Lincoln and Colonization

Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The topic is more of a "what if," or "I only wish," theory, instead of facing what is now history.

To some it may seem such.

To others, Monday night quarterbacking.
Indeed though, unless one somehow believes their was no other play selection available for the game, the outcome was not somehow an inevitable destiny. Generally a critical evaluation of the failed gameplan, would be beneficial, no?
 

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Lincoln didn't have to ship them to Africa, they could have been driven into Mexico. Mexico was in chaos and unable to resist such a forced migration. The conclusion is Lincoln wasn't serious about colonization.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Lincoln during this period seemed to personally favor and toy with colonization, Lincoln the politician dropped it when it didn't have support.

While many historians believed that Lincoln had dropped colonization plans by 1865, Ben Butler in his autobiography asserts that he met with Lincoln only days before his death to discuss such a scheme. According to Butler, Lincoln planned on ordering large numbers of USCT to Panama to prepare for the construction of a canal. They would build settlements and be joined by family later. While this has been dispute and some judge Butler to have manufactured the story, it is true that Lincoln mentioned a colonization project involving construction of a canal as early as 1862. Lincoln also was active in trying to restore funding for a salary for James Mitchell his colonization agent. This occurred as late as February 1865. A number of radicals in Congress supported internal colonization plans.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Lincoln didn't have to ship them to Africa, they could have been driven into Mexico. Mexico was in chaos and unable to resist such a forced migration. The conclusion is Lincoln wasn't serious about colonization.
Or merely a conclusion that he died before the largest % of ex slaves became something to have be dealt with in policy in regards to citizenship.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Indeed though, unless one somehow believes their was no other play selection available for the game, the outcome was not somehow an inevitable destiny. Generally a critical evaluation of the failed gameplan, would be beneficial, no?
I suugest a punt.
Suppose with historical reconstruction in the end they indeed took your suggestion.
See, another play called.
 

Zack

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Location
Los Angeles, California
Lincoln during this period seemed to personally favor and toy with colonization, Lincoln the politician dropped it when it didn't have support.

Did it have merit? Would assume it would depend on how one views the alternatives and historical outcome. But you see some claiming 150 years of "oppression" that they claim continues even today in the US, if so wouldn't colonization perhaps been a better alternative?

Know some American and Canadian ex slaves did colonize to Liberia and Sierra Leone. Is their any books/studies on the colonies outcomes and how the colonization is viewed by their descendants today?
Indeed would say the claim of oppression, especially to this day isn't a universal view.

I certainly believe everyone today and through history, regardless of race has encountered discrimination and profiling, but that doesn't equate oppression. For example there's been videos showing the difference sending "traditionally attractive" people into stores or interviews, then sending in overweight people. Treatment is not universally the same.

Just as a teenager I got pulled over sometimes on fri or sat nite for little more then being a teenager out on fri or sat, even as I got older experienced being pulled over when I suspect if I hadn't been in a sports car I wouldn't been.......would seem I have been profiled as well.

Oppression would be official policy by business or an agency which I doubt exists to any degree......however certainly individual officers, store managers, ect certainly have their own views based on age/race/appearance/ect and experiences.

No, colonization did not have merit. Sending millions of people to live on a continent they’d never seen with land they did not know how to tend, where people spoke a language they didn’t know and practiced customs they didn’t understand, was a terrible idea.

Saying this, however, does not mean that African-Americans did not face oppression in the United States even after the end of slavery. Contrary to how you present it with your question, the two issues are not different sides of a coin. Colonization being a bad idea does not mean oppression wasn’t (and isn’t) real. The existence of oppression did not mean colonization was a good idea.

That being said, tens of thousands of former slaves actually did leave the South during the Reconstruction era. They moved to Arkansas hoping to find better luck on the western frontier, they moved to Kansas to escape the oppression of the Redeemer South, and some even did decide to leave the country.

Finally, this isn’t the place to discuss modern politics, but suffice to say oppression by federal law was and is very much a part of American history.
 

Booklady

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Location
New England
Lincoln during this period seemed to personally favor and toy with colonization, Lincoln the politician dropped it when it didn't have support.

Did it have merit? Would assume it would depend on how one views the alternatives and historical outcome. But you see some claiming 150 years of "oppression" that they claim continues even today in the US, if so wouldn't colonization perhaps been a better alternative?

Know some American and Canadian ex slaves did colonize to Liberia and Sierra Leone. Is their any books/studies on the colonies outcomes and how the colonization is viewed by their descendants today?
Have you seen this book?

Mississippi in Africa: The Saga of the Slaves of Prospect Hill Plantation and Their Legacy in Liberia Today Paperback – Illustrated, July 1, 2010​

by Alan Huffman (Author)
4.5 out of 5 stars
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1604737530/?tag=civilwartalkc-20
When wealthy Mississippi cotton planter Isaac Ross died in 1836, his will decreed that his plantation, Prospect Hill, should be liquidated and the proceeds from the sale be used to pay for his slaves' passage to the newly established colony of Liberia in western Africa. Ross's heirs contested the will for more than a decade, prompting a deadly revolt in which a group of slaves burned Ross's mansion to the ground. But the will was ultimately upheld. The slaves then emigrated to their new home, where they battled the local tribes and built vast plantations with Greek Revival-style mansions in a region the Americo-Africans renamed "Mississippi in Africa." In the late twentieth century, the seeds of resentment sown over a century of cultural conflict between the colonists and tribal people exploded, begetting a civil war that rages in Liberia to this day. Tracking down Prospect Hill's living descendants, deciphering a history ruled by rumor, and delivering the complete chronicle in riveting prose, journalist Alan Huffman has rescued a lost chapter of American history whose aftermath is far from over.
 

RobertP

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Location
Dallas
Have you seen this book?

Mississippi in Africa: The Saga of the Slaves of Prospect Hill Plantation and Their Legacy in Liberia Today Paperback – Illustrated, July 1, 2010​

by Alan Huffman (Author)
4.5 out of 5 stars
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1604737530/?tag=civilwartalkc-20
When wealthy Mississippi cotton planter Isaac Ross died in 1836, his will decreed that his plantation, Prospect Hill, should be liquidated and the proceeds from the sale be used to pay for his slaves' passage to the newly established colony of Liberia in western Africa. Ross's heirs contested the will for more than a decade, prompting a deadly revolt in which a group of slaves burned Ross's mansion to the ground. But the will was ultimately upheld. The slaves then emigrated to their new home, where they battled the local tribes and built vast plantations with Greek Revival-style mansions in a region the Americo-Africans renamed "Mississippi in Africa." In the late twentieth century, the seeds of resentment sown over a century of cultural conflict between the colonists and tribal people exploded, begetting a civil war that rages in Liberia to this day. Tracking down Prospect Hill's living descendants, deciphering a history ruled by rumor, and delivering the complete chronicle in riveting prose, journalist Alan Huffman has rescued a lost chapter of American history whose aftermath is far from over.
Very interesting. I grew up in Mississippi and didn’t know this story.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Have you seen this book?

Mississippi in Africa: The Saga of the Slaves of Prospect Hill Plantation and Their Legacy in Liberia Today Paperback – Illustrated, July 1, 2010​

by Alan Huffman (Author)
4.5 out of 5 stars
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1604737530/?tag=civilwartalkc-20
When wealthy Mississippi cotton planter Isaac Ross died in 1836, his will decreed that his plantation, Prospect Hill, should be liquidated and the proceeds from the sale be used to pay for his slaves' passage to the newly established colony of Liberia in western Africa. Ross's heirs contested the will for more than a decade, prompting a deadly revolt in which a group of slaves burned Ross's mansion to the ground. But the will was ultimately upheld. The slaves then emigrated to their new home, where they battled the local tribes and built vast plantations with Greek Revival-style mansions in a region the Americo-Africans renamed "Mississippi in Africa." In the late twentieth century, the seeds of resentment sown over a century of cultural conflict between the colonists and tribal people exploded, begetting a civil war that rages in Liberia to this day. Tracking down Prospect Hill's living descendants, deciphering a history ruled by rumor, and delivering the complete chronicle in riveting prose, journalist Alan Huffman has rescued a lost chapter of American history whose aftermath is far from over.
No, I hadnt, thanks for providing.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
No, colonization did not have merit. Sending millions of people to live on a continent they’d never seen with land they did not know how to tend, where people spoke a language they didn’t know and practiced customs they didn’t understand, was a terrible idea.

Saying this, however, does not mean that African-Americans did not face oppression in the United States even after the end of slavery. Contrary to how you present it with your question, the two issues are not different sides of a coin. Colonization being a bad idea does not mean oppression wasn’t (and isn’t) real. The existence of oppression did not mean colonization was a good idea.

That being said, tens of thousands of former slaves actually did leave the South during the Reconstruction era. They moved to Arkansas hoping to find better luck on the western frontier, they moved to Kansas to escape the oppression of the Redeemer South, and some even did decide to leave the country.

Finally, this isn’t the place to discuss modern politics, but suffice to say oppression by federal law was and is very much a part of American history.
I don't disagree, indeed started with how preferable I would think one would view colonization, would depend on how bad one views Americas post war legacy. Its hard for me to view colonization as bad as you wish to present it, since it wasn't carried out, they are few actual details to compare if it had been carried out as large scale policy. See no reason to assume they would inheritly be bound to fail.

But most if they to choose between two bad choices, would consider the one they see less bad, as the preferential one.

And actually Europeans basically did come to North America to live on a continent they’d never seen with land they did not know how to tend, where people spoke a language they didn’t know and practiced customs they didn’t understand, and instead of a terrible idea., They overcame and adopted, and worked out rather well......Both Americas and Australia actually benefited from forced immigration as penal colonies.
 
Last edited:

RobertP

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Location
Dallas
An interesting back story to the violence in Liberia from the Independent:


D6A26204-48BC-4796-97CF-42FD17B04E71.jpeg

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ns-sour-liberia-s-deep-south-5353562.html?amp
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Did any politician support a deportation policy? Lincoln never did.
It could indeed been part of a colonization policy, that he favored colonization seems as based on verbal discussions with those who knew him. Colonization or relocation could take many forms. But if you have his detailed mental thoughts on how he considered proceeding, your welcome to share them. But colonization itself could have proceeded from incentivized to forced, certainly policy at the time didn't shy away from forceable relocation, as was done to natives (likewise considered non citizen during the period). If he couldn't guarantee what history shows they couldn't, he could very well increasingly viewed it a favorable course if he had lived.........Lincoln was a realist, not an idealist, he recognized whatever his personal views, there was limits as to what would be actually accepted. And was willing to pull back on the reins to stay within that reality. Why he starts the war defending protection of slavery in the US, instead of attacking it.

Personally think it was factor in choosing Johnson as VP, he was already looking forward postwar, and would need a realistic voice as to what the south would accept or wouldn't.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
It could indeed been part of a colonization policy, that he favored colonization seems as based on verbal discussions with those who knew him. Colonization or relocation could take many forms. But if you have his detailed mental thoughts on how he considered proceeding, your welcome to share them. But colonization itself could have proceeded from incentivized to forced, certainly policy at the time didn't shy away from forceable relocation, as was done to natives (likewise considered non citizen during the period). If he couldn't guarantee what history shows they couldn't, he could very well increasingly viewed it a favorable course if he had lived.........Lincoln was a realist, not an idealist, he recognized whatever his personal views, there was limits as to what would be actually accepted. And was willing to pull back on the reins to stay within that reality. Why he starts the war defending protection of slavery in the US, instead of attacking it.

Personally think it was factor in choosing Johnson as VP, he was already looking forward postwar, and would need a realistic voice as to what the south would accept or wouldn't.
Lincoln never advocated deportation. All he ever supported was voluntary.
 

Zack

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Location
Los Angeles, California
I don't disagree, indeed started with how preferable I would think one would view colonization, would depend on how bad one views Americas post war legacy. Its hard for me to view colonization as bad you wish to present it, since it wasn't carried out, they are few actual details to compare if it had been carried out as large scale policy.

But most if they to choose between two bad choices, would consider the one they see less bad, as the preferential one.

And actually Europeans basically did come to North America to live on a continent they’d never seen with land they did not know how to tend, where people spoke a language they didn’t know and practiced customs they didn’t understand, and instead of a terrible idea., They overcame and adopted, and worked out rather well......Both Americas and Australia actually benefited from forced immigration as penal colonies.

Again - the choices were not between colonization and oppression. It wasn’t one or the other. And one’s opinion of colonization does not hinge on one’s opinion of Reconstruction. Neither does a decision on the part of Freedpeople to remain in the United States mean that the oppression they faced wasn't real and overwhelming.

It is also a false equivalency to compare European colonization of the Americas to colonization movements in the United States. You want to know one major difference? The American Colonization Society founded in 1816 was founded and led by white men. A number of its leaders, in fact, were slaveholders, who hoped to use the colonization of free African Americans to undercut organizations like the Underground Railroad.

I will quote the words of David Walker in his 1829 piece Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World: "Tell us no more of colonization, for America is as much our country as it is yours." He goes on:

"Let no man of us budge one step, and let slave-holders come to beat us from our country. America is more our country, than it is the whites-we have enriched it with our blood and tears. The greatest riches in all America have arisen from our blood and tears: -- and will they drive us from our property and homes, which we have earned with our blood? They must look sharp or this very thing will bring swift destruction upon them. The Americans have got so fat on our blood and groans, that they have almost forgotten the God of armies. But let them go on.
....
Do the colonizationists think to send us off without first being reconciled to us? Do they think to bundle us up like brutes and send us off, as they did our brethren of the State of Ohio? Have they not to be reconciled to us, or reconcile us to them, for the cruelties with which they have afflicted our fathers and us? Methinks colonizationists think they have a set of brutes to deal with, sure enough. Do they think to drive us from our country and homes, after having enriched it with our blood and tears, and keep back millions of our dear brethren, sunk in the most barbarous wretchedness, to dig up gold and silver for them and their children? Surely, the Americans must think that we are brutes, as some of them have represented us to be. They think that we do not feel for our brethren, whom they are murdering by the inches, but they are dreadfully deceived."
[All emphasis his]

The first national black convention convened in Philadelphia in 1817 to openly repudiate the American Colonization Society. Their resolution declared, "We have no wish to separate from our present homes." Some groups even began dropping "African" from their names to emphasize that they were American-born and should be American citizens.

Appeal can be read here (with not the best formatting - sorry):
https://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/walker/walker.html

Or excerpts here:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2931t.html
 
Top