Crossroads Greatest Hits: On Lincoln and Colonization

In February 2011 I posted my thoughts on Lincoln’s advocacy of colonization. Many people claim that historians who are favorable to Lincoln overlook or slight this aspect of his political life, but I find it to be essential to understanding him. Here it is.


4 thoughts on “Crossroads Greatest Hits: On Lincoln and Colonization

  1. Stefan Jovanovich June 13, 2015 / 1:16 pm

    Lincoln’s views on colonization are inescapable if his opinions on race are to be considered. He could never quite get to the point of seeing Negroes as people entitled to have their own choices in the matter of where to live. That liberty would and should always be dependent on the approval of the white majority.

  2. taxsanity June 14, 2015 / 10:31 pm

    It’s almost unbelievable that anyone who knew what was going on from 1854-1861 would write a sentence like “by 1863 Lincoln no longer saw colonization as essential” to paraphase.

    Im stunned.

    First of all, does anyone know the threats to exterminate the black race, rather than free them?

    You might not know this — but Lincoln did. It helps, of course, if you actually read original documents, like the letter to the public from the governor of Georgia, explaining they would have to kill the slaves with their own hands, rather than free them.

    He was not alone.

    If you don’t know that – don’t blame Lincoln.

    Further more, that governor was not the only one. Others said they would have to kill the blacks, rather than free them, or variations of that – that the white race was going to be exterminated just if slavery was not SPREAD.

    THere was threats of mass murder by whites, against whites, to kill ever white person who was against slavery in the Kansas territories, for example.

    You can claim — oh that was just talk., Oh really> Show me, please, when Southern leaders talked but did not follow through on their threats. Saw what you will, Southern threats were promises.

    Furthermore, Lincoln said a LOT of things — he set things up, to mow them down. HIs Peoria speech, for example. Im sure dozens of folks claim Lincoln’s Peoria speech was proof he was for colonization. Never mind that again, and again, and again, and again, Lincoln would posit something in one sentence, only to obliterate it the next sentence. In the Peoria speech, Lincoln delayed obliterating his supposed “advocacy” of colonization till later in the speech.

    So read the whole thing — where he set it up, and where he mowed it down.

    If might not be easy to grasp, but LIncoln was not dealing with some sweet, thoughful states rights loving Southern culture.

    For those of you who think Lee, for example, was some anti slavery thoughtful man — he had slave girls tortured, and while he could write BS letters to his wife, read this ENTIRE letter, it was a profound justification for torture. God knew and intended slaves feel pain — pain is necessary. WHen you know what he did – scream at girls while he had them whipped – you will grasp this.

    Lincoln was NOT dealing with the BS most of you folks think. ADVOCATED emanciaption?

    Compared to what? Compared to the slaves being killed? Compared to endless war?

    Can someone tell me why on earth “historians” are unable, unwilling, to go by folks actions — Jeff Davis role in Kansas killings. Jeff could talk a great tame – how about go by his actions sometime?

    Lee – another guy talked a great game. Catch him while he had slave girls whipped, or when he bought folks that his hunters found in the North, that were never slaves, until Lee got his hands on them., Or are actions off the table? Do we have to stick with Lee’s own self serving comments, and ignore his actions, and the comments about God intended slaves to feel pain.

    How long do we have to play this stupid game, where you praise men like Lee, who tortured slave girls and bought free people from bounty hunters, and trash Lincoln by gotach quotes, ignore his actions, and ignore the massive and powerful speeches by Lincoln that obliterate what you keep saying.

    Quit playing this game — it’s BS.

    When you explain — when you learn — what a violent, and no bluff bunch, Southern leaders were, let me know.

    No one seems to grasp the fact, for example, in Kansas, according to witnesses, not only were whites killed, tortured, and terrorized by the guy who got Kansas Nebrask Act passed (Atchison, and his men) but Atchison bragged about it. WHy not do a little gotcha game with that speech.

    This is what Lincoln was dealing with.

    The failure I see in our history books, from Catton to McPherson to Foner, is a woeful inability to grasp how violent the South was. How do you think slave owners got to be slave owners? They tortured, they bought people, they sold people. They threatened, and they made good on their threats. Not some times, ALL the time. Not sorta – ask Charles SUmner. Ask the folks tortured and killed in KS. Ask the woman I just read about the other day, in SOuthern paper, who made a comment in public about the North had freedom and she wanted to go there – she was stripped in public and given thirty lashes.

    Did you know that preachers could be — and were — arrested and tortured for just owing the wrong book?

    Did you ever read Lincoln’s letter to SPeed — maybe Lincoln was making it up? — about the violent nature of what Lincoln was dealing with?

    Did Lincoln speak about colnonization – yes — HE ALSO SPOKE AGAINST it.

    But more, he kicked slavery in the ass so bad, he killed the God of slavery. Did you know about the God of slavery after 1865, almost the day after Lee surrendered, I doubt you can find five personal letters in the South about God ordained slavery, or like Lee wrote, God knew and intended slaves feel pain.

    Even Alexander Stephens never wrote — in private — that the South was doing God’s intended work and blacks were being punished for biblical sins, and they would spread this great truth to the rest of the world, like other scientific truths.

    Lincoln kicked slavery so hard, so fast, so often, their God died. That’s how hard he kicked. Don’t believe me? Their own private letters — Lee for example — claimed God wanted slaves to feel pain. God intended slavery. SHow me anyone — doesn have to be Lee, can be anyone — show me anyone saying such nonsense after Lincoln and Grant and Sherman got done killing their God.

    The big difference from before and after the Civil War was not just no slavery. It was no GOD of slavery.

    • Stefan Jovanovich June 15, 2015 / 3:04 am

      If only. The South and much of the rest of the country gave slavery another name after the Civil War; by their very fantasies of retribution the Sumnerites helped make that possible. If the choice was to be about racial loyalty above all else, then whites would choose their own color. The whole point of the 13th and 14th Amendments (which Sumner thought to be failures because they failed to permanently reduce Confederates to inferior status) was to take both God and race out of the question of citizenry. But that was something that even now many people refuse to do – whatever their skin color or ideology. As Grant said, “the people wouldn’t have it” because it was too easy for too many to find righteousness a substitute for reason.

  3. Rcocean June 15, 2015 / 12:36 pm

    I found Lincoln’s views horribly offensive. Where were the trigger warnings?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s