State of Liberia
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
tom said:
Assuming that the U.S. would have made efforts to establish a permanent colony in Liberia, there's still no chance that it would happen until late in the 20th Century, because you have to take racism into account. But by that time, Liberia would be like another Puerto Rico and wouldn't want to become a state.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
There is now and always has been a considerable indigenous population in Liberia. Until the very latter part of the last century they were somewhat oppressed by the descendants of the resettled slaves. A lot of their sad history since has involved the retaking of power by the native peoples. The people who "returned" to this "homeland" were American colonizers, pure and simple, none born within a thousand miles of Africa
Last edited:
I'm not certain that Liberia would attain statehood. I see it being a Commonwealth like Puerto Rico. Although Liberians would probably enjoy a much higher standard of living it would still be lower than the mainland U.S. There would probably be many Liberians who would choose to move to the mainland. I could see many moving to the mainland U.S. after airfares become less expensive in the 1960s and 1970s. I could also see the U.S. being much more involved in African affairs, especially in neighbouring states. For instance I'm almost positive that the Americans would object to having a pro-Soviet dictator like Sekou Touré in neighbouring Guinea. The Ivory Coast was generally pro-Western during the Cold War so I expect lots of American aid going to Houphet-Boigny's government during this time. As for Sierra Leone maybe the Americans encourage the British to hold onto it (after all many Sierra Leoneans today wish they were still under British rule and they kept Queen Elizabeth as head of state until 1971 far longer than any of Britain's former African colonies). Or perhaps the U.S. can support Sierra Leone financially and they can keep a pro-American government.
Basically I see the lives of Liberians as well as Africans in neighbouring states being much better off with a U.S. presence in West Africa. After all the Americans have a vested interest in keeping this region peaceful. They don't want thousands of refugees constantly pouring into American territory.
Basically I see the lives of Liberians as well as Africans in neighbouring states being much better off with a U.S. presence in West Africa. After all the Americans have a vested interest in keeping this region peaceful. They don't want thousands of refugees constantly pouring into American territory.
Hmmm, I don't see the likelihood of Liberia becoming a US state after its foundation as Africa's 1st so-called republic in 1847 (which Lincoln only recognised during 1862), since as Ace Venom pointed out, racism was such a strong factor, and the main reason many whites supported the inception of Liberia was so's that all American blacks could be sent back there instead of being allowed to continue living alongside whites in America. Such racist sentiments wouldn't have countenanced IMHO recognising Liberia as a constituent component of the Union.
BTW, on the previous board I posted a thread on WIs re other proposed potential freed black colonies in other parts of the world, such as Central America and the Philippines. What do you guys reckon on thes ideas ?
BTW, on the previous board I posted a thread on WIs re other proposed potential freed black colonies in other parts of the world, such as Central America and the Philippines. What do you guys reckon on thes ideas ?
"Lincoln actually wanted to send all blacks to a (probably enlarged) Liberia. So lets say Lincoln isn't shot and somhow he manage to send most of the blacks "home". Now (1880) we have maybe 5 million civilized negroes in a Liberia living in a commonwealth with USA. What's next?"
Lincoln decided against that partway throught the war when he was told flat-out that there was no way Liberia could support even a fraction of America's slaves, nor was there any plausible way to move them all there. He was informed correctly.
The fact is, Liberia is stuck on the ass-end of Africa - virtually no natural resources easily exploited until the country was already an economic basketcase. If you want Liberia to be a state, have it be established someplace where it will eventually make money.
I suspect that having a place on US Territory where entrepenurial free blacks could go to bring civilization to the savages would be a great boost for race-relations.
Lincoln decided against that partway throught the war when he was told flat-out that there was no way Liberia could support even a fraction of America's slaves, nor was there any plausible way to move them all there. He was informed correctly.
The fact is, Liberia is stuck on the ass-end of Africa - virtually no natural resources easily exploited until the country was already an economic basketcase. If you want Liberia to be a state, have it be established someplace where it will eventually make money.
I suspect that having a place on US Territory where entrepenurial free blacks could go to bring civilization to the savages would be a great boost for race-relations.
Another reason why Lincoln in the end decided against largescale colonisation in Liberia, which I discovered in the course of preparing a tutorial paper on the Emancipation Proclamation when I did American Hist from Settlement to Civil War, was the largescale contribution of black soldiers to the Union cause, which thereby morally prevented Lincoln from supporting any plan to ship the blacks back to Africa after they'd already shown so much loyalty to their country and their willingness to fight and die for the Union. But WI for the purposes of this qn, blacks hadn't had the opportunity to contribute so greatly to the ACW- would this provide a greater groundswell for resettling blacks in Africa ?
Resource-wise, Liberia's economic potential IIRC was actually quite substantial, with rubber plantations run by the Firestone Rubber Co. being 1 of the major sources of wealth to Liberia thruout the 20th C- although regrettably the Americo-Liberian elite siphoned off the vast majority of the profits to line their own pockets, and there was also during the 1920s allegations of virtual rubber slavery being operated by the Americos exploiting local indigenous tribes-ppl. This traditional Americo exploitation of the indigenous 'tribes' (AFAIK, the term was derogatorily utilised by the descendants of freed slaves to refer to the local indigenous ppl) continued until 1980 (although in 1944 Pres William Tubman introduced enfranchisement and citizenship laws to grant greater rights to the indigenous population), when Staff Sgt Samuel Doe, a Krahn, mounted a coup against the admin of Pres William Tolbert, massacred the entire cabinet thru public executions on the beach of Monrovia, and instituted his own oligarchy and kleptocracy favouring the Krahn as the new ethnic group in control. Then in 1989, Charles Ghankay Taylor (an Americo with Gola ancestry), a disaffected former govt minister under Doe, returned with his NPFL movement to overthrow the Doe admin, and began the civil war whose effects are still being felt today.
BTW, Adm Matt, Carlton Bach a couple mths back posted a thread on African-Americans being settled in the Congo during the 1870s instead of Liberia.
quote: 'I suspect that having a place on US Territory where entrepenurial free blacks could go to bring civilization to the savages would be a great boost for race-relations'.
In this vein, does anybody know why African-Americans by the start of the 20th C weren't encouraged to involve themselves in such 'civilising' of the locals in new US territories like the Philippines or Samoa ?
Resource-wise, Liberia's economic potential IIRC was actually quite substantial, with rubber plantations run by the Firestone Rubber Co. being 1 of the major sources of wealth to Liberia thruout the 20th C- although regrettably the Americo-Liberian elite siphoned off the vast majority of the profits to line their own pockets, and there was also during the 1920s allegations of virtual rubber slavery being operated by the Americos exploiting local indigenous tribes-ppl. This traditional Americo exploitation of the indigenous 'tribes' (AFAIK, the term was derogatorily utilised by the descendants of freed slaves to refer to the local indigenous ppl) continued until 1980 (although in 1944 Pres William Tubman introduced enfranchisement and citizenship laws to grant greater rights to the indigenous population), when Staff Sgt Samuel Doe, a Krahn, mounted a coup against the admin of Pres William Tolbert, massacred the entire cabinet thru public executions on the beach of Monrovia, and instituted his own oligarchy and kleptocracy favouring the Krahn as the new ethnic group in control. Then in 1989, Charles Ghankay Taylor (an Americo with Gola ancestry), a disaffected former govt minister under Doe, returned with his NPFL movement to overthrow the Doe admin, and began the civil war whose effects are still being felt today.
BTW, Adm Matt, Carlton Bach a couple mths back posted a thread on African-Americans being settled in the Congo during the 1870s instead of Liberia.
quote: 'I suspect that having a place on US Territory where entrepenurial free blacks could go to bring civilization to the savages would be a great boost for race-relations'.
In this vein, does anybody know why African-Americans by the start of the 20th C weren't encouraged to involve themselves in such 'civilising' of the locals in new US territories like the Philippines or Samoa ?
European affairs
If Liberia was a state by 1880 or so, it could lead to constant US involvement in European affairs. At one point, IIRC, Britain and France grabbed a chunk of Liberia. Even though they probably wouldn't do that to a US state, the partitioning of Africa would lead to US concerns about something like that happening. By the time of the Great War, the US might be at least partially associated with one or more of the alliances--messy!
If Liberia was a state by 1880 or so, it could lead to constant US involvement in European affairs. At one point, IIRC, Britain and France grabbed a chunk of Liberia. Even though they probably wouldn't do that to a US state, the partitioning of Africa would lead to US concerns about something like that happening. By the time of the Great War, the US might be at least partially associated with one or more of the alliances--messy!
Leo Caesius
Banned
That would have put them directly in competition with ... FRANCE! [Dramatic Chord]Peter said:
Competition with France
Competition with France may result in cooperation with Germany. This could make things rough. Coopeeration with Germany implies distrust of Britain. This implies a need to build a strong navy--one that can protect an American state against blockade and invasion.
Britain could out-build Germany, but would be hard-pressed to outbuild the USA if a naval race developed.
Britain would not want this--and the British have always been good at alliance building. I wonder if Britain would consider having France to balance Germany worthwhile, if in so doing, she encouraged the USA to build a large fleet. The State of Liberia could cause large butterfly effects in the European alliance power--but then, the USA is a LARGE butterfly
Competition with France may result in cooperation with Germany. This could make things rough. Coopeeration with Germany implies distrust of Britain. This implies a need to build a strong navy--one that can protect an American state against blockade and invasion.
Britain could out-build Germany, but would be hard-pressed to outbuild the USA if a naval race developed.
Britain would not want this--and the British have always been good at alliance building. I wonder if Britain would consider having France to balance Germany worthwhile, if in so doing, she encouraged the USA to build a large fleet. The State of Liberia could cause large butterfly effects in the European alliance power--but then, the USA is a LARGE butterfly
Perhaps if the USA is more concerned with foreign affairs in the late 19th century (maybe someone like Alfred Thayer Mahan goes into politics, or a popular author like the Reverand Josiah Strong speaks out in favor of it), Liberia could be made a military protectorate, followed by Commonwealth status for most of the 20th century.
ninebucks
Banned
No chance.
I think the trick for this would be having a much more racist USA much earlier on. Have Lincoln continue to believe that sending the Blacks back to Africa would be a good idea, and have some major mutiny occur within the barracks of a Black company (it doesn't have to be about anything racial, missed payments or inadequate food would do).
So then, straight after the ACW, Blacks start being encouraged to leave for Liberia. The KKK, instead of resisting the Federal troops during the Reconstruction, becomes a vigilante organisation finding Black people and urging them to emigrate.
Liberia's population inflates beyond any kind of control and the expulsion process becomes totally chaotic. Lincoln, the one time hero, is forever tainted with this terrible policy's legacy.
Flash forward a hundred years, and Liberia is a dependent territory, under light US occupation. As the Civil Rights movement comes into prominance, two parallel campaigns arise, one for Liberian statehood, the other for Independence.
For the sake of the challenge, lets say it goes the first way. By the early 1960s, Liberia is admitted as a state.
(I can imagine Liberia's transition at this point will be quite rough, but the USA should pull through it...)
In an idea I'm developing, I do have many freedmen settling in Mindanao after a deal concerning the Sultanate in the area, and an earlier acquisition of the Philippines by the U.S.