And four days before it he called on General Butler's advice for carrying out colonization.
PS. Show me one instance where Lincoln called for "deportation".
Happily.
"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." - Address to Congress, December 1, 1862
So what kind of wages was Jeff Davis proposing to give to blacks under his iron fist? Was there a demand for white cotton pickers at his plantation?
You, like rustbucket, impose a standard on Lincoln that none of your Confederate heroes could possibly reach, or would even want to. They stood for the opposite.
Lincoln was pragmatic and saw that neither blacks nor whites would adjust either socially or economically to emancipation. 150 years of American history have shown that he was more than correct in that assessment, but he was not alone. Other leaders dating all the way back to Madison also favored Colonization as the preferred method to end slavery while avoiding racial division. Was Madison a “bad guy” too?
Lincoln’s advocating separation of the races via colonization was surely not politically correct by current standards (unless you are a Skin-Head or a Black Panther) but where exactly does that leave him in relation to all the bronze icons in Richmond that you worship so deeply who fought to protect slavery?
And four days before it he called on General Butler's advice for carrying out colonization.
There's no credible proof that Lincoln and Butler met in this time frame. Lincoln did nothing to support colonization after 1/1/63. After black soldiers were enlisted, he began to seek equal rights for them.
Walt
"I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization. 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."
Taken in context, rather than out of context, the quote is actually an arguement against
forced deportation rather that in favor of it as you claim.
What's you source for that?