Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Martyred President Abraham Lincoln was fervently making plans to send all freed slaves to the jungles of Central America once the war was over," the Internet posts say. "Knowing that African society would never allow the slaves to return back to Africa, Lincoln also did not want the slaves in the U.S. He thought the jungles of Central America would be the best solution and conducive to the freed slaves best interest. The only thing that kept this from happening, was his assassination."
In around 1895 at Atlanta a national organization of ex-slaves was formed. Topeka, Kansas was the national headquarters. Their aim at that time was to establish support for pensions for ex-slaves. Kansas was the logical headquarters for such a movement due to its political leaders at that time comprised a fair amount of; New Englanders, Abolitionist, Republicans, and Civil War officers from the Union Army.
It would have been a pretty good idea if it had taken root and there would not be talk today of reparations. In Atchison Kansas there was about 1500 ex-slaves in 1896.
The Chicago Tribune carried the story in 1896 that listed the proposed pension schedule:
over 70 years-old -$700 in cash and $15 per month
over 60 $600 and $12 per month
over 5 $300 and $5 per month
over 1 $100 and $1 per month
The ages listed would be the age of the slave on the date of the Emancipation Proclamation.
My ball park estimation would be a 20 year-old in 1895 who had been a slave in 1865 would get in today's $ $20,000 and $25 per month , I might be totally off?
Last edited by thriftylefty; 02-16-2019 at 10:21 AM..
I guess you didn't actually read the entire article. It ends with this sentence "We rate the claim False."
Not only that, that dude totally misrepresented a quote, what that internet site was trying to explain was an example of the type of ridiculous misconception claim on the internet.
How embarrassing. Let's see if he comes back in and acknowledges his error.
I wonder what present day African-Americans think about this. Would they want the opportunity to move elsewhere at their pleasure even today?
No ma'am. Primarily because this is my ancestors' native land. If anything, I'd fight for Europeans to be repatriated. The second reason is black Americans are the least mentally colonized people on the planet. Moving to Africa or the Caribbean at this stage means going to live in a black country ruled by whites. Might as well stay here.
Not so “small” a number and not just “leaders”
People in America were racists
And still are
Not saying that is a desireable trait but it still exists
Now it is not just African Americans people react negatively toward but Hispanics (and did at the time of the Civil War and before and after) and we can include Asians, Middle Eastern extraction, SE Asians—
People just don’t want to admit that America was never really as approving and accepting of people who were “different”
And you can include the Irish and Italian and other Europeans as well
There is plenty of evidence that ANY non “American” whatever that might mean could be at any particular time considered “undesirable” in America
We have the prime example staring us right in the face every day.
Last edited by mensaguy; 02-16-2019 at 10:29 AM..
Reason: Fixed quote tag
Slavery in Africa was not the same kind of chattel slavery that came to exist in the New World, the kind that we're familiar with. The Europeans (starting with the Portuguese) got the idea of chattel slavery from the ARABS, not the Africans. Everything they learned about slavery they learned from the Arab slave trade. The Arab slave trade is the oldest slave trade in existence. Yes, in existence, because it's still ongoing.
The Arab slave trade is even mentioned in the Bible. Remember the story about Joseph's brothers being jealous of him, and the multicolored robe their father Jacob had given him? They stripped the robe off of Joseph, threw Joseph into a pit, and then sold him to a passing caravan. That passing caravan was Arab traders, and those traders not only traded in goods but also in slaves. That's how Joseph ended up being enslaved in Egypt.
You bring up an excellent point. I am not going to get too off topic (even though it is still history), but this jealousy is what created Islam. The mixed-race brother was jealous of the "purebred" brother, so a religion was created in the image of the Arabs, with an Arab as the savior.
I remember a friend of mine mentioned one time that her Mom said they should have never left the South, she said they should have never moved North. I didn't question her, because you just didn't question my friends Mom.
Friend's mom (I'm assuming she's black) is right on some level. Moving North meant blacks gave up their land. That is primarily why they were terrorized in the South. Yes, it was racism, but it was more about getting them off the land so Europeans could claim it.
Mining companies took their homes.Imagine them giving back land? Don't think so. Now miners have taken most of the trees in West Africa with nowhere for bats or monkeys to live except near humans,hence spread of Ebola. Global warming and the coming ice age should be the least of your worries, lets start worrying about forrest clearing,the effect on land based animals and killer viruses going global. Maybe the Earth will get rid off us via climate change,but it will be killer a killer virus that gets us first. Then other species will have a better chance of it.
Ive read (heard) that this was the plan all along, especially Lincoln...that after they were freed, they were to be returned to their home countries?
Is there any truth to this?
Why did it not happen?
The logistics would have been daunting and the task physically impossible, even if some wanted that to happen. In most cases the enslavers wanted their slaves as nominally paid and nominally free labor. That "labor" largely walked but much later, to the cities of the North.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude
No. Some factions advocated their forced emigration, and there was some voluntary exit (see: Liberia) but by 1865, the vast majority had been born in the US. It had become illegal to import slaves quite a few years earlier. They were no more African natives/nationals than those of any ancestry in the first or second generation born on this side of the pond.
One email correspondent with me says that the luckiest Africans (or descendants) were those that were exported to the U.S. Conditions in Africa these days are hardly paradisaical. And remember, the slave importers didn't run into the rain forests to catch slaves; they were sold by "traders" or rival tribes. Africa was and to some extent still is rife with slavery.
The distaste for slavery is mighty selective; white slavers bad, African ones written out of history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
