NYTimes Charles Blow Opinion

[Rob Wick]

It appears that while I was composing this, Roger posted the information provided by Steve. I will post this, even though some of the material is redundant. My sincere thanks to Steve, who reminded me of an article published in Civil War History in June of 2010 by Kate Masur entitled "The African American Delegation to Abraham Lincoln: A Reappraisal." While I don't accept all of Masur's conclusions, she has provided a solidly researched and very well-thought-out history of the delegation. While I don't have the time or inclination to give chapter and verse on Masur's thesis, I will try to give a brief synopsis.

Masur points out that the main source for historical remembrance where the delegation is concerned came from Benjamin Quarles' book The Negro in the Civil War, published in 1953. Quarles argued, based on the reactions by such leaders as Frederick Douglass and others, that the Washington D.C., African-American community was solidly opposed to Lincoln's plan. He alleged that "Lincoln and his colonization agent, James Mitchell, 'hand-picked' the five delegates and that four of them were recently freed 'contrabands,'" in order to have a pliable delegation who would support Lincoln.

Masur writes, "First, none of the delegates to Lincoln was newly freed from slavery. In fact, all five were members of Washington’s antebellum black elite and had strong ties to local religious and civic associations. Moreover, neither Mitchell nor Lincoln chose the delegates. Rather, the delegation emerged from institutions and decision-making processes that black Washingtonians had developed before the Civil War and put to use in the dynamic wartime context."

Masur notes that the five who were selected, far "from being sympathetic to the prospect of government-sponsored colonization in Central America, the delegates who met with Lincoln were inclined to oppose emigration. In fact, three of the five men were active in the Social, Civil, and Statistical Association (SCSA), a black organization that, just weeks before the meeting with Lincoln, had attempted to banish several emigration promoters from Washington."

While Masur notes that the delegation's chair, Edward Thomas, reversed course and chose to support Lincoln's plan to move blacks to Chiriquí, he was the lone member of the delegation who did so. "John F. Cook Jr., an SCSA member who became a member of the delegation to Lincoln, would later express concerns about 'taking the responsibility of answering the President on a matter in which more than four million of his people were concerned,'" Masur writes.

The part I quoted from McPherson's article in Phylon, actually came about originally at the organization meeting with African American civic groups who met to choose the delegation. McPherson likely got it from Quarles, who mentioned it in his book. Quarles' mention, however, came from a second, later vote on the same resolutions that passed unanimously.

Masur notes, "As their resolutions indicated, attendees thought the timing was wrong, and they did not feel comfortable being asked to speak on behalf of the nation’s African Americans. Significantly, John F. Cook Jr. and the delegation’s chair, Edward M. Thomas, were the very men who had proposed the resolutions denouncing the entire enterprise."

As for Thomas' reversal, Masur explains, "Edward Thomas, chair of the delegation, reversed course, telling Lincoln in a letter that the members of the delegation had entered the meeting “entirely hostile” to his ideas but had changed their minds after 'all the advantages were so ably brought to our views by you.' He proposed that two delegates visit Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, to discuss the proposal 'with our leading friends,' predicting that it would take only two weeks for such meetings to generate ample support for the president’s plan. Thomas used the pronoun 'we' in his letter, as if the entire delegation was in agreement, but he was the missive’s only signer." (emphasis mine). Given this fact, I will freely admit that I was wrong in saying the letter was merely a polite response to Lincoln. But I think this is a strong nail in this letter's rhetorical coffin.

As for Thomas, Masur writes, "It soon became clear, however, that among myriad doubts about Thomas’s integrity, members of the SCSA were most outraged by his support for Central American emigration. In the end, they were divided on how to deal with Thomas and decided not to expel him. Yet the trial itself suggests how disappointing his change of mind was for those in the SCSA who had hoped the Lincoln delegation would yield a unified expression of opposition to Lincoln’s proposal."

While Masur seems less inclined to paint the reaction of Douglass and others as representative of the entire black community, I believe that they came closer than those suggesting colonization. Lincoln's entire viewpoint is predicated on the notion, whether or not he accepted the humanity of the black race, that blacks were not citizens entitled to the same respect and dignity that white citizens enjoyed. Even if some may have wanted to leave America because they were weary of being made into the scapegoat for the nation's ills, a great majority, in my opinion, believed themselves to be citizens with all the rights and responsibilities of their white counterparts. Lincoln's plan was tone-deaf toward this belief.

Best
Rob