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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.