If this happens Bill, just make certain that it is clear that the NORTH did not engage in that WAR to end slavery.
While the Dec. 1865 ratification of 13th Amendment ended slavery, the attitude and rational for the war was far removed from some lofty goal of ending slavery in the United States of America.
History is pretty clear on this issue:
Lincoln re-affirmed his strong support for gradual emancipation coupled with resettlement in his second annual message to Congress of December 1, 1862 and this proposal had five basic elements:
1. Because slavery was a "domestic institution," and thus the concern of the states alone, they -- and not the federal government -- were to voluntarily emancipate the slaves.
2. Slave-holders would be fully compensated for their loss.
3. The federal government would assist the states, with bonds as grants in aid, in meeting the financial burden of compensation.
4. Emancipation would be carried out gradually: the states would have until the year 1900 to free their slaves.
5. The freed blacks would be resettled outside the United States.
Bottom line: History is pretty rough on many sides and we're stuck with it.
A few more tidbits:
In early 1863, Lincoln discussed with his Register of the Treasury a plan to "remove the whole colored race of the slave states into Texas."
source: 102. N. Weyl and W. Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro (1971), pp. 228-229. Source cited: L. E. Chittenden, Recollections of Abraham Lincoln.; Lincoln apparently also gave consideration to setting aside Florida as a black asylum or reservation. See: Paul J. Scheips, "Lincoln ... , " The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 37, No. 4 (October 1952), p. 419.
Note: The resettlement issue should also include some of the plans for East Africa; Haiti; and the area of present day Panama.
And I might add, neither did the South. The South fought for the issue of states' rights.
Yeah, as I recall, the North went to war to save the Union. THANK GOD THOSE BOYS BEAT THOSE REBS DOWN!
While the Dec. 1865 ratification of 13th Amendment ended slavery, the attitude and rational for the war was far removed from some lofty goal of ending slavery in the United States of America.
That's right! While many of the Abolitionists wanted to free the slaves, the pragmatists (like Lincoln) struggled for what they believed to be an even loftier goal: preserving the Union after the Rebels started the war at Fort Sumter! THANK GOD THEY PREVAILED SO WE COULD ALL LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
History is pretty clear on this issue:
Yes History is clear: despite Lincoln's offer to preserve the Union without freeing the slaves (if that's what it took), the Hot-heads in the Rebel camp couldn't grasp a "victory" when it was staring them in the face. Their pride went before the fall! AND THANK GOD FOR IT, THAT ALL MEN COULD BE FREE!
Lincoln re-affirmed his strong support for gradual emancipation coupled with resettlement in his second annual message to Congress of December 1, 1862 and this proposal had five basic elements...
Yes, you're correct: Lincoln offered up several schemes for resettlement and gradual emancipation. Of course, had the Rebs won (having made their point about the "right to secede", or the "Tariff of Abominations", or the tyranny of the Northern Industrialists, or whatever it was you're trying to tell us the Civil War was really all about), the Confederates would have immediately seen the light, and freed all the slaves. No doubt about it, they would have beaten that tyrant Lincoln's timetable by 35 years!
When Lincoln gave that message the Emancipation Proclamation was one month away from going into effect, so the Southern slave owners were about to lose their chattel anyway. And in a little more than a year the 13th Amendment would pass in the Senate.
There is a letter from Anthony M. Dignowity to President Lincoln where Mr. Dignowity presents his plan to reserve part of Texas or northern Mexico for free blacks but these letters appear to be unsolicited. At least there is no evidence that Lincoln ever responded to any of them much less supported the scheme.
Your source wouldn't happen to identify the correspondent, does it? I'm intrigued by the claim and I'd like to look into it more.
"If this happens Bill, just make certain that it is clear that the NORTH did not engage in that WAR to end slavery.
"
And that Blacks were the ones who sold other blacks into slavery.
Geez, imagine how good the Texas football program would be then.
Emancipation would be carried out gradually: the states would have until the year 1900 to free their slaves.
The freed blacks would be resettled outside the United States.
Thank God it didn't go down like this.