As you note, colonization had generally gone hand in hand with emancipation. But this wasn't a particular feature of Lincoln's mind. It certainly wasn't something unique to him. It was part of the political landscape of the era, at least outside small radical circles. The other option, more popular in the country as a whole, was no colonization and no emancipation.
And, indeed, if we look at the century after emancipation, we might take another look at the colonizers' idea that "separation was the only way that blacks could achieve true liberty and exercise those rights" and avoid domination and oppression by Whites. While the supporters of resettlement may have been morally wrong, were they so terribly wrong about the effects of emancipation or the willingness of Whites to accept Blacks as equals and respect their rights? Racial equality might have been something worth fighting for, but for a century it was an unpopular and a losing cause. Colonization may have been a heartless idea and a betrayal, but it also involved a shrewd and hard-headed assessment of what public opinion allowed.
Those who accepted slavery didn't have to say anything about colonization. Some of them said much about the inequality of the races and the impossibility of integration as equals. And they did have their own analogous ideas -- running off freed slaves and abolitionists, shipping Blacks as slaves to newly acquired territories. Colonization only became an issue if one accepted or promoted emancipation. I wouldn't want to be so determined and impassioned in attacking colonization that I made advocates and champions of slavery look good. Nor is there some process that inevitably determined that freedmen would be accepted as equals if they stayed here long enough. Certainly, for a century after emancipation such an inevitability was hard to see.
Lincoln played no great role in the colonization movement, but willingly or unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously, he played a great role in bringing that movement to an end. If he'd wanted resettlement, he would have pushed harder for it. Instead he let it die away. He didn't slam the door shut on emigration, but neither did he promote or urge it on the country or the Black population, when it became clear that it wasn't wanted.
The quotations posted here by others bear this out. What Lincoln's critics seem to want is some unequivocal condemnation of colonization as evil. Given the attitudes of the day that couldn't have happened. Columnists and essayists can make such declarations. Politicians and statesmen are jugglers, keeping a different ideas and policies in the air, some that have to be implemented, some that have outgrown their usefulness or possibility, and others whose time hasn't yet come. What matters is the result achieved, not a set of fine position papers with no concrete achievements to show for them.
Lincoln's motivations are hard to sort out. Radical Republicans might have had some effect. Flattery and the adulation of freedmen for Lincoln might also have played a part in changing his mind. But an appreciation the fighting ability, tenacity, desire for freedom and committment to the country of the Black population was likely to be the major factor.
Lincoln would never think as Frederick Douglass did, but this is natural: no politician of the 1960s could think of Black-White relations as Martin Luther King did. Nor would we expect them to. Leaving aside the question of King's views, we take into account the distance those politicians came. None of them probably looked on African-Americans in the same way that White Americans born after 1965 do, but some had come a long way in that direction.
But I don't think the idea of using Blacks as cannon fodder was very much a part of his change. It's said that's what the country did in the American Revolution: it used Black soldiers to win independence, and, having won independence, it denied them the freedom that they would have won had they fought for the other side. Perhaps Lincoln would have behaved similarly towards Blacks had he lived and used them without granting them citizenship, but it's unlikely. And in this Lincoln would have been ahead of most of his contemporaries or the Founders themselves.
So, yes, Lincoln didn't share our accepted ideas about race and integration. Neither did Washington or Jefferson or Jackson, or Polk or Theodore Roosevelt or Wilson or FDR, or the majority of those who favored or opposed such statesmen. But he did do something to advance our understanding of race and justice, and should have some respect on that score. Many Confederate types condemn Lincoln for attitudes he shared with many others in his day, before and later. But hold the founders -- and indeed, the Confederates -- to such standards and no one will be left standing, though it is likely that Federalists and Whigs will end up looking better than Jeffersonians or Jacksonians on racial issues.
No doubt that would help its cause, but Lincoln certainly seemed to embrace it himself on idealogical grounds. He stated so before and after being elected. I don't see it as a big deal that he did, it was the 1800s.
As it became clear that slavery had essentially collapsed, and that there would be no compensated emancipation, interest in colonization waned. The strong sentiment of Blacks against emigration, and the achievements of Black troops in battle further weakened support for resettlement.
I would say the later power moves of the radicals is what curbed it. Preventing the allocation of funds did the most damage outright, because that stopped it dead in its tracks. No funding meant no purchase of lands, no contracts to research possible locales or for experimental runs, etc. If Lincoln had abandoned the idea on idealogical grounds, it seems there would clear statements either direct or indirect, demonstrating that. Not necessarily a "I no longer support such and such" type quote, but just some that clearly indicated an alternative idea. The radicals were very opposed to the idea of colonization, and after 1863 Lincoln had to make deals with them he never would have made otherwise. His lack of publically pushing it coincided with the rise of their influence.
As you note, colonization had generally gone hand in hand with emancipation. But this wasn't a particular feature of Lincoln's mind. It certainly wasn't something unique to him. It was part of the political landscape of the era, at least outside small radical circles.
He had always maintained a support for gradual emancipation combined with colonization prior to being elected, and then afterwards referenced his previous beliefs. In that speech before congress about the emancipation amendment he pretty well tied the two together. I don't see any shame in that for Lincoln, it was the 1850s, and he did oppose slavery and believe blacks were entitled to freedom. No one can take that away from him. When I used the "ship them off to Africa" phrase or "clear the way to the docks" or whatever it was I said to the other poster, it was in the heat of debate, and I was giving what I got. I in no way condemn Lincoln for supporting colonization. Historical perspective.
I wouldn't want to be so determined and impassioned in attacking colonization that I made advocates and champions of slavery look good.
I must have misled you. My statements to the other poster were not intended to condemn Lincoln for his colonization beliefs. My statements, in exasperation, were more of a very direct presentation of the truth to firmly establish the falseness of his revisionist position and statements. Previously, and on other threads as well, he had repeatedly demonstrated a maniacal denial of the historical record. I honestly believe, to put it bluntly, that if he were to enter heaven today, he would ask The Almighty what He was doing sitting on Abe's throne. I give what I get, and have handled him as he has handled me. Yes, I have brutally made a point here or there, but only in utter frustration at a continuing and deliberate perversion of truth on his part. Many times I have stated the purpose of those posts, so others would not think I was judging or condemning Lincoln for his race beliefs and added how important historical perspective is. Many times I did that. By the same token, I will not give in to his extreme revisionism that paints a grandly false picture of him. WP can greatly laud Lincoln with perfect legitimacy without having to admit to or focus on the negative (by today's standards) aspects, but he chooses instead to ascribe to Lincoln attributes and motivations which fly in the face of truth, and Lincoln's own words. By confronting him with those other aspects, I was attempting to make him admit he had vastly misreprented the historical record. Lincoln was ALWAYS against slavery. He ALWAYS believed that blacks had the right of freedom. But when someone quotes from a speech claiming it's "proof" Lincoln advocated giving blacks citizenship at such and such a time, and in that same speech Lincoln strongly denies that very thing, they should be corrected. When someone claims that a particular letter "proves" something it doesn't even discuss, they should be corrected. etc., If it got heated, well, that happens.
Lincoln played no great role in the colonization movement, but willingly or unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously, he played a great role in bringing that movement to an end. If he'd wanted resettlement, he would have pushed harder for it. Instead he let it die away. He didn't slam the door shut on emigration, but neither did he promote or urge it on the country or the Black population, when it became clear that it wasn't wanted.
Actually, I'd say he did play a great role in the colonization movement. He was a long time proponent of it, and a member of the ACS, and just a few weeks before the enaction of the EP he stood before congress and strongly advocated it. A president in wartime, asking for a constitutional amendment to which he connected it. To me that's playing a pretty big role, but that's me. As far as bringing it to an end, I would say the radicals have more claim to that. His death put an end to many issues, and the radicals took complete control and killed it forever. If he had not died in the last days of the war, I and many historians think there is reason enough to believe he would have challenged the radicals on that issue once the war was over. As for him not pushing it harder in the last 2 years, he certainly didn't reverse what he had already advocated. The radicals that opposed him on that issue put a stop to it. Thanks to Booth, that is one of many issues left open to debate. The endless what-ifs...
The quotations posted here by others bear this out.
Not in the least. Not by any means. IMO.
What Lincoln's critics seem to want is some unequivocal condemnation of colonization as evil. Given the attitudes of the day that couldn't have happened. Columnists and essayists can make such declarations. Politicians and statesmen are jugglers, keeping a different ideas and policies in the air, some that have to be implemented, some that have outgrown their usefulness or possibility, and others whose time hasn't yet come. What matters is the result achieved, not a set of fine position papers with no concrete achievements to show for them.
I have not asked for some unequivocal condemnation of colonization. I only asked for something that shows he had abandoned the idea. Go beyond colonization by name. Where are his statements of what would be done with the millions of newly freed slaves? The other poster has given a quote saying Lincoln advocated voting rights for "the very intelligent" and those that served as soldiers, but what of the rest. He was clearly making distinctions. Was it his intention to create a subserviant class of freedmen with lesser rights? Is that Lincoln's emancipation? I don't think so, he spoke many times in the past that an idea like that was not anything he supported or would support. Did he change his mind, or did he intend something else for them? That one statement (which I haven't seen the source for) is the only one presented that indicated anything about his post-war "goals" for black Americans. It has been proffered as "proof" that Lincoln had abandoned colonization ideas. If one will but look at, it answers nothing, but yields a hundred questions instead.
Lincoln's motivations are hard to sort out.
Amen to that, he was a consumate politician. The book you referenced earlier treats that well.
Radical Republicans might have had some effect. Flattery and the adulation of freedmen for Lincoln might also have played a part in changing his mind. But an appreciation the fighting ability, tenacity, desire for freedom and committment to the country of the Black population was likely to be the major factor.
I know many recent historians say that, and give quotes from letters and addresses praising black soldiers to "prove" it. Lincoln and many others feared that black soldiers would not be accepted either by the military or the citizens, and that they may prove inadequate. That was a tremendous worry to Lincoln, who wanted very much to use them, botht to subvert manpower from the South and strengthen his own army. Statements lauding the attributes of black soldiers, when placed back in the whole context from which they are taken, seem to say no more than "our fears of their acceptance and success" were wrong. I haven't seen quotes yet, that when you read the whole statement, say any more than that.
So, yes, Lincoln didn't share our accepted ideas about race and integration. Neither did Washington or Jefferson or Jackson, or Polk or Theodore Roosevelt or Wilson or FDR, or the majority of those who favored or opposed such statesmen.
I agree whole-heartedly. I have repeatedly proclaimed the need for historical perspecive when reviewing Mr. Lincoln's race views.
Lincoln would have been ahead of most of his contemporaries or the Founders themselves.
I believe that is a true statement. I in no way wish to take from Mr. Lincoln what is his in regards to race. He Always was against slavery, and Always believed blacks were entitled to freedom. Two things that most Americans and many politicians did not believe.
Many Confederate types condemn Lincoln for attitudes he shared with many others in his day, before and later.
:) Some just point out the hypocricy of some neo-unionist types (WP), who being embarassed by Lincoln's commonly held race views, become either evasive on the issue or completely deny he held them. Kind of rubbing his nose in it a bit you might say. :) As for myself, I have repeatedly, even in the heat of debate, clarified that I did not condemn or judge Mr. Lincoln for his stated beliefs, but was only presenting that part of the picture which someone else (WP) had tried to erase due his embarassment that it existed. (I have let much of his evasiveness slide by.) Mr. Lincoln should be afforded all that he is deserved, and I have pointed out more times than I remember that Mr. Lincoln was always against slavery, and had always believed that blacks were born with the right of freedom. I have also pointed out repeatedly that any race views he held should be viewed with historical perspective. He should not be judged by modern standards, for that would indeed be a gross injustice.
But hold the founders -- and indeed, the Confederates -- to such standards and no one will be left standing, though it is likely that Federalists and Whigs will end up looking better than Jeffersonians or Jacksonians on racial issues.
Basically a true statement, but I wouldn't use the word "none". There were some, but I will admit the percentages were uneven, to say the very least. But let us not forget historical perspective, it is ever so important.