Remarks of James Webb at the Confederate Memorial

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...

Since we're not reinventing history here, let's look at your element number 5, "The freed blacks would be resettled outside the United States."

A reading of Lincoln's message in full makes it clear that what you are implying, that Lincoln wanted to forcefully remove free blacks from the country, is completely false. In outlining his plan his proposed article reads, "Congress may appropriate money, and otherwise provide, for colonizing free colored persons, with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States." Later in the message he explained its purpose, "The third article relates to the future of the freed people. It does not oblige, but merely authorizes, Congress to aid in colonizing such as may consent. This ought not to be regarded as objectionable, on the one hand, or on the other, in so much as it comes to nothing, unless by the mutual consent of the people to be deported, and the American voters, through their representatives in Congress."

Lincoln supported voluntary colonization, he never made any secret of that, and he said so yet again in the message. But he also was opposed to those who favored deportation by force and who believed the races could not live together, and also said so in the message:

"And yet I wish to say there is an objection urged against free colored persons remaining in the country, which is largely imaginary, if not sometimes malicious."

"It is insisted that their presence would injure, and displace white labor and white laborers. If there ever could be a proper time for mere catch arguments, that time surely is not now. In times like the present, men should utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsible through time and in eternity. Is it true, then, that colored people can displace any more white labor, by being free, than by remaining slaves? If they stay in their old places, they jostle no white laborers; if they leave their old places, they leave them open to white laborers. Logically, there is neither more nor less of it. Emancipation, even without deportation, would probably enhance the wages of white labor, and, very surely, would not reduce them. Thus, the customary amount of labor would still have to be performed; the freed people would surely not do more than their old proportion of it, and very probably, for a time, would do less, leaving an increased part to white laborers, bringing their labor into greater demand, and, consequently, enhancing the wages of it. With deportation, even to a limited extent, enhanced wages to white labor is mathematically certain. Labor is like any other commodity in the market---increase the demand for it, and you increase the price of it. Reduce the supply of black labor, by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and, by precisely so much, you increase the demand for, and wages of, white labor."

"But it is dreaded that the freed people will swarm forth, and cover the whole land? Are they not already in the land? Will liberation make them any more numerous? Equally distributed among the whites of the whole country, and there would be but one colored to seven whites. Could the one, in any way, greatly disturb the seven? There are many communities now, having more than one free colored person, to seven whites; and this, without any apparent consciousness of evil from it. The District of Columbia, and the States of Maryland and Delaware, are all in this condition. The District has more than one free colored to six whites; and yet, in its frequent petitions to Congress, I believe it has never presented the presence of free colored persons as one of its grievances. But why should emancipation south, send the free people north? People, of any color, seldom run, unless there be something to run from. 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?"

"Again, as practice proves more than theory, in any case, has there been any irruption of colored people northward, because of the abolishment of slavery in this District last spring?"

So be fair to the man. Lincoln supported colonization, so did Robert Lee and John Breckenridge. Lincoln believed that freed slaves would be better of carving out their future in Africa, but is that worse than those in the south who believed that slavery was the only place for a black man to be? And given the level of racism present in the North and the South was Lincoln wrong in believing that? Milton once wrote it was better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. That seems to be Lincoln's beliefs as well. Where was he wrong?

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."

Now we're re-inventing history on a grand scale. The sole evidence to support such a conspiracy seems to lie in a letter that the Registrar of the Treasury, a gentleman named Anthony Dignowity, wrote to Lincoln in April of 1864. In the letter, obviously unsolicited, Dignowity suggests clearing the French out and resettling freed slaves in Mexico, not Texas. As a Texan himself he does not approve of the idea of moving fellow Texans out so that the slaves can be settled. The suggestion in this letter, apparently never answered, is one of a number he wrote to Lincoln during the war.

So your conspiracy is one-sided. Dignowity may have come up with the idea but there is no evidence that I've been able to find to indicate that Lincoln ever corresponded with him, ever met with him, or ever knew him as anyone other than one of the hundreds of office seekers who plagued him every day.

So please let's not place blame on Lincoln where it is not deserved, or credit him with vile schemes to load all the blacks in the country on boats and ship them overseas when there is no evidence to support it. Let's not complain about others re-inventing history and then re-invent it ourselves shall we? Source: Lincoln's Second Message to Congress, December 1, 1862 and letter from Anthony M. Dignowity, MD to Abraham Lincoln, April 8 1864.

btt for the evening shift.

"... ~~Webb~~ Any politician would stand up for the gay nazi environmentalist yougurt eaters club if he thought it would help him advance himself."

There. Fixed it for you.

Agree with your point of view that the Europeans did not support the South for altruistic reasons. They saw a kindred soul in the Confederacy with the de facto aristocracy there. The United States would be weakened, enough that the threat of British North America (Canada) would be reduced, though probably not enough for the UK to retake the United States. Similarly the Confederacy would have been a much weaker country, more easily manipulated by Europe. And other countries who looked to the United States as an example of a successful representative government country without a nobility would be discouraged.

Still, with European intervention, the South could have won, and the federal government, and the executive branch, did usurp more power over the member states.

Of course, I have always liked your 'banter' because the historical accuracy, (not interpretation), is excellent for reference and I have used much of it in my college classes.

I didn't mean to make any 'implications' about Lincoln's 'politics of slavery' and tend to be litteral in my reading; I read what he said; hence my proclivity for primary source material.

As you know by now, I am no fan of Lincoln's politics or policies. However, I find myself a 'fan' of Lincoln's personnal view of slavery as an institution. His stories...'ask about slavery to the slave owner under the tree or the slave working the field - two very different answers' is a classic.

But, he had views of racial separation and 'deportation' policies that ran the range of Africa, the Carribean, and Panama/Columbia. Call it a gentle remedy if you like. Lincoln had no right to kill Southern boys to achieve his objectives as they changed from 1861 through 1865.

The presentation in our era of SAINT ABRAHAM LINCOLN does not 'square' with true history. Much like the war in Iraq, the reason and rational for the Civil War changed as the war went on.

Sorry, I believe in the concept of 'consent of the governed' as a principle of self government as strongly as I believe that the institution of slavery was wrong and not consistent with the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

regards,

Van

Oh give me a break. Painting all politicians with the same brush is about as fair as painting all farmers as hicks or all lawyers as unethical and greedy.

Well, hopefully this thread will not descend to the level of other threads when the Civil War is mentioned.

famous last words on this forum

Oh, I knew that the gang would soon arrive. I think they get an alert in their email as soon as a Civil War thread goes up.

I can't agree: how come some Northern States still retained
slaves throughout the war and passed exclusionary laws after
the War to keep out freed slaves? I'm sure you studied Lincoln's positions regarding the matter: The preservation of the Union was uppermost in his mind. Relatively Few Southerners
owned slaves and it was becoming economically inefficient,
since day laborers did not require housing, food, etc.

True.