Lincoln survives, sends all African-Americans "back" to Liberia

I mean look at all the Nordic Vinland/WI Confederates Won threads on this site, it's very clear the undercurrent of many topics is one that centers Europeans over everyone else.

I often feel that way about the number of threads started "What if Islam never existed" or similar. One suspects there is a sinister motive behind many of these. Most of the overt "Let's send black people 'back' to Africa so we can get a 100% white America" and "Let's exterminate the inferior subhuman Muslim untermensch by sending them to Madagascar (code for the Nazi Endlösung der Judenfrage, the Final Solution to the Jewish question, i.e. the extermination of an entire population by genocide) type posters tend to get banned fairly quickly, thank god.

The sad thing is, it's vastly worse on certain other history-related forums. I think they do a good job here.
 
My whole objection was not that America provided means for those who wanted to return to Africa (Liberia) but the premise forcibly return ALL African Americans 4million + to Liberia. First they not from Liberia only small % are descendants of those who cane from there. Secondly that speaks of racism and the outcome even if spread out over some 20 years be barbaric and considered today genocide. There no way that Africa handle that many people. But must important we selecting people based on color and forcing them to go at gun point.

Somebody tell me they in favor of that.

Not in favour of that, but historical people of the time where- hence why I have asked how possible was more resettlement than OTL or if anyone considered moving ex-slaves somewhere else.

It is not racist to speculate what people of an era *might* have done if that is backed up with sources of the time and not through 21st century eyes.

Is it possible Liberia could have held more people sent from America? Yes
Could more people be sent from America if the will had been there? Yes

The OP (while hardly well written) is designed to provoke speculation and debate - to shoot down, support or flesh out into something realistic if even possible. We can keep doing that regardless of the OP's ban if there is anything else to say.
 
BTW, as Eric Foner notes, the point that colonization would lead to a labor shortage was one which both the "radical" Sumner and the "conservative" Seward made in arguing against colonization:

"Charles Sumner called attention to another aspect of the colonization plan which bothered many Republicans when he wrote during the Civil War that the deportation of three million slaves “will deprive the country of what it most needs, which is labor.” Many Republicans expected the slaves, once freed, to become the free labor force of the South. The radical Congressman Owen Lovejoy spoke of emancipation as a transformation of the blacks “from slaves into serfs.” Seward discouraged Lincoln’s colonization plans during the war, saying, “I am always for bringing men and States into this Union, never for taking any out .” 44 Pro-colonization Republicans countered by suggesting that deportation be a gradual process, and that free white labor, from
Europe and the North, could take the place of the slaves. The New York Times even suggested importing Chinese laborers, although it was not clear how this would serve one of the major aims of colonization, the separation of races. But to Republicans concerned with the nation’s economic development, the idea of transporting out of the country “the whole labor-power of the south” seemed fantastic." https://archive.org/details/freesoilfreelabo01fone/page/278
It is telling how, well, unreal, all this seems now; racism still exists, but the entire conceptual framework changed.
 
This was Lincoln's original plan, but since he died, it never happened.
Lincoln never proposed colonization of freed blacks in Africa. By 1860, the Liberia project was moribund.

Lincoln did very tentatively suggest colonization in Nicaragua, but as there was no support whatever among blacks for it, he dropped it at once. This was in 1863, IIRC.

By the end of the War, he was openly hinting at eventual citizenship for blacks; that sent Booth into a rage. He killed Lincoln a few days later.

To have the US embark on a major "colonization" program after the War, one would have to have a different President, not a Republican. Note that even Andrew Johnson, a white supremacist Southerner, didn't push for colonization.

Hmm. Suppose Atlanta holds out till just after the election. Then it falls; and a delayed "Crater" attack succeeds about the same time. Richmond falls; Union cavalry catch Davis and the Confederate cabinet fleeing Richmond. Whoops! The Democrats "peace platform" is blown to bits.

Lincoln pushes the 13th Amendment as OTL, but with a Democrat majority incoming, it requires a major concession to get it through Congress: a clause restricting citizenship to "persons of the white race".

The incoming President (not McClellan) is someone who viscerally dislikes blacks; before the War he was a Free-Soiler to preserve the Territories for white men only. He wants them out of the country. His followers in many parts of the country enact draconian Black Codes and laws excluding blacks from entire states. (Such laws existed before the War, but were never rigidly enforced.)

On the other side, faced with perpetual inferiority, black leaders return to colonization, supported by many former Abolitionists. The President endorses this; his working-class followers welcome the removal of black competition. "Transportation" to Africa becomes a common sentence for black "criminals" (real or nominal).

So over the next 25 years, a million US blacks migrate or are transported to Liberia, which becomes an official US protectorate.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Lincoln never proposed colonization of freed blacks in Africa. By 1860, the Liberia project was moribund.

Lincoln did very tentatively suggest colonization in Nicaragua, but as there was no support whatever among blacks for it, he dropped it at once. This was in 1863, IIRC.

By the end of the War, he was openly hinting at eventual citizenship for blacks; that sent Booth into a rage. He killed Lincoln a few days later.

To have the US embark on a major "colonization" program after the War, one would have to have a different President, not a Republican. Note that even Andrew Johnson, a white supremacist Southerner, didn't push for colonization.

Hmm. Suppose Atlanta holds out till just after the election. Then it falls; and a delayed "Crater" attack succeeds about the same time. Richmond falls; Union cavalry catch Davis and the Confederate cabinet fleeing Richmond. Whoops! The Democrats "peace platform" is blown to bits.

Lincoln pushes the 13th Amendment as OTL, but with a Democrat majority incoming, it requires a major concession to get it through Congress: a clause restricting citizenship to "persons of the white race".

The incoming President (not McClellan) is someone who viscerally dislikes blacks; before the War he was a Free-Soiler to preserve the Territories for white men only. He wants them out of the country. His followers in many parts of the country enact draconian Black Codes and laws excluding blacks from entire states. (Such laws existed before the War, but were never rigidly enforced.)

On the other side, faced with perpetual inferiority, black leaders return to colonization, supported by many former Abolitionists. The President endorses this; his working-class followers welcome the removal of black competition. "Transportation" to Africa becomes a common sentence for black "criminals" (real or nominal).

So over the next 25 years, a million US blacks migrate or are transported to Liberia, which becomes an official US protectorate.
While the US may say we want. It would not happen. First the cost be huge and more importantly have you even tried to determine what happens to Africa? Liberia could not absorb that many people. What makes you think Britain and France going to stand by and have these people bring anarchy war and problems to their neighboring colonies. This idea is a fallacy that logistically could not be accomplished. Would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
 
To be clear-my thinking is much more in line with "marginally more successful colonization that doesn't change much demographic balance at least in short run but has interesting longer-term consequences by creating a diaspora of African-Americans with a corporate identity or something of that nature, varying levels of ties to the homeland, and ties back that form interesting social and cultural norms in the US". Think less "get rid of X" (EWW) and more like what happens IIRC with South Carolina in Male Rising.

EDIT: and yea this kinda flips a lot of the logic behind why people talk about colonization-it basically presumes that the colonizers retain large kin and social networks back home and ties therof, especially since this would be happening in the era of steamships. I am envisioning something more in line with mercantile diasporas or similar groups.
 
Top