• 

• 

• Home
• Liberia in Perspective
• Convenant-Pledge
• News
• Calendar
• Contact

The American Colonization Society

And

The Slave Preservation

Conspiracy Theory

In

The United States

By

John S. David, PhD

 Explaining historical events is hardly ever simple. This is true about the controversies over the American Colonization Society (ACS) role in ending slavery in the United States. Existing findings and interpretations vary and mostly tainted by personal biases which are not uncommon in historical writings.

Critics describe the ACS as a scheme for the preservation of slavery, while supporters see it as a philanthropic organization. Some scholars fall between the two, claiming that it was necessary to cooperate with slaveholders and humanitarian groups to accomplish the mission of repatriating blacks to the land of their ancestry.

While the debate continues, I am under no illusion that this paper will bring closure to that intellectual discourse. However, this article attempts to determine whether the ACS was primarily a slaveholders’ organization disguised as a philanthropic or humanitarian organization. Or simply, was the ACS a racist organization designed to preserve slavery in the United States?  

The empire of slavery was a complex institution. General Robert E. Lee confided in his wife that “There are few…who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil…The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence.”[1] By his account, slavery came from being a “necessary evil” (because the plutocrats depended on it for their ill gains) to a “positive good” (because it would Christianize, civilize, and prepare blacks for their personal advancement).

Why the Outcry

Abolitionism was an act of desperation; an apocalyptical outcry to demolish the institution of slavery. Most of the Founding Brothers or Revolutionary Fathers were beginning to see the evil empire as a blot on the American character.[2] However, they demonstrated limited political will to stop slavery.   

Slave life was demeaning. Bond servants were not allowed to marry and family life had no legal protection. In States like Texas, contubernium was allowed, as long the cohabitation was not construed as marriage. Slaves did not own their children and each could be sold separately, including the mom and dad, never to be seen again. Slave masters could rape any slave, with impunity. The children of the rape womanhood of African women lived in obscurity and generally ignored by their white parents. In some cases, slaves were forced to have children with whomever the masters chose. The historian Randolph B. Campbell provides the following insight:

Women were put with men…like “the cows and the bull” and bred for “BIGGER NIGGERS.” Other former slaves spoke of “breeding,” “travelling,” or “stud” Negroes who in some cases went from one plantation to another to sire slave children. Fannie Brown said…I never did have no special husband before the war. Children who were simply “bred” as animal-like property could be treated as such as they grew older. “We mostly were like cattle and hogs as today.”[3]

Freedmen were not better off than slaves. Anglo Americans considered all blacks inferior, free or slave. For instance, besides being denied the right to bury their dead in public cemeteries, some states passed laws to deny blacks residency. According to historian John Yarema, some jurisdictions required bonds ranging from $500 to $1000.[4] In other states, emancipated slaves were required by law to leave town within a year of emancipation, or be deported.[5]

Christian organizations and other humanitarian groups demanded immediate end to slavery. The messianic crusade against what they called “hideous atrocities” was said to be necessary for the redemption of slaves and the soul of America. According to the historian David Davis, “Slavery was the Antichrist and the “even-headed dragon” of Revelation. The Lord was whetting his glittering sword, and his vengeance was certain, unless the new Children of Israel separated themselves from the filthiness of the Heathen, and came away from Babylon.”[6]  However, the apparent zealotry created uneasiness for moderates who favored a sustained but graduate approach. Preferring to err on the side of cautiousness, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “A good cause is often injured more by ill-timed efforts of its friends than by the arguments of its enemies. Persuasion, perseverance and patience are the best advocates on questions depending on the will of others.”[7]

The Great Divide

The anti-slavery movement was torn apart on ideological lines. One group demanded immediate emancipation of all slaves, while another called for gradual manumission.[8] There was no fixed gulf between the two. Various political or personal circumstances created push or pull factors between the opposing forces. Consequently, abolitionists became colonizationist and vice versa, as circumstances warranted.

The agonies of slavery became a burden for both slaves and their sympathizers. To them, entrenched Anglo prejudices appeared insurmountable and racial equality unattainable. General Robert Goodloe Harper, after whom the capital city of Maryland County in Liberia was named, painted the following grim picture about white racism against blacks:

Be their industry ever so great and their conduct so correct, whatever property they may acquire, or whatever respect we may feel for their characters, we never could consent, and they never could hope, to see the two races placed on a footing of perfect equality with each other: to see the free blacks or their descendants visit in our houses, form part of our circle of acquaintance, marry into our families, or participate in public honors and employments. This is strictly true of every part of our country, even those parts where slavery has long ceased to exist, and is held in abhorrence. There is no state in the union, where a negro or mulatto can ever hope to be a member of congress, a judge, a militia officer, or ever a justice of the peace: to sit down at the same table with the respectable whites, or to mix freely in their society.[9]

Harper’s claim expressed the general sentiment of abolitionists who adopted the policy of gradualism. They believed that America offered no hope for blacks to advance as a race. The proposed solution was to remove them from white racism to a faraway region where they could create a country of their own. This plan attracted both friends and foes of slavery. The union of odd couples created a condition for inconvenient truce with slavery, a cumbersome design that was highly paradoxical.

The gradualist emancipatory movement turned out to be a dichotomy of individuals with diverse motives. First, there was the philanthropic group, made of religious and other moralists. Its goal was to remove freedmen to a region outside of the United States, with their consent, while inducing slaveholders to emancipate more slaves for emigration. However, the cumbersome hybrid became the focus of critics for including slavocrats in the organization. Some slave masters expressed the desire to deport freedmen from the United States, while leaving slaves unemancipated.[10]  As a result, the abolitionist-colonizationist debate sandwiches between the two factions. Depending on whose story to believe, the American Colonization Society foremost goal was the eventual eradication of slavery. Or, as its critics claim, a scheme to purge the United States of freed blacks only, thereby preserving the institution of slavery.

The ACS enlisted both anti-and –pro-slavery supporters. The interest groups were represented at the first Washington DC meeting on December 21, 1816. Slaveholders Henry Clay and John Rudolph expressed the proslavery sentiment: “The proposed institution to colonize blacks should not, in any way, challenge the institution of slavery…”[11] Rudolph then urged all slaveholders to support the association ‘since many slaveholders believed that the presence of free blacks created a dangerous source of discontent among slaves.’”

The antislavery platform was presented by Dr. Elias Caldwell who had invited both Clay and Rudolph to participate mainly for political reason.  He declared that “America could not continue upholding civil liberties while depriving a part of its population (blacks) these same liberties.” Cardwell and Madison blamed white prejudices for the abased condition of African Americans. During that meeting, no official policy was set to free slaves who chose not to emigrate. The primary reason, from the offset, followed the core principle “that there is an utter aversion in the public (white majority) mind, to an amalgamation and equalization of the two races: and that any attempt to press such equalization is not only fruitless, but injurious.”[12]

James Madison, who became a lifetime member of the ACS, designed some pieces of the framework for the organization. In 1783 he wrote:

This is rendered impossible by the prejudices of the Whites, prejudices which proceeding principally from the difference of color must be considered as permanent… It only remains then that some proper external receptacle be provided for the slaves who obtain their liberty. The interior wilderness of America and the coast of Africa seem to present the most obvious alternative…If the attempt were made in the neighborhood of the white settlements, peace would not long be expected to remain between societies, distinguished by such characteristic marks, the retaining the feelings inspired by their former relation of oppressors and oppressed. The result then is that an experiment for providing such and external establishment for the blacks as might induce the humanity of masters, and by degrees both the humanity and policy of the governments, forward the abolition of slavery in America, ought to be pursued on the coast of Africa or in some other foreign situation[13].

Madison resolved that blacks could not gain equality among whites due to unabated Anglo prejudices. He carefully weighed the options and chose emigration, but he cautioned that slaveholders should be compensated for losing what was legally considered their properties. Meanwhile, the slaves were to be given an option to choose where to be emancipated or live.

Although some chapters of the Society operated schools, and Rev. Finley encouraged them to continue their humanitarian services in poor communities, the ACS did not officially support legislative efforts to procure civil rights, education, and voting rights for blacks, after Liberia was established. Some members argued that the tantalizing efforts were only designed to tease blacks. They were considered inferior and unwanted in the United States; therefore any action to give them hope for racial equality was unreal and fruitless. Some black leaders like Martin Delany, Paul Cuffee, and William Du Bois eventually came to this same conclusion and sought to extricate themselves from the United States.

The Righteous Indignant

The voices of abolitionists demanding immediate emancipation grew louder and more militant. One of the most vocal was William Lloyd Garrison. He became the total embodiment of all fanatical antislavery sentiments could express within a generation, and Garrison was a white man. From the beginning of his campaign, he wrote in his propaganda newspaper, the Liberator: "I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. . . . I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD." Certainly, Garrison was heard. From 1831, no abolitionist did more to shame slaveholders or decried supporters of colonization than he. His most ferocious disparagement was transfixed on the American Colonization Society like a guarded laser beam to track and vilify its actual, speculative, or imaginary plans.

Garrison supported the American Colonization Society up to 1830 and helped raised funds for the Organization. They fell when he delivered an incinerating rebuke against slaveholders and promoters of gradual emancipation at a July 4 celebration in 1828.[14] He called for all slaveholding members of the ACS to be expelled at once, and that meant nearly everyone but himself, and maybe a few others. 

Despite the disparagement, Garrison did point out “the sincere motive and the nobility of design of those whose active interest brought the Colonization Society into being. He proposed a plan to involve him: “Were the American Colonization Society bending its energies directly to the immediate abolition of slavery; seeking to enlighten and consolidate public opinion, on this momentous subject…; assiduously endeavoring to uproot the prejudices of society; and holding no fellowship with oppressors; my opposition to it would cease.”

Ending slavery required the cooperation of slave owners, since the institution was legal in the United States. Many slave masters saw the ACS as a passage for a graceful exist out of the peculiar business of owning other human beings. Those that feared the draconian antislavery laws found a safe way to set their slaves free, without concern of legal repercussion.

Conspiracy Theory

As early as 1773, two friends, Rev. Samuel Hopkins and Rev. Ezra Stiles discussed the possibility of sending African Americans as missionaries to Africa.[15] Two black young men were trained at Princeton College for the mission, but the American Revolutionary War interfered with the plan. The endeavor was abandoned.

Some historians doubt whether Hopkins intended to establish a colony in Africa or just a mission station. However, in a letter to Granville Sharp, dated January 15, 1783, Hopkins wrote: “This plan I have had in view for some years, and had wished and attempted to promote.”[16] He did not have the funds to implement the project.

Hopkins and Stiles were friends of Rev. Samuel J. Mills, editor of the “Evangelical Magazine.” His son, by the same name, was born in 1783 and consecrated as a foreign missionary.[17] It can be recalled that Mills and Ebenezer Burgess went on an expedition to West Africa in 1818, which paved the way for the ACS successful establishment of Liberia.

The slave revolts in Haiti (1791) and Virginia (1800) set America on edge. In 1800, Gabriel Prosser and other slaves took up arms against slaveholders. They planned to kidnap Governor James Monroe for a ransom, but the scheme failed. The plotters were to be hung. The Governor pleaded with the Council of State to spare or pardon some of the insurgents, or sell them, instead of hanging or lynching the fighters for justice. Why did Monroe ask for pardon? As historian Debbie Levy points out, “Monroe was troubled by the possibility of having to execute many men whose crime was plotting to fight for their freedom.”[18] During the trial, he urged the court to show mercy, if there was a doubt about any of the plotters. This and other black revolts elsewhere in the United States magnified the fear among white people of black retribution.

President Thomas Jefferson had a strong opinion about removing blacks. He added: "Africa would offer a last and undoubted resort…It is material to observe that they (insurgents) are not felons, or common malefactors, but persons guilty of what the safety of society, under actual circumstances, obliges us to treat as a crime."

Paul Cuffee jumpstarted the “Liberian Experiment.” He made two voyages to Sierra Leone to arrange for black settlements. On his second voyage, his vessel was confiscated and charged for allegedly transporting British goods. He appealed to President James Madison for help and his boat was restored.[19]

The 1816, the American Colonization Society (ACS) was organized. A key component of this “Experiment” was a “voluntary removal” of individuals.

Forten and Rev. Richard Allen supported the Paul Cuffe repatriation plan for freedmen. That support continued until the American Colonization Society was formed on December 21, 1816. On January 15, 1817, he and other black leaders gathered 3000 people at Rev. Allen AME Church to discuss colonization.  The prevailing view was unanimous. The ACS, just a few days old, was said to be under the influence of Southern slaveholders. Rumors spread fast that repatriation would not only be limited to “volunteers” but all black persons could be compelled to emigrate. Forten wrote the following to his friend, Paul Cuffe, about the outcome of the meeting and stated: “They think that the slaveholders want to get rid of them so as to make their property more secure.”[20] The meeting set up 12 committees with clear instructions to oppose the American Colonization Society, and Forten was its chairman.[21] Notwithstanding, he expressed his personal apprehension thus: “My opinion is that they will never become a people until they come out from amongst the white people.”

The resolution out of the meeting read in part: "Whereas our ancestors (not of choice) were the first cultivators of the wilds of America, we their descendants feel ourselves entitled to participate in the blessings of her luxuriant soil.... Resolved, that we never will separate ourselves voluntarily from the slave population in this country; they are our brethren by the ties of consanguinity, of suffering, and of wrongs...."

The Conspiracy Theory Unraveled

Most African Americans opposed the ACS. They strongly believed that, by removing freed blacks, slaveholders would have less opposition or pressure to liberate slaves. However, a review of the emigration records of settlers in Liberia tells a different story. Most emigrants to Liberia were emancipated slaves (individuals who gained freedom or bought their own freedom to go to Liberia). Here is the breakdown:

 

Emigrants to Liberia From 1831-1867[22]
Free born	4541
Purchased their own freedom	344
Emancipated to go to Liberia	5957
Emancipated for other reasons	753
Arrived from Barbados in 1865	346
Unknown origins	68
Settlers to Maryland (1831-67)	1227
Recaptives	5722
Total	18958

Nearly 5957 of the settlers were former slaves who gained their freedom under the influence of the American Colonization Society. That is more than the number of freeborn and those who purchased their own freedom put together. With such a disparity, it is obvious that the ACS clearly demonstrated its concern about the emancipation of slaves than most dragnet historians or critics of colonization would like to believe. Moreover, the argument that the organization only intended to remove freedmen and leave slaves in bondage to perpetuate slavery is presumptuously erroneous as the record demonstrates.

Among the emancipators were slaveholders and ACS supporters, like board member William H. Fitzugh. He manumitted 300 slaves and offered to pay for their immigration to Liberia, if they decided to go.[23] They also sought to legally secure the freedom of slaves by appeal or purchase, if they chose emigration. This act was designed to weaken, not strengthen, the institution of slavery.

Rev. Robert Gurley was the General Secretary and Spokesman for the Society. To help raise funds for the Organization, he sold his furniture and books. It is difficult to see this gesture as an act to preserve slavery by a man who was not a slaveholder. Meanwhile, during one of his tours in the South, ACS founder, Rev. Robert Finley said in 1833, “The constant and increasing tendency of the plan of Colonization is to lead to the emancipation of slaves, and that this had already taken place, and is still, in a very encouraging manner.”[24]

Dr. Robert Finley was a retired Presbyterian minister who came out of retirement to fund educational programs for black children in his neighborhood who could not read. About that time he concluded that white racism was too intense against African Americans. As a result, he decided to encourage the removal of freedmen, with their consent, from the United States, and help them establish their own country in Africa.  

The goal of the ACS essentially remained intact throughout its lifespan, despite the lack of funds, sociopolitical difficulties and venomous vilification which hastened its demise.  At the end, the American Colonization Society did what all other American emigration societies were unable to do: plant a colony outside of the United States that became a country. There is no generally credible evidence that the slaveholders significantly altered the fundamental agenda of the American Colonization Society, as critics claim. It is not possible to deny the many blatant racist comments made by some leaders. Perhaps some of those speeches were mere political stunts to deflate direct attach on the ACS by plutocrats. Sometimes when it comes to difficult strategic decision-making, politics become the art of the achievable.

 During the Abraham Lincoln and Senator Steven Douglass Debate, the senator accused Lincoln of tailoring his message to fit his audience; charging him of flip-flopping on the issue of slavery, based on the location. He claimed Lincoln was adapting his message to say what sounded good for the political districts.^[25] Again, in racist Central and Southern Illinois, Lincoln saw moderation as a political safety net. Douglas was exploiting the situation to his advantage. He alleged that Lincoln supported inter-racial marriage and the Republican Party wanted to set the slaves free. Of course, people of that district hated being compared to black people and suggesting tolerance for mongrelization provoked furious resentments. Therefore, it won’t be a surprise if earlier colonizationists employed the same strategy to give themselves a fighting chance against opponents.

Alleged Forcible Removal of Blacks

The deportation of black was a standard policy for many states before the ACS was organized. Laws existed in the early 1700s which allowed for the deportation of blacks who committed certain types of crimes such as rape and stealing.[26]  The owners paid the cost, but if the culprit was not a slave, the individual was flogged and branded.[27] James Clark, president of the ACS, shared light on the scheme in 1829. He argued that emigration was a humane organization. Clark made reference to a Virginian law that called for emancipated blacks to leave the State in 12 months or forfeit their freedom. According to him, the law provided no asylum or destination for the deportees, therefore the Liberian colony was necessary to receive all such victims.[28]  In defense of the Liberian Experiment, the ACS leader said the country was open to both freeborn and emancipated slaves. It was an opportunity for slaveholders who chose to manumit their slaves, for whatever reasons and irrespective of whatever the motivations were. Slave owners who agreed to manumit their human cargo also paid the cost for transportation. If they could not, the ACS paid some or all the fares.[29]

The decision to accept or reject freedom must have been terrifying. Most slaves wanted to be free and live wherever they chose, and they should have been given that right. However, freedom in the United States was not the opposite of slavery. In most cases, emancipated blacks were neither slave nor free. According to the High Court Decision in the Dred Scott Case of 1857, Africans in America were not eligible for citizenship.[30] Many states denied them residency. They were a stateless race in racist society.

When slaves were offered freedom in exchange for emigration, they had to make a choice and accept the consequences. Slaves who refused freedom in exchange for repatriation risked remaining in bondage for a long time; risked being resold elsewhere to cruel masters, brutalized in other ways with impunity. Those that chose freedom were also taking risks of dying in transit, being infected with tropical diseases, and getting drawn into tribal wars. However, if they survived and were willing to work hard, they had a better chance to rise socially, economically, politically and command respect for their achievements. This was one thing blacks in America could not hope for. It was a difficult position, nonetheless, for those who had to make the precarious decision to stay or go. However, in the end, it was still their decision, and that is how the empire of slavery worked, unfortunately.

There had been cases of slave masters including instructions in their wills to free or resell their slaves, as Thomas Jefferson did. The decision was made by the “property” owners. The slaves could accept the offer or challenge it in court. Other conditionally emancipated slaves have had to do the same to seek justice. However, the slaves still had a decision to make, to accept or reject the offer.

There were many instances when individuals appealed to the ACS for help to emigrate after the Civil War. The organization turned them down due to the lack of funds. Churches and other sources had to help and this is especially true of blacks from Arkansas. There were Individuals who sold their possessions just to get a ticket or make partial payment to hold a seat.[31] Going after anti-emigrants for the financially striped ACS seems improbable.

The Anathema: Colonization or Emigration?

The black community became divided on the issue of emigration. Some individuals decided to form their own colonization societies. The goals were similar to the goals of the American Colonization Society, except for the substitution of the word “colonization” with “emigration” or “civilization” and the leadership was made of black colonizers.

General Martin Delany had a distinct view on the difference between colonization and emigration. According to him, colonization “was the racist removal of blacks from the United States, and emigration was an independent initiatives by blacks to leave the United States”.[32] He wanted no association the American Colonization Society because some of its members were white men who owned slaves.

Delany also concluded that freedom for blacks in America was an elusive dream. However, after terminating his membership with the ACS, he was contemptuous toward Liberia. Most historians believe that migration to Africa was opposed by blacks because it was associated with the work of the American Colonization Society. Any discussion about Liberia generated the vilest abuse from opponents. Delany himself said Liberia was a mockery or “burlesque on government.”[33] He considered the ACS". . . One of the most arrant enemies of the colored man ..."

Yet, African Americans had to face the same facts as members of the ACS: Whites opposed biracialism. Blacks could only realize their full capability and command respect outside of the United States. But that was a hard reality, especially when slaveholders share the same sentiment. Instead of Liberia, Delany favored settlements in the Caribbean islands, Canada, and Central America, or elsewhere in Africa. He listed a few reasons for his dislike of the First African Republic. Among other things, the country’s location was poorly chosen (“6^th of latitude and North of the equator,” and was unhealthy.  Secondly, the country was founded by slaveholders who had evil motives to get rid of blacks.  

General Martin was on his way to the Slave Coast (Nigeria) to negotiate for black settlements. Rev. Ralph Gurley extended an invitation to visit Liberia. He expressed displeasure to accept a free passage to Liberia on an ACS boat. However, he did not raise enough funds to travel on. As a result, he accepted a small financial support from the ACS “and its close cousin, the African Civilization Society.”[34]  He had a free ride in a boat owned by three Liberians whose business was subsidized by the ACS. He finally made it to Liberia, the country he had mocked, vilified, and trivialized for more than 20 years. The arrival date was July 12, 1859. Once in Liberia, he met President Stephen A. Benson and other government officials. Delany was mesmerized and overwhelmed. He stayed from July 12 to September 5, before leaving for Yorubaland. His plan for settling freed blacks in Nigeria did not materialize. Notwithstanding, in 1877, Delany helped to transport 206 emigrants from Charleston to Liberia.

In 1818 the Haytian “Emigration” Society of colored People was formed, with Rev. Peter Williams as chairman. (The founders avoided the use of the word, “colonization” not to be identified with the ACS). The HESCP plan was to repatriate freedmen to Haiti, not Africa.^[35]

 Was the ACS a Racist Organization?

The American Colonization Society had many detractors. Some Southern states argued that the Society was too cozy with Northern abolitionists. For that reason, the State of Virginia broke away in 1828 to form its own Society, The Colonization of the State of Virginia.[36] Other states separated for various reasons and operated independently. On the other hand, Northern abolitionists complained about the ACS alignment with the South and its principle of gradualism, and so they sought separation.  

ACS members developed a strong conviction against racial integration based on the belief that Anglo prejudices were too ingrained in America and could not be altered. Due to the increased hostilities against blacks for several hundreds of years, it was hopeless, according to them, to seek acceptance in a white society. Attempts to make Africans feel as though life would get better was a travesty.  However, this view was denounced by abolitionists who demanded a biracial nation.[37]

It is evident that most black leaders came to the same conclusion that biracial integration was unattainable in America. John Brown Russwurm started out as an anticolonizationist. His vicious attacks are recorded in the “Freedom Journal.” He is quoted to have said: “Never shall we consent to emigrate from America until the prior removal from this land of their degradation and suffering. Even then, we would not ask the aid of the American Colonization Society to carry us to their land “flowing with milk and honey.”[38] However, in 1829, he was so disillusioned about black’s prospects in the United States that he did some soul searching and reversed course. “Can the justice of God tolerate so much iniquity and injustice, and when will the monster prejudice be done away, even from among the Christians?” he asked himself. After 14 years in America, Russwurm concluded: “There was no better option than to emigrate to Africa.” He too argued that it was a waste of time to talk of ever enjoying citizenship in this country. “It is utterly impossible in the nature of things: all therefore who pant for this must cast their eyes elsewhere.”

Russwurm filed an application with the ACS in January of 1829 and was approved to travel in July of the same year. The leadership had its doubts about the wisdom of enlisting the converted anti-colonizationist, after his barrage of attacks on the organization from the editorial of “The Freedom Journal.” However, he made it to Liberia, edited the first Liberian newspaper, “The Liberian Herald,” and became governor of Maryland (County). Russwurm helped to lead Liberia to independence and was instrumental in the annexation of Maryland to the country.

An assembly in Philadelphia headed by James Forten and Rev. Richard Allen denounced the ACS's plan as an "outrage having no other object in view than the slaveholding interests of the country." This and other damaging statements have been made by anti-ACS scholars who claim that “the ENTIRE PREMISE upon which the ACS was founded and other perceived colonization ventures were to rid America of its blacks on the basis of separatism and politico-economic expedience. ALL pretentions of PSEUDO HUMANANITARIANISM in this historical case are just that- pretensions.” According to this opinion, humanitarian considerations were never a component of the ACS policy. It was all about politico-economic expediency or practicality without moral grounds.  However, even some of the most staunch critics of the “Back to Africa Moment” paused to admit that there was a moral component to the Organization endeavor, though it involved cooperation with slaves.

Dr. Delany had to confront the reality of racism. Besides the fact that his mother was issued a citation for teaching him and his sister to read and write, Delany himself was expelled from Harvard Medical College because he was black. It was the same year the Fugitive Law was passed, 1854, which severely limited the free movement of blacks in the country. Of that law, he wrote:

Let no visionary nonsense about habeas corpus, or a fair trial, deceive us; there are no such rights granted in this bill…There is no earthly chance, no hope under heaven for the colored person…We are slaves in the midst of freedom, waiting patiently and unconcernedly, indifferently, and stupidly, for masters to come and lay claim to us, trusting to their generosity, whether or not they will own us and carry us into endless bondage[39]

Delany came to the conclusion that progress for blacks was hopeless in America and coined the phrase “Africa for Africans.”[40]  He moved to Canada before the Civil War and travelled later to Africa to arrange for black settlements to no avail. Thereafter, the prominent black leader started working for the Freedmen Bureau in the South, joined the Confederate (Democratic) Party, and encouraged blacks to move to Liberia.[41]

When offering thanks after a meeting of 40 black leaders in 1883, most attendees offered toasts to the future of blacks in America. Dr. Martin Delany stood proudly, raised his glass, and said: "The Republic of Liberia." This was long after he lavished praises on William Nesbit whose report on Liberia included the following prediction, “Liberia cannot succeed. It is now only a fraud; and as soon the English people withdraw their support, it will irresistibly fall back to its native heathens.”[42]

Although Delany maligned the ACS, he did admit that many of the men involved with the organization were honest people: “There are many good persons within our knowledge, whom we believe to be well-wishers of the colored people, who may favor colonization.”[43]  Moreover, Garrison who had said that no good act of the ACS would warrant his respect due to its diabolical scheme did recognize “the sincerity of motive and the nobility of design of those whose active interest brought the Colonization Society into being.” Definitely, there was a strong humanitarian component to the Organization’s mission, irrespective of the presence of slaveholders.

Marcus Garvey raised the “Back to Africa Movement” to a new level. He argued in favor of repatriation and once in Africa, whites were to be expelled from the Motherland.[44] William Du Bois was an anti-colonizationists and hated those associated with it. He made that clear when describing Lincoln as “one huge jumble of contradictions:..big enough to be inconsistent—cruel, merciful; peace-loving, a fighter; despising Negroes and letting them fight and vote; protecting slavery and freeing slaves. He was a man—a big, inconsistent, brave man.” Yet, he gave up fighting for equality in America. Du Bois joined the Communist Party. He and his family left the country in 1961 and became citizens of Ghana. There he died on the eve of the 1963 March on Washington, where Martin Luther gave the “I have a dream speech.”

Did the settlers think that the American Colonization Society was a racist organization? Some of the repatriates were unhappy with the difficult pioneer life in Liberia. A few returned to the States, but a majority remained and helped the country declared independence. The Constitution of 1847 clearly lined up the conditions that gave rise to the founding and repatriation to Liberia. The Constitutional Convention also expressed what the nation felt about the American Colonization as follows: [Numbers added]. 

1.      The people of the Republic of Liberia were originally the inhabitants of the United States of North America.

2.      In some parts of that country, we were debarred by law from all the rights and privileges of men--in other parts, public sentiment, more powerful than law, frowned us down.

3.      We were everywhere shut out from all civil office.

4.      We were excluded from all participation in the government.

5.      We were taxed without our consent.

6.      We were compelled to contribute to the resources of a country, which gave us no protection.

7.      We were made a separate and distinct class, and against us every avenue to improvement was effectually closed. Strangers from all lands of a color different from ours, were preferred before us.

8.      We uttered our complaints, but they were unattended to, or only met by alleging the peculiar institutions of the country.

9.      All hope of a favorable change in our country was thus wholly extinguished in our bosoms, and we looked with anxiety abroad for some asylum from the deep degradation.

10.  The Western coast of Africa was the place selected by American benevolence and philanthropy, for our future home. Removed beyond those influences which depressed us in our native land, it was hoped we would be enabled to enjoy those rights and privileges, and exercise and improve those faculties, which the God of nature has given us in common with the rest of mankind.

 Summary

The American Colonization Society was founded in 1816 as a Christian and humanitarian organization to repatriate free blacks to Africa. A key component of the repatriation policy was the removal of free blacks (with their consent), and there is no  evidence that there was ever a gross violation of this policy. Moreover, although the ACS manifesto declared that it would not interfere with slavery, in practice, it did. The Society transported more emancipated slaves to Liberia than freedmen. This happened largely on humanitarian grounds than politico-economic expediency.  There is no evidence that the removal of freemen benefited slaveholders significantly or abated slave revolts.

Most members of the ACS came to the conclusion that, due to entrenched white prejudices which led to hideous torture of blacks, racial integration was unattainable and it was pointless to encourage it. A large number of black leaders came to the same conclusion and sought to remove blacks from the United States. Delany attempted to promote resettlement in Nigeria. Both James Forte and Rev. Richard Allen planned to resettle blacks to Haiti.

Slaveholders did not have a significant impact on the general mission of the ACS. As a matter of record, the American Colonization Society succeeded to induce slaveholders to emancipate their slaves, encourage freed blacks to resettle in Liberia, and allow the First African Republic to determine its own political and economic destiny.