Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GOPcapitalist
Mitchell's position became a sinecure.

That's not what the documents say. AG Edward Bates very specifically says in his letter that Mitchell is to be retained to continue implementing colonization.

You don't have an interpretation, you have an anecdote.

As Non-Sequitur noted, if President Lincoln supported colonization late in his administration, where is the condemnation of that from people like Sumner and Douglass? It's not there, because it had become a non-issue.

President Lincoln supported voting rights for black soldiers and he never suggested that anyone be forced out of the country.

This is all so bizarre; President Lincoln's ideas were much advanced for the time, but he gets attacked.

Walt

886 posted on 10/09/2003 2:42:28 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 864 | View Replies ]


To: WhiskeyPapa
You don't have an interpretation, you have an anecdote.

No Walt. I have an historical letter from Lincoln's attorney general responding to his request to keep Mitchell for pursuing colonization.

As Non-Sequitur noted, if President Lincoln supported colonization late in his administration, where is the condemnation of that from people like Sumner and Douglass? It's not there, because it had become a non-issue.

I don't know about condemnations from Charles Sumner but it certainly was not a non-issue after 1862. The Senate even formally requested a colonization report from the Dept. of Interior on March 25, 1864 and Lincoln transmitted it on June 29th.

917 posted on 10/09/2003 4:53:56 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 886 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson