[ACW AH] - Settling the Freed Slaves out West

See above. It strikes me that much of the lands between the Pacific and the actual existent states were theoretically available for settlement and colonization by freed slaves, no matter the presence of natives. With that in mind, the question that must be asked:

What if as part of the Reconstruction, the freed blacks of the slave states were transported in great numbers west, to settle what would become states like California, Oregon, Montanna, etc... that these would be the "black" states, in a sense. They would have certain amount of protection and oversight by detachments of the United States Army and be given funds from appropriated wealth of southern plantation owners, but otherwise they're on their own until they get statehood.

How does this little experiment go?
 
I've viewed this idea before and it has merit.

An old expression was "to eliminate Indian resistance out west, America must kill every buffalo".

An alternate take would be, "to eliminate southern resistance, one must remove every Negro from the south", the idea being that removing the old aristocracies age-old labor force, this would drive the destruction of the plantation economy and their leaders.

Many of the mountain states were largely unsettled. Four millions slaves would get lost in those areas. Granted, not all would choose to leave the south but enough would to alter the old regime permanently.

No doubt the poor southern whites would gain greater authority and, of course, black southerners would become landowners for the first time aiding in their economic developement.

instead, the pseudo-slavery of sharecropping maintained the old status quo.
 
I'd think it would be rather horrible... uprooting millions of people from the only lands and lives they know to send them unwillingly out to the frontier which has nowhere near the infrastructure to handle them. Not to mention, you'd be sending people used to the warm and green south to the frigid prairies of MT, WY, etc., or to the harsh dry deserts of the SW. CA at this time already had a fair sized population, and was already a state. The idea might work on some of the better lands in the west, for those ex-slaves who could work their own farms/ranches, but all of them? Not really feasible. Theoretically, you could make this plan work on a smaller scale, basically building towns on some of the better lands, making sure there was a road and rail network to connect them to the rest of the country, and then move the ex-slaves into them... but that would be a frightfully expensive undertaking...
 
I came out west to escape my parents being abusive and stealing my car and wrecking it and my girlfriend cheating on me, and my hometown being conservative and oppressive and the NJ punk scene being taken over by vegan extremists. There have been challenges, but most of the challenges have been people from NJ giving me shit, and I'm overall better off living out here and coming from a place with winter, the warmer climate of the Southwest is great.

So if I can do it, at least some 1860s slaves could do it and would probably benefit from it.
 
It strikes me that much of the lands between the Pacific and the actual existent states were theoretically available for settlement and colonization by freed slaves, no matter the presence of natives.
However, they were also available for settlement by whites, many of whom had proved unwilling to compete with free black labour in their own states before the war (e.g. the 1851 Indiana constitution, the 1853 Illinois Black Code). The overwhelming majority of these people would not support land being handed over to ex-slaves, either because it was designated by God and Manifest Destiny for white settlement or because they saw blacks as racially or culturally fit for little other than labouring. Best guess, you get a few small trial communities set up as part of Reconstruction before the central government loses interest in the whole thing.
 
So if I can do it, at least some 1860s slaves could do it and would probably benefit from it.

some did. A fair number of working cowboys in the old west were black, a handful of black families went homesteading, others went to the gold and silver boom towns, some joined the army and ended up stationed out west. But the OP is talking about taking a whole lot more, more than the infrastructure back then can really handle...
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The territory with the most natural bounty for poor settlers to survive in was also one of the most remote from the Old Confederacy - Washington territory.

Another way to empty out the south would be immigration restrictions a generation or two earlier - with 1920s style restrictions on numbers and types of immigrants either in the 1860s-1870s or from the 1890s on, growing industry in the east and midwest would have to search the south to recruit labor. If the Great Migration of OTL had been earlier, longer and bigger, you'd reduce the minority population in the south alot.
 
See above. It strikes me that much of the lands between the Pacific and the actual existent states were theoretically available for settlement and colonization by freed slaves, no matter the presence of natives. With that in mind, the question that must be asked:

What if as part of the Reconstruction, the freed blacks of the slave states were transported in great numbers west, to settle what would become states like California, Oregon, Montanna, etc... that these would be the "black" states, in a sense. They would have certain amount of protection and oversight by detachments of the United States Army and be given funds from appropriated wealth of southern plantation owners, but otherwise they're on their own until they get statehood.

How does this little experiment go?

It really depends on the initial PODs, mainly how far back they are, and how far-reaching they would have been. But I can say this: it certainly could have been tried, to some extent, without much difficulty.

Now, before we get into the specifics, I will say that, sadly, there probably would have been some controversy & the occasional scuffles, at least in the short term-this was the late 19th Century, after all, and even some Republicans *might* be initially hesitant to support the scheme if it goes much further, than, say, a few dozen or so isolated communities of maybe a few hundred each(on average) at the start of it, if the situation is close enough to OTL.

On the other hand, though, once the surviving communities are integrated into the greater society of these future states, there is a rather good chance that they will eventually become accepted(and even embraced by some, the closer one gets to the present day) by the majority of the other people living there long term; that doesn't mean that problems won't still flare up from time to time(Omaha did see a couple of notable race riots IOTL.), but it will definitely eventually be a boon in favor of social cohesion, for sure(to clarify, the era I'm attempting to refer to would be by about 1930-50).

(BTW, it's also definitely helpful to remember that Northern racism, prejudice, what have you, even in the 1850s, let alone after the Civil War, really wasn't much worse, at least in terms of intensity, than in, say, Great Britain during this time period, even if somewhat more widespread.)


I've viewed this idea before and it has merit.

An old expression was "to eliminate Indian resistance out west, America must kill every buffalo".

An alternate take would be, "to eliminate southern resistance, one must remove every Negro from the south", the idea being that removing the old aristocracies age-old labor force, this would drive the destruction of the plantation economy and their leaders.

Many of the mountain states were largely unsettled. Four millions slaves would get lost in those areas. Granted, not all would choose to leave the south but enough would to alter the old regime permanently.

No doubt the poor southern whites would gain greater authority and, of course, black southerners would become landowners for the first time aiding in their economic developement.

instead, the pseudo-slavery of sharecropping maintained the old status quo.

I agree, but as other folks have pointed out, 4 million ex-slaves would be difficult to accomplish, simply by the logistics alone. Still, though, about 20,000 within, say, the first few years, wouldn't have been at all hard to accomplish even IOTL, and 50-100k wouldn't take much more.

I'd think it would be rather horrible... uprooting millions of people from the only lands and lives they know to send them unwillingly out to the frontier which has nowhere near the infrastructure to handle them. Not to mention, you'd be sending people used to the warm and green south to the frigid prairies of MT, WY, etc., or to the harsh dry deserts of the SW. CA at this time already had a fair sized population, and was already a state. The idea might work on some of the better lands in the west, for those ex-slaves who could work their own farms/ranches, but all of them? Not really feasible. Theoretically, you could make this plan work on a smaller scale, basically building towns on some of the better lands, making sure there was a road and rail network to connect them to the rest of the country, and then move the ex-slaves into them... but that would be a frightfully expensive undertaking...

Yes, this.

However, they were also available for settlement by whites, many of whom had proved unwilling to compete with free black labour in their own states before the war (e.g. the 1851 Indiana constitution, the 1853 Illinois Black Code). The overwhelming majority of these people would not support land being handed over to ex-slaves, either because it was designated by God and Manifest Destiny for white settlement or because they saw blacks as racially or culturally fit for little other than labouring. Best guess, you get a few small trial communities set up as part of Reconstruction before the central government loses interest in the whole thing.

There is some truth to what you write, Rob, but "Overwhelming majority" of outright opposition, is definitely pushing it a bit. As I stated earlier, I don't doubt this would be a controversial move, and that there might be some short-term problems. But this kinda does underestimate just how many Northerners were actually willing to tolerate blacks, personal prejudices, casually racist or otherwise, aside, even if not exactly viewing them as *social* equals, in most cases.

Perhaps the best example to illustrate that point may be the later life of the African-American pioneer, George Washington Bush: Although of a man of mixed heritage, who did face a fair amount of prejudice, be it racism or otherwise, he was still fairly well regarded by many early Washingtonians, as he was one of the early developers of the territory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Bush

The territory with the most natural bounty for poor settlers to survive in was also one of the most remote from the Old Confederacy - Washington territory.

Another way to empty out the south would be immigration restrictions a generation or two earlier - with 1920s style restrictions on numbers and types of immigrants either in the 1860s-1870s or from the 1890s on, growing industry in the east and midwest would have to search the south to recruit labor. If the Great Migration of OTL had been earlier, longer and bigger, you'd reduce the minority population in the south alot.

This is a bit difficult(even with the incredible pervasiveness of eugenics IOTL, it took until 1924 to actually get enough people in Congress to push thru a law like that.....and there's not much wanking that can be plausibly done, short of a quasi-fascist party taking power, or something along those lines.), but could happen.
 
What about a POD where things get contenious in the 1840-60s, but open war is avoided. Prior to his election Lincoln considered the idea of buying all the slaves in the South and shipping them back to Africa. Could an ATL Lincoln, or his equivalent, buy all the slaves and use them to help settle the West?
 
What about a POD where things get contenious in the 1840-60s, but open war is avoided. Prior to his election Lincoln considered the idea of buying all the slaves in the South and shipping them back to Africa. Could an ATL Lincoln, or his equivalent, buy all the slaves and use them to help settle the West?

The truth is, probably not; it would prove to be enormously costly to the federal government, and despite the common prejudices of the era, I honestly have my doubts that many Northerners would have quite been willing to foot the bill for what would have cost the country perhaps something on the order of 10 billion dollars just to free the African-Americans, let alone the costs of official transportation, etc.

I mean, it may not be impossible, theoretically, but would be extremely difficult to pull off believably, in a situation like OTL's-you would otherwise need some fairly radical PODs.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There were AA settlers/migrants to the Western states,

See above. It strikes me that much of the lands between the Pacific and the actual existent states were theoretically available for settlement and colonization by freed slaves, no matter the presence of natives. With that in mind, the question that must be asked:

What if as part of the Reconstruction, the freed blacks of the slave states were transported in great numbers west, to settle what would become states like California, Oregon, Montanna, etc... that these would be the "black" states, in a sense. They would have certain amount of protection and oversight by detachments of the United States Army and be given funds from appropriated wealth of southern plantation owners, but otherwise they're on their own until they get statehood.

How does this little experiment go?

There were AA pioneers/settlers/migrants to the western U.S. - Great Plains, Rocky Mountains, and Pacific states - throughout the later half of the Nineteenth Century, including some "organized" efforts, as opposed to individuals, families, etc.

Look up the Exodusters, among others.

Such efforts succeeded or failed on their own, and there was no more or less federal interest in "organizing" such projects as there were (or were not) for anyone interested in migrating - the major one, of course, being the Homestead Act.

Racism was certainly part and parcel of American (US) society in the Nineteenth Century, but it was pretty much endemic across the Western world, as witness the obvious "white Australia" and only slightly less obvious "white Canada," "white Argentina," "white Chile," policies, as well.

Best,
 
What if as part of the Reconstruction, the freed blacks of the slave states were transported in great numbers west, to settle what would become states like California, Oregon, Montanna, etc... that these would be the "black" states, in a sense.

1) Non-southern whites didn't want blacks moving elsewhere. For instance, in 1860, a Republican campaign pamphlet asserted that Democrat rhetoric about "nigger equality" could only apply to them, as Republicans would reserve the Territories for free white men.

2) The white southern elite did not want the blacks moving elsewhere, as they were the labor force of the Deep South.

Take a look at the fate of the Exodusters of 1879 for some background
 
1) Non-southern whites didn't want blacks moving elsewhere. For instance, in 1860, a Republican campaign pamphlet asserted that Democrat rhetoric about "nigger equality" could only apply to them, as Republicans would reserve the Territories for free white men.

2) The white southern elite did not want the blacks moving elsewhere, as they were the labor force of the Deep South.

Take a look at the fate of the Exodusters of 1879 for some background

Haven't been able to find any references for 1(are you sure you're not confusing it with something from the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates? That was the only reference I could find from this particular time period.), but I doubt 2 would matter much, by and large; sure, the Southerners could try to stop them from leaving, but this would only backfire on them in the end.
 
"Overwhelming majority" of outright opposition, is definitely pushing it a bit...Perhaps the best example to illustrate that point may be the later life of the African-American pioneer, George Washington Bush
From the Wikipedia entry you linked:

"Bush was a free man and had never been a slave but, while he was of African and Irish descent, Missouri did not provide him the same legal status as a white man... By the time the Bush-Simmons party reached the Oregon Country over four months later, the Provisional Government of Oregon had passed laws preventing black Americans from owning land. As a result, Bush and his party travelled north across the Columbia River, into territory that at the time was claimed by both the United States and Great Britain... by staking an American claim to the area, Bush and his party had also brought Oregon's black American exclusion laws, clouding the title to their land; these laws would not apply if the territory were under the British Empire."

Oregon passed further anti-immigration provisions in 1857 which passed by a majority of eight to one, so I don't think that "overwhelming majority" is a particularly inaccurate description of the opposition to black people settling in the West. The people of Washington State might have made a slight exception for Bush by requesting that his land ownership be recognised, but their overall attitude towards ethnic minorities was clearly demonstrated in the same year (1855) when they passed an anti-miscegenation law.

(BTW, it's also definitely helpful to remember that Northern racism, prejudice, what have you, even in the 1850s, let alone after the Civil War, really wasn't much worse, at least in terms of intensity, than in, say, Great Britain during this time period, even if somewhat more widespread.)
It's not particularly helpful, because this statement is absolutely contradicted by the evidence of almost every contemporary observer who would have been in a position to judge properly:

Frederick Douglass: "having enjoyed nearly two years of equal social privileges in England... never, during the whole time having met with a single word, look or gesture, which gave me the slightest reason to think my colour was an offense to anybody".

William Wells Brown: "the prejudice which I have experienced on all and every occasion in the United States... vanished as soon as I set foot on the soil of Britain"

Rev. Samuel Ringgold Ward: "In this country [England] it is difficult to understand how little difference is made in the treatment of black men, in respect to their position".

John Brown: "Was pleased to see among the two or three hundred students three coloured young men... there appeared no feeling on part of the whites... except that of companionship and respect... here again were seen young coloured men arm in arm with whites".

Amanda Smith: "no one acted as though I was a black woman... there is not a lady in England who would think of consulting her servants as to whether she should entertain a coloured person in her home."

Linda Brent: "During all that time [10 months], I never saw the slightest symptom of prejudice against colour".

Ellen and William Craft: "remain a short time longer in the Old Country, it being so very much easier for a man of colour to succeed in the way of life"

William Howard Day: "Not only slaves but free coloured men were treated with the greatest ignominy in the Northern States... From the Northern churches the people of colour were practically excluded; they were treated with a contumely which was more insulting even than the direct tyranny of the South...However much the black free man might have contributed to the taxes of the state, he was not, if he became poor, maintained like the poor white man in the workhouse, but he was thrust into gaol… Of the 18 ‘free’ states, there were only 5 where black and white had equal rights... colour was a crime, even in the Northern states... To talk of the Northern love of liberty was nonsense... He denied that the North were averse to slavery, with the exception of a very small minority; and as Republicanism had increased in America, negrophobia had increased in the same proportion."
 
Lincoln survives to finish his second term. The Freedman's Bureau which was originally designed to organise resettlement is not gutted by Johnson.

Now moving all free blacks is just impossible and many wont actually want to leave. However there are options. One was a decent chunk of land in North Carolina being handed over to black families, something Johnson shut down as free blacks would have been the majority across a decent area AND landowners. Perish the thought.

Out West, I can see Lincoln going for one place, not as a grand plan but as an 'escape valve' for free blacks who can't take living in the South (remember Lincoln thought free black and white people living together peacefully was bordering on the impossible) - the Indian Territory, eastern Oklahoma. A fair few of the tribes had sided with the Confederacy and Lincoln wasn't a big fan of Native Americans. Have the Freedman's Bureau confiscate the land of rebel tribes and offer it cheap exclusively to black families, in effect African-American reservations.

Hardly an enlightened position but I could see it happening.

Now here's a question; Say the Indian Territory project goes swimmingly (for the African-Americans anyway). The land becomes majority black, its mayors, teachers, businessmen all black. What happens when they apply for statehood? If Jim Crow is in force in the South, how long does it take Congress to accept black representatives back into their chambers? 20s? 30s? 40s?
 

jahenders

Banned
The devil is, of course, in the details. However, this could potentially work to some degree. The government could give blacks an extra incentive to homestead (i.e. perhaps they can get a train ticket to Kansas City, a free mule, a sack of grain, etc.).

It would have to be passed early in reconstruction (before the Southern states have the political power to protest). Some abolitionists might see it as the best way to ensure the blacks were truly free. Other forces might just want extra manpower out West, helping to push the frontier.

See above. It strikes me that much of the lands between the Pacific and the actual existent states were theoretically available for settlement and colonization by freed slaves, no matter the presence of natives. With that in mind, the question that must be asked:

What if as part of the Reconstruction, the freed blacks of the slave states were transported in great numbers west, to settle what would become states like California, Oregon, Montanna, etc... that these would be the "black" states, in a sense. They would have certain amount of protection and oversight by detachments of the United States Army and be given funds from appropriated wealth of southern plantation owners, but otherwise they're on their own until they get statehood.

How does this little experiment go?
 
The truth is, probably not; it would prove to be enormously costly to the federal government, and despite the common prejudices of the era, I honestly have my doubts that many Northerners would have quite been willing to foot the bill for what would have cost the country perhaps something on the order of 10 billion dollars just to free the African-Americans, let alone the costs of official transportation, etc.

I mean, it may not be impossible, theoretically, but would be extremely difficult to pull off believably, in a situation like OTL's-you would otherwise need some fairly radical PODs.

Plenty of Britons paid the bill for buying up the British Empire's slaves. Huge amounts of new borrowing and taxes went up to pay for it.
 
From the Wikipedia entry you linked:

"Bush was a free man and had never been a slave but, while he was of African and Irish descent, Missouri did not provide him the same legal status as a white man... By the time the Bush-Simmons party reached the Oregon Country over four months later, the Provisional Government of Oregon had passed laws preventing black Americans from owning land. As a result, Bush and his party travelled north across the Columbia River, into territory that at the time was claimed by both the United States and Great Britain... by staking an American claim to the area, Bush and his party had also brought Oregon's black American exclusion laws, clouding the title to their land; these laws would not apply if the territory were under the British Empire."

Oregon passed further anti-immigration provisions in 1857 which passed by a majority of eight to one, so I don't think that "overwhelming majority" is a particularly inaccurate description of the opposition to black people settling in the West. The people of Washington State might have made a slight exception for Bush by requesting that his land ownership be recognised, but their overall attitude towards ethnic minorities was clearly demonstrated in the same year (1855) when they passed an anti-miscegenation law.

Just remember, though, I myself pointed out the difficulties that Mr. Bush faced.

It's not particularly helpful, because this statement is absolutely contradicted by the evidence of almost every contemporary observer who would have been in a position to judge properly:

Frederick Douglass: "having enjoyed nearly two years of equal social privileges in England... never, during the whole time having met with a single word, look or gesture, which gave me the slightest reason to think my colour was an offense to anybody".

William Wells Brown: "the prejudice which I have experienced on all and every occasion in the United States... vanished as soon as I set foot on the soil of Britain"

Rev. Samuel Ringgold Ward: "In this country [England] it is difficult to understand how little difference is made in the treatment of black men, in respect to their position".

John Brown: "Was pleased to see among the two or three hundred students three coloured young men... there appeared no feeling on part of the whites... except that of companionship and respect... here again were seen young coloured men arm in arm with whites".

Amanda Smith: "no one acted as though I was a black woman... there is not a lady in England who would think of consulting her servants as to whether she should entertain a coloured person in her home."

Linda Brent: "During all that time [10 months], I never saw the slightest symptom of prejudice against colour".

Ellen and William Craft: "remain a short time longer in the Old Country, it being so very much easier for a man of colour to succeed in the way of life"

William Howard Day: "Not only slaves but free coloured men were treated with the greatest ignominy in the Northern States... From the Northern churches the people of colour were practically excluded; they were treated with a contumely which was more insulting even than the direct tyranny of the South...However much the black free man might have contributed to the taxes of the state, he was not, if he became poor, maintained like the poor white man in the workhouse, but he was thrust into gaol… Of the 18 ‘free’ states, there were only 5 where black and white had equal rights... colour was a crime, even in the Northern states... To talk of the Northern love of liberty was nonsense... He denied that the North were averse to slavery, with the exception of a very small minority; and as Republicanism had increased in America, negrophobia had increased in the same proportion."
Sorry, Rob, but as I've pointed out to you elsewhere, every single one of these people that you've put out there was an abolitionist known to Britons in some fashion or the other, and Britons in general were rather sympathetic to them(and, for that matter, many of these people were highly cynical about America, so that no doubt significantly affected their worldviews, as understandable as that may be from our perspectives.). Honestly, as much as you may like to overplay Northern American racism, and heavily downplay British prejudice, for whatever reason, you continue to miss the overall picture: so I see no reason to have any further discussion with you on this matter.

Lincoln survives to finish his second term. The Freedman's Bureau which was originally designed to organise resettlement is not gutted by Johnson.

Now moving all free blacks is just impossible and many wont actually want to leave. However there are options. One was a decent chunk of land in North Carolina being handed over to black families, something Johnson shut down as free blacks would have been the majority across a decent area AND landowners. Perish the thought.

Out West, I can see Lincoln going for one place, not as a grand plan but as an 'escape valve' for free blacks who can't take living in the South (remember Lincoln thought free black and white people living together peacefully was bordering on the impossible) - the Indian Territory, eastern Oklahoma. A fair few of the tribes had sided with the Confederacy and Lincoln wasn't a big fan of Native Americans. Have the Freedman's Bureau confiscate the land of rebel tribes and offer it cheap exclusively to black families, in effect African-American reservations.

Hardly an enlightened position but I could see it happening.

Now here's a question; Say the Indian Territory project goes swimmingly (for the African-Americans anyway). The land becomes majority black, its mayors, teachers, businessmen all black. What happens when they apply for statehood? If Jim Crow is in force in the South, how long does it take Congress to accept black representatives back into their chambers? 20s? 30s? 40s?

It could happen, yes. Statehood will depend on the POD, but I can see it happening not too much later than OTL's Oklahoma: maybe about 1912 or so? TBH, though, I can't see black representatives being accepted by a majority of Congress until about 1945-50 or so; that doesn't mean they can't get in before then, but they would no doubt face a significant amount of prejudice, and, unfortunately, some outright racism, before then(especially from the South).

The devil is, of course, in the details. However, this could potentially work to some degree. The government could give blacks an extra incentive to homestead (i.e. perhaps they can get a train ticket to Kansas City, a free mule, a sack of grain, etc.).

It would have to be passed early in reconstruction (before the Southern states have the political power to protest). Some abolitionists might see it as the best way to ensure the blacks were truly free. Other forces might just want extra manpower out West, helping to push the frontier.

Seems right to me.

Plenty of Britons paid the bill for buying up the British Empire's slaves. Huge amounts of new borrowing and taxes went up to pay for it.

That, however, was a different situation. Now, mind you, had slavery lasted a little longer in the U.S., this might also have been accepted circa 1890 or so.....but in 1860, not quite. In fact, even in 1833, you had elite Britons who were still unwilling to let go of slavery, even as popular opinion had finally turned totally against it.
 
Last edited:
Just remember, though, I myself pointed out the difficulties that Mr. Bush faced.
I'm not completely convinced you did them justice, though:
there might be some short-term problems. But this kinda does underestimate just how many Northerners were actually willing to tolerate blacks, personal prejudices, casually racist or otherwise, aside, even if not exactly viewing them as *social* equals, in most cases.
Oregon banned people like Bush from owning land outright; Washington State allowed him to own land, but criminalised the kind of marriage he was engaged in. Things were marginally better in some of the other Northern states, though we should remember that in the year that New York state gave Lincoln a 50,000-vote majority it also rejected the abolition of the state's $250 property qualification for black voters by a 140,000-vote majority. However, I think in the case of the frontier, and in the case of the north-western states I've instanced already, we're dealing with something a little more significant and fundamental than views on mere "*social* equality". The Duke of Devonshire wouldn't have viewed the labourers on his estate as socially equal, or even politically equal, but he's unlikely to have encouraged the passing of a law banning them from owning a cottage or getting married.

Were I being uncharitable, I might suggest that you're engaged in the very activity you accuse me of: cherry-picking isolated cases in order to present a rosier picture. As it happens, I suspect it's more an artefact of communal memory and the fact that communities are hardly likely to memorialise individuals they weren't prepared to at least tacitly accept. But I think you're struggling to draw the right connections between this single case and the wider picture in this thread. We are, after all, dealing with the prospect not just of letting a single mixed-race man who has never been a slave settle in the West, but handing over multiple states, along with their Congressional representation and power over any of the white people who might already have settled there, to the control of ex-slaves. It doesn't seem to me that contemporary America was ready for that kind of scenario.

every single one of these people that you've put out there was an abolitionist known to Britons in some fashion or the other
I'm kind of disappointed you claim this: if you'd actually read the list of people I provided and done a little bit of checking, you would have picked up on the fact that Linda Brent, AKA Harriet Ann Jacobs, went to England as a completely anonymous nurse to the white family of the allegedly pro-slavery author Nathaniel Parker Willis and only published her story pseudonymously after her return. That she felt the same way about Britain as her abolitionist colleagues with higher social status should say a lot about the extent to which this relative lack of prejudice was dependent neither on class nor affinity. However, if you believe that these stories are atypical of the vast majority of black experiences, then the appropriate response would be to provide alternative evidence rather than dismissing them out of hand. After all, if these views are so unusual, there should be plenty of other views which contradict them.

as much as you may like to overplay Northern American racism, and heavily downplay British prejudice, for whatever reason
This is rather an unwarranted accusation. I'm not claiming any great particular virtues inherent only in the British, or arguing that nobody in Britain held prejudiced views, or arguing that what escaped slaves considered fair treatment isn't what we might now see as discrimination ranging from mild to alarming, or claiming that the amount of prejudice didn't increase over the course of the Victorian era, or arguing that the relative lack of prejudice in Britain isn't the result of a very particular set of circumstances which the Americans didn't enjoy. All I'm doing is trying to fairly state the case as it was recorded by contemporary observers- white and black, British and American- and as historians have confirmed it to be: at mid-century, America was a substantially more racially prejudiced society than Britain. What I really struggle to get my head round is why you're so keen to present 1860s America as a racially harmonious paradise when it so blatantly wasn't.

you continue to miss the overall picture: so I see no reason to have any further discussion with you on this matter.
Oh, I'm not too distraught about your refusal to discuss. In our previous discussions, I seemed to end up doing a lot of work to back up, evidence and support my case without you reciprocating- one of the reasons I gave for declining to continue the most recent one we had. And I think in this thread, you've made both your own views and your unwillingness to change them as clear as they need to be. I just want to make sure that other people aren't confused or misled by what I consider to be your understatement of contemporary American racism, when it's so integral to the topic as it is here.

Immediately following the Civil War, the Union rejected a proposal to distribute public land in the North to free blacks, very reluctantly offered them land in the South, and abandoned Reconstruction because it was costing too much money despite the fact that it left pre-war white elites calling the shots in the South. Given the attitudes towards race which I've demonstrated existed at the time, the idea that they're going to welcome black people into the frontier- let alone allocate government money to settle them there in sufficient numbers to allow them to dominate states - requires a far more substantial departure from history than has so far been suggested.
 
Last edited:
Top