http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lincoln_colonization
The article makes a grave error in saying that Washington could've and should've dealt with slavery issue. Washington, as a nationalist, was no better with the concept of slavery than Lincoln. After all, it was Washington who pushed for national protection of slavery and he was against the only good way to deal with slavery--that is, keeping the Articles of Confederation.
I'd be interested in reading the book, although I'm sure the author isn't quite as good as Tom DiLorenzo.
How were the Articles a good way to deal with slavery?
Because there was no fugitive slave clause and no tariffs. The Federal government didn't have the power to protect slavery under the Confederation.
Okay, but why do tariffs make a difference?
Because if there hadn't been tariffs, then they wouldn't have needed the free labor. Also, at the Constitutional Convention the south would've been content to have no 3/5 compromise if there were no tariffs, but the north demanded tariffs, so the South had to get something in return.
Ultimately, it was the NE banksters merchants who were responsible for slavery continuing past the turn of the 19th Century.
Can you produce any documentary evidence in support of your statement that 1) Southerners needed free labor because of tariffs and 2) the removal of tariffs would have led to emancipation?
Good point. The main thing that prevent emancipation was a strong central government, not tariffs.