Just in case anyone should think I'm being anti-American - here's another example concerning the same issue, during the same period of history, only now on this side of the Atlantic ...
The BIG name associated with the Abolition of Slavery over here in Britain was a guy named William Wilberforce, who was the major driving force behind the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, 1807.
Following the passing of that Act, the Royal Navy began intercepting Slave Ships on the high seas but, rather than transporting their pressed cargo back to their countries of origin and releasing them there, instead carried those unfortunates to Sierra Leone where they were purchased by Wilberforce who had set up that Colony in 1808 on the premise that former slaves and white men could live and work together there as equals. Indeed, they were no longer termed 'Slaves', but were made 'Apprentices' - without their consent - for 14 years instead, and duly held in irons should they attempt escape. Wilberforce kept some 'Apprentices' for work in the colony, but sold others to neighbouring landowners, where they were returned to their former slave labour. Insodoing, the great abolitionist had himself become a slave-trader.
It was only after the first Crown Governor of Sierra Leone was appointed, one 25 year-old Lt. Thomas Perronet Thompson, that this extraordinary practice began to be exposed to the Colonial Office, as Wilberforce had refused to discuss it with him. However, that disclosure was to result in Thompson's dismissal ... at Wilberforce's request. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 followed in due course, which finally eliminated such 'irregularities'.
So - was Wilberforce 'lying' ? I guess it all depends on what one means by the word 'lying'. We often talk of a person "living a lie" when they deceive others for any length of time, so I'd suggest "Yes, he was".
LJ
