In the midst of the perplexities arising from various plans for the
solution of the race problem one hundred years ago, the colonization
movement became all things to all men. Some contended that it was a
philanthropic enterprise; others considered it a scheme for getting rid of
the free people of color because of the seeming menace they were to
slavery. It was doubtless a combination of several ideas.[1] Furthermore,
the meaning of colonization varied on the one hand according to the use the
slave-holding class hoped to make of it, and on the other hand according to
the intensity of the attacks directed against it by the Abolitionists and
the free colored people because of the acquiescent attitude of
colonizationists toward the persecution of the free blacks both in the
North and South.[2]
Almost as soon as the Negroes had a chance to express themselves they
offered urgent protest against the policy of removing them to a foreign
land. Before the American Colonization Society had scarcely organized, the
free people of Richmond, Virginia, thought it advisable to assemble under
the sanction of authority in 1817, to make public expression of their
sentiments respecting this movement. William Bowler and Lenty Craw were the
leading spirits of the meeting. They agreed with the Society that it was
not only proper, but would ultimately tend to benefit and aid a great
portion of their suffering fellow creatures to be colonized; but they
preferred being settled "in the remotest corner of the land of their
nativity." As the president and board of managers of the Society had been
pleased to leave it to the entire discretion of Congress to provide a
suitable place for carrying out this plan, they passed a resolution to
submit to the wisdom of that body whether it would not be an act of charity
to grant them a small portion of their territory, either on the Missouri
River or any place that might seem to them most conducive to the public
good and their future welfare, subject, however, to such rules and
regulations as the government of the United States might think proper.[3]
Many Negroes, however, emigrated from this State during later years.
Subsequent accounts indicate, too, that this increasing interest in
colonization among the colored people of that Commonwealth extended even
into North Carolina.[4]
Farther north we observe more frequent and frank expressions of the
attitude of the colored people toward this enterprise. When the people of
Richmond, Virginia, registered their mild protest against it, about 3,000
free blacks of Philadelphia took higher ground.[5] Because their ancestors
not of their own accord were the first successful cultivators of the wilds
of America, they felt themselves entitled to participate in the blessings
of its "luxuriant soil," which their blood and sweat had moistened. They
viewed with deep abhorrence the unmerited stigma attempted to be cast upon
the reputation of the free people of color, "that they are a dangerous and
useless part of the community," when in the state of disfranchisement in
which they lived, in the hour of danger, they "ceased to remember their
wrongs and rallied around the standard of their country." They were
determined never to separate themselves from the slave population of this
country as they were brethren by the "ties of consanguinity, of suffering,
and of wrong."[6] They, therefore, appointed a committee of eleven persons
to open correspondence with Joseph Hopkinson, member of Congress from that
city, to inform him of the sentiments of the meeting, and issued an address
to the "Humane and Benevolent Inhabitants of Philadelphia,"[7] disclaiming
all connection with the society, questioning the professed philanthropy of
its promoters, and pointing out how disastrous it would be to the free
colored people, should it be carried out.[8]
Although a few persecuted Negroes of Maryland from the very beginning
believed it advisable to emigrate, the first action of importance observed
among the colored people of Baltimore, favoring colonization in Africa, was
that of a series of meetings held there in 1826. The sentiment of these
delegates as expressed by their resolutions was that the time had come for
the colored people to express their interest in the efforts which the wise
and philanthropic were making in their behalf. Differing from the people of
Richmond they felt that, although residing in this country, they were
strangers, not citizens, and that because of the difference of color and
servitude of most of their race, they could not hope to enjoy the
immunities of freemen. Believing that there would be left a channel through
which might pass such as thereafter received their freedom, they urged
emigration to Africa as the scheme which they believed would offer the
quickest and best relief.[9]
We have not been able to find many records which give proof that in the
States far South there was much opposition of the Negroes to the plan of
removing the free people of color from the United States. We must not
conclude, however, that this absence of protest from the free colored
people in that section of the country was due to the fact that they almost
unanimously approved the plan of African Colonization.[10] Consideration
must be given to the fact that the free colored people in the Southern
States did not exercise the privilege of free speech. Consequently, if
there were even a large minority who opposed the plan, they were afraid to
make their views known, especially when this movement was being promoted by
some of the leading white people of that section.
Occasionally there arose among the colored people of the South advocates of
colonization, setting forth the advantages of emigration in all but
convincing style.[11] Such was a free man of color of Savannah in the year
1832. He had always viewed the principles on which the American
Colonization Society was grounded as one of large policy, though he saw it
was "aided by a great deal of benevolence." And when viewing his situation
with those of his colored brethren of the United States he had often
wondered what prevented them from rising with one accord to accept the
offer made them, although they might sacrifice the comforts of their
present situation. He had often almost come to the conclusion that he would
make the sacrifice, and had only been prevented by unfavorable accounts of
the climate. Hearing that Liberia needed help, he desired to go. He and the
Negroes for whom he spoke seemed to be of an enterprising kind. He
understood the branches of "wheel-wright, blacksmith, and carpentry," and
had made some progress in machinery. He did not expect to go at the expense
of the Society and therefore hoped to take with him something more than
those who had emigrated on those terms.[12]
Another such freeman spoke from Charleston the same year. He had observed
with much regret that Northern States were passing laws to get rid of the
free people of color driven from the South on account of hostile
legislation.[13] He was also fearful as to the prospects of the free blacks
even in favorable Southern cities like Charleston, where they were given a
decided preference in most of the higher pursuits of labor. He believed,
therefore, that emigration to Africa was the solution of their problem. He
urged this for the reason that the country offered them and their posterity
forever protection in life, liberty, "and property by honor of office with
the gift of the people, privileges of sharing in the government, and
finally the opportunity to become a perfectly free and independent people,
and a distinguished nation."[14] The letters of Thomas S. Grimké written to
the Colonization Society during these years show that other freedmen of
Charleston driven to the same conclusions were planning to emigrate.[15]
Conditions in that State, however, forced some free Negroes to emigrate to
foreign soil. A number of free colored people left Charleston, and settled
in certain free States. After residing two or three years in the North they
found out that their condition instead of improving had grown worse, as
they were more despised, crowded out of every respectable employment, and
even very much less respected. They, therefore, returned to their former
home. On reaching Charleston, however, they were still dissatisfied with
their condition. Changes, which had taken place during their absence from
the State, made it evident that in this country they could never possess
those rights and privileges which all men desire. Some of them resolved,
therefore, to try their fortunes in Liberia.[16]
The Negroes in Alabama had also become interested in the movement during
these years.[17] In writing to Mr. McLain, of Washington, S. Wesley Jones,
a colored man of Tuscaloosa, said that save the Christian religion there
was no subject of so much importance and that lay so near his heart as that
of African Colonization. All that was necessary to change the attitude on
the part of the colored people was a "move by some one in whom the people
have confidence to put the whole column in motion," and just "when there is
a start made in Alabama the whole body of the free people of color will
join in a solid phalanx." As for himself he had fully made up his mind to
go to Liberia, but could not leave the United States until he had closed up
a ten years' business, and if successful in collecting "tolerably well"
what was due him he would be able to go without expense to the Society.[18]
In July, 1848, this same writer addressed to Mr. McLain another letter in
which he gave details of a trip he had made in an adjoining county in the
interest of emigration to Liberia. During this trip he said he had found a
few free colored people who, after he had talked with them on the subject,
were of one accord that the best thing they could do for themselves was to
emigrate to Liberia.[19] In another letter addressed to McLain by the same
writer December 29, 1851, it was stated that the colonization movement was
still growing in the State. He also said that "those of us who want to go
to Liberia are men who have been striving to do something" for themselves
and consequently have "more or less business to close up." Mention was also
made of the fact that there were at Huntsville, in the northern part of the
State, several who had in part "made up their minds to go and only wanted a
little encouragement to set them fully in favor of Liberia."[20]
Although thus favorably received in the South, however, the Colonization
Society met opposition in other parts. The spreading of the immediate
abolition doctrine by men like Garrison and Jay had a direct bearing on the
enterprise. The two movements became militantly arrayed against each other
and tended to inflame the minds of the colored people throughout the
country. The consensus of opinion among them was that the Colonization
Society was their worst enemy and its efforts would tend only to
exterminate the free people of color and perpetuate the institution of
slavery.[21] So general was this feeling that T. H. Gallaudet, a promoter of
the colonization movement, writing to one of its officers in 1831, said
that something must be done to calm the feelings of the colored people in
the large cities of the North.[22] Their resentment seemed to be due not so
much to the fact that they were urged to emigrate, but that a large number
of the promoters of the enterprise seemed to feel that the free Negroes
should be forced to leave.[23] Considering themselves as much entitled to
the protection of the laws of this country as any other element of its
population, they took the position that any free man of color who would
accept the offers of the colonization movement should be branded as an
enemy of his race. They not only demonstrated their unalterable opposition
but expressed a firm resolve to resist the colonizationists even down to
death.
The proceedings of these meetings will throw much light on the excitement
then prevailing among the free people of color in the border and Northern
States. In 1831 a Baltimore meeting, led by William Douglass and William
Watkins, expressed the belief that the American Colonization Society was
founded "more upon selfish policy than in the true principles of
benevolence; and, therefore, as far as it regards the life-giving spring of
its operations," that it was not entitled to their confidence, and should
be viewed by them with that caution and distrust which their happiness
demanded. They considered the land in which they had been born and bred
their only "true and appropriate home," and declared that when they desired
to remove they would apprise the public of the same, in due season.[24]
That same year a large meeting of colored people of Washington, in the
District of Columbia, convened for the purpose of expressing their opinion
on this important question. Although they knew that among the advocates of
the colonizing system, they had many true and sincere friends, they
declared that the efforts of these philanthropists, though prompted no
doubt by the purest motives, should be viewed with distress. They further
asserted that, as the soil which gave them birth was their only true and
veritable home, it would be impolitic, if they should leave their home
without the benefit of education.[25] A meeting of the very same order of
the free people of color of Wilmington, Delaware, that year, led by Peter
Spencer and Thomas Dorsey, took the position that the colonization movement
was inimical to the best interests of the colored people, and at variance
with the principles of civil and religious liberty, and wholly incompatible
with the spirit of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence of
the United States.[26]
A meeting of free colored people held in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1831,
was of the opinion that none should leave the United States, but if there
were or should be any expatriated in consequence of abuses from their white
countrymen, it was advisable to recommend them to Haiti or Upper Canada
where they would find equal laws. In regard to their being sent to Africa,
because they were natives of that land, they asked: "How can a man be born
in two countries at the same time?" In refutation of the argument made by
the Colonization Society, that the establishment of the colony in Liberia
would prevent the further operation of the slave trade, they said: "We
might as well argue that a watchman in the city of Boston would prevent
thievery in New York; or that the custom house officers there would prevent
goods being smuggled into any other port of the United States."[27] Because
there were in the United States much better lands on which a colony might
be established, and at a much cheaper expense to those who promoted it,
than could possibly be had by sending them into "a howling wilderness
across the seas," they questioned the philanthropy of the promoters of
African colonization and adopted resolutions in opposition to the
movement.[28]
A public meeting of colored citizens of New York, with Samuel Ennals and
Philip Bell as promoters, referred to the Colonizationists as men of
"mistaken views" with respect to the welfare and wishes of the colored
people. The meeting solemnly protested against the bold effort to colonize
the oppressed free people of color on the ground that it was "unjust,
illiberal and unfounded; tending to excite prejudice of the community."[29]
At a meeting of the free colored people of Brooklyn, promoted by Henry C.
Thompson and George Hogarth, it was resolved that they knew of no other
country in which they could justly claim or demand their rights as
citizens, whether civil or political, but in the United States of America,
their native soil; and that they would be active in their endeavors to
convince the members of the Colonization Society, and the public generally,
that being men, brethren, and fellow citizens, they were like other
citizens entitled to an equal share of protection from the Federal
Government.[30]
The sentiment of a meeting at Hartford, Connecticut, in 1831, was that the
American Colonization Society was actuated by the same motives which
influenced the mind of Pharaoh, when he ordered the male children of the
Israelites to be destroyed. They believed that the Society was the greatest
of all foes to the free colored people and slave population; and that the
man of color who would emigrate to Liberia was an enemy to the cause and a
traitor to his brethren. As they had committed no crime worthy of
banishment, they would resist all attempts of the Colonization Society to
banish them from their native land.[31] A New Haven meeting of the Peace
and Benevolent Society of Afric-Americans, led by Henry Berrian and Henry
N. Merriman, expressed interest in seeing Africa become civilized and
religiously instructed, but not by the absurd and invidious plan of the
colonization society to send a "nation of ignorant men to teach a nation of
ignorant men." They would, therefore, resist all attempts for their removal
to the torrid shores of Africa, and would sooner suffer every drop of their
blood to be taken from their veins than submit to such unrighteous
treatment. From the colored people of Lyme, Connecticut, came the sincere
opinion that the Colonization Society was one of the wildest projects ever
patronized by enlightened men. The colored citizens of Middletown, chief
among whom were Joseph Gilbert and Amos G. Beman, inquired "Why should we
leave this land, so dearly bought by the blood, groans and tears of our
fathers? Truly this is our home," said they, "here let us live and here let
us die."[32]
The meeting in Columbia, Pennsylvania, the leaders of which were Stephen
Smith and James Richard, expressed the opinion that African colonization
was a scheme of the Southern planters and wicked device of slaveholders who
were desirous of riveting more firmly, and perpetuating more certainly, the
fetters of slavery by ridding themselves of a population whose presence,
influence and example had a tendency (as they supposed) to produce
discontent among the slaves, and to furnish them with inducements to
rebellion.[33] A few weeks later a meeting was held at Pittsburgh under the
leadership of J. B. Vashon and R. Bryan. The colored people of this city
styled themselves as brethren and countrymen as much entitled to the free
exercise of the elective franchise as any other inhabitants and demanded an
equal share of protection from the Federal Government. They informed the
Colonization Society that should their reason forsake them, then might they
desire to remove. They would apprise them of that change in due season. As
citizens of the United States, they mutually pledged to each other their
lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, not to support a colony in
Africa nor Upper Canada, nor yet emigrate to Haiti. Here they were
born--here they would live by the help of the Almighty God--and here they
would die.[34] Early in 1832, the colored people of Lewiston, Pennsylvania,
in a meeting called by Samuel and Martin Johnston, expressed practically
the same sentiments.[35] Through the influence of Jacob D. Richardson and
Jacob G. Williams, an indignation meeting of the same kind was held at
Harrisburg.[36]
The free people of color, assembled at Nantucket, Rhode Island, in 1831,
under the leadership of Arthur Cooper and Edward J. Pompey, saw no
philanthropy in the colonization movement, but discovered in it a scheme
gotten up to delude them from their native land into a country of sickness
and death.[37] A Trenton meeting promoted by Lewis Cork and Abner H.
Francis viewed the American Colonization Society as the most inveterate foe
both to the free and slave man of color. These memorialists disclaimed all
union with the Society and, once for all, declared that they would never
remove under its patronage either to Africa or elsewhere.[38]
In New York there had been various expressions pro and con as to emigration
to Liberia, but it does not seem that a large number of colored people of
that city ever favored it. They believed rather in emigration to Canada.
The attitude of the people of that State was shown in 1834 by the troubles
of Reverend Peter Williams, Rector of St. Phillip's Church in the city of
New York. Working through the Phoenix Society and the Anti-Slavery Society
he had endeavored to convince the free colored people that the idea held
out to men of color that no matter how they might strive to become
intelligent, virtuous and useful, they could never enjoy the privilege of
citizens in the United States, was erroneous. On the contrary, he believed
that the Declaration of Independence, which his father had helped to
maintain, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ had sufficient power to raise the
people of color at some time to the rank of citizenship. Although his
opposition never extended further than the expression of his views, there
arose so much antagonism to him that he was asked by his bishop to resign
from the Anti-Slavery Society, because of a disturbance in his church.[39]
There remained others, however, to continue the attack. At a meeting in
1839 the free people of color of New York entered a unanimous protest
against the efforts of this body, reiterating the sentiment that the
American Colonization Society was the source from which came the various
proscriptions and oppressions under which they groaned.[40]
The attitude of the free blacks of New York was probably better
demonstrated on the occasion of the appearance of W. S. Ball, who had been
sent to Liberia by the free colored people of Illinois to secure definite
information concerning the advisability of emigrating to Africa. On his
return to New York, he made a speech to a large assembly of colored people,
some of whom desiring to see Liberia for themselves, had made preparations
for a company to sail September, 1848. Ball expressed himself as well
pleased with the country and after interesting the colored people of
Illinois[40a] he hoped to return to Liberia with a large emigration. The
colored people of New York received him in good faith. While the Liberian
Commissioners were in session, President Roberts and his comrades were
invited to come to the Anthony Street Church to inform them of the country.
After several speeches had been made, opportunity was given to the colored
people to ask questions that had not been touched upon. This continued for
some time and seemed to elicit information highly favorable to the cause,
until a Mr. Morrill made his way up the aisle toward the platform. After
having gained the attention of the audience with an air of superiority
which showed he was accustomed to control audiences of colored people, he
said that he had just come into town and was surprised to find his friends
engaged in holding a colonization meeting. "That question," said he, "has
been settled long ago! and the Liberia humbug--" At this point the hisses
were so loud he could not be heard. Finally after much yelling and shouting
of "hear him," the meeting became a bedlam and the presiding officer
attempted to leave the chair. Finding order impossible the meeting was
adjourned in an uproar. Amid cries of "a fight, a fight," women leaped over
the pews and made their way to the doors. After some time had elapsed order
was restored by clearing the house, but Morrill, who seemingly had come
with the expressed purpose of breaking up the meeting, was not found in the
chaos that ensued.[41]
Doubtless the best expression of antagonism to the American Colonization
Society came from the Annual Convention of the Free Colored People held
first in 1830 and almost annually thereafter in Philadelphia and other
Northern cities almost until the Civil War. The Second Annual Convention
showed an attitude of militant opposition by emphatically protesting
against any appropriation by Congress in behalf of the movement. The Third
Annual Convention, which met in Philadelphia in 1833, probably represented
the high water mark of their antagonism to this enterprise. There were 59
representatives of the free people of color from eight different States,
namely, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, New
York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. The leaders of the movement were
James Forten, Robert Douglas, Joseph Cassey, Robert Purvis, and James
McCrummell. At an early stage in the proceedings of this Convention there
prevailed a motion that "a committee consisting of one delegate from each
of the States represented in the Convention, be appointed to draft
resolutions expressive of the sentiments of the people of color in regard
to the subject of colonization." Although these men were opposed to
emigration to Africa, they favored a sort of colonization in some part of
America, for the relief of such persons as might leave the United States
on account of oppressive laws like those of Ohio.[42] The colored people
would in this case give such refugees all aid in their power.
After having divested themselves of "all unreasonable prejudice," and
reviewed the whole ground of their opposition to the American Colonization
Society, with all the candor of which they were capable, they still
declared to the world that they were unable to arrive at any other
conclusion than that the life-giving principles of the Society were totally
repugnant to the spirit of true benevolence; that the doctrines which the
Society inculcated were hostile to those of their holy religion and in
direct violation of the golden rule, and that "the inevitable tendency of
this doctrine was to strengthen the cruel prejudice of their opponents, to
still the heart of sympathy to the appeals of suffering Negroes, and retard
their advancement in morals, literature and science, in short, to
extinguish the last glimmer of hope, and throw an impenetrable gloom over
their fears and most reasonable prospects." All plans for actual
colonization, therefore, were rejected.[43]
The movement thereafter continued to receive the attention of the people in
the various parts of the country, being generally denounced. The Negroes of
Ohio were prominent among those who opposed it.[44] Invited to hear a
lecture by Mr. Pinney, a former governor of Liberia, then on a tour in the
United States raising funds to purchase land there, the free blacks of
Cincinnati held a meeting to protest. Arrogating to themselves the
privilege of expressing the opinion of all the colored people of the United
States, they respectfully declined the invitation for the reasons that the
scheme was iniquitous in that it implied the assumption of the inequality
of the free people of color.[45] They accordingly urged that such sums as
their so-called friends might give for the purchase of land in Africa might
be used for establishing schools and asylums for colored children in this
country.[46] At a series of meetings of free colored people, held in the
city of Cleveland, Ohio, during the winter of 1845-46, the Colonization
Society was denounced as an organization whose proceedings tended to
aggravate the injustice with which the free colored people were treated in
this country. It was called the greatest antagonist which colored people
had to meet and put down, before they could "stand erect in this country."
During the meeting a very bitter spirit was shown toward the white race.
They passed resolutions declaring that the colored people were entitled to
all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the whites and pledged
themselves never to rest until they had redressed their wrongs and gained
their rights.[47]
Another important instance of the opposition of the colored people of the
North and West may be observed in the proceedings of a meeting held in
Cincinnati. Mr. Vashon, a free man of color of Pittsburgh, had a motion
passed in one of their anti-slavery meetings in that city, "declaring the
Colonization Society inimical to the best interests of the free colored
population of the country, and unworthy of the support of the churches."
After speeches had been made by Vashon and Henry Gloster, a free man of
color from Michigan, the original motion was passed with but one or two
dissenting voices in spite of the efforts to amend it. It is probable that
the amendments proposed were to soften the tone of the original motion, but
no mention was made of them other than to state that they were offered by
the opposition.[48]
Numerous other meetings were held to continue the expression of the same
sentiments. At a meeting in Boston in 1847 the Colonization Society was
referred to as the expatriating institution which would never be able to
expel "Americans by birth" pledged never to leave their native land.[49]
A State convention of colored people of New York held during three days
in the capital at Albany, 1851, unanimously expressed their pleasure at
the failure of the Colonization Society of that State to obtain an
appropriation from the Legislature.[50] At another meeting at Albany in
1852, Reverend J. W. C. Pennington and Dr. J. McCune Smith were
instrumental in inducing the meeting to adopt an able refutation of
Governor Hunt's views in favor of a similar appropriation.[51] Another
State Convention of Colored People of Ohio convened in Cincinnati,
unconditionally condemned the Society because its policy of expatriating
the free colored people was merely to render slave property more secure
and valuable.[52] John M. Langston was the chairman of this meeting.
Other such meetings held in Rochester, New York, and New Bedford,
Massachusetts, about the same time, expressed similar sentiments.[53] On
the occasion of the formation of a County Colonization Society as a
result of a visit of J.B. Pinney to Syracuse, resolutions expressing
deep regret that the influence of the Society had extended to that
section[54] were unanimously passed. At another meeting at Providence,
the same year, the Colonization Society was denounced because of the
plea that its motive in promoting emigration to Africa was to
Christianize the heathen.[55]
A series of meetings were held in Ohio to oppose the efforts of
colonization agents.[56] A Columbus meeting of 1849 considered such
workers inveterate enemies. Another meeting in the same place in 1851
referred to one of their memorials as containing the false statement that
the colored people of Ohio were prepared to go to Liberia. They considered
N. L. Rice and David Christy, promoters of the colonization scheme in that
State, avowed friends of slavery and slaveholders.[57] In a subsequent
State Convention in 1853, they urged every free black to use his influence
against any bill offered in any State, or national legislature to
appropriate money for this enterprise.[58] When "Cushing's Bill" to
facilitate colonization was offered, the free people of Cincinnati, Ohio,
held an indignation meeting in 1853 to organize their friends to prevent
its passage.[59]
The most distinguished Negroes of the country, too, were using the rostrum
and the press to impede the progress of the American Colonization Society.
Prominent among these protagonists were Samuel E. Cornish, and Theodore S.
Wright, who without doubt voiced the sentiments of the majority of the free
colored people in the North. These leaders took occasion in 1840 to attack
Theodore Frelinghuysen and Benjamin Butler who had been reported as saying
that the colonization project had been received with delight by the colored
people.[60] Answering this assertion, they maintained that "if it was said
of Southern slaves--if it had been asserted that they yearned for Africa
or indeed, any part of the world, even more unhospitable and unhappy, where
they might be free from their masters, there probably would have been no
one to dissent from that opinion." But to prove that this was not the
situation among the free people of color these spokesmen related numerous
facts, showing that in various conventions from year to year the free
blacks had protested against emigration to Africa.[61]
The greatest enemy of the Colonization Society among the freedmen,
however, was yet to appear. This was Frederick Douglass. At the National
Convention of Free People of Color, held at Rochester, New York, in 1853,
he was called upon to write the address to the colored people of the United
States. A significant expression in this address was: "We ask that no
appropriation whatever, State or national, be granted to the colonization
scheme. We would have our right to leave or remain in the United States
placed above legislative interference."[62] He had already gone on record
in writing to Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe in reply to her inquiry as to the
best thing to be done for the elevation of the colored people. "Evidently
the Society," said he, "looks upon our extremity as their opportunity and
whenever the elements are started against us they are stimulated to
immeasurable activity. They do not deplore our misfortunes but rather
rejoice in them."[63] He referred to the Society as the twin sister of
slavery, still at her post fostering prejudice against the colored man and
scattering abroad her hateful unphilosophical dogmas as to the inferiority
of the Negro and the necessity of his expatriation for his elevation and
that of his white country men. "The truth is," said he, "we are here and
here we are likely to remain. Individuals emigrate, nations never. We have
grown up with this republic and I see nothing in her character or find in
the character of the American people as yet, which compels the belief that
we must leave the United States."[64]
All the free persons of color, however, did not continue to think on this
wise. After the ebullitions of sentiment had ceased, a few Negroes began
to think that emigration was not an unmixed evil. They were driven to this
position in various ways. Some desired to flee from increasing persecution
then afflicting free Negroes both in the North and in the South; others
were won over by such inducements for commercial advancement as a
pacification of Yoruba seemed to offer in opening up the Soudan; and not a
few like Alexander Crummell[65] and Daniel A. Payne, who, although opposed
to the expatriation of their race, favored colonization so far as it would
redeem Africa. Even Frederick Douglass, in answering the charge that the
free people of color had been prejudiced against efforts to redeem Africa,
stated that they were very much in favor of such a work, but objected to
the efforts of the Colonization Society because of its "defect of good
motives,"[66] A number of Negroes yielded also to the logic of the
Colonizationists, who in trying to disabuse their minds of the thought that
it would be a disgrace to leave this country as exiles, held up to them the
example of the Pilgrim Fathers who left their native land to obtain
political and religious liberty. Furthermore, some Negroes like Martin R.
Delaney, who had at first fearlessly opposed the colonization of the blacks
in Africa, began during the fifties to promote the emigration of the free
people of color to other parts. Many of this persuasion went to Canada West
and some few to Trinidad.[67]
Although antagonism to African Colonization was pronounced in the Northern
free States, there were several intelligent colored men who were strongly
in favor of it. It was said, however, that such Negroes had usually been
educated or aided in some way by the American Colonization Society. One of
this class of spokesmen was George Baltimore, of Whitehall. In reading in
the _National Watchman_ a notice for a call for a national convention of
colored people to be held in Troy, in 1847, he availed himself of the
opportunity to speak for the Colonization Society. Referring to the
suggestions set forth in the call, the writer said that he could adopt all
of them excepting the one to recommend emigration and colonization not of
Africa, Asia, or Europe. He considered this a fling at the American
Colonization Society, and those people of color who were desirous of going
to their fatherland.[68] Another spokesman of this order was Alphonso M.
Sumner, of Philadelphia. Personally he was in favor of emigrating from the
United States and was of the opinion that, at that time at least,
colonization in Liberia offered the only tangible means of attaining their
wishes. He believed that the abolition of the slave trade could be attained
in no other way, but like most colored men in the free States, favoring
colonization, he was desirous of knowing something about the land before
emigrating thereto.[69]
Writing from Hartford in 1851, Augustus Washington stated that he was well
aware that there could be nothing more startling than that a Northern
colored man, considered intelligent and sound in faith, should declare his
opinion and use his influence in favor of African colonization. He
maintained, however, that the novelty of the thing did not prove it false
any more than it would be to say that because one breaks away from a
long-established custom he may not have the least reason for doing so. He
urged the free colored people to emigrate from the crowded cities to less
populous parts of the United States, to the Great West or to Africa, or to
any place where they might secure an equality of rights and liberties with
a mind unfettered and space in which to rise. Moreover, from the time he
was a lad of fifteen years of age, and especially since the Mexican War, he
had advocated the plan of a separate State for the colored people.[70] In a
letter addressed to the editor of the _African Repository_, in 1853,
Nathaniel Bowen undertook to express similar views. Although they possessed
only partial freedom in this country, the free colored people of his city,
Rome, New York, were generally against colonization. Moreover, he found
many colored people who talked of and favored going to Canada, but he
believed if those persons would take their interests into consideration,
they would not hesitate to go to Africa.[71]
The efforts toward emigration too took organized form during the forties
and fifties. In 1848 the free colored people of Dayton, Ohio, held a
meeting to express their sentiments in favor of emigration to Africa, and
to ask the white citizens to aid them in going there.[72] The movement also
reached the colored people of Cincinnati, Ohio.[73] At a meeting held in
that city on the 14th of July, 1850, they adopted a preamble and
resolutions expressing similar sentiments. Going a step further, in 1850 a
number of free Negroes of New York formed an organization called the New
York and Liberian Agricultural and Emigration Society to coöperate with the
Colonization Society. Considerable money was collected by the organization
to aid emigrants whom they sent to Liberia.[74]
In July, 1852, there was held in Baltimore, a meeting of delegates from
the city and different sections of the State of Maryland. After heated
discussion and much excitement they passed resolutions to examine the
different foreign localities for emigration, giving preference to Liberia.
It seemed that although a majority of the delegates present desired to
coöperate with the American Colonization Society, they were afraid to do
so because of the opposition of the Baltimore people, who in a state of
excitement almost developed into a mob intent upon breaking up the
meeting.[75] As this meeting of delegates from the whole State seemed to
be favorable to the colonization enterprise, the people of Baltimore felt
it incumbent upon them to hold another meeting a few days thereafter,
maintaining that they did not know that a previous meeting was called for
the consideration of the questions brought before it, and denounced it as
being unrepresentative. They said that they were not opposed to voluntary
emigration but did not at any time elect delegates to the so-called Colored
Colonization Convention.[76]
To carry out more effectively the work of ameliorating the condition of
the colored people, a National Council composed of two members chosen by
election at a poll in each State, was organized in 1853. As many as twenty
State conventions were to be represented. Before these plans could be well
matured, however, those who believed that emigration was the only solution
of the race problem called another convention to consider merely that
question. Only those who would not introduce the question of African
emigration but favored colonization in some other parts were invited.
Among the persons thus interested were Reverend William Webb and Martin R.
Delaney of Pittsburgh, Doctor J. Gould Bias and Franklin Turner of
Philadelphia, Reverend Augustus R. Greene of Allegheny, Pennsylvania,
James M. Whitfield of New York, William Lambert of Michigan, Henry Bibb,
James Theodore Holly of Canada, and Henry M. Collins of California.[77]
Frederick Douglass criticised this step as uncalled for, unwise,
unfortunate, and premature. "A convention to consider the subject of
emigration," said he, "when every delegate must declare himself in favor
of it before hand, as a condition of taking his seat, is like the handle
of the jug, all on one side."[78] James M. Whitfield, the Negro poet of
America, came to the defense of his co-workers, he and Douglass continuing
the literary duel for a number of weeks. The convention was accordingly
held. In it there appeared three parties, one led by Doctor Delaney who
desired to go to the Niger Valley in Africa, another by Whitfield, whose
interests seemed to be in Central America, and a third by Holly who showed
a preference for Haiti. The leaders of these respective parties were
commissioned to go to these various countries to do what they could in
carrying out their schemes.[79] Holly went to Haiti and took up with the
Minister of the Interior the question of admitting Negro emigrants from
the United States.[80]
Among the colored people of the Northwest there appeared evidence of
considerable interest in emigration. This was especially true of Illinois
and Indiana, from which commissioners had been sent out to spy the
land.[81] This is evidenced too by the sentiment expressed by delegates
attending the Cleveland Convention in 1854. The next emigration convention
was held at Chatham, Canada West, in 1856. One of the important features of
this meeting was the hearing the report of Holly who went to Haiti the
previous year. From this same meeting Martin R. Delaney proceeded on his
mission to the Niger Valley in Africa. There he concluded a treaty with
eight African kings, offering inducements to Negroes to emigrate. In the
meantime James Redpath had gone to Haiti and accomplished some things that
Holly failed to achieve. He was appointed Haitian Commissioner of
Emigration in the United States, with Holly as his co-worker. They
succeeded in sending to Haiti as many as two thousand emigrants, the first
sailing in 1861. Owing to their unpreparedness and the unfavorable
climate, not more than one third of them remained.[82]
Considering the facts herein set forth we are compelled to say that the
colonization movement was a failure. Although it did finally interest a
number of free Negroes their concern in it did not materialize on account
of the outbreak of the Civil War occurring soon thereafter. On the whole,
the movement never appealed to a large number of intelligent free people of
color. With the exception of those who hoped to be especially benefited
thereby, few leading Negroes dared to support the enterprise. The most
weighty evidence we can offer is statistics themselves. The report of the
Colonization Society shows that from 1820 to 1833 [83] only 2,885 colored
persons had been sent out by the Society. More than 2,700 of this number
were taken from the slave States, and about two thirds of these were slaves
manumitted on the condition of their emigrating. Of the 7,836[84] sent out
of the United States up to 1852, 2,720 were born free, 204 purchased their
freedom, 3,868 were emancipated in view of removing them to Liberia, and
1,044 were liberated Africans sent out by the United States Government.
When we consider the fact that there were 434,495[85] free persons of color
in the United States in 1850 and 488,070 in 1860, this element of the
population had not been materially decreased by the efforts of the American
Colonization Society.