# Think Tank > History >  Newly Released Documents: Abraham Lincoln Sought to Deport Freed Slaves Out of America

## FrankRep

*Book: Lincoln sought to deport freed slaves*


The Washington Times
February 9, 2011


The Great Emancipator was almost the Great Colonizer: Newly released documents show that to a greater degree than historians had previously known, President Lincoln laid the groundwork to ship freed slaves overseas to help prevent racial strife in the U.S.

Just after he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, Lincoln authorized plans to pursue a freedmens settlement in present-day Belize and another in Guyana, both colonial possessions of Great Britain at the time, said Phillip W. Magness, one of the researchers who uncovered the new documents.

Historians have debated how seriously Lincoln took colonization efforts, but Mr. Magness said the story he uncovered, to be published next week in a book, Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement, shows the president didnt just flirt with the idea, as historians had previously known, but that he personally pursued it for some time.

The way that Lincoln historians have grappled with colonization has always been troublesome. It doesnt mesh with the whole emancipator,  Mr. Magness said. The revelation of this story changes the picture on that because a lot of historians have tended to downplay colonization.  What we know now is he did continue the effort for at least a year after the proclamation was signed.
...


*Full Story:*
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-freed-slaves/


*More Information on Abraham Lincoln:*



*Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe* (2006)
- Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo



*The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War* (2003)
- Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo

----------


## demolama

not really a new find.  Lincoln was very involved in the Illinois chapter of the American Colonialization Society.  It had been known for quite a while that Lincoln, like many of his contemporaries, hated slavery but did not want blacks to stay here as equals.  This, however, is the first time a respected scholar of history has touched on the subject as far as I can recall. (I'm not a civil war historian)

----------


## jmdrake

LOL.  Not only are you doing revisionist history here Frank, but you've got your title wrong too.  Why on earth would Lincoln deport slaves *out* of Africa?  Lincoln pushed for voluntary repatriation of slaves *to* Africa.  I don't have a problem with that.

Oh, and Thomas Dilorenzo has been caught being "dishonest" about the Morrill Tariff too.  In his false attempt to "debunk" the Washington Post article "5 myths about why the South Seceded" he made a big deal about the Morrill Tariff.  But he was dishonest in that he left out the fact that the tariff was not passed until *after* the south seceded.

See:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3068446

And:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3068469

Ironically, in order to defend what he wrongly saw as a "slight against the south", Mr. Dilorenzo effectively made liars out of the 10th amendment center which took the same position about the state of tariffs prior to the civil war as did the Washington Post article.  (And Frank, I thank you for posting that 10th amendment center video some time ago.)

----------


## jmdrake

Oh, and here's the D.C. emancipation statute for reference.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/fea...ncipation_act/
_On April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill ending slavery in the District of Columbia. Passage of this law came 8 1/2 months before President Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation. The act brought to a conclusion decades of agitation aimed at ending what antislavery advocates called "the national shame" of slavery in the nation's capital. It provided for immediate emancipation, compensation to former owners who were loyal to the Union of up to $300 for each freed slave, voluntary colonization of former slaves to locations outside the United States, and payments of up to $100 for each person choosing emigration. Over the next 9 months, the Board of Commissioners appointed to administer the act approved 930 petitions, completely or in part, from former owners for the freedom of 2,989 former slaves.

Although its combination of emancipation, compensation to owners, and colonization did not serve as a model for the future, the District of Columbia Emancipation Act was an early signal of slavery's death. In the District itself, African Americans greeted emancipation with great jubilation. For many years afterward, they celebrated Emancipation Day on April 16 with parades and festivals._

Read em and weep Lincoln haters.

----------


## torchbearer

> Read em and weep Lincoln haters.


you are supportive of a man who ordered the butchering of his own citizens?

----------


## FrankRep

> LOL. Not only are you doing revisionist history here Frank, but you've got your title wrong too. Why on earth would Lincoln deport slaves out of Africa? Lincoln pushed for voluntary repatriation of slaves to Africa. I don't have a problem with that.


Out of America. How do you consider this revisionist history?

----------


## McBell

> Read em and weep Lincoln haters.


Yeah man. $#@! habeas corpus and civilized warfare and all that bull$#@!.

----------


## AlexMerced

> LOL. Not only are you doing revisionist history here Frank, but you've got your title wrong too. Why on earth would Lincoln deport slaves out of Africa? Lincoln pushed for voluntary repatriation of slaves to Africa. I don't have a problem with that.
> 
> Oh, and Thomas Dilorenzo has been caught being "dishonest" about the Morrill Tariff too. In his false attempt to "debunk" the Washington Post article "5 myths about why the South Seceded" he made a big deal about the Morrill Tariff. But he was dishonest in that he left out the fact that the tariff was not passed until after the south seceded.
> 
> See:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3068446
> 
> And:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3068469
> ...


Colonization voluntary or involuntary does not absolve Lincoln, no does it absolve for the protectionist and interventions views in which he believed in tariffs and "public improvements".

But as far as the Tariffs, just cause they haven't passed earlier doesn't mean they weren't part of why the south succeeded. We get angry about Legislation before it passed all the time, remember all our efforts against the DISCLOSE act or even Obamacare, the divide and angst in the country started not with the legislation passing but with a fundamental debate way before they were even introduced.

Thinking that people don't care about legislation until it's passed seems kind of Naive.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yeah man. $#@! habeas corpus and civilized warfare and all that bull$#@!.


Oh, Lincoln did a lot of things wrong.  But hate him for what he actually did.  Don't run around making stuff up wholesale.

----------


## jmdrake

> Colonization voluntary or involuntary does not absolve Lincoln, no does it absolve for the protectionist and interventions views in which he believed in tariffs and "public improvements".


 You're missing the point.  Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.  Should I be able to say Bush and Obama BBQ'd children on the Whitehouse lawn just because they did a lot of other bad stuff?




> But as far as the Tariffs, just cause they haven't passed earlier doesn't mean they weren't part of why the south succeeded. We get angry about Legislation before it passed all the time, remember all our efforts against the DISCLOSE act or even Obamacare, the divide and angst in the country started not with the legislation passing but with a fundamental debate way before they were even introduced.


Let's look at Obamacare.  Would it make sense for states to secede over Obamacare *if it didn't pass*?  That would just be *stupid*.  Why guarantee the passage of something you don't like when you can just vote it down?  The Morril Tariff *would NOT have based if it were NOT for secession*.  

Furthermore if you read the link I posted you will see the Dilorenzo purposefully left out the fact that the tariff had not passed in doing his analysis.  That's just dishonest...*period*.




> Thinking that people don't care about legislation until it's passed seems kind of Naive.


No.  What's naive is pulling your senators out *when they could have stopped the legislation*!  Further if you go back and read the southern declarations of secession *some of them don't even mention the tariff*!  Ask yourself this.  How many southern states were willing to stand with South Carolina against a worse tariff during the nullification crisis?*  Answer?  *ZERO!*  It's naive to think that all of these states suddenly cared about a tariff that couldn't pass when they weren't willing to stand up with South Carolina against a tariff that DID pass.

Please watch this.




* Note.  The tariff behind the nullification crisis was a 35% ad valorem tax and on some things it was as high as 50%.  The Morill tariff was a 26% ad valorem tax with a 36% tax on certain items.

----------


## romacox

Very interesting thread...thanks everyone for posting. 

 For sometime now I have been researching American History and the Constitution.  I have resorted to studying early documents and text books...before Woodrow Wilson got his hands on the educational system.  His twisting of the facts became very evident well after his passing (1960's).  

I have also been posting my research online so that my homeschool families can use them as lesson plans.  http://www.read-phonics.com/constitution-slavery.html

----------


## AlexMerced

> You're missing the point.  Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.  Should I be able to say Bush and Obama BBQ'd children on the Whitehouse lawn just because they did a lot of other bad stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at Obamacare.  Would it make sense for states to secede over Obamacare *if it didn't pass*?  That would just be *stupid*.  Why guarantee the passage of something you don't like when you can just vote it down?  The Morril Tariff *would NOT have based if it were NOT for secession*.  
> 
> Furthermore if you read the link I posted you will see the Dilorenzo purposefully left out the fact that the tariff had not passed in doing his analysis.  That's just dishonest...*period*.
> 
> 
> ...


I agree that I doubt it was soley the tariff that was able to garner the popular support for succession, although I do believe the people who used other things (such as slavery) to drum up the support did it for economic reasons. Kind of like how people many conservative pundits demonize muslims for alterior motives, but create real sentiment among the electorate.

----------


## AlexMerced

When looking at history you always got remember there are parallel tracks of motivation, the motivation of the masses and the motivation of those who direct those motivation typically for alterior motives which motives are more important.

For example intervention in the middle east, what's more important the anti-muslim sentiment of the people or the business interests of the military industrial complex and it's politcal cronies who stir up those sentiments. So what I'm saying when understanding the Civil war it's arguable more important to understand the motivation of those that steered public sentiment than that of the public itself since the publics opinion is shaped by those influencers.

Also ignoring Tom Dilorenzos work, Thomas Woods and Mark Thornton have done great work on the economic mechanisms that played before, during and after the war.

----------


## Travlyr

> Oh, and Thomas Dilorenzo has been caught being "dishonest" about the Morrill Tariff too.  In his false attempt to "debunk" the Washington Post article "5 myths about why the South Seceded" he made a big deal about the Morrill Tariff.  But he was dishonest in that he left out the fact that the tariff was not passed until *after* the south seceded.
> 
> See:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3068446
> 
> And:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3068469
> 
> Ironically, in order to defend what he wrongly saw as a "slight against the south", Mr. Dilorenzo effectively made liars out of the 10th amendment center which took the same position about the state of tariffs prior to the civil war as did the Washington Post article.


I have the same problem with Thomas Dilorenzo's work as well. And the Morrill Tariff's are not the only issue he obfuscates. I know he brought much history to light with his research, but at the same time he is not forthright in all his writings. That shines poorly.

----------

