Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well I guess they forgot to put this in my school books. I first read about this years ago I think in the book The Age of Gold. Jaws drop when you tell people about this.
They taught this when I was in school, but that was back in the Stone Age. It's my understanding the idea was fairly common at the time, not something Lincoln came up with.
The title of this thread demonstrates the painful truth that there is a lot of misinformation circulating out there, and that too many of those within our politicized public education system are doing nothing to correct it -- probably have no interest in doing so for their own reasons.
The American Colonization Society and others like it are taught about in schools.
It and the idea of sending blacks "back to Africa" had been around since the 18th century right after the Revolution really.
In regards to Lincoln and this concept, he was similar to many white men of his day in that he felt that shipping emancipated slaves to Africa would be a good solution to the "race problem."
FWIW there was even some support for this idea amongst the free black population of the US, though it was a minority view amongst them.
However, quite a few of my own ancestors moved to Canada after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850. They were free people but due to an increase in kidnappings and a decrease in the rights and liberties of free blacks in various states, they felt they should move somewhere that their rights would be respected as "free men and women." That the USA did not provide them protection of the law and even though Canadians personally had racist views, the courts and government in Canada would protect their rights, something they never felt would occur in the USA.
Three sets of my 4th great grandparents moved to Canada. One moved to Haiti first, then to Canada. All eventually came back to the USA.
The family who moved to both Haiti and Canada, one of their children married a sibling of Mary Shadd Cary, who was one of the free black community in the USA who advocated immigration to Canada over Haiti or Liberia.
Many felt both of those societies were culturally foreign and Canadian culture was similar to American culture and free blacks would be able to blend in society there better. Also, many were of the opinion, similar to what Frederick Douglass expressed in one of his speeches that it would be silly to go "back to Africa" amongst people who had sold their ancestors for liquor and weapons. They felt those people would be just as hostile to black Americans as white Americans and the only sense it made for blacks to go back to Africa was so that white men would not have to think about black Americans anymore and once again victimize blacks who had toiled in this country, that they called their "native land" for centuries and rob them of their legacy.
The ACS and the debates for and against it from both blacks and whites in America is one of my favorite topic of history. It is a fascinating story/debate.
Will also note that all of my ancestors who went to Canada, sent sons to fight in the US Colored Troops during the Civil War, practically all of their sons who were of age came down from Canada and joined various regiments, most notably the 102nd Michigan. They all settled in Michigan after the war and later came to Ohio.
The title of this thread demonstrates the painful truth that there is a lot of misinformation circulating out there, and that too many of those within our politicized public education system are doing nothing to correct it -- probably have no interest in doing so for their own reasons.
It's not a case of misinformation at all. I was taught about this program and Liberia way back in school. But history has to compete with other courses - science, math, literature, etc. And nowadays the attention span with students has to compete with youtube and facebook and texting. So for history you have to touch on the main facts and not the details. It so happens this forum includes members that have an interest in the topic and thus are self-motivated to deep dive into more information...which is readily available from many sources.
The article and OP's post wants to shock and awe with what he or she thinks is inflammatory new information about Lincoln, it fails in that regards. I knew about these facts and more about Lincoln - the good, the bad, and the pragmatic compromises he had to take - I take it into context with the events and standards of the time (something that the article failed to grasp)...and none of it changes my opinion that he is the best president that the US has ever elected.
It's not a case of misinformation at all. I was taught about this program and Liberia way back in school. But history has to compete with other courses - science, math, literature, etc. And nowadays the attention span with students has to compete with youtube and facebook and texting. So for history you have to touch on the main facts and not the details. It so happens this forum includes members that have an interest in the topic and thus are self-motivated to deep dive into more information...which is readily available from many sources.
The article and OP's post wants to shock and awe with what he or she thinks is inflammatory new information about Lincoln, it fails in that regards. I knew about these facts and more about Lincoln - the good, the bad, and the pragmatic compromises he had to take - I take it into context with the events and standards of the time (something that the article failed to grasp)...and none of it changes my opinion that he is the best president that the US has ever elected.
Your second paragraph is pure rubbish. But any questions on here about slavery or native Americans brings out this ugly judgemental/insecure/defensive side of some posters on here.
If I'd wanted to shock and awe believe me I could have done much "better." And had you actually read the post you would have noticed I said I first read about this years ago.
And you did not address the actual question I asked. You were probably already typing by the end of the first sentence.
Your second paragraph is pure rubbish. But any questions on here about slavery or native Americans brings out this ugly judgemental/insecure/defensive side of some posters on here.
If I'd wanted to shock and awe believe me I could have done much "better." And had you actually read the post you would have noticed I said I first read about this years ago.
And you did not address the actual question I asked. You were probably already typing by the end of the first sentence.
You are taking things too personal. I read your thread, and your comment "Jaws drop when you tell people about this."
Our jaws did not drop.
Many of the threads on here address slavery and native americans. That's fine to review the injustices of the past but much of the information is distorted and takes on historical revisionist views from both extremes, and without considering the context of the times. I think most of the historically aware posters here embrace the balanced view, I hope you have learned something here as well.
The thread you are quoting was answering another poster. I addressed your thread in much more detail in the very first response on this thread - post #2. Other threads also addressed your question sufficiently.
On the Native American/slavery part, it always seems to get ugly when people have no interest in the injustice aspects, but only in the brutality. I generally fall into this category. But I view us as human animals so I don't get real emotional about a lot of historical atrocities/evils/whatever the word would be. It's just animal behavior to me.
To the jaw dropping part I mean regular people---the history forum posters are not regular people; I dare guess many are actually professors?
The story I've heard was that the U.S. wanted to buy Cozumel from Mexico and send them there, but Mexico wasn't selling.
It never would've worked. I've been there a number of times and there's no way it could support a large population.
I just googled Cozumel. Yeah that's not a lot of space...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
