[ACW AH] - Settling the Freed Slaves out West

I think we may need to clear things up a bit.

I'm not completely convinced you did them justice, though:

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.

Okay, well, I don't dispute that the government of Oregon did, in fact, ban black settlement(it is part of the historical record). But this is Washington I'm talking about, and from all accounts I've read, George Bush did have a rather better life in Washington than in Missouri.

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.

Well, alright: since you've taken the time to clarify that you are that settling all four million of the ex-slaves, complete with handovers of power, in the new territories would in fact, be opposed by most Americans, then I'll have to agree, that wouldn't work at all(IIRC, I've actually said a few things along these lines myself, earlier on.).

And to be fair, perhaps I may not have made my point 100% clear.....but with that said, here it is: *I*, for one was mainly talking about taking maybe 50,000, 100,000 African-American freedmen being settled in various communities out west, a la the Exodusters IOTL.

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.

I've read up on these folks before, yes, you have listed them before. I do admit the error regarding Linda Brent, however; it seems that lack of patience earlier was to blame in that regard.

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.

Unfortunately, despite how true this actually is(that their treatment was in fact, fairly unusual), finding genuinely good sources for this has proven a tad difficult.

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 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.

To be truthful, I never said or implied, that you claimed that nobody in Britain held prejudiced views. I actually don't disagree that Britain actually was somewhat better off than the northern U.S., but you seem to be relying on a fairly limited set of sources, and thus, the impression that you were overplaying Northern racism, which, from all research I've done, really wasn't too much worse than what could be found in Britain overall.....although, granted, there was certainly a much worse problem with extremists in Northern America than in Britain(that I don't dispute for a minute).

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.

Which I never once actually said or implied, though. To clear up this misunderstanding, I myself pointed out that George Bush had to deal with a fair amount of prejudice in Missouri.

But what his Washington experience tells me, is, it would seem that prejudice tended to be rather more subdued, and less hardline, than in Missouri, or even most other Northern areas, for that matter; I cannot and will not deny for a second that it still existed, but the fact that he was able to live a life in that area that wouldn't have been too much different from what it might have been in, say, Canada(including what was later to become B.C.; IIRC, Victoria had a small, but thriving black community.), or the Maritime colonies(Nova Scotia).....does tell me something.

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.

As I said, I do agree with you, that settling all four million of the freedmen in the plains, and actually handing entire territories to them, is nothing more than a pipe dream, not just because of the racial prejudice, but so many other factors as well.

But having about 50-100k African-Americans scattered out in small communes across the West, as I posited, is honestly not that terribly difficult; even IOTL, 20,000 black Americans managed to make it west, mainly to Kansas.

(P.S. With that said, Rob, I do want to apologize if I was a little harsh earlier.)
 
I think you would create a massive labour shortage in the former slaves states.

Maybe if we tried to move all four million of the African-American freedmen out, yes(which Rob C., Dave Howery, myself and others have pointed out, would not work for a variety of reasons) . But a few tens of thousands wouldn't be missed much, especially not by the most hardline racists in the South.
 
Well, alright: since you've taken the time to clarify that you are that settling all four million of the ex-slaves, complete with handovers of power, in the new territories
From the first post of the thread:

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're on their own until they get statehood.
It depends to an extent on the definition of "black" states: whether these are intended to be black majority states, or white majority states with large black minorities. But the latter approach is really just hoping that the white majority in Montana will be nicer to the ex-slaves than the white majority in Mississippi, which seems a bit pointless for all concerned. The ideological belief that a black majority state is worth creating- a domestic Liberia- might be more likely to spur people to action.

1870 populations of
California: 560,247
Oregon: 90,923
Montana: 20,595
(Washington: 23,955)
(Idaho: 14,999)
(Nevada: 42,491)
(Wyoming: 9,118)

If California, Oregon and Montana are going to be "black" states that implies a population shift substantially larger than 100,000. We might assume the original premise is slightly inaccurate on the grounds that two out of the three areas it chose were already states. However, if we create "black" states in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, you're still looking at a movement substantially larger, substantially further, and substantially more expensive than the privately-funded Exoduster movement. After all, the lowest figure you provided (50,000) is two and a half times larger than the number that made it to Kansas, with twelve hundred miles left to go to Montana.

As an estimate of costs, we can assume ten thousand families of five, at c.$1,000 per family to transport them out to the frontier, plus the costs to set them up on the land (it's hardly as if they'll have savings, after all), plus the costs of keeping them safe (one regiment of cavalry, plus arms and accoutrements to create a black volunteer militia to protect the communities from Indians or lynch mobs)... I doubt that there'll be the appetite in government for that kind of spending, given the need to pay down the Civil War debt. My suggestion earlier was that you might get a few small trial communities set up in the late 1860s- perhaps a couple of thousand people scattered across the territories- before funding gets pulled.

Unfortunately, despite how true this actually is(that their treatment was in fact, fairly unusual), finding genuinely good sources for this has proven a tad difficult.
And herein lies the problem. I can't see how it's appropriate to discard substantial volumes of primary evidence on the grounds that you think it's unrepresentative, when all you've really got as the criteria for believing that their treatment is unusual is your own gut instinct. A more methodologically sound approach would be to attack the topic of prejudice from the point of view of the perpetrators rather than the victims, but even here the evidence tends to support the hypothesis of there being less racial prejudice in Britain. British travellers in America report with horror the treatment of black people, whether those travellers are Irish-born journalists or aristocratic Guards officers. British advocates of racial inferiority do so tentatively and in niche publications, though growing in strength throughout the period; American ones do so openly and in widely-circulating journals, North or South, from the very start. When Lincoln suggests colonising the slaves in Liberia, British observers condemn it on the grounds that America is as much the rightful home of African-Americans as Irish- and German- ones. Ultimately, there comes a point where you have to amend your hypothesis in the face of evidence.

you seem to be relying on a fairly limited set of sources, and thus, the impression that you were overplaying Northern racism, which, from all research I've done, really wasn't too much worse than what could be found in Britain overall
What I quote specifically is what's in a concise and useable form for an internet discussion, and is designed to catch the eye of a casual reader who goes away inspired to learn more. What underlies that is an extremely large amount of historiographical and archival research, conducted for professional purposes, on the topic of racial attitudes in the Anglo-American world during the mid-Victorian period. Unfortunately the latter is substantially less glamorous and dramatically less user-friendly, but by and large it confirms the underlying trend of the quotations I've provided.

this is Washington I'm talking about, and from all accounts I've read, George Bush did have a rather better life in Washington than in Missouri.

the fact that he was able to live a life in that area that wouldn't have been too much different from what it might have been in, say, Canada(including what was later to become B.C.; IIRC, Victoria had a small, but thriving black community.), or the Maritime colonies(Nova Scotia).....does tell me something.
It says something, but equally we should remember that it's a matter of quantity. The people of Washington may have accepted Bush's marriage face to face (regardless of what they may have said about it behind closed doors), but they took steps to prevent any more taking place. They may have accepted a handful of mixed-race individuals, but they weren't faced with the potential movement of large numbers in the way that Illinois and Indiana and Missouri were. Had they been, their attitudes might have more closely resembled those of Illinois and Indiana and Missouri (and Oregon, of course, which adopted similar measures despite not facing the movement of large numbers). Even fifty thousand migrants would, I would suggest, have attracted an extreme amount of opprobrium; even more when you consider that they're now going to pay for the privilege of having these people on their doorstep.

Incidentally, if we're talking about Canada, it's worth highlighting the fact that many free blacks from the Northern states chose to move to Canada to escape the oppressive laws and prejudice they faced there. Their testimony shows how different they considered life to be outside the North: if you're set on confirming whether the relative lack of prejudice was a solely upper-class abolitionist phenomenon via the testimony of those affected, I'd suggest they are your best chance of doing so.
 
From the first post of the thread:


It depends to an extent on the definition of "black" states: whether these are intended to be black majority states, or white majority states with large black minorities. But the latter approach is really just hoping that the white majority in Montana will be nicer to the ex-slaves than the white majority in Mississippi, which seems a bit pointless for all concerned. The ideological belief that a black majority state is worth creating- a domestic Liberia- might be more likely to spur people to action.

1870 populations of
California: 560,247
Oregon: 90,923
Montana: 20,595
(Washington: 23,955)
(Idaho: 14,999)
(Nevada: 42,491)
(Wyoming: 9,118)

If California, Oregon and Montana are going to be "black" states that implies a population shift substantially larger than 100,000. We might assume the original premise is slightly inaccurate on the grounds that two out of the three areas it chose were already states. However, if we create "black" states in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, you're still looking at a movement substantially larger, substantially further, and substantially more expensive than the privately-funded Exoduster movement. After all, the lowest figure you provided (50,000) is two and a half times larger than the number that made it to Kansas, with twelve hundred miles left to go to Montana.

But I never said anything about "black states", though, Rob. My idea concerned the gradual creation(we're talking something on the order of 20 years, maybe?) of several dozen small communities scattered across the West; I don't deny for a second that the Exodusters werea private phenomenon, but there's nothing that says that there couldn't also have been some limited government assistance as well.

And herein lies the problem. I can't see how it's appropriate to discard substantial volumes of primary evidence on the grounds that you think it's unrepresentative, when all you've really got as the criteria for believing that their treatment is unusual is your own gut instinct.

I'll grant that you did have some sources ready. The issue is, though, Rob, these were all first hand accounts, which would be subject to the narrators' own personal biases, to one extent or the other. Mind you, I'm not one to just toss this kind of thing out, but it does help to have other types of sources ready, and to try to sift thru information and draw your on conclusions.

A more methodologically sound approach would be to attack the topic of prejudice from the point of view of the perpetrators rather than the victims, but even here the evidence tends to support the hypothesis of there being less racial prejudice in Britain.

I dunno if you missed this somehow, but in my last reply, I wrote:

I actually don't disagree that Britain actually was somewhat better off than the northern U.S.,

Which actually aligns with that very point that you've made.

British advocates of racial inferiority do so tentatively and in niche publications, though growing in strength throughout the period; American ones do so openly and in widely-circulating journals, North or South, from the very start.

Which does go back to my point about political extremism being much more of a thing in America, than in Britain.

QUOTE]When Lincoln suggests colonising the slaves in Liberia, British observers condemn it on the grounds that America is as much the rightful home of African-Americans as Irish- and German- ones. [/QUOTE]

And I'm sure that some did in fact do this, perhaps genuinely so in some cases. But was it always done out of total altruism? It's important to remember that, sometimes, there were some not-so-idealistic motives behind these criticisms.....it can be argued that this was just as true for many of the (non-abolitionist) Free Soilers here in America; they didn't like slavery, but cared less about the Perfidious Institution itself, than they did with worrying about slave labor undercutting white men's wages, or even, in some cases, just keeping blacks out altogether.

Ultimately, there comes a point where you have to amend your hypothesis in the face of evidence.

When the time comes, yes.

What I quote specifically is what's in a concise and useable form for an internet discussion, and is designed to catch the eye of a casual reader who goes away inspired to learn more. What underlies that is an extremely large amount of historiographical and archival research, conducted for professional purposes, on the topic of racial attitudes in the Anglo-American world during the mid-Victorian period. Unfortunately the latter is substantially less glamorous and dramatically less user-friendly, but by and large it confirms the underlying trend of the quotations I've provided.



It says something, but equally we should remember that it's a matter of quantity. The people of Washington may have accepted Bush's marriage face to face (regardless of what they may have said about it behind closed doors), but they took steps to prevent any more taking place.

The *government* of Washington took steps, yes, not the people at large(regardless of what many have felt privately).....there is a difference; as far as I know, even Oregon's legislators did not put their own ballot to a direct vote(Although I don't doubt that, regardless, there would have been outright supporters than public opponents, and many others simply wouldn't have been moved either way, because the banning of interracial marriage didn't affect them. As unfortunate as that is, such was the state of 1850s America.).

They may have accepted a handful of mixed-race individuals, but they weren't faced with the potential movement of large numbers in the way that Illinois and Indiana and Missouri were. Had they been, their attitudes might have more closely resembled those of Illinois and Indiana and Missouri (and Oregon, of course, which adopted similar measures despite not facing the movement of large numbers).

Perhaps, but that's not necessarily for certain, though. Remember the "Yellow Peril" fears? In the long term, that brand of xenophobia & racism was actually strongest in the eastern states.....whereas,, as ironic as this may seem, West Coasters seem to come around to tolerating the East Asians(at least those who remained) sooner, by and large, by about 1910 or so, even though significant amounts of prejudice did still remain for a few decades afterwards(in the case of the Japanese, though, there was a secondary spike starting right after the Pearl Harbor attack, which didn't die down entirely until about 1960 or so, IIRC).

(Similarly, the Irish-Americans, though themselves often crapped on at first, were seen as "white" by many by the dawn of the 20th Century, and the ethnic prejudice, at least, was largely muted by 1930 or so.)

Even fifty thousand migrants would, I would suggest, have attracted an extreme amount of opprobrium; even more when you consider that they're now going to pay for the privilege of having these people on their doorstep.

I myself admitted that even 50,000 migrants might meet with a fair bit of initial controversy. But in the end, even IOTL, not all that many actively stood in the way of the Exodusters from setting up their communes in Kansas; as widespread as casual racism and other prejudices were, in that era, whatever evidence we do have, does tend to say that most whites in Kansas didn't seem to care all that much.

Incidentally, if we're talking about Canada, it's worth highlighting the fact that many free blacks from the Northern states chose to move to Canada to escape the oppressive laws and prejudice they faced there. Their testimony shows how different they considered life to be outside the North:

Canada is indeed a fairly interesting case, but, TBH, based on all I've read, the situation there had little to do with their continued connections to the Crown; rather much more to do with the fact that slavery was almost non-existent in the area from the beginning.

It also helps to remember that John Graves Simcoe, a man who was arguably one of Canada's early founders(in the sense that he helped create Upper Canada), found himself sympathizing greatly with the abolitionist movement by the 1790s, and played a large role in making sure that the last vestiges of slavery were eliminated(and, IMO, I find it unfortunate that he seems to be relatively unknown outside his home country).

if you're set on confirming whether the relative lack of prejudice was a solely upper-class abolitionist phenomenon via the testimony of those affected, I'd suggest they are your best chance of doing so.

That wasn't what I was quite trying to get across, though, because I realize there was less prejudice on the lower rungs as well. What I was intending to convey, was, there were different reasons for people jumping on the bandwagon. As I've said before, I have no doubts that many were genuinely unsettled by even the Northern problems, let alone how most felt about Southern slavery.

But at least in regards to the former, though, it's important to remember that just as American Free Soilers did not always have the welfare of enslaved Afro-Americans as a primary concern, some British critics of Northern society's problems also put prejudice itself on the backburner for their own reasons, be it to poke fun at the U.S. as a whole, or whatever.
 
But I never said anything about "black states", though, Rob. My idea concerned the gradual creation(we're talking something on the order of 20 years, maybe?) of several dozen small communities scattered across the West;
But you didn't start this thread and I posted before you joined it, so I'm unclear as to why you'd expect my comments to respond to yours and not those of the person who asked us the question in the first place.

it does help to have other types of sources ready, and to try to sift thru information and draw your on conclusions.
I know: I learned that fairly early on in my historical career, otherwise I wouldn't still have one. The thing is, though, that you don't have any other types of sources or any of this type of source to support your argument, whereas I've got a wide variety of sources from legal frameworks to personal experiences to contemporary publications and newspaper editorials to back up mine. As it happens, I feel that this kind of source is the best for demonstrating the state of nebulous and unquantifiable concepts like prejudice. However, if you don't like the type of evidence, don't disregard it and substitute your own assumptions: go out and find a different type.

Which actually aligns with that very point that you've made.
Not really. If you changed it to "substantially better off", it'd align with both my point and the evidence.

Which does go back to my point about political extremism being much more of a thing in America, than in Britain.
Again, not really. What it shows is that moderate opinion is far more prejudiced in America, which enables the extremists to have much more of a voice. In America, mainstream newspapers are publishing the sort of racist comments that only the fringe in Britain voice: in Britain, comments which would go unchallenged in America are shouted down by people from the centre as well as by committed abolitionists. Actually, perhaps it's more accurate to say that in Britain, people in the centre are committed abolitionists.

When the time comes, yes.
The problem is, as I've demonstrated before, you don't seem to appreciate when the time has come. You don't even acknowledge "OK all the evidence points the way you're arguing but I suspect there might be more to the story even though I admit that I haven't found anything that supports my case": you flat-out state that you are right and the people who are following the evidence must be ideologically motivated.

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

Now, let's compare two statements:
was it always done out of total altruism?

The *government* of Washington took steps, yes, not the people at large(regardless of what many have felt privately).....
This is the very utmost of special pleading. When people in Britain talk about how disgusting the treatment of black people is, and completely reject the idea they shouldn't be part of American society, it's not a sign they care about them- it's just a stick to beat the US with! But when American elected officials pass racist laws, and there's no outcry, and the same voters continue to return the same racists to office year after year- well, that doesn't necessarily mean the voters were racist! Here's a thought- if you believe that the British don't mean what they say, then find some evidence and prove it. Baseless speculation motivated by your own personal suspicions and surmises is not history.

as far as I know, even Oregon's legislators did not put their own ballot to a direct vote
You should probably do some research, or alternatively read my posts before responding to them:
Oregon passed further anti-immigration provisions in 1857 which passed by a majority of eight to one
Not only was the exclusion clause was put to popular vote, but it got a bigger majority than either the constitution or the ban on slavery.
Constitution: Approve 7,195, Disapprove 3,215
Slavery: Allow 2,645, Prevent 7,727
Blacks: Exclude 8,640, Permit 1,081.

Again, we come back to the question of how much contrary evidence you require before you start to change your view, because I have the feeling that 83% of Oregon voters refusing to allow black land ownership is going to make absolutely no difference to the line you take on how likely the frontier was to welcome between 50,000 and 100,000 black people.

West Coasters seem to come around to tolerating the East Asians(at least those who remained) sooner, by and large, by about 1910 or so
The fact that after fifty years of immigration the West Coast discriminated against immigrants from Asia marginally less than they had at the start has absolutely no relevance to the discussion, though. We're not talking about whether half a century down the line the black population might have been able to walk down a street without someone spitting on them- we're discussing the outcry there would have been at the prospect of them arriving and whether that would have stopped them arriving at all.

some British critics of Northern society's problems also put prejudice itself on the backburner for their own reasons, be it to poke fun at the U.S. as a whole, or whatever.
And what you're overlooking is the way in which societies define themselves in opposition to others. Britain has been saying "we're not racist slaveowners like the Americans" for years, which unavoidably frames the way that people who consider themselves British act towards black people. They're not "putting prejudice itself on the backburner"- if they were, you'd be able to provide copious volumes of evidence in which individuals say one thing one minute and another the next. They're actively less prejudiced, and they criticise the Americans for not being like them. Flip the example: have you ever accused the Americans of "putting aristocracy on the backburner" to have a go at the British, or do you accept that democracy and republicanism were a more fundamental part of contemporary American society than in Britain?

even IOTL, not all that many actively stood in the way of the Exodusters from setting up their communes in Kansas;
No, because there were 20,000 of them, black people were 4.6% of the population of Kansas in 1870, and the people migrating were paying for it themselves. You're suggesting that people will react exactly the same way if there's 50,000-100,000 people moving, the government is funding it, and they're moving to areas like Washington (black people 0.86% of the population in 1870), Montana (0.9%), or Idaho (0.4%). I don't see how that's even remotely tenable.

TBH, based on all I've read, the situation there had little to do with their continued connections to the Crown; rather much more to do with the fact that slavery was almost non-existent in the area from the beginning.
Once more, you fail to follow through. You agree that prejudice is lower in Canada than the Northern states, because slavery was "almost non-existent in the area from the beginning", and never consider what that might mean for the levels of prejudice in the British mainland where black chattel slavery has never really existed and where interracial marriage, far from being prohibited by law, is relatively widespread among the black community.
 
Last edited:
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?

It's mentioned in The Coming Fury, the first volume of Bruce Catton's centennial history of the ACW.

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.

In any state where the "Redeemers" had gained control, any sort of mass emigration of blacks would encounter violent resistance. Certainly any organized promotion of such emigration would risk tar and feathers if not lynching.
 
Impossible. Way too many freedman to move out, and eventually whites would want the lands.

Would would probably happen is, if the US was ever crazy enough to do it, blacks would be forced onto worse and worse lands, until you get a Bantustan situation like South Africa did.

Or, whites would dismantle the setup and implement Jim-Crow like laws.

The most interesting thing would be the demographics. Eventually blacks and Hispanic immigrants would form a massive majority over the whites in the West.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Maybe the OP could work better in an earlier period of American history:

Post-ACW WI: 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.


Like if emancipation occurs in the American south as a consequence of things going differently during the American revolution, or emancipation occurs in a "ACW" that is waged and lost by secessionists before 1820 or so.

When "the west" is Florida, Alabama, Missississippi and Louisiana and Arkansas, instead of the high plains or Rocky mountains states, well then the agricultural package freedmen would have experience with would be more practical along the southwestern frontier. Plus, with the climate & disease risk, the middle deep south is likely to be less attractive to whites, at least whites lacking a system to force blacks to clear and work the land for them. Eventual statehood though seems to be another kettle of fish and a bridge too far. Anyway, Thomas Paine, one precocious emancipationist, suggested settling freed slaves along the frontier, and the part of the frontier he had in mind was probably the southwest.

Of course this is probably a corruption of the intent of the OP, even if not of its specific wording.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Mexican Texas would be an potential continental

Mexican Texas would be a potential continental Liberia - Mexico outlawed slavery de jure in the 1820s, they accepted " foreign" (meaning de facto Protestant) emigrants/colonists (Austin et al), were willing to accept at least some Five Civilized Tribe type blended cultures - if one worked it, maybe even the LDS after Nauvoo.

Be an interesting variation on RL Texas, certainly.

Best,
 
You might have to have the relocation before the Deere plow and McCormick reaper. They are what made the Great Plains farmable, basically, instead of being the "Great American Desert".

So, either send the blacks out earlier, or delay the invention those devices.

Once that land becomes desirable for white family farms, there is NO incentive to give it to blacks.

If it's perceived as only being suitable for ranching, well, sending them out there might work.
 
Top