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.
Perhaps had more African-Americans returned to Africa, slavery would have been officially abolished before 2003.
"Niger criminalized slavery in 2003, but about 43,000 people are still thought to be held as slaves. In March 2005, a public ceremony freeing 7,000 slaves was planned, but at the last minute the government reversed itself, denying that slavery existed in the country."
The colonization movement wanted to send all blacks to Africa not just slaves. According to wikki 13% of the population were free blacks. Many of these free Blacks had attained; wealth, education and distinction unparalleled by most Whites. This was the beginning of the "Negro Problem" This was not some noble idea to return the Black man to his home land it was something not unlike the Trail of Tears.
Sadly, I'm going to have to call this post as I see it... naive.
Perhaps the biggest error is making the assumption that America would have or want ANYTHING to do with blacks the moment they didn't have to see them, which they already didn't anyway thanks to Jim Crow. There is absolutely nothing that suggests America would have even considered going through the trouble of spending the $ to ship them back. Once Lincoln died, that idea died too. And who's to say that the English-speaking black Americans would be welcomed with open arms by the rest of Africa anyway?
This post is very naive.
Not quite. The movement to deport black Americans began long before Lincoln.
"New Englanders announced over and over that they didn't believe black people were capable of citizenship and did everything they could to get rid of them. The American Colonization Society was very active in New England. This organization raised funds to deport blacks to Liberia and other foreign lands. By 1861 some 12,000 free blacks had been deported to Liberia, most of whom perished there. To New Englanders, "abolition" meant the complete absence of black people from their "chosen land." As Emerson stated, "the abolitionist wishes to abolish slavery, but because he wishes to abolish the black man" (p. 164). That would "restore New England to an idealized original state as an orderly, homogenous, white society. A free New England would be a white New England" (p. 64). "
I think the only reason Liberia never materialized into the next "America" is because the African-Americans who settled the area never implemented the very same system of genocide, trade and subjugation that allowed the US to develope into what it is today, just as the whites had done here with the natives and the black imported slaves.
Sure the AAs there enslaved the indigenous Africans there, but they didn't wipe them out completely, confine them to "reservations" and then import a new subjugated foreign class of free laborers.
The missing piece to Liberia's development was the massive amount of "free labor" with a trinagular system of trade (the British model), profit and capitalism, plus they didn't maim, rape and pilege the local population into extinction (I guess they had a heart).
Liberia came about when notions of what was proper and acceptable behavior for civilized and modern nations began to come about. Considering that raping, pillaging and enslavement is probably the natural order of humanity since time immemorial, it's probably the ideas LEARNED in America that saved the native Liberian population as much as "heart."
Perhaps the natives to Liberia are lucky that Liberia came about post enlightenment at the beginning of the modern era? Indeed, repatriated former American slaves helped END the existent slave trade among local tribes in Liberia. But, they also are known for oppressing the "country folk" (natives) of Liberia over the next century... denying voting rights, land rights, etc. At 2.5% of the population, the descendants still hold immense disproportionate power, wealth and influence in the country.
Its' why the proof is always in the pudding when it comes to deciding whether an individual Or "group" refrained from evil acts because they were gentle souls, or because they lacked the power and worldly exposure to actually DO those evil acts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshim
If the whites had of NOT imported slaves from Africa, the US would probably resemble Liberia albeit with a majority white population.
That's actually not true. Slavery is not essential for a successful country. It may make a country richer, but there's a lot more than cheap or free labor needed to determine whether a country will fail or succeed.
Witness the development and modernization differences between Latin American countries (which also had slavery), and the Middle East (which also had slavery).
I have always wondered whether the economic conditions of the country as a WHOLE would have been significantly different if slave labor were never used, and simple low wage exploitation of the poor of white, black or native variety was used instead. Surely the biggest benefits of profits inured to the benefit of the slave owning class, which was not large enough so that their loss of purchasing power would fundamentally destroy the economy.
The colonization movement wanted to send all blacks to Africa not just slaves. According to wikki 13% of the population were free blacks. Many of these free Blacks had attained; wealth, education and distinction unparalleled by most Whites. This was the beginning of the "Negro Problem" This was not some noble idea to return the Black man to his home land it was something not unlike the Trail of Tears.
It brings an important question. How would the slaves fared if they had been sent to Africa, as opposed to free Blacks?
Perhaps had more African-Americans returned to Africa, slavery would have been officially abolished before 2003.
"Niger criminalized slavery in 2003, but about 43,000 people are still thought to be held as slaves. In March 2005, a public ceremony freeing 7,000 slaves was planned, but at the last minute the government reversed itself, denying that slavery existed in the country."
For those of you that have studied the civil war at the college level or are one of those blue collar history buffs that loves history you are probably aware of the fact that Abraham Lincoln wanted to not only free the slaves but he wanted to send them back to Africa as he felt even after slavery was abolished the black man would still always be at a great disadvantage in this country due to the roots of slavery. In the end He was met with enormous opposition and eventually let the matter go.
My question is what do you think Africa would be like today had the majority of the slaves been released back to the mother land.
Someone else noted that in Liberia we have a real-world example of the hypothetical you present.
Aside from that, it is not as if President Lincoln ever considered the relocation of all American slaves to Africa as even remotely realistic.
Quote:
If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, -- to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible.
He was clearly aware, well before he became President, that such a thing could only happen in theory, and even if theoretically undertaken would not have a useful result. As such, this speculation is of something that would never have happened, not something that only did not happen because a certain President didn't live to see it through.
It brings an important question. How would the slaves fared if they had been sent to Africa, as opposed to free Blacks?
being free or enslaved was a matter of ones legal status. It had no bearing on how educated or sophisticated or how much money a person had. The colonization society's goal was to rid the united state of blacks not slaves because it was deemed that America could not exist as a bi-racial society. It was a good thing that Lincoln had the African American , ex slave, and abolitionist Frederick Douglas as an adviser. A mass colonization of Blacks to Africa would have change the way historians looked at Lincoln legacy. He would not have been know as The Great Emancipator
being free or enslaved was a matter of ones legal status. It had no bearing on how educated or sophisticated or how much money a person had. The colonization society's goal was to rid the united state of blacks, not just slaves because it was deemed that America could not exist as a bi-racial society. It was a good thing that Lincoln had the African American , ex slave, and abolitionist Frederick Douglas as an adviser. A mass colonization of Blacks to Africa would have change the way historians looked at Lincoln's legacy. He would not have been known as The Great Emancipator
edited
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.
