Sorry, in going to delete the below message I noticed that when I had typed "unrealistic" it came out "realistic" and thus made gibberish of what I was saying.  It is very nice of y'all not to have tried to explain the realities to me.  The moral is, reread emails before hitting the "send" button.
Chagrined,
Louise


Dear Keith,
        Yes, this was my understanding of Marshall's view, that he favored such a colonization scheme.  It was somewhat less realistic in Marshall's day than in Lincoln's ~ but Lincoln had a similar view.  I did not connect this with Bobby's phrase, "private emancipation," but of course I should have.
Louise


At 10:11 AM 9/10/03, you wrote:
Marshall was a supporter of colonization, including raising money from the federal government and other sources to purchase the freedom of slaves and facilitate their immigration to Africa.  He was one of the organizers of the American Society for Colonizing the Free People of Color in 1816 (Bushrod Washington was its first president, and it included such luminaries as Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, and Daniel Webster) and later formed the Virginia Society for Colonization.  Liberia was the destination point in Africa.
 
Keith Whittington
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Justin Lipkin
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: "Non-Governmental Emancipation of Slaves" Say what?

       I recently read that John Marshall advocated the non-governmental emancipation of slaves at least in his home state of Virginia. What does this mean? Was such a strategy ever taken seriously? If so, how would it work, simply by moral suasion? Economic or other 'coercive' influences? Did this strategy exist in any other state? Was it ever a serious movement?  Who were its most prominent spokespersons? Any information concerning this issue would be appreciated.  Thanks.

Bobby Lipkin
Widener University School of Law
Delaware

Reply via email to