Lost on 'Cold Mountain': The anti-'Gods and Generals'. (Busting the Dixie myth.)

THE CHARLESTON CONFESSION
By The Great Emancipator

"To the dismay of his biographers and Lincoln Day Orators everywhere, Lincoln was indiscreet enough to say on public platforms that he believed in the Illinois Black Laws thatt Douglass and other Blacks deplored. It was in Charleston, Illinois, on Saturday, September 18, 1858, a day that will live in infamy to all those condemned to the unenviable task of denying the undeniable, that Lincoln defined himself for the ages, announcing:" ~ Lerone Bennett, Jr. ~

LINK

While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

So there he is, then, everybody's, or almost everybody's, favorite President, confessing his racial faith and giving unimpeachable testimony before some fifteen thousand Whites that he was opposed to equal rights and that he believed there was a physical difference between the Black and White races that would FOR EVER forbid them living together on terms of political and social equality.

The Charleston speech in which Lincoln said these terrible things is not in a foreign language. It is not in Latin or Swahili or Greek-it is in short, blunt Anglo-Saxon words, and no literate person can misunderstand the man or his meaning. Who was he? He was, he said, a racist who believed, as much as any other White man, in White supremacy and the subordination of Blacks.

How do the defenders of the faith deal with this smoking-gun evidence? They deny, first of all, that the gun is smoking or that it is even a gun. Few Lincoln defenders, for example, quote that paragraph in its entirety or in context. The usual practice is to paraphrase the offending paragraph without telling us what Lincoln said.

Another technique is to give us the paragraph or parts of the paragraph, en passant, and to smother the harsh words with great Mahlerian choruses of affirmation. Neely, in fact, praises Lincoln for his restraint, saying that in this statement Lincoln went as far as he was going to go in denying Black rights (1993, 53). But a man who denies Blacks equality because of their race, and who denies them the right to vote, sit on juries or hold office, couldn't have gone much further.

All who report the statement in whole or in part give Lincoln instant absolution (see pages 122-3). Fehrenbacher and Donald say Lincoln was forced to make the statement. "The whole texture of American life," Fehrenbacher says, "compelled such a pronouncement in 1858... (1962, 111, italics added). Fehrenbacher, a sophisticated scholar who added to our knowledge of the nineteenth century, didn't mean that, for he knew that sticks and stones can break bones but that a texture can't compel a grown man to say anything.

Donald, like Fehrenbacher, said it was politically expedient and perhaps "a necessary thing" for Lincoln to say he was a racist in a state where most Whites were racist, adding, to his credit, that the statement "also represented Lincoln's deeply held personal views." Having conceded the main point, Donald says paradoxically that it was not Lincoln's true feeling and that Lincoln was not "personally hostile to blacks" (221). But here, once again, an attempt to prove that Lincoln was not a racist backfires and ends up proving the opposite. For what could be more hostile than an attempt by any man to deny a whole race of people equal rights because of race?

Almost all Lincoln specialists blame not Lincoln but Stephen Douglas who, they say, made Lincoln say it. According to this theory, Lincoln, pressured by Douglas, said he was a racist because he, wanted to get elected to office. The proof, they say, is that he was ashamed of what he said at Charleston and didn't say it again.

If Lincoln was ashamed, he had a strange way of showing it. For he traveled all over Illinois and the Midwest, proudly quoting the Charleston Confession, even to people who couldn't vote for him. Nineteen days after the Charleston speech, he quoted the same words to an even larger crowd at Galesburg. A month later, he prepared an extract of his best speeches on the subject and listed the Charleston Confession (CW 3:326-8). A year later, in Columbus, Ohio, he was still quoting the Charleston speech to prove that he was opposed to equal rights.

The most ingenious -- and startling -- explanation of what Lincoln said at Charleston comes from the Bogart School (see page 211), which praises the aesthetics of the Charleston Confession while deploring its sentiments. At least one interpreter, Pulitzer Prize-winner Garry Wills, said there was poetry or potential poetry in the passage, which he scanned:

I will say then/that I am not/nor ever have been/in favor of bringing about/in any way/ the social and political equality/of the white and black races ....

In a triumph of style over content, Wills said that what Lincoln said was indefensible but that he said it "in prose as clear, balanced, and precise as anything he ever wrote;" a view that depends, of course, on one's perspective and one's understanding of prose and clarity (92).

What shall we call the scanned Lincoln lines? The poetics of racism or the racism of any poetic that subordinates any man or woman to any other man or woman because of race, color, or religion?

And to understand the truth of Lincoln's poetic, and how one racism invokes and includes all racisms, one must make another transposition and ask what Lincoln's words would sound like in another language and another color:

I will say then...
that I am not
nor ever have been
in favor of
making voters
or jurors
of Irishmen
or Italians
or Albanians.

It's the same principle, and Lincoln pressed that principle from one end of the state to the other from the 1830s to the 1860s.
Between 1854 and 1860, Lincoln said publicly at least two times that America was made for the White people and "not for the Negroes."
At least eight times, he said publicly that he was in favor of White supremacy.
At least twenty-one times, he said publicly that he was opposed to equal rights for Blacks.
He said it at Ottawa:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. (CW 3:16)

He said it at Galesburg:

I have all the while maintained that inasmuch as there is a physical inequality between the white and black, that the blacks must remain inferior.... (Holzer 1993,254)

He said it in Ohio. He said it in Wisconsin. He said it in Indiana. He said it everywhere:

We can not, then, make them equals. (CW 2:256)

Why couldn't "we" make "them" equals?

There was, Lincoln said, a strong feeling in White America against Black equality, and "MY OWN FEELINGS," he said, capitalizing the words, "WILL NOT ADMIT OF THIS..." (CW 3:79).

SOURCE: Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced Into Glory, pp. 208-212.

Was Lincoln a racist? For some strange reason, I am reminded of arguments about what Roosevelt thought about Jews - many these days argue that Roosevelt was anti-semitic, and that's why he didn't liberate the death camps soon enough - strangely, throughout his entire political career, many more accused him of really being a Jew himself, and part of the world Jewish conspiracy to dominate everybody and everything. People get strange ideas about their leaders - the other world conspiracy is run by the Masons, I think.

Back to Lincoln - the NAACP says he was a racist, and so does the editor of Ebony magazine, which should give conservatives pause. Arguments from conservatives on the other side, collected by the Claremont Institute:

http://www.claremont.org/writings/010730jaffa.html
http://www.claremont.org/writings/021014masugi.html
http://www.claremont.org/projects/scholarly/000902krannawitter.html
http://www.claremont.org/writings/000901morel.html
http://www.claremont.org/writings/011031west.html
http://www.claremont.org/writings/010807leibsohn.html
http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/Spring2002/krannawitter.html

The Claremont institute has about 200 articles about Lincoln, input Lincoln as a search term.

Madison versus Calhoun - Jaffa on the Nullification Debate:
http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/jaffa-paper.html

You and I are talking about different things. You are talking about whether racism is right or wrong. I agree with you that it is wrong.

I am pointing out that Lincoln predicted years of conflict between blacks and whites if they shared a country.

Since we have had 150 years of conflict, varying from mild to extreme, I think this was an accurate prediction.

I am not trying to say Lincoln was wrong, I am saying it flatly, in caps and bold-face. LINCOLN WAS WRONG.

I don't think Lincoln ever said that white prejudice against blacks was morally proper. As a matter of fact, I think he made a number of statements showing that he thought it was wrong.

However, he recognized that it existed and could not be eliminated by merely stating that it was wrong. In 1865 probably something like 90% of white Americans believed blacks were an inferior race. Perception is not reality, but (at least in a democracy) such a widespread perception becomes a reality that must be dealt with.

It is the continued prejudice and ignorance of some of the White race that leads to extended conflict. You cannot rightfully blame your prejudice and your ignorance on the person against whom you discriminate.

I agree. I also recognize that some blacks are ignorant and prejudiced against whites. Do you? Or is there some genetic component that prevents melanin-advantaged people from being ignorant and prejudiced? My personal experience has been that black racism against whites is more widespread and openly expressed than white racism against blacks.

This should not be surprising, since our society and media is very judgmental of white racism, while black racism is often portrayed as justified or at least understandable.

Personally, I find both variants equally despicable.

When I was a kid, if you called a black kid a "nigger" or a "piccaninny", the response would be, "I'd rather be a nigger or a piccanniny than poor white trash."

In other words, we were calling the blacks names for who they were, while they responded by calling us names for how we acted.

I think the same holds true today. Racism is hating someone for who they are. It's not racist to hate someone for how they act.

I think the same holds true today. Racism is hating someone for who they are. It's not racist to hate someone for how they act.

I agree, but I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you trying to say that what I perceive as black racism is really blacks hating whites for how they act?

If so, I must disagree, since I have frequently been treated in a very hostile manner by blacks I have just met.

Or perhaps you are saying that whites, as a group, have treated blacks, as a group, badly. Therefore blacks, as a group, are fully justified in hating whites, as a group. If so I strenuously disagree, since this sort of grouping is every bit as wrong and evil as hating blacks for their supposed inferiority.

Well, the point I was trying to get at is based on perceptions.

If, say, a black person loves Bill Clinton and hates George W. Bush, I'd say that person isn't a racist. He may not really know or understand either person, but the feelings are not based on the color of the man. And my guess is that the vast majority of black people fall into that category.

Their perceptions of white prejudice and injustice may be exaggerated, but there's a kernel of truth there. (Not about Clinton or Dubya - Democrats are just as racist as the next person, although I don't believe either Clinton nor Dubya are racists.)

Then there are the black people who think that white men are really the devil - at least, I've heard that there are such people, although I never had anybody tell me that to my face.

In contrast, there are an awful lot of white people who think that black people are genetically inferior and there's nothing that can be done about that. I've known quite a few of them.

And my guess is that the vast majority of black people fall into that category.

I really wish I could agree with you. I hope you are right.

I would analogize thin people vs. fat people. Lots of thin people hate fat people, but very few fat people actually hate thin people.

Envy, yes. Hate, no.

I assume you mean that many whites hate blacks, but few blacks hate whites.

Sorry, but my experience has been exactly the opposite.

No, I agree that a lot of black people hate white people.

My point is that I don't think that black people think that white people are inferior.

They may think that white people keep them down, oppress them, mistreat them. They may blame white people for their own problems, rather than themselves.

White people who hate black people, on the other hand, think that blacks are stupid, ineducable, sub-human, ugly, smell bad, violent, criminal, oversexed, animalistic.

One of the things I find ironic is that a lot of Asians feel the same way, not just about blacks, but also about whites!

Maybe I'm confused, but I don't think you need to believe another group is inferior to be racist. It's the hatred of another group that is racist.

For that matter, I guess it's possible to believe another group inferior without hating them.

But I agree that few blacks think whites are inferior. They hate them for other reasons.

I think the main meaning of racism is the belief that members of one race are superior to that of another.

"Racism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that negatively discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race. Sometimes the term is also used to describe the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities, or that individuals should be treated differently based on their ascribed race."

Looked it up in several dictionaries. All give two meanings: belief in superiority and prejudice or hatred. But most of the time the superiority meaning is given first.

So looks like you're right! :)

You confuse Fowell's British Evangelical "African Civilisation Society" with Garnet's African-American "African Civilization Society." The former broke up in 1843, while the latter was founded in 1859.

Delaney was in Africa when Garnet's society was founded. I don't know if he was a member or not. I don't know whether Delaney, who was making a name for himself in his own right would have wanted to put his efforts under Garnet's control.

But I do think you've go the wrong handle on things. Your source writes: "Although Garnet's and Martin Delany's efforts at colonization at this time were running in parallel and not coordinated, the pair agreed on aims. Garnet proposed a visit to Africa to follow up Delany's 1859 efforts there, but the plan fell through with the outbreak of the Civil War." Do you take this as a sign of major disagreements?

If the two men largely agreed on aims, then they agreed on much. Efforts that "run in parallel" aren't opposed to each other. If Garnet proposed to "follow up" Delaney's efforts, then their projects had much in common, and there were efforts at some form of "coordination." Don't fall into the trap of taking every qualification as a negation -- or every glass that's 3/4 or 1/2 full as empty.

Delany's path diverged from Frederick Douglass's when Delaney began to support colonization schemes. Douglass was critical of the emigration efforts of both Delany and Garnet, and it's not likely that the ideas of either man had more in common with Douglass's than they had with each other. But for all that, Delany and Garnet were both quite radical: neither was simply a lapdog of Whites who wanted to get rid of Blacks.

Your quasi-marxist source which claims that Lincoln promised in the 1860s that slaves would be sent to Africa as soon as they were freed is highly doubtful. It was in Lincoln's interest in that campaign not even to mention emancipation or abolition, since his opponents represented him as a radical abolitionist. I can't find any such promise in his speeches and doubt it's there, as any mention of emancipation, other than a denial that it was on the agenda, would have doomed Lincoln's candidacy.

You claim that Lincoln was the only one who wanted to deport 4 million people to Africa. Wrong on both counts. Colonization was a common idea among many anti-slavery Americans, and abolitionist sentiment in the early 19th century largely involved colonization. When it's said that Virginia had more abolitionist societies in 1820 or 1830 than Northern states, it's precisely colonization societies that are being discussed. It was not something that Lincoln thought up on his own. Though we may deplore it now, emigration was regarded as part of the moderate anti-slavery package. But by 1863 colonization was an idea whose time had passed.

And Lincoln didn't argue for deportation, but presumed that freed Blacks would want a country of their own outside the US. It looks like a foolish assumption, but it was a natural assumption for some to make. Garnet and Delany and some other African-American leaders came to the conclusion that the real future of American Blacks lay in Africa. Was it so unnatural that a White man concerned about the ability of Whites to leave with Blacks would assume this to be a common sentiment among African-Americans?

The idea that fueled emigration was that slave owners could free their slaves under the condition that they go to Africa. The government could compensate slave owners and pay for their passage. But once large numbers of slaves were freed, and the power of the slaveholders was broken, the colonization mindset was broken.

Do you really think Lincoln wanted to dispatch millions of Blacks by force to Africa? To send away all those potential Republican supporters in order to please Democrat rebels and seditionists? Forcible emigration wouldn't have been anything new in the century that begin with the slave trade and saw the Trail of Tears, the Sioux and Nez Perce wars and Wounded Knee, but why not judge the man on what he did and give him the benefit of the doubt about what he did not do?

I mentioned Delaney, because of the way that he and Cain and other Black abolitionist supporters of emigration came to devote themselves to conditions at home. Emigration remained an option for those who wanted it, but the focus of their activities shifted back to America. White supporters of Black Nationalism, like Gentile Zionists, are always suspect in some quarters, but it's certainly possible that Lincoln underwent a similar turn as the war went on. One can't tell what the man thought or what he would have done had he lived, but given the evidence it's more likely that he was undergoing a similar evolution.

You seem to like large "document dumps." A bit more effort to express what you actually think and why would be more useful. One can always through document against document forever without coming closer to any agreement or understanding. Indeed, keep at it long enough and it becomes unclear just what the subject of the argument is. Taking the time to digest the documents and say what it is that you think they prove pays off and saves time and effort in the end.

And your method seems to be to find some flaw or failing or stain of sin or vice in those you disagree with, and then assume that they aren't worth bothering with further, except to condemn. But all of us have such flaws, even those you might support or admire or agree with. It's not that someone has sins on their soul that matters, it's what they do in spite of having failed or erred.

Nineteenth Century Americans were trapped in a box called slavery, and proposed different ways to get out of it. Some ways out were better than others. But recognizing that contemporary circumstances are the bind we're all in -- Lincoln, Douglass, Douglas, Davis, Grant, Lee, their contemporaries, ourselves -- it's enough to judge people on what they actually do, not on the ideas that they may have entertained at one point or another.

Given the predominant racial attitudes of 19th Century America no public figure of those days would pass muster as respectable today. Regardless of the ideas that Lincoln took from his own day, he was a major force in pushing America to better racial attitudes. It's silly and perverse to single him out as the main villain in the history of American race relations.

I can't remember whether I put in a plug for David Levy and Sandra Peart's multipart series of essays on 19th century attitudes towards race and slavery among economists and others in their milieu.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal.html

Levy teaches economics and economic history at George Mason, where my son goes full time and I go part time - and he's just written a book on the same topic which I haven't read yet, "How the Dismal Science Got Its Name: Classical Economics and the Ur Text of Racial Politics."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0472089056/qid=1074317966/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2879416-2571968?v=glance&s=books

Levy and Peart point out that, in addition to abolitionists, there were paternalists, sympathetic individuals like Charles Dickens who thought that slaves needed to be educated before they were set free. I think one must have a very hard heart to expect more from a 19th century person than that, but in fact there were people who honestly believe in the equality of the races.

"Everyone knows that economics is the dismal science. And almost everyone knows that it was given this description by Thomas Carlyle, who was inspired to coin the phrase by T. R. Malthus's gloomy prediction that population would always grow faster than food, dooming mankind to unending poverty and hardship.

"In choosing Mill as their target, Carlyle and his allies chose well. Like most classical economists, Mill treated such characteristics as race as analytically irrelevant."

While this story is well-known, it is also wrong, so wrong that it is hard to imagine a story that is farther from the truth. At the most trivial level, Carlyle's target was not Malthus, but economists such as John Stuart Mill, who argued that it was institutions, not race, that explained why some nations were rich and others poor. Carlyle attacked Mill, not for supporting Malthus's predictions about the dire consequences of population growth, but for supporting the emancipation of slaves. It was this fact?that economics assumed that people were basically all the same, and thus all entitled to liberty?that led Carlyle to label economics "the dismal science.""
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal.html

As documented in my #539, Walt said that Lincoln did not speak of colonization after 12/1/62 in either public or private conversations.

By citing Lincoln's meeting of November 5, 1863 with the African Civilization Society, arranged by James Mitchell, the Commissioner of Emigration, whose annotation indicated it was about colonization, I rebutted the assertion to which I responded.

Nothing you have said has anything to do with that conversation. Moreover, in all that you have said, you lack links, citations or quotations.

You had said:

[x] Though most African-American Abolitionists and activists attacked the African Colonization [sic - Civilization] Society for its emigration schemes, it was a family quarrel. Leaders of the group, like Henry Highland Garnet and Martin Delany...

As I pointed out, Delany was NOT a leader of that group. I quoted a source that said: "the pair agreed on aims." They agreed on aims, but evidently they did not agree on methods. You called Delany a leader of the African Civilization Society. What was your unnamed source?

[x] Don't fall into the trap of taking every qualification as a negation

Don't fall into the trap of relying on faulty memory to say Martin Delany was a leader of the African Civilization Society. Look it up, get your facts straight, and provide sources.

You have inaccurately rephrased or paraphrased things that were said or quoted.

For example,

Your quasi-marxist source which claims that Lincoln promised in the 1860s that slaves would be sent to Africa as soon as they were freed is highly doubtful.

What the quoted source said, was: "The new President tried to calm settler fears about possible masses of freed ex-slaves by picking up Dr. Delany’s own plan for Central American settlements. He promised that as quickly as Blacks were freed they would be sent out of the country."

In precisely which part of Africa do you believe Central America is located?????

At least Central America was physically possible. Considering sending 4 million people to Africa using sailing ships is indicative of Gross Public Dumb.

Please provide links or sources, and accurate quotes.

Regarding Delany, I can only provide the sources that are out there. You have provided no source to support anything you have said.

Research your own material and correct your errors of fact.

[x] You claim that Lincoln was the only one who wanted to deport 4 million people to Africa. Wrong on both counts. Colonization was a common idea among many anti-slavery Americans, and abolitionist sentiment in the early 19th century largely involved colonization.

What I said was: "Lincoln is the only jackass I know of who considered deporting 4 million people to Africa. Perhaps he planned on having Scotty beam them over there."

Colonization was a common idea. Quote the many people who actually considered DEPORTING 4 million people to AFRICA. If they were not planning to use Scotty's transporter, how did they plan on doing it? It was an impossible, brain-dead, stupid, idiotic idea. It was logistically impossible.

Colonization resolution in Congress, January 1858. Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 1st Sess., Pt. 1, pp. 293-298.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=045/llcg045.db&recNum=356

One great difficulty obstructed these efforts. Emancipation was easy, but the amalgamation of the white and black races was abhorrent, and their existence as equals, under the same Government, was for that reason impossible. They were, nevertheless, resolved to make the experiment of the gradual abolition of slavery, hoping that time would make some outlet to the degraded caste. I believe the existing circumstances on this continent now justify that hope. The attempt of African colonization, to relieve us of the load, has failed. The immense distance, and the barbarous state of the mother country, to which we would restore its improved race that has arisen among us, has paralyzed all the efforts of the benevolent society that has labored so long in vain to form a community in Liberia which would draw hence its kindred emancipated population, and establish a nation there to spread civilization and religion over Africa.

[x] And Lincoln didn't argue for deportation, but presumed that freed Blacks would want a country of their own outside the US. It looks like a foolish assumption, but it was a natural assumption for some to make. Garnet and Delany and some other African-American leaders came to the conclusion that the real future of American Blacks lay in Africa.

Delany did not advocate mass-migration to Africa. If you assert otherwise, provide source and quote.

Abraham Lincoln

Address at Cooper Institute, New York City

February 27, 1860

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

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 3, page 541.

Annual Message to Congress

December 1, 1862

Heretofore colored people, to some extent, have fled north from bondage; and now, perhaps, from both bondage and destitution. But if gradual emancipation and deportation be adopted, they will have neither to flee from. Their old masters will give them wages at least until new laborers can be procured; and the freed men, in turn, will gladly give their labor for the wages, till new homes can be found for them, in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race. This proposition can be trusted on the mutual interests involved. And, in any event, cannot the north decide for itself, whether to receive them?

[x] The idea that fueled emigration was that slave owners could free their slaves under the condition that they go to Africa. The government could compensate slave owners and pay for their passage. But once large numbers of slaves were freed, and the power of the slaveholders was broken, the colonization mindset was broken.

Provide a source for this pantsload. It was logistically impossible to export 4 million people to Africa. The idea that fueled emigration was amalgamation and separation of the races.

Colonization resolution in Congress, January 1858. Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 1st Sess., Pt. 1, pp. 293-298.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=045/llcg045.db&recNum=356

The "gradual abolition" contemplated by Washington had, before Mr. Jefferson's death, made so large a class of free negroes as to endanger the safety of the white race by inciting formidable insurrections among the slaves, besides producing the lesser inconveniences apprehended. Hence the law prohibiting manumission without the removal of the emancipated slaves from the State.

* * *

By the legislation of many free States the intrusion of such emigration was soon prevented; and it may now be asserted with truth, that the laws of the free and the slave States combine to perpetuate slavery ! for where is the freed man to go? A few rich masters provide the means to return their bondsmen to Africa; and recently some small parties embarked to Mexico, to throw themselves upon the humanity of its semi-barbarous people. There is no alternative but to submit to expulsion, or to refuse the boon of freedom. There existed at least a half million manumitted slaves before the prescriptive laws were passed at the North or South. In the latter section, where the intercourse of the enfranchised and enslaved of the same race is pregnant with danger, measures are in progress to reduce all to the condition of slavery. Laws have been passed in some of the slave States providing that the freed may subject themselves again to servitude, if they can find a master.

* * *

Mr. Chairman, it is evident to every man of thought that the freed blacks hold a place in this country which cannot be maintained. Those who have fled to the North are most unwelcome visitors. The strong repugnance of the free white laborer to be yoked with the negro refugee breeds an enmity between races, which must end in the expulsion of the latter. Centuries could not reconcile the Spaniards to the Moors, and although the latter were the most useful people in Spain, their expulsion was the only way to peace. In spite of all that reason or religion can urge, nature has put a badge upon the African, making amalgamation revolting to our race. Centuries have shown that even the aboriginal race of this continent; although approaching our species in every respect more nearly, perish from contiguity with the white man. But I will not argue the point. The law of the North has put its ban upon immigration of negroes into the free States. In the South, causes more potent still make it impossible that the emancipated blacks can remain there. The multiplication of slaves and freed men of the same caste in the section where the dominant race must become proportionally fewer from emigration, has already compelled the latter to prohibit emancipation within the States, and to seek means of deliverance from the free blacks. The northern States will not receive them; the southern States dare not retain them. What is to be done?

[x] Do you really think Lincoln wanted to dispatch millions of Blacks by force to Africa? To send away all those potential Republican supporters in order to please Democrat rebels and seditionists?

Do you seriously think Lincoln wanted to have millions of Blacks living in his neighborhood? Remember, it was Lincoln who considered AMALGAMATION a GREATER EVIL than slavery. Remember, Lincoln never met an Illinois Black Law he did not like.

LINK

CW 2:391-2

Speech at Chicago, Illinois

February 28, 1857

Let it be seen by the result, that the cause of free-men and free-labor is stronger in Chicago that day, than ever before. [Cw 2:391]

We were constantly charged with seeking an amalgamation of the white and black races; and thousands turned from us, not believing the charge (no one believed it) but fearing to face it themselves. [CW 2:392]

LINK

CW 2:406-410

Speech at Springfield, Illinois

June 26, 1857

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races; and Judge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope, upon the chances of being able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. [CW 2:406]

But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once---a thousand times agreed. [CW 2:407]

On this point we fully agree with the Judge; and when he shall show that his policy is better adapted to prevent amalgamation than ours we shall drop ours, and adopt his. Let us see. In 1850 there were in the United States, 405,751, mulattoes. Very few of these are the offspring of whites and free blacks; nearly all have sprung from black slaves and white masters. A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation but as an immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self-evident truth. A few free colored persons may get into the free States, in any event; but their number is too insignificant to amount to much in the way of mixing blood. [CW 2:408-9]

The proportion of free mulattoes to free blacks---the only colored classes in the free states---is much greater in the slave than in the free states. It is worthy of note too, that among the free states those which make the colored man the nearest to equal the white, have, proportionably the fewest mulattoes the least of amalgamation. In New Hampshire, the State which goes farthest towards equality between the races, there are just 184 Mulattoes while there are in Virginia---how many do you think? 79,775, being 23,126 more than in all the free States together. [CW 2:409]

These statistics show that slavery is the greatest source of amalgamation; and next to it, not the elevation, but the degeneration of the free blacks. Yet Judge Douglas dreads the slightest restraints on the spread of slavery, and the slightest human recognition of the negro, as tending horribly to amalgamation. [CW 2:409]

Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one; but ``when there is a will there is a way;'' and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. [CW 2:410]

LINK

Speech at Augusta, Illinois

August 25, 1858

CW 3:39

The first hour of his speech was devoted to an examination of Clay's principles on the Slavery question, and to repelling the charges, made against the speaker, that he was an ``Abolitionist,'' in favor of ``negro equality'' and ``amalgamation.'' [CW 3:39]

LINK

Speeches at Clinton, Illinois

September 2, 1858

CW 3:85

Judge Douglas is very much afraid that the triumph of the Republican party will lead to a general mixture of the white and black races. Perhaps I am wrong in saying that he is afraid; so I will correct myself by saying that he pretends to fear that the success of our party will result in the amalgamation of blacks and whites. I think I can show plainly, from documents now before me, that Judge Douglas' fears are groundless. The census of 1850 tells us that in that year there were over four hundred thousand mulattoes in the United States. Now let us take what is called an Abolition State---the Republican, slavery-hating State of New Hampshire---and see how many mulattoes we can find within her borders. The number amounts to just one hundred and eighty-four. In the Old Dominion---in the Democratic and aristocratic State of Virginia---there were a few more mulattoes than the census-takers found in New Hampshire. How many do you suppose there were? Seventy-nine thousand seven hundred and seventy-five---twenty-three thousand more than there were in all the free States! In the slave States there were, in 1850, three hundred and forty-eight thousand mulattoes---all of home production; and in the free States there were less than sixty thousand mulattoes---and a large number of them were imported from the South. [CW 3:85]

LINK

Speech at Bloomington, Illinois

September 4, 1858

CW 3:89-90

Mr. L. then read at considerable length from another of his published speeches, on the subject of negro equality, and contrasting the Declaration of Independence with Douglas' version of it, which confines its meaning to an assertion of the equality of British subjects in America with British subjects in England. Referring to the ``amalgamation'' humbug, he inquired where the mulattoes came from, and quoted the census figures, showing that nearly the whole of them are from slave States; that New Hampshire, whose laws approach nearest to negro equality, contains scarcely any mulattoes, while Virginia has several thousand more than all the free States combined. And he inquired which party was practically in favor of amalgamation, we who wish to exclude negroes from the territory, or those who wish to mix them in with the whites there. [CW 3:89-90]

LINK

Second Speech at Leavenworth, Kansas

December 5, 1859

CW 2:505

Mr. Lincoln said that, in political arguments, the Democracy turned up their noses at ``amalgamation.'' But while there were only one hundred and seventy-nine mulattoes in the Republican State of New Hampshire, there were seventy-nine thousand in the good old Democratic State of Virginia---and the only notable instance of the amalgamation that occurred to him was in the case of a Democratic Vice President. Mr. Lincoln wanted the races kept distinct. [CW 2:505]

LINK

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

I thought you were challenged to find support for your argument after Lincoln became president, and started interacting with people like Douglass in Washington - you're retreading stuff from the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

My impression of X's argument - and others - is that they say that after Lincoln became president, and started interacting with policy makers and advisors in Washington, he learned new things, and changed his mind vis-a-vis blacks and slavery. They charge you with wanting to freeze Lincoln pre-1860.

I would also like to challenge you to find explicit support for your allegation that race mixing was the "greater evil" than slavery that he wanted to avoid. In other words, please find a place where Lincoln explicitly said that whites living side by side with blacks was worse than slavery. You're the only person I've ever seen say this. Everybody but you thinks that the "greater evil" was disunion and war.

I should point out that Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and others who were involved in the Great Compromise of 1850, also said that breaking up the Union was a greater evil than slavery. It was a common trope of the time.

Hah! Great review.

I went to see this silly, boring thing today. I fell asleep during the last half hour, only to awaken for the happy picnic scene at the end.

And the accents were horrible! They were all over the place. They could have used a good dialect coach...and an editor named Jack the Ripper.

Did they really use the word "asshole" back in 1864?

[cobaltBlue 558] I thought you were challenged to find support for your argument after Lincoln became president, and started interacting with people like Douglass in Washington - you're retreading stuff from the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

You must be confused and have failed to track the conversation.

[x #501] responded to [nolu chan #419] which responded to [WhiskeyPapa #416]

In #416 Walt asserted that "The last time President Lincoln supported colonization was on 12/1/62. After that, he fell silent publicly. No private conversations show it either."

By my #419 I responded and documented a meeting of 5 Nov 1863 with the African Civilization Society, memorialized by James Mitchell as being about colonization. That is well after Walt's asserted cut-off date of 12/1/1862.

In his #501, x writes "According to your quotation, the African Civilization Society requested an interview with Lincoln. What was he to do? Turn them down?"

The question was not about whether Lincoln should or should not have met with them. I was showing that he met with them in a meeting about colonization after Walt's cut-off date for such things of 12/1/1862.

All of x's comments were irrelevant to the discussion about when Lincoln stopped talking about colonization.

x wrote that, "Leaders of the group, like Henry Highland Garnet and Martin Delany...."

After wasting my time trying to find out when Martin Delany had ever been a member or leader of the Garnet group, I finally decided that the available online information indicated that Delany had never been a member or leader of said group.

x wrote, "Delany's account of his own 1865 meeting with Lincoln makes no mention of colonization that I can see, an indication that Lincoln may well have left his interest in colonization behind."

Delany was in the Army and his meeting had nothing to do with colonization. It indicates nothing about whether Lincoln did, or did not, leave colonization behind. As Lincoln is revealed by Benjamin Butler to be pursuing colonization to his dying day, and Thomas Keneally writes that Dan Sickles was in South America pursuing colonization for Lincoln at the time of Lincoln's death, Lincoln not mentioning colonization in a metting which had nothing to do with colonization does not amount to much.

As for your belief that I was challenged to find support for my argument after Lincoln became president, you are in the wrong conversation. In any case, the discussed meetings of 12/1/1862, 11/5/1863, and 1865 all occurred significantly after Lincoln became president.

They charge you with wanting to freeze Lincoln pre-1860.

December 1, 1862 -- "But if gradual emancipation and deportation be adopted...."

Everybody but you thinks that the "greater evil" was disunion and war.

Quote your civil war era "everybody," if they exist. By emphasis Lincoln placed upon "at once" (Lincoln's italics), he makes his intent perfectly clear.

Flowing with and out of this was an even greater paradox. For Lincoln didn't believe, as we have seen, that slavery "could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself" (CW 2:130, Lincoln's italics.)
What an extraordinary thing to say! What could possibly be a greater evil to the cause of human liberty than slavery? Freeing all slaves at once, Lincoln, said, knocking down all the fences at once -- Lincoln's metaphor -- and producing the specter of racial mixing and racial conflict over jobs and other values.
Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced Into Glory, pp. 268-9

Although Lincoln was a powerful figure in state politics for almost two decades, and although he spoke on many legislative subjects, he never uttered one word in favor of these men and move ments. On the contrary, he repeatedly criticized abolitionists who attacked slavery in the South and asked for a repeal of the Illinois Black Laws. Whitney said he abhorred abolitionists (317). Lamon said he was "the steady though quiet opponent" of abolitionists like Owen Lovejoy (210). Contemporary news reports say he "scathingly" attacked the abolitionists on the stump and went to great lengths to dissociate himself from their name and program (CW 2:14).
During this period, Lincoln pressed his lifelong campaign against Black suffrage. It can be said, in fact, that he started and ended his political career supporting discrimination against Black voters. In January 1836, during his first term in the Illinois legislature, he voted, as we have indicated, to keep the franchise pure from Black contamination. Twenty-nine years later, he supported a Louisiana government which denied Blacks, including Black Union veterans, the right to vote. There is a direct line, straight as the columns on the Lincoln Memorial, from Lincoln's 1836 vote against Black suffrage to his last public speech, which endorsed invidious distinctions between Black and White voters.
Some investigators say the difference between the prairie Lincoln and the presidential Lincoln is so great that they seem to be dealing with two different men. They are dealing with two different men, comparing a mythical prairie Lincoln and a mythical presidential Lincoln. If they put the real Lincoln back into real history with real Negroes, real slaves and real abolitionists, Black and White, they will discover that the DNA of the prairie Lincoln and the DNA of the presidential Lincoln match perfectly. The Lincoln who voted against Black suffrage in the Illinois legislature is the same Lincoln who proposed invidious distinctions between Black and White voters in his last public speech. The Lincoln who called for the deportation of Blacks in 1852 is the same Lincoln who drafted a constitutional amendment for the deportation of Blacks in 1862. The Lincoln who said in 1852 that freeing all slaves immediately would create a greater evil than slavery is the same Lincoln who opposed immediate emancipation until his death and who wrote a Proclamation that freed few if any slaves.
The same language. The same acts. The same excuses. The same man.
The fight to ban Black voters was apparently a major Lincoln obsession, one he returned to repeatedly. Six months after he voted to keep tin suffrage pure and White, he opened his campaign for reelection to the legislature with a letter in favor of a lily-White suffrage:
New Salem, June 13,1836.
To the Editor of the Journal:
In your paper of last Saturday, I see a communication over the signature of "Many voters," in which the candidates who are announced in the Journal, are called upon to "show their hands." Agreed. Here's mine.
I go for all sharing the privileges of the government, who assist in bearing its burthens. Consequently I go for admitting all whites to the right of suffrage, who pay taxes or bear arms, (by no means excluding females). (CW 1:48, italics added)
This was a backwards step, even for Whites, since the franchise was open then to all White males, whether they paid taxes or not. As for White females, Lincoln, as Donald and others have said, was probably making a joke since he and all his constituents knew that White women didn't pay taxes or bear arms.
Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced Into Glory, pp. 192-3.

Reelected to the legislature, partly because of this racist appeal, Lincoln repeatedly voted for measures denying Blacks basic rights, according to Paul Simon, whose excellent Preparation for Greatness I am following here, with the understanding that it is not clear to me Lincoln, like Jefferson, kept the words and denied the slaves. Thus, the second major article of the Lincoln Doctrine was that slavery was so "complex" and involved racial problems so deep and explosive that it was insoluble in White terms. It was Jefferson, Lincoln noted approvingly, who said that the words of the Declaration of Independence were one thing but White "necessity" -- Lincoln's term -- was another. Did not the sainted Jefferson say of the Declaration and slaves: "We have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go ..." (CW 2:128-9)? Which is, I suppose, good strategy if you are dealing with wolves instead of human beings.
That distinction didn't deter Lincoln who agreed with Jefferson -- this was the third article of the Lincoln Doctrine -- that holding the wolf [slave] by the ears was better than letting him go at once. Lincoln was reminded that Clay "did not perceive, as I think no wise man has perceived, how it [slavery] could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself." To make sure there would be no mistake about his meaning, Lincoln himself underlined the words at once (CW 2:130).
Like all "wise" men who believed this, like Clay and Jefferson and Madison, and like all the "wise" men who believed it and were too wise to say it, Lincoln believed that freedom was worse than slavery. Someone will say that this is a shocking charge and that Lincoln only -- only -- believed that freedom for Blacks was worse than slavery. But freedom, like slavery, is indivisible; and a man who defines freedom by color and who believes that freeing four million people immediately is a greater evil than keeping four million people in slavery indefinitely believes freedom is worse than slavery, however he defines it and however his apologists defend it.
In any event, one thing is certain: Lincoln believed that freeing all slaves immediately by an Emancipation Proclamation or even a Thirteenth Amendment would produce a greater evil than the continuation of a nation half slave and half free.
Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced Into Glory, pp. 220-1.

One great difficulty obstructed these efforts. Emancipation was easy, but the amalgamation of the white and black races was abhorrent, and their existence as equals, under the same Government, was for that reason impossible.
Mr. Chairman, it is evident to every man of thought that the freed blacks hold a place in this country which cannot be maintained. Those who have fled to the North are most unwelcome visitors. The strong repugnance of the free white laborer to be yoked with the negro refugee breeds an enmity between races, which must end in the expulsion of the latter. Centuries could not reconcile the Spaniards to the Moors, and although the latter were the most useful people in Spain, their expulsion was the only way to peace. In spite of all that reason or religion can urge, nature has put a badge upon the African, making amalgamation revolting to our race.
The multiplication of slaves and freed men of the same caste in the section where the dominant race must become proportionally fewer from emigration, has already compelled the latter to prohibit emancipation within the States, and to seek means of deliverance from the free blacks. The northern States will not receive them; the southern States dare not retain them. What is to be done? What was done with the native population which it was found incompatible with the interests of Georgia and the States southwest of the Ohio, and the States northwest, to indulge with homes within their limits? The United States held it to be a national duty to purchase their lands from them, acquire homes for them in other regions, and to holdout inducements and provide the means for their removal to them.
The aboriginal or imported tribes which cannot amalgamate with our race, can never share in its Government in equal sovereignties.
I have already quoted the account of a late visitor and most acute observer, sent to report on the condition of that country. He confirms the general impression in regard to the effete state of the Spanish race in Honduras and the other Central American States; the insurrectionary disposition of the Indians and mestizos of mixed Indian and Spanish blood, which produces incessant civil war and revolution; and he shows that the African race constitutes the basis on which some energetic and intelligent Power must build a stable structure of free government. The negroes and mulattoes in Honduras number one hundred and forty thousand; the Indians one hundred thousand; the whites about fifty thousand; but of this caste he remarks, that -- "Indiscriminate amalgamation has nearly obliterated the former distinction of caste, and few families of pure Spanish descent are known."
Francis P. Blair, Jr., 1/14/1858 (excerpts)
Union general, brother of Lincoln cabinet member.
Republican congressman from Missouri,1st District, 1857-59, 1860, 1861-62, 1863-64; Senator from Missouri, 1871-1873.
President Lincoln's Secretary John Hay recalled that one night in early December 1863, he, John Nicolay, and Secretary of the Interior John Usher were in the president's office discussing the Blairs when Mr. Lincoln came and observed: "The Blairs have to an unusual degree the spirit of clan. Their family is a close corporation. Frank is their hope and pride."

The social and civil evils resulting from the presence of the negro race are numerous, and their magnitude can be better discovered by the stranger than the victims of the calamity.
Amongst them we rank first and most destructive to the purity and simplicity of society - which strikes deeper at the root of good order, and mines most effectually the foundations of that citadel of national stability, the family - the license of the races, which is giving to this continent a nation of bastards. No apology can be given for this; none will be received by the Great Ruler; he will punish for this with fearful severity. It should not be concealed from the authorities of the land, and the parties interested should not be permitted to disguise the criminal fact, that the most immoral maxims are retained amongst this people, and made the justification of crime in this regard - all predicated on the hope of the colored race to rise by the illicit absorption of their blood into the mass of this nation. Time and again has this hope been expressed in our hearing, and as often denounced as the source and cause of crime. That political economist must be blind indeed; that statesman must be a shallow thinker, who cannot see a fearful future before this country, if the production of this mixed race is not checked by removal.
James Mitchell, Lincoln's Commissioner of Emigration, May 18, 1862

Let the friend of English views, the disciple of Exeter hall, approach one of these western men and attempt to reason with him on the subject; he may tell him that it is not in keeping with the spirit of the age to exclude the African race from the rights and privileges of the Republic. He will answer that his social and civil structure was made for white men, not for black men; that he is opposed to social equality with the negro, and therefore opposed to the civil equality of such people with him, because social equality is a condition of society wherein each member, however dissimilar his circumstances in life to those of his neighbor, may attain by industry or fortune to that very social position which his neighbor holds; that this condition of social equality is predicated on civil or political equality, for there an be no social equality without it, such a supposition is absurd; that the government of his country is republican, and as such required a homogeneous population, and that republicanism is applicable to such and such alone - a people in which each man is essentially the equal of his neighbor; that by a homogeneous population he means no this color or that color, but a population that can and will amalgamate on legal and honorable terms; that he does not choose to regard the negro as his equal, and if disposed to regard him as his equal in mind and worth, he does not choose to endanger the blood of his posterity by the proximity of such a population; that here is no command in the Word of God that will oblige him to place this race on the high road to such an amalgamation with his family; and if not with his family, not with that mass of families he calls a State. He will say that a family, and that collection of families which constitute his State, have the right, beyond all organic law, to say who shall or who shall not be received into their bosom and made members of their society; that the American people, in the exercise of this right, have admitted the white races, because they could amalgamate such on legal and honorable terms, whilst they rejected the black because they could not or would not amalgamate on legal or honorable terms. He will point to the recorded opinion of the Supreme tribunal of the nation as to citizenship. He will tell you that he is a sovereign on the soil he treads, and as such has as good a right to protect the purity of his blood in future ages as has the sovereign of England, and to enact laws thereto. Nothing but the authority of the Divine law will change his purpose to hedge himself in and erect legal protections against this possible admixture of blood, which he sees endangers the peace of society more than the intermarriage of England's royal heir with plebeian line.
The student of Exeter Hall may then, with self complacency, point toe corruption of blood where slavery is cherished. And what has he accomplished by that? He rouses the pride of his antagonist, causing him to hate slavery all the more, and we much mistake his character if he does not answer with the emphasis of indignation. Where men are truly moral and religious, the white and black races do not mix, so that the influence of religion will never effect fusion, or destroy the right of choice in the parties. All attempts to destroy this right of choice for himself or his family he will regard as an aggression, and repel with feeling, which if provoked by constant irritation and factious opposition to his local interests, can summon armed aid. Hence I have said we are destined to see other wars in the conflict of races, unless wisdom becomes our guide.
I trust my fears in this regard are not well grounded; but let the stranger go amongst the people of the West and South, as I have done, and propose any other plan of meliorating the unfortunate condition of the free man of color than that of removal to an independent home, and the mass of the people will regard him with more than jealously. What is it gives the hate and ranchor, the venom and the ire to this wicked rebellion amongst the poorer classes of the South? It is love for the negro? No, but it is the hatred of those who would engraft, as they say, negro blood on the population of their country.
James Mitchell, Lincoln's Commissioner of Emigration, May 18, 1862