Colonization refers to the antebellum process of redistributing mostly freed black men, women, and children to the continent of Africa, where they were to live and co-exist in the land of their ancestors. Liberia was the area in Africa that was designated for these colonies of removed African Americans. The idea in the minds of white, American advocates of colonization was to remove African Americans in a step-by-step process to rid the United States of unwanted freed-men. To nineteenth century slave-owners, pesky black freed-men were an annoyance to the institution of slavery. They gave slaves a glimpse into the life of a freed person and caused slaves to lose some of their sub-ordinance. But, the idea of a mass removal of native-born citizens is sibling to the idea of enslavement. Both ideas would rudely affect the social atmosphere of antebellum America, especially in the south and even in Georgia.
In the antebellum days of slavery, the separate camps of those for and against slavery began dividing into very distinctive factions. These warring sides often clashed on political and economic stages, but it was in the social arena that these groups met head on. The African American was securely fastened below the bottom wrung of the social ladder. Perhaps, the most frustrating reality was that there was no room for progression or upward movement. African Americans were at the bottom of the “food chain” and were fed the scraps of white America. Brought to America from their homes in Africa, black men and women and their ancestors were usually forced into servitude. They were mistreated and found no solace even in the churches of the era. Slavery became a civil institution, and those who supported it did not look upon opposition kindly 1 .
Many African Americans of the antebellum era were, in fact, bound to an owner and forced to work tirelessly for the owner as his slave. But, either through the will of a sympathetic owner or by birth, some black men and women were granted their freedom. These emancipated slaves, however, were not given the same rights as their white counterparts. Instead, they were usually discriminated against and considered a burden by slave-owners. Although they faced many hardships, these freed men and women became objects of envy to the slaves. Plantation owners detested these bothersome blacks because of the problems they were accused of causing 2 .
Also during this time, abolitionist groups began submerging. They advocated the denigration of slavery. These abolitionists also clashed with slave owners on national, local, and underground scenes. A Southern Banner article accused the abolitionist movement of “driving sane people to mad rioting 3 .” This seems to be a case of the “pot calling the kettle black” though, because it was those who were pro-slavery who did much of the rioting. But, these riots were usually in the form of lynching, hangings, and other gruesome forms of social protest.
There were also groups who searched for a reasonable answer to both sides of the slavery issue. And so, because of common thought of the time, the device of colonization arose. Colonization was blindly supported by many white men of the era. Slave owners were especially interested in the removal of the black men and women who incited their slaves. Slaves were, therefore, not usually the target of the colonization effort, although many historians believe, if left to progress without opposition, colonization would have succeeded in relocating an entire minority. Furthermore, slave owners were reluctant to part with their slaves. These slaves were far too valuable to the farms that they worked. Slaves were, in fact possessions, and giving up a slave was equal to getting rid of one’s plow or carriage. Archibold Anderson adds that they were other reasons owners held onto their slaves.
There were those who held slaves from a feeling of necessity…retaining them in their service not from selfish motives, but from the sincere impression, that to dismiss them, under ordinary circumstances, would do them more harm than good 4 .
So, colonization was focused on freed-men. Supporters of colonization set their sights on these families of liberated black men and women.
It was obvious that colonization was a far more complex topic than slavery and simple abolitionism. It was easy for some to decide whether or not they believed in the institution of slavery, but to decide whether it was better or worse to assimilate an entire race in a foreign land, was a more complex topic to decide. And so, up and down the easy coast, white, black, pro-and-anti abolitionist men met on the colonization battlefield. In the town of Athens the idea was just beginning to sink in, as the ever-flamboyant J.J. Flournoy found himself at the helm of this movement. He used the colonization society as his vehicle for removing freed men and women in north Georgia. But, to the Southern Banner he denied even owning slaves 5 . And so, this is the man who was instrumental in Athens’ colonizing efforts. He was not only known by many to be the town crack-pot, but also he would often say conflicting things to the media. Many of the articles about him were only corrections of previous articles that bore erroneous claims and declarations by Flournoy. His eccentricity lead him to many of these outrageous statements and he even began signing his name “J.J. Flournoy, the Deaf.” Flournoy also supported extensive tariffs to fund the colonization movement. He was eager to remove not only freed men, but also his own slaves. He was obviously a conflicted man and one who cannot be taken seriously 6 .
The idea of colonization, therefore, had many sides. For slaves, it did bring a chance for a new life and a way of governing themselves away from the hurtful slave owners of the United States countryside. The book, Slaves No More: Letters from Liberia, 1833-1869, is composed of actual letters from a Georgian, ex-slave preacher who found himself at the head of an influential group of ministers in Liberia. He described Liberia as a “land of liberty where [he] could enjoy equal rights and worship [his] god without fear.” He also wrote, “Liberia is home for a colored man…there is no other place for him.” But, were these comments justifiable? Or were they simply remarks made by a biased man? Although, the reverend Henry B. Stewart was considered “truly remarkable; a dedicated and accomplished minister, an admirable husband and father…,” his remarks were made in haste, at the beginning of his stint in Liberia. Also, he was allowed to depart Savannah with the entire number of his family. Many were not so lucky. Either previously separated upon arrival in America or separated by colonization, many families were broken apart and the members were forced over to Liberia as individuals. Without the support structure that the Stewart had, a man would have to rely heavily on his instincts just to survive in a new world 6 .
Liberia, itself, was a strange place, especially for the families who migrated there from America. Many supporters of colonization supported the idea without knowing much about the region at all. What hardships would these early colonists experience once they arrived on the African continent? The book, Liberian Dreams: Back to Africa Narravtives from the 1850’s refers to the “unhealthfulness” of the climate. It indicates that every colonist, at some point, was sickened by the fever. The livelihood of venturing colonists was not humane. The conditions were raw and the claim that all of these men and women were at least descended from the area was false. Africa was a diverse continent and the slaves who were brought to America at the beginning of the slave trade were from all across the land. Liberia was as different from Egypt as Georgia was from New York. The people would develop sores and sickness was rampant and unavoidable. Hospitals were also not a luxury 8 .
Located, on the Western shore of Africa, Liberia had just as many critics as it did supporters. Liberian Dreams echoes the sentiments of these critics by describing the native inhabitants of Liberia and their role in making life difficult for the colonists. The natives were indolent and impoverished and a sense of nativism was evident and controlling in the workplace. Once in Africa, it became difficult for the colonists to secure goods 9 . These men and women had returned to their so-called homeland, but they quickly found that they were as much as an invading influence as the original European settlers were to the native Americans. The climate was tropical. Liberia was positioned five degrees north of the equator and the air was humid. In other words, many on the American continent found it easy to be sympathetic to the plight of the colonized freed-men 10 .
The American Colonization Society abruptly found itself at the forefront of the colonization movement. With cases rising up everywhere to halt colonizing Liberia, a centralized group had to take the lead in order to combat the opposition. Abolitionists and other groups that made up this opposition refused to accept colonization as a substitute for African American freedoms. So, the colonization met resistance throughout the United States but nowhere was it championed like in the South. The ACS was, in fact, primarily a southern effort and was comprised of the South’s political and social bigwigs. The ACS, again, began targeting their efforts toward freedmen, who they believed were the culprits of most “slave insurrections.” But, ironically, when colonization would sometimes include the removal of enslaved men, these men were quick to abhor it when it meant losing any of their own slaves.
It was inevitable for the south to become so involved with the colonization movement, because it was in the South where slavery thrived. Men, like Judge Bushrod Washington, Henry Clay, and William Crawford were extremely wealthy and had many slaves of their own. They were not only leaders in the ACS, but also were greatly affected during a large slave revolt in 1800 11 . It was in there best interest, economically, for slavery to flourish without insurrection and colonization was a way to alleviate the dangers of yet another revolt. These men also joined their Bible-thumping compatriots in advocating colonization for its missionary aspects 12 . They attempted to convince politicians that the colonists could spread the word of God to the barbarian lands of Africa. But, wasn’t Liberia supposed to be a way for African Americans to practice religious freedom? It became obvious, early on, that pro-colonizationists would say anything to orchestrate the movement. They would constantly lie to the potential colonists and trick them into believing that Liberia was more of a Utopia than what it actually was; an “intensely tropical area, characterized by high forest vegetation, sustained heat, and heavier seasonal rainfall than other areas of West Africa 13 .”
In an actual account of a black American in antebellum North America, the deception used by colonization agents to woo potential colonists is exposed. He begins with hopeful comments of a repressed man, eager to escape the “persecutions and annoyances” of racism and slavery. Many colonists were similarly hopeful of the exaggerated freedoms that the ACS portrayed. These agents talked of blacks finally receiving their God-given rights in Liberia. These agents would literally tell the freed-men anything to persuade them to colonize. They described the region as a budding metropolis and many of the African Americans pictured a land similar to America. They pictured civilization and what they got was the jungle. William Nesbit, the freed-man depicted in the first half of Two Black Views of Liberia, described the deception. He indicated the exaggeration used by the agents. He said that that once he stepped ashore, he had been “gulled and done for.” He talked about the lack of civilization and the transition an American black man or woman would have to make in terms of the lack of civilization in this new world. He condemned the region for its “darkness and desolation,” and says “that he had been taken out of himself [and] metamorphosed into something else 14 .”
And so, colonization had become an excuse to redefine slavery in America. Because it was aimed at free black men and women, it diminished the myth of a better life in America for slaves. Not only was it abhorred by many simply because it was supported by the same men who supported slavery, but it was also abhorred by those who thought of African Americans as equals. Proponents of colonization argued though that the colonists could be used as missionaries, who could bring some sense of civility to the African continent. Also, again they continued to cite slave upheavals as the principal need for an African American relocation. Therefore, colonization’s roots are embedded in the ideals of racism and hatred. Henry Clay, a renowned southerner and member of the ACS, stated, “Of all of the classes of our population, the most vicious is that of the freed colored…they extended their vices all around them….” But, the African American freed-men meant little harm to anyone. They were not the ones who were viciously attempting to relocate an entire faction of persons. And Clay, like his ACS counterparts, was also quick to provide the classic double standard. He would contradict his own statements by referring to these vicious freed-men as emissaries of what he called “the holy cause.” These men would say virtually anything to see that freed-men would be removed, taken away to their “home-land” of Liberia 15 .
Colonization, though, was in full swing around the 1830’s. Entire families were boarding boats like the Isla de Cuba and were headed for Liberia. Once there, though, they began uncovering many of the myths that were pitched at them, like from the mouth of a car salesmen trying to rid him-self of a lemon. But, finally in 1847 the ACS began losing money. The funds were being exasperated and the society was forced to grant Liberia its independence to govern itself accordingly 16 . This and toughening laws against slaves made the jobs of colonization agents much easier. As word spread of the harsh conditions in Liberia, the conditions grew harsher in America. Fugitive slaves were rendered helpless by laws that forced them to be returned to their owner upon capture. Freed-men became so frustrated with life in America that they felt their only chance at survival would be to migrate eastward to Africa. At least, once there they could govern themselves. This posed a difficult decision for the African Americans. On one hand, they had the abolitionists who had made it their life’s work to secure African Americans their freedom and on the other, they had a distant but feasible outlet to a similar freedom.
Freedom, though, cannot be simply understood by a release from bondage. While, many slaves were discontent with the enslavement of their bodies in America, there were still some who were resistant to the slavery of the mind that colonization led to. The idea of a mass removal a group of people has been played over and over again throughout history. From the Cherokee removal in our own southern lands, to the ghettos instituted by Germany’s nazi regime, a relocation of a minority bears in-grain immorality. It was wrong to colonize freed African Americans and the removal led to a change in the social make-up of America.
As freed-black men and women began leaving the United States, traditions and family legacies were lost. These African Americans had a culture and heritage that was individual to them as a faction. The relocation of this faction could have done more even more damage to our social web. By removing a large amount of a single people, you are removing a defining characteristic in the entirety of the population. We could have lost jazz music, folk art and song, and many other distinctly African American contributions to the diverse culture that today’s America prides itself in.
The ACS itself began crumbling under its own insurrections. Dissention among the top leaders of the society was a major cause for the ACS’s decline. Groups began breaking off and forming their own branches of the ACS with individual policies and doctrines. The society attempted renovations to its inner structure by adopting a new constitution, and by 1848, Liberia had escalated to 285 miles of coastline up and down the African coast. But, as these ships continued dropping off passengers like cargo barrels, money became an issue and the ACS continued crumpling from within.
Any way you look at slavery, it is inwardly wrong. There is no positive take on slavery as an institution and no argument that can be justified in its support. Colonization, on the other hand, can be looked at from two very different angles. And, the idea was argues from both sides by black and white men and women. Although it was a way for freed African Americans to actually have an untouched freedom and govern themselves as they chose, was it ethical? Most or all of the freed-men available to colonization were, in fact, born in America. If slavery was inwardly flawed and unethical and colonization was a product of this slavery, wouldn’t colonization, too, be equally flawed? The answer is yes. By removing an entire faction of people, the ACS became a vehicle for an alternative to slavery. Colonizationists and those who supported it were only looking for a way to further slavery. By removing the freed-man population, slave revolts and uneasiness would be calmed and southern plantation owners would be able to reap the economic benefits that slavery yielded. And so, the real travesty is in the ante-bellum social status of the African American. Whether white America enslaved them or relocated them, proponents of slavery were constantly trying to keep the institution thriving. Freed and enslaved black men alike were persecuted for so long that they were slowly escalating toward total apathy. Samuel Williams’ exasperated account suggests this apathy as he prepared to board a boat en route to Liberia. “So, that, after being aliens and exiles, like Israel in Egypt, for so many long years, we might at least die in the lands of our fathers.” Liberia, for him, was a way out of the slavery and denigration that he had suffered for many years. Luckily for those that would come after him, the civil war would end colonization just as it would do to this slavery.
1. Southern Banner, “Methodist Church”, p. 3, Col. 2(July 4, 1844).
2. Amos J. Beyan Ph. D., The American Colonization Society and the Creation of the Liberian State, University Press of America, 1991, 1-4.
3. Southern Banner, “Riots in New York”, p. 2, Col. 6 (July 26, 1834).
4. Archibald Alexander, D.D., A History of Colonization on the Western Coast of Africa, Philadelphia: W.S. Martien, p. 603, 1846.
5. Southern Banner, “To All the World”, p.3, Col. 4 (March 3, 1836).
6. Southern Banner, “To the Sub-Editor of the Whig”, p. 3, Col. 5 (September 24, 1836).
7. Slaves No More: Letters from Liberia 1833-1869, ed. Bell I. Wiley, The University Press of Kentucky, 1980.
8. Liberian Dreams: Back to Africa Narratives from the 1850’s, ed. Wilson Jeremiah Moses, University Park: Penn State University Press, 1998.
9. Liberian Dreams, 96.
10. Syrulwa L. Somah, Historical Settlement of Liberia and Its Environmental Impact, University Press of America, 1995, 3-5.
11. The American Colonization Society, 1-4.
12. Africa’s Redemption: Preached on Sabbath Morning. Penn. Square, Philadelphia, by William Henry Ruffner, Philadelphia: W.S. Martien.
13. Historical Settlement of Liberia, 3-5.
14. Two Black Views of Liberia, Arno Press and the New York Times, NY 1969: Four Months in Liberia, by William Nesbit, Pittsburgh, 1855.
15. The American Colonization Society, 1-6.
16. Two Black Views of Liberia, Introduction.