'Separation! Independence!'By The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan | Last updated: Dec 10, 2013 - 12:37:22 AM
‘The time and what must be done’—2013 Lecture Series, part 48
[Editor’s note: The following article contains a distillation of the message delivered by the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan as Part 48 of his 52-week Lecture Series “The Time and What Must Be Done.” This message originally aired on Saturday, December 7, 2013 and is now available in its entirety on MP3, DVD and CD. Please call 1.866.602.1230, ext. 200, or visit store.finalcall.com to order. Be sure to visit NOI.org/TheTime each Saturday at 6 p.m. CST (5 p.m. MST and 7 p.m. EST) to view the ongoing series.]
In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.
Greetings to you, I am Minister Louis Farrakhan, National Representative of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, that Great Preacher of Freedom, Justice and Equality to the Black man and woman of America and the Western Hemisphere, and to the Aboriginal People of the Earth; The Eternal Leader of the Nation of Islam, and a Warner to the government and people of the United States of America, and a Warner to the nations of the Earth.
I have been absent from these microphones for the last eight weeks due to health challenges. But I am so grateful to Allah that He brought me through these health challenges, and has returned me to my post. And what is that? To deliver the message of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad on “The Time and What Must Be Done.” I want to thank Brother Jesse Muhammad and “The Twitter Army”: Thank you Brother Jesse, and The Twitter Army, for your work that has had us “trending” for 30 straight weeks.
Thanks to the listening public for your continued viewing and support of this broadcast, many of them that I was guided by Allah and the Honorable Elijah Muhammad to give to you at various times. We can see how the messages of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad are timeless: Every week’s message, while I was absent, was relevant to the subject matter of this yearlong broadcast titled “The Time and What Must Be Done.” And his Program is ever relevant in solving the critical needs and problems of our people on every level—spiritual, economic, political and social.
Our subject, as the 48th edition of “The Time and What Must Be Done,” deals with two powerful words: “SEPARATION!” and “INDEPENDENCE!” We must be separated from our former slave masters, and we must by the order of Allah (God) become an independent nation.
The Honorable Elijah Muhammad writes in his monumental work titled Message To The Blackman in America, in the Chapter “Economic Program,” under the section “SEPARATION! INDEPENDENCE!” on pages 203-204: “…WE MUST HAVE SOME OF THIS EARTH TO PRODUCE OUR PEOPLE’S NEEDS. …It is the right time that we seek SEPARATION AND INDEPENDENCE for our nation from the evils of our open enemies, and not the foolish things [that some of us are seeking and] doing. … [Our people] seek that (recognition) which demands better qualifications: education, the knowledge of self and others, manners and self-respect and the respect of others. But our people just do not have these qualifications until they first come to Islam”—or, “submit their will to do The Will of God”—“and bear witness to what Allah (God) has revealed to me. No intelligent and refined society will accept us until we have the above stated qualifications.”
Look at these reality shows; look at how we are being portrayed. Some of our great professionals—doctors, lawyers, preachers, wealthy basketball players, football players and their wives: Look at how we are being portrayed! Because we are good at our profession, this does not yet mean that we are “civilized.” You could be a doctor but a savage in behavior; we could be great lawyers, great preachers, but have a savage state of mind. And, if you don’t know yourself, if you don’t have self-respect, if you don’t know the manners of decent civilized society, and portray that at home and abroad, we, then, can be considered as “savage.” And what is being shown of us on television: It begs The Intervention of Allah God, and His Messiah, to teach us how to be civilized human beings.
Back to The Writings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad; he continues: “…It is common to see and hear of white mobs attacking, beating, and shooting down poor blacks whose fathers’ and mothers’ labor, sweat and blood helped make America the richest government on earth; nevertheless, we are yet the most hated and mistreated people. Allah (God) wants to make a great nation out of us (so-called Negroes). [However,] if we desire to remain the slave or servants for our slave-masters [and their children], it is all right with Allah. The question we have to ask and answer properly is: Do we love ourselves and our children? If so, why not build a future for ourselves rather than beg the same slave-masters [and their children] for jobs and equal shares in whatever they have—even to equal membership in their society and families through (intermarriage). This is definitely not a wise thing to do, but a very foolish and destructive thing for the once slave and his master to do. By the help and guidance of Allah (God), I have put before you the wise and best thing for your future. Firstly, some of this earth that we can call our own. …”
‘Putting a conscience to sleep’: Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence
America’s Founders understood just how wrong and how wicked slavery was. In the original draft of the Declaration of Independence—over 90 percent of it written by Thomas Jefferson: Jefferson blamed the king of England for enslaving the African, and condemned him as being a “Christian” while partaking in the slave trade!
Study the following words that Thomas Jefferson wrote in June of 1776, which then, unfortunately, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and other delegates to the Continental Congress took out of the Declaration of Independence: “He [The King of England] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people [Africans] who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, to incur miserable death in their transportation thither [to America].” Look at how well Mr. Jefferson wrote what England did, because England was the culprit that introduced us into this hemisphere, and started the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. “This piratical warfare, the opprobrium [shame] of infidel [faithless] powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain, determined to keep open a [Black slave] market where MEN should be bought and sold…” The original framers of the Constitution, in putting these words to the King of England, were literally using the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade to bash the King and to justify as one of the reasons why they wanted separation from him. Not only that, which [the King] was doing, but of course the mistreatment of the 13 colonies.
“…[the King] has prostituted his negative [i.e., his veto powers over colonial legislation] for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable [utterly detestable] commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die [the king wants to keep this hidden], he is now exciting those very people [African slaves] to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, and murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded [imposed upon] them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people [Africans], with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another [White colonists].
They spoke angrily of the evils of Black slavery—but only when they felt the King of England was taking all the profits; for just as soon as they broke away from the power of the Crown, the leaders of the new nation, supposedly founded on liberty, increased the evil against the African people, knowing all the time that it was wrong and morally unjustified. They were not willing to give up their slaves, nor forego the massive profits of the slave trade. All their “moralizing” and complaints against the king meant nothing in the face of the wealth they made on our blood, sweat, toil and tears.
But this shows what kind of man Thomas Jefferson was in writing these words; however, he was trapped in something that he knew would ultimately be the undoing of that which the founding fathers were forming. Thomas Jefferson gave in to “the majority” because he was in the minority”—and the sad thing about this is that Thomas Jefferson was “the conscience” of the founding fathers of this nation. When the others agreed to took out his words, they nullified his spirit contained in these words.
So it is today with President Barack Obama, and his desire for peace with The Islamic Republic of Iran: Not a “peace” to leave Israel unprotected; but through the peace, and the interim agreement (a.k.a. “the Agreement on Iranian nuclear program” signed in Geneva, Switzerland on November 24, 2013 between Iran and the six world power countries), Israel would be protected and Iran would not have a potential for a nuclear weapon. Yet, Israel is not satisfied.
The founders of America well understood, my dear Black brother and sister, who you and I are! And they understood the end that would ultimately come to them, because of what they and their children have done to us! They put it in their first proposed Seal, and they put it in their original draft of the Declaration of Independence—but they took the Seal away, and they took the words away, because their own words and deeds condemned them. And so, Thomas Jefferson would later write, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that His justice cannot sleep forever”; and George Washington predicted that the Black slaves would become “a very troublesome species of property before too many years pass over our heads.” They knew that America would be in trouble just for having these Africans as “American property.”
The motto E. Pluribus Unum (“out of many one”) had nothing to do with us; we will never be made “one” into the six nations of Europeans who were the founders of this Nation—and neither will the Native Americans; neither will our Latino brothers and sisters! And the more you hold on to us, America, the more America will find herself fighting against Allah (God) Who wants to deliver us from you, and make us into an independent nation.
The Black and the Brown and the Native Americans feel the pain of White supremacy more so than the Asians, because the Asian people and their culture makes them able to take advantage of America’s saying that they are “citizens”—because they have that self-knowledge, self-respect [and] self-determination! So they pool their resources, and continue to build in a society that as of yet is not so pleased with their color or their features; and in times past, has called the presence of Asians among us “The Yellow Peril.”
But even among evil people, Allah (God) provides a conscience… So when I asked, in my lecture in Indianapolis, Indiana on December 1, 2103: “Would any one of you, of your own free will and volition, kill a Messenger of God that is advising you against doing something that would ultimately bring you irreparable harm? Would you do that?” And of course they answered “No.” Yet, when that “still, small voice” arises to condemn us for what we think we would like to do that is against natural and divine law, or even state law, we put that conscience to sleep.
And so it was with the original framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution: They put the wisdom and moral correctness of what Thomas Jefferson had inserted, or wrote, in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence—they “put it to sleep,” they took it out, so that future generations would never be reminded of the moral judgment that they made, at that time, that is condemning this present generation to The Justice of God!
Not only did they condemn the Black man to slavery, but in the ultimate act of selfishness, these founding fathers were willing to let future generations of their own children face retribution for their enrichment.
‘The Original Seal’: What the founding fathers knew about their end, and our divinity
Let us now examine the great “House of Israel” and “The Seal of America.” The great “House of Israel” is right here in America: It is the “great house” of the White race. And, “The Children of Israel” are the “lost sheep” within this “House of Israel”; lost within the civilization, culture, knowledge, wisdom of White people. The Founding Fathers of America understood this, and gave us signs and symbols that prove it. So when we study the great seal that was first proposed in 1776 for the United States, by a committee of prominent men that included Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, The Original Seal had two sides to it.
The Front Side of The Seal featured the all-seeing eye; the shields of the six Nations at the root of White America: Britain, Holland, Germany, France, Ireland and Scotland; one woman holding an even balance (the sign of “justice”), another woman holds the spear and cap (the sign of “liberty”); the initials of the 13 colonies; and, the motto E Pluribus Unum—“Out of the many, one.”
The Back Side of The Seal featured rays from a pillar of fire in the cloud, with a beam of light coming down from that cloud on Moses; Pharaoh sitting in an open chariot, a crown on his head and a sword in his hand, passing through the divided waters of The Red Sea in pursuit of The Children of Israel; Moses standing on the shore extending his hand over the sea, causing it to overwhelm Pharaoh; and, the motto is: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”
It is interesting that Ezekiel, over 500 years before Jesus, saw a “Wheel,” in the midst of a “Wheel”; that was “a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night”—the same cloud and pillar that was seen over Moses. So in the 13th Chapter of Exodus, verses 21-22 of the King James Version teaches: “And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night: He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people.” And we are here to tell you that that Wheel is above your head as we speak.
We will discuss more of this in the coming weeks when we deal with The Wheel, and the so-called Unidentified Flying Objects (“UFOs”).
The wise architects of this country never used this seal to represent themselves because they understood what the future of this nation was going to be; but, they put this symbolism in their original seal: a.) They knew about “Pharaoh” in the Bible, and b.) “the consequences he faced for his enslavement of the Children of Israel”; and, c.) they knew that there was “a Power that was above their power.” All this was represented in their original seal. The founders of this Nation clearly placed themselves in Biblical and Qur’anic prophesy.
An ‘agreement’ not favored by those paid by Israel to do Israel’s bidding
As I shared in Indianapolis on December 1st: President Obama is in deep trouble. There has never been a president more disrespected in his office than Barack Obama has been, and continues to be. Many Americans are pleased that President Obama took the initiative to call President Hassan Rouhani of Iran after Rouhani’s speech at the United Nations; and the dialogue between Pres. Barack Obama and Pres. Rouhani began, which ended in five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany signing an Agreement that could ultimately lead to removing any fear or doubt of the Islamic Republic of Iran developing a nuclear weapon.
The American people are actually war weary: Last year (2012) alone, 350 American soldiers committed suicide; and according to an NBC news report by Bill Briggs titled “One every 18 hours: Military suicide rate still high despite hard fight to stem deaths,” it was reported that there was “one military suicide every 18 hours” as of May 2013. In addition, the treasuries of America are being emptied; many states are facing bankruptcy; America is $17 trillion in debt—and the debt grows steadily each and every second, minute, hour and day.
Can America afford another war? Shouldn’t we encourage Congress to back President Obama and give peace a chance? Isn’t dialogue, for the sake of finding solutions to problems, better than trying to solve problems with war and the implements of war?
I would appeal to America’s leaders: Give peace a chance. I would appeal to members of the Jewish community: Stop a moment! Hold down your criticism of the President’s effort, and give his effort a chance to work! For the alternative to this is war, that will lead to “Armageddon”—that most dreaded war; which will bring about the destruction of Israel, and ultimately, the destruction of America.
At the time of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, he sent messages to the Caesar of Rome and the Chosroes of Persia, inviting them to Islam, or to “peace.” Ultimately, Rome and Persia clashed… The Romans won, but it was in fact a Pyrrhic victory, which means that after winning the war, they lost so much that it became the ultimate end of the Roman Empire. “Rome” today is represented by the United States of America, and “Persia” today is represented by The Islamic Republic of Iran.
Powerful senators, and members of the House of Representatives, are vehemently opposed to this interim agreement. “According to legislative aides,” reports Bradley Klapper in a November 26, 2013 Associated Press article titled “Obama, Senate spar over new Iran sanction threats,” Senator Bob Menendez, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations (D-NJ) and Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) are crafting a bill to present when the Senate returns from its two-week recess (on Monday, December 9, 2013). The article also reports that: “The measure would require the administration to certify every 30 days that Iran is adhering to the terms of the six-month interim agreement and that it hasn’t been involved in any act of terrorism against the United States. Without that certification, sanctions worth more than $1 billion a month would be re-imposed and new sanctions would be added.” White House officials wouldn’t say if Obama might veto such legislation. Also, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (Democrat of Nevada), has yet to determine how he will react to the agreement, Democratic aides said. [Sen.] Reid said last week that the Senate would move forward with new sanctions when lawmakers return from their Thanksgiving break. Of course, he took a more cautious approach Monday, saying on NPR’s ‘Diane Rehm Show’ that Menendez and Sen. Tim Johnson (Democrat of South Dakota), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, will study the interim agreement with Iran and hold hearings if necessary.”
Other Congressional leaders who criticize the Obama administration’s “Iran nuclear deal” are Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY); former Senator Joe Lieberman; and Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Representative Peter King (R-NY).
I mentioned in Indianapolis that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel holds more sway over the members of Congress than does the president of the United States. I also mentioned “AIPAC” (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and “the Zionist view” literally dominates the American Congress; so I asked: “What is Israeli support?” These members of Congress who are fighting President Obama: “How are they supported?” “Who supports them the most?”
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is allied with a political action committee (“PAC”) called NORPAC, which, according to its website, “…has grown into the largest pro-Israel PAC.” And according to NORPAC’s website, it is “a non-partisan political action committee whose primary purpose is to support candidates and sitting members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives who demonstrate a genuine commitment to the strength, security, and survival of Israel.”
How is “NORPAC” different from “AIPAC”?
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is not a “political action committee,” it is a registered lobbying organization that works with elected officials; while NORPAC, which helps get supportive candidates elected in the first place (and re-elected), has a separate and distinct role. However, both of these committees want to continue to support the “strength, security and survival of Israel.” And any senator or congressman that is for those principles? Well, they get support!
According to the website MapLight.org (maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100), which tracks money, and the influence money has on politics, here are some of the Pro-Israel contributions to some of these congressional critics of President Obama. (Remember: For “Senators,” the following contributions shown are for the last six years of available data because they are elected once every six years; and for “House Representatives,” the contributions shown are for the last two years of available data, because members of the House have to go up for re-election every two years): Senators (between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2012) - Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), $925,379; Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), $771,012; Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), $430,925; Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), $344,670; Sen. Richard Durban (D-IL): $327,212; Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), $261,708; Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), $248,149; Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), $86,200; and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), $84,515. House of Representatives (between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2012) - The Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), $129,925; Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) $209,410; Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), $143,775; and Rep. Peter King (R-NY), $30,650.
Has this money assured the Israelis the support of powerful members of Congress—even against the President who is trying to keep us out of another war that would sacrifice precious lives of America’s children on the false assumption that Iran is producing, or trying to produce after 35 years since the revolution, a nuclear weapon?
Iranian scientists who are trying to help Iran develop nuclear capabilities, as Iran says “for peaceful purposes,” have been assassinated! And these assassinations are on the doorsteps of Mossad and Israeli intelligence. Can you imagine: Accusing Iran of secretly planning to build an atomic bomb, while Israel has neither confirmed nor denied that she has atomic weapons?
According to published reports, Israel has over 400 nuclear weapons, and other “weapons of mass destruction.” And unlike Iran which has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Israel has not.
No matter what is accomplished through this interim agreement, and ultimately, a meaningful agreement, it appears that Israel will never be satisfied until Iran is destroyed. And this is one of the reasons why the Honorable Elijah Muhammad said that this is “a people disagreeable to live with in peace.” And no matter what we do to show them our faithfulness, our love of country, even our love of them, they hate to see unity, progress and real economic development that would change the condition of the masses of our people.
Stop for a moment, and think along with me: If they come back and make a law in Congress, with harder, more difficult sanctions against Iran, which would undermine the Agreement entered into by the President on behalf of the American people, it would force Barack Obama either to: 1.) To veto that law, and put himself on the outside of Congress, on the outside of Israel, on the outside of the Jewish community, on the outside of the Christian Zionists; or, 2.) He would succumb to this, and scuttle (“thwart, ruin”) this Agreement.
This is the dangerous situation that might face President Obama after these senators come back from their Thanksgiving break on December 9th.
Past White leaders’ opinions on ‘Blacks as citizens’ and the case of ‘why we should be separated’
According to the writings of Thomas Jefferson, he proposed that “[Blacks] should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of household and of the handicraft arts, seeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, etc. to declare them a free and independent people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength.”
What is the definition of “alliance”? It is “a union or association formed for mutual benefit, esp. between countries or organizations”; it is “a relationship based on an affinity in interests, nature, or qualities”; it is “a state of being joined or associated.”
On August 14, 1862—nearly a century after the Founders put the slavery problem on him—Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president, called in to his office a delegation of five Washington pastors who were former slaves. The following is what Mr. Lincoln had to say: “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. …Your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. …If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated.” However, these pastors rejected Pres. Lincoln’s proposal of “aid for separation,” because these were pastors that loved their master, and they didn’t want to be separated from their 300-year enemy; they did not wish to be separated from their open enemies.
And unfortunately, it is the same today with a certain class of our people: They don’t want to be separated. They don’t want to build a nation of our own. They don’t feel the pain of the masses of our people; they have hope that ultimately “all will be well”—sentencing every new generation to more and more deprivation and degradation!
Moreover, Abraham Lincoln stated in Springfield, Illinois in June of 1857, a few months after the Supreme Court “Dred Scott Decision,” and three years before he was elected as president, he discusses his view on “separation.” But before we get to that, what is “The Dred Scott Decision”?
Dred Scott, a slave, had been purchased by army surgeon John Emerson, a citizen of Missouri. Scott and his master had spent time in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory—where slavery was prohibited. After John Emerson’s death in 1843, Dred Scott, in 1846, sued the Emerson estate (Dred Scott v. Emerson) for his freedom, claiming that his journey to free soil had made him free. After nearly 11 years, his lawsuit (now, Dred Scott v. Sandford—his new owner), went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, wherein Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who wrote the decision, said: “The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State in the sense in which the word “citizen” is used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves.”
In the text of the “Syllabus,” which precedes the “Opinion” of Chief Justice Taney, “Part 1, No. 10” states: “The plaintiff having admitted…that his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri according to the Constitution of the United States, and was not entitled to sue in that character in the Circuit Court”; and “Part 4, No. 4” states: “The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind.”
Chief Justice Taney, in his decision, continued: “…We proceed to examine the case as presented by the pleadings. The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the “sovereign people,” and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.” So, “The question before us,” Justice Taney writes, “is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them. … They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it.”
That closes just a portion of the words of Supreme Court Justice Taney… And so my question to the Black man and woman of America, and to America is: Is that attitude represented by the words of Justice Taney the attitude of the people in power in America?
President Obama has risen to the highest position in the nation, and he is being handled like that attitude of Justice Taney, that brought about the Dred Scott Decision: That no Black man has rights that a White man is bound to respect. Well, many White people are angry that a Black family is in the White House. And they cry out: “We have to take back our country!”
You wouldn’t be “taking it back” from us. You better really see who has your country; and you should strive to take it back from them.
Let’s go back Abraham Lincoln’s words he delivered in June 1857 on the “Dred Scott Decision,” as well as “separation”: “I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican Party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a Party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform—opposition to the spread of slavery—is most favorable to that separation.” “Amalgamate” means “to mix or merge so as to make a combination; a blend.”
To the White people that are reading my words: You are now looking at a dying White race. There’s so much “blending”—so much amalgamation; so much intermarriage and sex between the two people that are producing, literally, a “new people.” And the White people are fading out of existence. Is this what you really want? You don’t love yourself and your people enough to preserve your race?
Mr. Lincoln continued: “Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one; but ‘when there is a will there is a way’; and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. ‘Will’ springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body.” You see, the wise presidents wanted us to be separated, and they wanted us to be independent!
To be continued next week.