If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?

Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'

Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."

Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?

At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."

Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.

Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???

Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.

[Walt] President Lincoln imdicated that the blacks were selfish in wanting to stay in the U.S. but he never insisted that anyone be forced out of the country.

Well, actually Lincoln said the Blacks were being extremely selfish. Exactly what was it that was selfish about not wanting to get on a ship and just get dumped someplace?

I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life, perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is -I speak in no unkind sense- an extremely selfish view of the case.

Black people weren't stupid enough to believe THAT pantsload.

Frederick Douglass said:
"Mr. Lincoln takes care in urging his colonization scheme to furnish a weapon to all the ignorant and base, who need only the countenance of men in authority to comment all kinds of violence and outrage upon the colored people of the country." (FD 3:267)

[Walt] The solution he -clearly- settled upon was to give blacks equal rights.

The solution he -clearly- settled upon ... and repeated over and over for years ... was colonization ...

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.

I will say 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; that I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. . . . There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever 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 do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position that the negro must be denied everything.
~ Honest Abe ~

Applications have been made to me by many free Americans of African descent to favor their emigration, with a view to such colonization as was contemplated in recent acts of Congress.
~ Lying Abe ~

Liberia and Hayti are, as yet, the only countries to which colonists of African descent from here, could go with certainty of being received and adopted as citizens; and I regret to say such persons, contemplating colonization, do not seem so willing to migrate to those countries, as to some others, nor so willing as I think their interest demands. I believe, however, opinion among them, in this respect, is improving; and that, ere long, there will be an augmented, and considerable migration to both these countries, from the United States.
~ Clintonesque Abe ~

Heavens, we've debated that 'laws made in pursuance' clause to death. And you still don't understand it. Shall we declare a truce on it? We won't convince each other.

I don't post to you. I post to the lurkers.

There is no reasonable interpretation that will say anything but that there is no legal right to unilateral state secession. The judicial power of the United States rests with the Supreme Court. --Every-- Justice agreed in 1863 that the Militia Act gave the power to the president to suprress rebellion. The majority opinion in that case referred to the rebels as traitors. These are the facts of the matter. If you -had- anything of note to say, which you apparently do not, it would be muted by your unsupportable position on this one issue.

This is from Dorr v. Rhode Island:

"[Art. IV, Sec. 4] of the Constitution of the United States provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and on the application of the legislature or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

"Under this article of the Constitution, it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State. For as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal. ..."

"So, too, as relaters to the clause in the above-mentioned article of the Constitution, providing for cases of domestic violence. It rested with Congress, too, to determine upon the means proper to be adopted to fulfill this guarantee. They might, if they had deemed it most advisable to do so, have placed it in the power of a court to decide when the contingency had happened which required the federal government to interfere. But Congress thought otherwise, and no doubt wisely, and, by the act of February 28, 1795, provided that,

[The amended Militia Act]

... in case of an insurrection in any State against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such State or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to sufficient to suppress such insurrection."

The Court continued:

"By this act, the power of deciding whether the exigency had arisen upon which the government of the United States is bound to interfere is given to the President. He is to act upon the application of the legislature or of the executive, and consequently he must determine what body of men constitute the legislature, and who is the governor, before he can act. The fact that both parties claim the right to the government cannot alter the case, for both cannot be entitled to it. If there is an armed conflict like the one of which we are speaking, it is a case of domestic violence, and one of the parties must be in insurrection against the lawful government. And the President must, of necessity, decide which is the government and which party is unlawfully arrayed against it before he can perform the duty imposed upon him by the act of Congress."

*Relation to the Civil War and Secession*

Here, the Supreme Court was considering the case of an uprising against a State Gov't. and found the President to be the competent authority to determine if an alleged State Gov't was in fact legitimate. While the Court presumed a situation where there exists one legitimate and one illegitimate government, clearly the case could arise where a State has no legitimate government. Since the President has the power to determine which of two (or more) governments is legitimate he must have the power to determine that no legitimate government exists, when that is in fact the case.

I claim that this is exactly what Lincoln did. After each of the "seceding" States enacted an Ordinance of Secession, an interregnum ensued. The President exercised his power to determine that there was no government in that State, and used his existing powers to start the process of restoring legitimate (i.e., both Constitutional and Republican) governments to those (so-called) seceded States. In addition, the President called Congress into Special Session and together Congress and the Executive took those steps necessary and proper to restore Constitutional, Republican Governments to those (so- called) seceded States.

One may argue that the President cannot act unless the State Legislature or Executive request action. I respond that, during an interregnum, there is no State Legislature or Executive to make the request, yet the US is still obligated to provide for a Constitutional Government which has a Republican Form for that State, and thus the US must have all powers necessary and proper to create such a State government

Taney anticipated an objection that I suspect Myles will raise:

"It is said that this power in the President is dangerous to liberty, and may be abused. All power may be abused if placed in unworthy hands. But it would be difficult, we think, to point out any other hands in which this power would be more safe, and at the same time equally effectual. When citizens of the same State are in arms against each other, and the constituted authorities unable to execute the laws, the interposition of the United States must be prompt or it is of little value. The ordinary course of proceedings in courts of justice would be utterly unfit for the crisis. And the elevated office of the President, chosen as he is by the people of the United States, and the high responsibility he could not fail to feel when acting in a case of so much moment, appear to furnish as strong safeguards against a wilful abuse of power as human prudence and foresight could well provide. At all events, it is conferred upon him by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must therefore be respected and enforced in its judicial tribunals."

While Taney spoke of situations where "citizens of the same State are in arms against each other" (as happened during the Civil War in most if not all of the "seceded" states), his arguments apply equally well to the situation where people are in arms against the lawful and Constitutional Government of the United States."

-- from the ACW moderated newsgroup.

Walt

But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us. . . . I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.

Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 903.

[Walt] Thsis has no corroboration, and it is inconsistent with what both men said in the 1860s.

What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.
~ Honest Abe ~

Negro equality. Fudge! How long in the Government of a God great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutgers University Press, 1953, September 1859 (Vol. III p. 399))
~ Honest Abe ~

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.
~ 37-year plan Abe ~

WHAT EXACTLY DID LINCOLN ENVISAGE AS A GREATER EVIL, EVEN TO THE CAUSE OF HUMAN LIBERTY ITSELF? [which could be caused by the eradication of slavery]

In the same speech from which I have quoted he [Clay] says: ``There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children, whose ancestors have been torn from her by the ruthless hand of fraud and violence. Transplanted in a foreign land, they will carry back to their native soil the rich fruits of religion, civilization, law and liberty. May it not be one of the great designs of the Ruler of the universe, (whose ways are often inscrutable by short-sighted mortals,) thus to transform an original crime, into a signal blessing to that most unfortunate portion of the globe?'' This suggestion of the possible ultimate redemption of the African race and African continent, was made twenty-five years ago. Every succeeding year has added strength to the hope of its realization. May it indeed be realized!
~ It's-a-blessing Abe ~

"A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'where there is a will there is a way:' and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral 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."
~ Where there's a will there's a way Abe ~

"...So Englishmen saw it. Lincoln's insincerity was regarded as proven by two things: his earlier denial of any lawful right or wish to free the slaves; and, especially, his not freeing the slaves in 'loyal' Kentucky and other United States areas or even in Confederate areas occupied by United States troops, such as New Orleans."
The Glittering Illusion: English Sympathy for the Southern Confederacy, Sheldon Vanauken, 1989, Washington, DC: Regnery/Gateway.

"At another time, Mr. Lincoln publicly recommended Central America to a delegation of blacks who waited on him, as suited by climate and so forth to colonization by their people.
In the fall of 1862 there appeared in New York a certain Mr. Koch, with a queer story and a queer project...he had conceived the project of taking to Santo Domingo a colony of blacks from the United States, procuring a grant of land, and settling them on it, to raise cotton.
Mr. Lincoln was entirely captivated by it; ...The President made a contract with him (Koch) for the transportation of the first colony of blacks, four hundred in number, to his (Koch's) island of La Veche, at the price, I think, of $100 per head; to be paid, one half when the colonists had embarked, and the other half when they were safely landed on the island.
Before many months were over, the President was constrained as a matter of mere humanity to send a vessel of war after the poor fellows, and the remainder of them was brought back and landed in Boston.
The last thing I heard of them was a public meeting under violent antislavery auspices to denounce the brutal and inhuman conduct of President Lincoln, in sending these poor men into exile; and one or two of the negroes themselves appeared at the meeting in support of the resolutions!
John T. Doyle"
"Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men," Jeffrey Rogers Hummel; Laissez Faire Books

[nc] You have been singularly unsuccessful in finding one contemporary of Lincoln who praised his alleged virtues while he was alive.

[Walt] Are you going to say you never heard of this incident?

"Lincoln had Douglass shown in at once. "Here is my friend Douglass," the President announced when Douglass entered the room. "I am glad to see you," Lincoln told him. "I saw you in the crowd today, listening to my [second inaugural] address." He added, "there is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours. I want to know what you think of it." Douglass said he was impressed: he thought it "a sacred effort." "I am glad you liked it." Lincoln said, and he watched as Douglass passed down the [receiving] line. It was the first inaugural reception in the history of the Republic in which an American President had greeted a free black man and solicited his opinion."

--"with Malice Towards None", p. 412 by Stephen Oates

Of course I have heard of it. Douglass was at an Inaugural reception. Decorum dictated that he be polite. Douglass rose to the occasion. At an inaugural reception it would not have been appropriate for Douglass to say, as he did elsewhere, ""...ABRAHAM LINCOLN is no more fit for the place he hold than was JAMES BUCHANAN, and that the latter was no more the miserable tool of traitors and rebels than the former is allowing himself to be."

I particularly like Oates' Clintonesque phrasing at the end: "It was the first inaugural reception in the history of the Republic in which an American President had greeted a free black man and solicited his opinion."

Yes, it was the first Inaugural reception. But it was not the first time the President had greeted a group of Black men. That occurred a few years earlier when he had a group of Black men brought to meet him so he could pitch his Colonization plan. That's the one that goes, "Welcome, my friends, let me tell you why you should get on a boat and leave."

Lincoln spoke to a committee of free Blacks at the White House in the summer of 1862. The New York Tribune described Lincoln’s speech:

“Washington. Thursday, [August] 14, 1862. This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. They were introduced by Rev. J. Mitchell, Commissioner of Emigration. E. M. Thomas, the Chairman, remarked that they were there by invitation to hear what the Executive had to say to them. Having all been seated, the President, after a few preliminary observations, informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress, and placed at his disposition for the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or a portion of them, of African descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had [been] for a long time his inclination, to favor that cause. . . .”

Clearly, what Lincoln said to the committee of Blacks who attended was the most controversial thing ever said by a President of the U.S. Lincoln suggested that Blacks would be happier if they were not subjugated under White rule. In a lengthy speech, he proposed that those Blacks who so desired should colonize other lands, apart from that of Whites. Lincoln promulgated:

“Why should the people of your race be [colonized], and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose.”

A Black man who had attended the convention responded by saying, “Yes, sir.” Lincoln continued:

“Perhaps, you have long been free-or all your lives. Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoy. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this . . . continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.

“I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact, about which we all think and feel alike, I and you. We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. . . . See our present condition-the country engaged in war! our white men cutting one another’s throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be a war, although many men on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.

“It is better, therefore, to be separated. I know that there are free men among you, who even if they could better their condition are not as much in lined to go out of the country as those who being slaves could obtain their freedom on this condition. I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life, perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. [Page image viewer] This is-I speak in no unkind sense-an extremely selfish view of the case.

“But you ought to do something to help those who are not so fortunate as yourselves. There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us. Now, if you could give a start to white people, you would open a wide door for many to be free. If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by Slavery, we have very poor materials to start with. If intelligent colored men, such as are before me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed.

“There is much to encourage you. For the sake of your race, you should sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people. It is a cheering thought throughout life that something can be done to ameliorate the condition of those who have been subject to the hard usage of the world. [Page image viewer] It is difficult to make a man feel miserable while he feels worthy of himself and claims kindred to the great God who made him. In the American Revolutionary war sacrifices were made by men engaged in it; but they were cheered by the future. Gen. Washington himself endured greater hardships than if he had remained a British subject. Yet he was a happy man, because he was engaged in benefiting his race-something for the children of his neighbors, having none of his own.

“The country of Liberia has been in existence a long time. In a certain sense, it is a success. The old President of Liberia, Roberts, has just been with me-the first time I ever saw him. He says they have within the bounds of that colony between 300,000 and 400,000 people, or more than in some of our old States, such as Rhode Island or Delaware, or in some of our newer States, and less than in some of our larger ones. They are not all American colonists, or their descendants. Something less than 12,000 have been sent thither from this country. Many of the original settlers have died, yet, like people elsewhere, their offspring outnumbers those deceased.

“The question is if the colored people are persuaded [Page image viewer] to go anywhere, why not there? One reason for an unwillingness to do so is that some of you would rather remain within reach of the country of your nativity. I do not know how much attachment you may have towards our race. It does not strike me that you have the greatest reason to love them. But still you are attached to them at all events.

“The place I am thinking about having for a colony is in Central America. It is nearer to me than Liberia-not much more than one-fourth as far as Liberia, and within seven days run by steamers. Unlike Liberia it is on a great line of travel-it is a highway. The country is a very excellent one for any people, and with great natural resources and advantages, and especially because of the similarity of the climate with your native land-thus being suited to your physical condition.

“The particular place I have in view is to be a great highway from the Atlantic or [Caribbean] Sea to the Pacific Ocean, and this particular place has all the advantages for a colony. On both sides there are harbors among the first in the world. Again, there is evidence of very rich coal mines. A certain amount of coal is valuable in any country, and there may be more than enough for the wants of the country. Why I attach so much importance to coal is it will afford an opportunity to the inhabitants for immediate employment till they get ready to settle permanently in their homes.

“If you take colonists where there is no good landing, there is a bad show; and so where there is nothing to cultivate and of which to make a farm. But if something is started so that you can get your daily bread as soon as you reach there, it is a great advantage. Coal land is the best thing I know of which to commence an enterprise.

“To return, you have been talked to upon this subject, and told that a speculation is intended by gentlemen, who have an interest in the country, including the coal mines. We have been mistaken all our lives if we do not know whites as well as blacks look to their self-interest. Unless among those deficient of intellect everybody you trade with makes something. You meet with these things here as elsewhere.

“If such persons have what will be an advantage to them, the question is whether it cannot be made of advantage to you. You are intelligent, and know that success does not depend on external help as on self-reliance. Much, therefore, depends upon yourselves. As to the coal mines, I think I see the means available for your self-reliance. I shall, if I get a sufficent number of you engaged, have provisions made that you shall not be wronged. If you will engage in enterprise I will spend some of the money intrusted to me. I am not sure you will succeed. The Government may lose the money [if you do not succeed], but we cannot succeed unless we try; but we think, with care, we can succeed.

“The political affairs in Central America are not in quite as satisfactory condition as I wish. There are contending factions in that quarter; but it is true all the factions are agreed alike on the subject of colonization, and want it, and are more generous than we are here. To your colored race they have no objection. Besides, I would endeavor to have you made equals, and have the best assurance that you should be the equals of the best.

“The practical thing I want to ascertain is whether I can get a number of able-bodied men, with their wives and children, who are willing to go, when I present evidence of encouragement and protection. Could I get a hundred tolerably intelligent men, with their wives and children, to ‘cut their own fodder,’ so to speak. Can I have fifty? If I could find twenty-five able-bodied men, with a mixture of women and children, good things in the family relation, I think I could make a successful commencement.

“I want you to let me know whether this can be done or not. This is the practical part of my wish to see you. These are subjects of very great importance, worthy of a month’s study, of a speech delivered in an hour. I ask you then to consider seriously not pertaining to yourselves merely, nor for your race, and ours, for the present time, but as one of the things, if successfully managed, for the good of mankind-not confined to the present generation but as

“From age to age descends the lay,
To millions yet to be,
Till far its echoes roll away,
into eternity.”

E.M. Thomas, the chairman of the delegation, responded to Lincoln’s plea. He said that “they would hold a consultation and in short order give an answer.” Lincoln replied, “Take your full time-no hurry at all.” The area in Central America in which Lincoln had hoped Blacks would colonize was New Granada. However, Lincoln later found out that Blacks would not be safe there, for there were many problems with New Granada’s government that may have endangered the lives of Blacks who would move there. Lincoln decided against that plan, but he held steadfast to his idea of repatriating Blacks to a land of their own.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.