What if when the American Colonization Society sends freed slaves to Africa and the Kingdom of Koya unites with the tribes in the area and wipes out the colony and this leads to the ACS hanging from being back to Africa to sending the Freed Slaves in 1825 somewhere out West.

Where in the West would they go?

Would more freed Men join the trek since they wouldn't be sent to Africa but staying in North America?

They are sent far away but eventually the rest of the United states catches up to them, what are the effects on the nation when this happens?

Do they become a state or due to racism remain a territory for an extended timeframe?
 
How about a racist for the time solution,post civil war an African-American freedman state is designated in newly bought Alaska.What kind of upheaval would that cause on all sides of the USA,especially when Alaska is found out not to be an barren Icebox?
 
How about a racist for the time solution,post civil war an African-American freedman state is designated in newly bought Alaska.What kind of upheaval would that cause on all sides of the USA,especially when Alaska is found out not to be an barren Icebox?
Maybe Alaska declares independence later in history.
 
Maybe Alaska declares independence later in history.
What if when the American Colonization Society sends freed slaves to Africa and the Kingdom of Koya unites with the tribes in the area and wipes out the colony and this leads to the ACS hanging from being back to Africa to sending the Freed Slaves in 1825 somewhere out West.

Where in the West would they go?

Would more freed Men join the trek since they wouldn't be sent to Africa but staying in North America?

They are sent far away but eventually the rest of the United states catches up to them, what are the effects on the nation when this happens?

Do they become a state or due to racism remain a territory for an extended timeframe?
This is actually an awesome idea

Do you mind if I make some electoral maps based off this?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The American colonization society does not have the political pull to set aside western land for freedmen that white citizens may want for themselves someday.

Out of American territories, logistically, Arkansas Territory (Arkansas-Oklahoma) and Florida Territory are the easiest, followed by Kansas, but the proximity is why slave state politicians would veto the option. There is the issue that freedmen would need to be sent in armed themselves, or protected by feds, or else they have a high chance of not surviving or being killed/enslaved/incorporated by Indian tribes. Arming ex-slaves so close to the south or providing federal protection is a hard thing to get Congressional majorities behind.

It's easier politically easier to select foreign destinations like northern Mexico, but that requires Mexican government agreement and an expensive armament effort to prevent enslavement by the Comanche.

Only Oregon country, past the cascades, has a sufficiently wet and abundant habitat to give large settlements of poor freedmen with no capital a decent chance of surviving, but, there was already enough of a white American commercial presence and settler community to lobby against Oregon country being made a set aside, and the US govt is planning for the area to be its strategic western coast.

And the land journey from Missouri to Oregon is long and treacherous.

After the Civil War, southern objections to alot of schemes could be ignored for the period that formerly seceded states are disenfranchised. So then Indian Territory and New Mexico territory would be the easiest for Reconstruction Congresses to call as set-asides, but by then the Colonization Society, and concept, had long since passed its peak.

If the Freedmen's southwest did happen though, it would be a poor area whether it gets statehood status or remains stuck at territorial status. Because of lack of capital and poverty, Arizona and New Mexico would not have a very magnetic effect on Mexicans, so later Mexican migration routes would be concentrated entirely into the California and Texas parts of the border.
 
It's easier politically easier to select foreign destinations like northern Mexico, but that requires Mexican government agreement and an expensive armament effort to prevent enslavement by the Comanche.

Oh, that's not a problem. If it means something that they can use to avoid an Anglo domination of the area, they will accept happily.

No, seriously. One of the plans to settle the north was trying to get escapee slaves settle there. Using the fact they didn't had slavery to ensure their loyalty and cooperation in case the Americans made their move to take over. Didn't had much success OTL, of course.
 
What if they settle the Great Salt Lake before the Mormons get there?
Would the USA still annex "Utah" after the Mexican-American War in this timeline or would they grant Utah independence in order to not create a problem between the north and south (I don't think the south would appreciate a territory of the USA controlled by free black people)? If Utah did gain independence would this encourage other former Mexican regions to gain independence, possibly California?
 
The United States may just keep them as a territory. They are not a state but the U.S. retains the final say in their affairs, especially external ones.

Eventually there would probably be a plebiscite on whether they wanted to remain a territory, become a state, or go the independance route.

On the Utah possibilities where does this put the Church of Latter Day Saints?
 

Deleted member 97083

Oh, that's not a problem. If it means something that they can use to avoid an Anglo domination of the area, they will accept happily.

No, seriously. One of the plans to settle the north was trying to get escapee slaves settle there. Using the fact they didn't had slavery to ensure their loyalty and cooperation in case the Americans made their move to take over. Didn't had much success OTL, of course.
Any more information on that?
 
There were a number of black American communities West of the Mississippi from Canada's prairie states through to Southern California.

The only way I can see this not end up like OTL is if their neighbors weren't utter disgusted by black self-sufficiency and black people in general.
If Liberia was not chosen, they would have sent them to Haiti (or British Sierra Leone).
You act as though 1. They had no agency in the matter 2. That they were not already in Haiti (I mean, hello Samana Americans came because of Haitian Elite) and 3. There isn't precedent of black Americans not only migrating but actually being asked to migrate West.
 
Does a settlement first settled by free slaves remain one of color or does it eventually become intrgrated?

Let's go with the ACS following the trail of Jim Bridger and settling the Great Salt Lake area. Joseph Smith and his brother die as in OTL. Maybe not the same exact way but they get killed and the Church of Latter Day Saints head west and seeing Salt Lake taken they form a nucleus in Las Vegas. (Fun with Butterflies)

Freedmen like Frederick Douglass were against Colonization. They did not like the Slave Masters kicking out the slaves that had worked so hard in making America. If the Utah expiriment was to work would he then push for annexation?

What are relations like with the Shoshone?

If a Civil War does happen in TTL how long before the Union accepts some help from the "Utah Indian Fighters"?
 
That they were not already in Haiti (I mean, hello Samana Americans came because of Haitian Elite)

Just to add to this, there were larger settlement efforts of African Americans in Haiti outside of the Samana (and said efforts were even sponsored by the Haitian government), but it mostly failed because the African Americans unsurprisingly had a lot of difficulty assimilating into Haitian culture. I recall reading that most of the settlers ended up returning to America and the project was quickly abandoned in favor of Liberia.
 
Just to add to this, there were larger settlement efforts of African Americans in Haiti outside of the Samana (and said efforts were even sponsored by the Haitian government), but it mostly failed because the African Americans unsurprisingly had a lot of difficulty assimilating into Haitian culture. I recall reading that most of the settlers ended up returning to America and the project was quickly abandoned in favor of Liberia.
The Gullah communities that migrated to Trinidad faired much better but that in my belief is due to the region's with which Trinidadian enslaved people originated from and Anglo dominate culture aligning more with their own origins, cultures and folkways.
 
Top