here, in accordance with the well settled policy of the United States, to aid such free persons of color as desire to remove to their respective colonies. We, therefore, recommend all parties and persons having the direction or charge of such, to present no hindrance to them or their agents in the work of canvassing for emigrants, but render them, and their regular appointed agents, all the aid possible in this work.”
JAMES MITCHELL,
Commissioner of Emigration.
I approve the within :
A. LINCOLN.
June 13, 1863.
The power thus given was approved by you, and on its authority action has been taken, which I trust will not fall to the ground. Further, it is known to you that the action of the British Colonies is supported and well approved by the “Home Government.”
This may be the proper place to speak a word in behalf of “The African Civilization Society,” a body of colored men who have been incorporated by an act of the State of New York. This society was founded in 1859; their objects are indicated by their name. Their board of directors have asked a small donation to aid them in carrying out the general objects of their foundation. It will be remembered their request was seconded, and their reliability was endorsed, by Dr. S. H. Tyng, Dr. H. W. Bellows, Messrs, D. Haudly, S. Sturges, W. S. Griffith, H. J. Raymond, W. A. Booth and P. Cooper.
- - - - - - - - - -
-12-
This office has been so embarrassed by an imperfect legislation, that the aid asked could not be rendered.
Liberia, as an African State, though feeble, promises much to that land—as the creature of the benevolence of our own nation, it should not be deserted; and in our opinion no more grateful service can be rendered the cause of Christianity and civilization than the multiplication of such settlements on the African continent.
Hayti is a standing applicant for all the men of color who are willing to cast in their lot with her people.
A proposition was made during the last session of Congress to dedicate and set off that part of southwestern Texas lying west of the Colorado, for the use and benefit of our people of color who might desire to settle therein, so as to give them, by concentration, the benefit of mutual protection, and place them near the borders of that semi-tropical land, Mexico.
I need hardly say all these thoughts have been before the country; and, although studiously kept out of direct issue in the late canvass, they were indirectly discussed. The early and well-known views of the administration on the subject of the best condition for the negro race, that of freedom and separate independence, gave the nation a centre around which the thoughts and expectations of the country gathered and safely revolved.
Resolution of the Senate.
On the 25th of March the Senate passed the following resolution:
“Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to furnish the Senate the report of the Commissioner of Emigration for 1863, with his account of existing contracts, and other necessary information on the question of emigration.”
In answer, permit me to say, that this report contains the substance of that made for 1863, whilst it remains to answer that part which relates to contracts.
- - - - - - - - - -
-13-
Several persons have at sundry times offered to make contracts for the deportation of persons of color, but on terms which, to a great extent, ignored the true interests of the emigrant. I regret to say, that in most instances an undue regard to the personal emolument of the parties, and want of true liberality to the man of color, have been so clearly manifested, that I thought it best to decline the completion of all such contracts, and hereafter to depend mostly on such reliable agencies as those put forward by the British Colonies, Liberia and Hayti.
It will be claimed by certain parties in interest, that there are two contracts outstanding—that known as the Chirique contract, and one formed for the purpose of colonizing the Island of A’Vache, belonging to Hayti.
I do not recognize the validity of either of these contracts, as they were formed without my knowledge or consent; and I express the hope that the papers and files drawn from this office, by sundry parties not responsible for our work, will be returned thereto at an early day.
I am ignorant of the existance of any other contract, and trust none other has been formed, as the reliable national agencies referred to will meet all the claims and wants of the enterprise in the future—the whole question is a delicate one and should be handled carefully. I trust we shall even prove grateful for the steady support you have given us in the midst of the perplexities of this dark and stormy period, and against the interference of parties not responsible either to the public or to the government for the success or failure of this enterprise.
Permit me to represent, that to the duties of this office may be added matters and interests connected with the suppression of the African slave trade. From the year 1848 we have steadily advocated, as we have had time and opportunity, sometimes giving whole years to the canvass, the propriety of settling the African coast with American set-
- - - - - - - - - -
-14-
tlements as our best and cheapest plan for the suppression of that trade. With this view you heretofore agreed and kindly lent me your aid, as a private citizen of your State, as have many other leading men of past administrations, through whose kindness a place had been given this work amongst the offices of the government, as the original plan was to place both these interests—that of the suppression of the slave trade and that of emigration—in one office, under one head. I trust that by proper legislation this will be done, as it will reduce the expense of the workings of both. I feel that, let the effect be what it may on my position, it is my duty to make this recommendation.
I respectfully ask a small appropriation to meet the claims made by “The African Civilization Society,” and the current expenses of this office, inasmuch as the large appropriations heretofore made have been repealed, as not being needed under the inexpensive plan of emigration now proposed. Although it is a question of doubtful policy to go back on the well-made record of the past by such an act of repeal, inasmuch as the terms of that act of repeal closes out from the fund once appropriated, all claims except those of the two outstanding contracts named above, for the express benefit of which, according to the terms of that act of repeal, the funds are reserved. This may not have been the intent of the gentlemen who devised that act of repeal; but this is the effect of their law. The better way, in my humble judgment, would have been to let the fund alone, but organize a proper office, with men under bond to take charge of it; for I trust it will still appear right to you to maintain an official centre for this work, to which persons and parties representing colonial interests may be referred.
I have the honor to remain,
Your obedient servant,
JAMES MITCHELL, Commissioner of Emigration.
- - - - - - - - - -
Brief on emigration & colonization, and Report in answer to a resolution of the Senate
by United States. Emigration Office; Miscellaneous Pamphlet Collection (Library of Congress) DLC [from old catalog]; Mitchell, James
Publication date: 1865
Topics: African Americans — Colonization
Publisher Washington, Polkinhorn & son, printers
Collection: library of congress; americana
Digitizing sponsor: Sloan Foundation
Contributor: The Library of Congress
Language: English
Notes:
Multiple copies of this title were digitized from the Library of Congress and are available via the Internet Archive.
Addeddate: 2008-06-06 15:23:05
Call number: 5907328
Camera: Canon 5D
Curatestate: approved
External-identifier: urn:oclc:record:1041621189 [WorldCat (this item)]
Foldoutcount: 0
Identifier: briefonemigratio00unit
Identifier-ark: ark:/13960/t3gx4dt10
Identifier-bib: 00119326370
Lccn: 18019038
Pages: 24
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT

- - - - - - - - - -

Sebastian N. Page, Black Resettlement and the American Civil War, Cambridge University Press (2021) at 255-56 (footnotes omitted),

Quite apart from his personal support for Mitchell, Lincoln left other signs that he meant to revive colonization after the war. In his annual message of December 1864, the president noted that Liberia "may be expected to derive new vigor from American influence, improved by the rapid disappearance of slavery in the United States." He also surprised the ACS with an unsolicited recommendation to Congress to sell Monrovia a gunboat at reduced cost. In two meetings over the spring of 1865, Lincoln discussed colonization with a "favorite," the hero of the "contrabands" precedent, Major General Benjamin Butler. "What shall we do with the negroes after they are free?" wondered Lincoln, the question that had perplexed him since at least 1854. He listened attentively as Butler proposed taking black troops to Panama, where they could dig an isthmian canal. "There is meat in that," replied Lincoln, who was killed before he could confer with Butler a third time. From the mid-twentieth century, the general's account of his conversation with Lincoln, which he repeated several times until his own death in 1893, fell from the canon. Troubled by the challenge that Butler's anecdote posed to an emerging narrative of wartime progress in race relations, and unable to understand how Lincoln could suggest the vote for some black soldiers and a voyage for others, historians began to argue that Butler had left a rogue source, two years removed from the last evidence implicating Lincoln in colonization. That claim is evidently untenable, and placed on Butler's story a burden that it need not bear. Other than the inevitable imprecision of recollections dictated to an amanuensis years later, Butler's story is consistent with the evidence, not only in its outline but in several details. Notably, Butler recalled William Seward's exasperation when he told the secretary of the president's recurrence to colonization. Indeed, when Seward learned of Lincoln's death, he would divulge to an acquaintance his only substantive dispute with the president: "his 'colonization' scheme ... which I opposed on the self-evident principle that all natives of a country have an equal right in its soil."

By that time Lincoln had publicly changed the reason for the conflict from maintaining the Union, to freeing the slaves. In conjunction with this, Linclon ceased any public mention of colonization. That Brief and 1864 Report by the Commissioner of Emigration, on the administration colonization policy, sure spent a lot of words on something that supposedly did not exist.

Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, Second Session, pp. 576-581

On January 17, 1867, Representative Andrew Jackson KUYKENDALL, Republican of Illinois, rose to address the House at page 576 and ended his stemwinder at page 583 with the following:

Pass the bill, adopt this system, separate the races, colonize the African, elect General Grant President in 1868, then peace, prosperity, and happiness will reign over our glorious country.

The spirit of the Republican Party colonization in 1867.

woodpusher: "And yet... and yet... you cannot muster an argument denying that your maniacal proposition yields absurd results that insult the intelligence of the average person..."

Any "average person" can easily understand that 1860 secessionists cared nothing about your fine points of distinction among words like "anti-slavery", "emancipation", "abolition" and "equality of the races" -- all were attributed to "Black Republicans", all were unacceptable to Southern Democrat Fire Eaters, all were adequate reasons for secession in their own minds.

The only people who do care would be 2021 Woke Democrats, eager to expunge the guilt of their past by calling anyone & everyone who disagrees with them "racists" -- even if that means calling the Great Emancipator himself, Abraham Lincoln, a "racist".

woodpusher: "It is YOUR contention that President Lincoln was anti-slavery and an abolitionist because others said or believed he was.
Pursuant to this proposition, it is not the words and deeds of Lincoln that define him, but the words of his political opponents."

Typical of Woke Democrats, you have no real clue what you're saying.
Lincoln's political opponents acted -- declared secession, Confederacy & war against the United States -- based on what they believed Lincoln's "Black Republicans" were committed to doing: "anti-slavery", "emancipation", "abolition", "equality of the races".
And, as it turned out, "Black Republicans" proved "guilty" of all of that, hence the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.

Of course, nobody has yet suggested that Lincoln himself was a Woke Democrat, but there has long been a massive, massive propaganda effort (including pro-Confederate posters here), to convince Americans that Unionists were all Socialist Democrats while Confederates were just good old Conservative Republicans.

woodpusher: "You profess that if the political opposition defines President Lincoln as something, it matters not what Lincoln said or did.
He is anti-slavery or an abolitionist because that was how some of your fellow radical Democrats saw him."

No, your fellow radical Southern Democrats -- you know, the ones who declared secession, Confederacy & war against the United States -- yes, their opinions about Lincoln, true or false, matter because they killed circa 700,000 Americans as a result.

woodpusher: "According to your idiotic proposition, as your fellow radical Democrats said that Donald Trump was insane, not fit to hold office, should be impeached and removed from office, was a criminal having committed treason, sedition, and having fomented an insurrection in an attempt to overthrow the government; by the idiocy of your proposition, Trump is all those things, and it matters not what Trump actually said or did."

Trump is/was none of those things, but your fellow radical Democrats acted as if they were true, and their insanity resulted in some of the greatest self-inflicted national wounds since... well, since the Civil War.
As always, it was the insanity of Democrats which drove American tragedy.

woodpusher: "Lincoln explicitly denied he was an abolitionist, and he explicitly denied he had the authority, or the inclination, to disturb slavery where it existed.
He explicitly stated he only opposed introducing slavery to a place where it did not exist."

And yet... and yet... in the end he did all of those things, as a result of the Civil War.
War changed everything, and why was there war?
Because insane Southern Democrats declared secession, Confederacy and war against the United States.

woodpusher: "You are a supposed professor of history."

Read my home page to see the basics of my personal history.
I posted it in circa 2004 and have not changed a word of it since.

woodpusher: "George Washington NEVER freed his slaves, nor his family's slaves.
His will stated, "Upon the decease of my wife, it is my Will and desire, that all the slaves which I hold in my own right, shall receive their freedom."
George Washington died still owning his slaves.
Washington's will and desire bound nobody to free his slaves.
About a year after George's death, Martha Washington freed those who had been slaves of George."

And so... despite your ridiculous denial, it turned out Washington did free his family's slaves.

woodpusher post #121: "Being discussed were proclaimed heroes of anti-slavery such as Thomas Jefferson who owned 600 slaves and died a slave owner...
Professing to be an anti-slavery lifelong owner of 600 slaves reveals the term to have been as flexible as beng a "small government" politician of today."

woodpusher: "Jefferson did free some of his slaves—Sally's children."

So, it appears we agree that Jefferson was a slaveholder.
Do we also agree that he supported abolition of international slave imports, abolition in the Northwest Territories, and that Jefferson even proposed federally compensated abolition?
Do we also agree that Jefferson expressed anti-slavery feelings in, for example, his draft of the Declaration of Independence?

woodpusher: "Jefferson had many outstanding qualities, but being an icon of anti-slavery or abolitionism does not appear in his deeds."

Jefferson, like Washington and other Southerners of his time, understood that slavery was wrong and should be eventually restricted & abolished.
Jefferson did as much or more in that direction as any other Southern Founder.

woodpusher post #122: "The American Colonization Society (American Society for Colonizing the Free People of Color of the United States, aka African Colinization Society) founded the colony of Liberia in 1822.
In its fund raising, it had received a $100,000 donation from the U.S. Congress... "

woodpusher: "If Black Lives Matter, or other of your similarly based radical Democrat organizations, receive funds from State governments, that makes their doctrine de facto U.S. Government policy..."

A donation from Congress represents de facto US government policy.
Other donations from state governments represent those state government policies.
Leadership of the ACS (American Colonization Society) included such luminaries as Presidents Jefferson, Madison & Monroe, Senators Henry Clay and John Randolph.

The ACS was founded in 1816, James Madison & Henry Clay were its presidents in the early 1830s.

"The ACS did have some success, in the 1850s, with state legislatures, such as those of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
In 1850, the state of Virginia set aside $30,000 annually for five years to aid and support emigration...
During the 1850s, the Society also received several thousand dollars from the New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Maryland legislatures.
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Mississippi set up their own state societies and colonies on the coast next to Liberia.[68] "

In the 1830s opposition to the ACS began to develop among abolitionists like Wm. Lloyd Garrison, on grounds that the ACS idea made no sense.
Henry Clay's young acolyte, a congressman named Lincoln, also joined the ACS, and continued to support its goals until his own efforts failed and:

"By late into his first term as president, Lincoln had publicly abandoned the idea of colonization after speaking about it with Frederick Douglass,[66] who objected harshly to it.
On April 11, 1865, with the war drawing to a close, Lincoln gave a public speech at the White House supporting suffrage for blacks, a speech that led actor John Wilkes Booth, who was vigorously opposed to emancipation and black suffrage, to assassinate him.[67]"

woodpusher: "~~You are~~ I am a sick man Joe."

I understand, it's because you're a Democrat, and Democrats by their nature loathe & despise facts, truth and anything that's good & decent.
That's why you need professional help, FRiend.

woodpusher: "Whether supported by Lincoln, Romney, or you, "voluntary emigration" is held with the same contempt as "separate but equal" which the Supreme Court found to be inherently unequal."

And yet... and yet... in the beginning it was considered a "good idea", good enough to enlist support from Founders like Jefferson, Madison & Monroe, from a close relative of George Washington, and Whigs like Clay & Lincoln.
ACS founder, Robert Finley, in its first meeting said:

Finley meant to colonize

'(with their consent) the free people of color residing in our country, in Africa, or such other place as Congress may deem most expedient'."

woodpusher: "I cited and quoted from Grant's Eighth Annual Message to Congress of December 5, 1876; and also from the New York Tribune of 26 July 1878.
Your inane reply was:"

My "inane reply" referred to your other reference to ex-President Grant's interview in Europe.

woodpusher: "Shortening Grant's term of office and making believe I only addressed his statements after leaving office is pretty low, even for you."

You sound "offended", just like a typical Woke Democrat.
But I'll (ahem) grant you this much:

"The ACS continued to operate during the American Civil War, and colonized 168 blacks during the conflict.
It sent 2,492 people of African descent to Liberia in the following five years following the war.
The federal government provided a small amount of support for these operations through the Freedmen's Bureau.[64]"

So, it turns out (ahem, granted) that recolonization did not end with Lincoln & the Civil War.

woodpusher: "The meeting having been held is substantiated by its inclusion in Lincoln Day by Day which includes citation of several contemporaneous publications citing the meeting having taken place.
The only record of the substance of the meeting is that provided by General Butler.
The occurrence of the meeting is no longer in question."

So you claim there was one meeting, but Butler said there were three meetings -- two with Lincoln, one with Seward.
Three is not the same as one.

woodpusher: "Nobody has ever suggested that anyone met with Lincoln on April 15, 1865, the day after he was shot, to converse with his corpse."

Nor does anyone anywhere confirm that Butler met Lincoln a second time, or later with Seward, even once.

woodpusher: "Before quoting your sources to claim "the two men were not even in Washington at the same time when Butler remembered the conversation taking place, try to research whether the two were in the same room at the same place."

Again, your evidence suggests Butler met Lincoln, once, on April 11, but Butler claimed three meetings, not one, and both meetings with Lincoln, Butler said, happened not on April 11, but before Lincoln's meeting at City Point with Grant, Sherman & Porter -- that was on March 27.
The third meeting, Butler said, was with Secretary of State Seward, the day of his carriage accident -- that was April 5.

So Butler's dates are totally, totally messed up, but those are not the only problems with his tall tale.
Thanks to "x", I can refer you to this article by Brooks D. Simpson, "Do you Trust Ben Butler?".
In it Simpson spells out several other problems, including:

In Butler's account, Lincoln says he intends to discuss it with Gen. Grant, but Grant himself mentioned nothing about it.
Butler claims he discussed his plan with Secretary Seward, but Seward himself mentioned nothing about it.
Magness claims the Butler/Lincoln meeting happened April 11, but that same evening, Lincoln spoke publicly about granting full citizenship to freed-blacks, a speech heard by John Wilkes Booth who then decided, so he said, to assassinate Lincoln for it.
Butler claims he told Lincoln the war could not be declared ended for "some very considerable time" and yet soon after told Lincoln's successor the war should be declared ended as soon as possible, so RE Lee could be tried for treason.
There is no evidence Butler ever mentioned his plan to Lincoln's successor, President Johnson.
Again, Seward's carriage accident happened April 5, while Lincoln was still at City Point, and that throws Butler's entire story into a cocked hat.

woodpusher quoting Page (2021): "Troubled by the challenge that Butler's anecdote posed to an emerging narrative of wartime progress in race relations, and unable to understand how Lincoln could suggest the vote for some black soldiers and a voyage for others, historians began to argue that Butler had left a rogue source, two years removed from the last evidence implicating Lincoln in colonization.
That claim is evidently untenable, and placed on Butler's story a burden that it need not bear."

The claim that Lincoln asked for Butler's opinions is of no importance, even if it happened substantially as Butler said.

woodpusher (quoting?): "By that time Lincoln had publicly changed the reason for the conflict from maintaining the Union, to freeing the slaves.
In conjunction with this, Linclon ceased any public mention of colonization.
That Brief and 1864 Report by the Commissioner of Emigration, on the administration colonization policy, sure spent a lot of words on something that supposedly did not exist."

The key fact to remember is this: in 1862 Congress appropriated $600,000 for recolonization, of which Lincoln's administration spent only $38,000 and that ended disastrously.
Congress then withdrew the remaining funds and no further recolonization was attempted by Lincoln.

"Stung by the Vache Island debacle, Congress decided to put an end to federally sponsored colonization.
On March 15, 1864, Morton S. Wilkinson of Minnesota introduced a bill in the Senate withdrawing all funds for colonization.
Congress passed the measure on July 2, and Lincoln signed it.
Of the $600,000 appropriated by Congress for colonization, the Lincoln administration had spent only about $38,000. [36]"

Lincoln did not oppose it, in 1864 he signed the act withdrawing funding for colonization.
But apparently the idea of recolonizing was not entirely dead, and for some five years it did continue on a small scale through the ACS.

Spot on as always Joe. These guys should be paying you for this.

I smoked out woodpusher and his Democrat buddies here a long time ago. Secessionist sympathizing wolves in conservative clothing. The Confederacy lives on in mom's basement. In regards to Liberia, Monroe's attempt at recolonization didn't go so great. The freed blacks from America promptly proceeded to enslave the local population there which is still a legacy Liberia is dealing with.

I smoked out woodpusher and his Democrat buddies here a long time ago. Secessionist sympathizing wolves in conservative clothing.

I'm not sure they aren't hard lefties posing as Conservatives to make all Conservatives look like Confederacy supporting racists. If I was a lefty trying to make the right look bad, that's how I would do it.

You have the last word. I am out of here until after the holidays. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

“I am out of here until after the holidays.”

Take a well-earned leave and have a Merry Christmas.

There will be several vedettes in over-watch to prevent any breakthrough attempts.

To our friends trapped in blue state culture: we hope you have a Merry Christmas too.

We'll try to find a plug of tobacco and toss it your way.

“. . . posing as Conservatives to make all Conservatives look like Confederacy supporting racists.”

You said racists.

But you said it with a glibness I have not heard since . . . well, since Jussie used the word earlier today.

“I smoked out woodpusher . . .”

Running across a thread with the seat of your britches on fire is not the same thing as smoking someone out.

It’s been about ten or eleven years now I’ve been go ‘round and ‘round Rebs. And being a former Democrat it was easy.

I came from a family of life long Democrats so that’s how I voted.

And then I learned the history of the Democrats and who and what they were.

Thanks El Rushbo. RIP.

You guys never change your tune.

woodpusher: "I am out of here until after the holidays.
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year."

And also to you and all of yours, Merry Christmas!

I'll be near Corpus Christi, Texas, next week, then western Kentucky early January... God willing.

jeffersondem: "To our friends trapped in blue state culture: we hope you have a Merry Christmas too.
We'll try to find a plug of tobacco and toss it your way."

And Merry Christmas to you and yours too.

When I was a boy/young man, worked briefly in tobacco fields and a barn like this one, below.
Back then I smoked it, never chewed.
Today tobacco is not the big deal it used to be.
My last smoke was in September, 1973...

I didn’t accuse anyone of being racist. I only voiced my suspicion that some here are lefty plants trying to make Conservatives look racist.