The American Colonization Society and the Civil War

Author(s):  
Sebastian N. Page

Page calls for a new assessment of the American Colonization Society by shifting the focus from the often-discussed Early Republic and Antebellum years to the period of the U.S. Civil War. This period is important because it covers the time in which an essentially northern-managed society suffered an abrupt severance from its associates in the South while the federal government enacted emancipation, recognized Liberia as an independent nation, and finally officially endorsed colonization. The society’s efforts during the Civil War reveal a great deal about its leaders’ understanding of their mission as well as the government’s relationship with colonization.

2021 ◽  
pp. 627-645
Author(s):  
Andrew F. Lang

Restoring the Union and securing emancipation after the Civil War depended on the U.S. Army. But the symbolism of standing military forces operating at the domestic vanguard of social and political change hampered the army’s ability to conduct a widespread occupation. The success of Reconstruction (1865–1877) depended on the army integrating itself in unprecedented ways in political affairs, social conditions, and economic markets to forge a new South stable enough never again to threaten the Union’s survival, but not too centralized to appear coercive. Ultimately, the very institution that reintegrated the formerly rebellious states into their proper federal orbit was also regarded by White Northerners and Southerners as an unstable threat to democratic self-determination. Hampered by a consistent and rapid demobilization, the army could not wield the tools necessary to prevent former Confederates from regaining political power and “redeeming” the South into an eerie image of its prewar self.


Author(s):  
David F. Ericson

Ericson traces the efforts of the American Colonization Society to gain the financial support of the U.S. government and the public-private partnership that ensued. He maintains that this partnership was not only one of the first of its kind on the federal level, but that it was also the most enduring prior to the Civil War. He concludes that without federal support, the society probably would never have founded Liberia and that the support was crucial to the colony’s survival.


2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen S. Sullivan

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the U.S. federal government expanded the scope and extent of its constitutionally enumerated powers in naturalization, Indian policies, and regulation of interstate commerce. In doing so, Congress became more involved with matters of citizenship, both in defining public purposes and national identity. Citizenship had traditionally been a matter for the states, where governance rested on the features of differentiation, jurisdictional autonomy, and local control. The entry of the federal government and the federal constitutional norms of citizenship might have been expected to bring an overarching coherence to the fundamental liberal values that were declared after the Civil War. Under expanded federal power and federal citizenship, however, multiple traditions of both liberal rights of citizenship and illiberal conditions of status continued, and illiberal positions gained new footing.


Author(s):  
R. Douglas Hurt

The agricultural and farm labor history of African Americans extends across more than four centuries, from slavery beginning in the early 17th century to freedom resulting from the Civil War to a small number of independent farm owners by the early 21st century. Prior to the Civil War, slavery primarily served as an agricultural labor system. During the colonial period, only a few free African Americans owned land and farmed independently, but most worked in some fashion as slaves, producing tobacco and rice, tending livestock, and processing food. In 1794, Eli Whitney patented the first efficient cotton gin for processing short-staple cotton. With this invention, much of the South became a major cotton-producing region with a great need for cheap labor, which African Americans unwillingly provided. The Civil War ended slavery as an agricultural labor force, but the landless African Americans remained tied to large-scale farmers and planters as sharecroppers. In this agricultural system, sharecroppers essentially rented the land and paid the landlord with a portion of the crop, usually 50 percent, and the landlord told them how to conduct their farm work. They lived in a netherworld bound by degradation, poverty, and hopelessness. By the turn of the 20th century, more than 707,000 African American farmers remained impoverished by the crop lien and furnishing merchant system and usually farmed no more than fifty acres. They were free but their lives remained constrained by racism, which limited their access to capital for the purchase of land, machinery, livestock, seed, and fertilizer. Beginning with World War I, many African American farmers left the land for better opportunities elsewhere. By the mid-20th century, African American farmers remained impoverished because the agricultural lending programs of the federal government, particularly those of the Department of Agriculture, discriminated against them. African American farmers frequently met rejection when they applied for loans and other government assistance that would enable them to improve their agricultural activities. Most African American farmers, in the North and the South, owned too-little land to produce sufficient crops and livestock to earn a satisfactory living. The 21st century brought little change. Those who remained often held off-the-farm employment to keep their farms viable. Racism continued to color social and economic relationships with whites, credit institutions, and the federal government. Moreover, African American farmers often produced for local and specialty markets, and they chose agriculture as a lifestyle rather than as a commercial, moneymaking endeavor.


Author(s):  
Silvan Niedermeier

Chapter five shows the FBI investigations against William F. Sutherland as the first in a series of federal probes launched by representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice to sanction the persistent violation of the civil rights of blacks by law enforcement officials in the South. FBI investigation documented conditions of defendants capturing photos of wounds and evidence of weapons. Regardless of evidence provided against authorities, there was a limited chance of success. In addition, in all the cases covered in chapter five, lawmen were accused of abusing and torturing black suspects in violation of their civil rights. Despite the outcome of the trials, the FBI investigations exposed and brought awareness of police torture. Overall, the FBI investigations brought to light a multitude of other allegations of mistreatment by African American prisoners and challenged the system of police violence in the South.


1989 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Loren Schweninger

This essay analyzes the changing configuration of black-owned businesses in the South over nearly a century. It divides the region into two sections—the Lower South and the Upper South—and examines changes that occurred prior to 1840, during the late antebellum era, and as a result of the Civil War. It uses a “wealth model” to define various business groups, and then creates business occupational categories based on the listings in various sources, including the U.S. censuses for 1850, 1860, and 1870. The article compares and contrasts the wealth holdings among various groups of blacks in business, and it analyzes, within a comparative framework, slave entrepreneurship, rural vs. urban business activity, color—black or mulatto—as a variable in business ownership, and slave ownership among blacks engaged in business.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Gregory Ablavsky

This introduction outlines the central argument of Federal Ground. Federal authority in the Northwest and Southwest Territories, the book contends, stemmed less from foundational texts like the Northwest Ordinance than from the demands of territorial residents, who looked on the federal government not as an institution but as a resource and successfully pushed it to serve their ends. The introduction explores the contrast between the formal, nearly unchecked authority that the U.S. Constitution granted the federal government in the territories and the reality that these supposed territories were Native homelands and borderlands where imperial powers had come and gone with little change in control. It then grapples with the amorphous nature of federal government in the territories, divided among cabinet officials, local territorial officers, and key intermediaries like Governors Arthur St. Clair and William Blount, and recounts how these diverse officials believed themselves constrained to try to understand the territories’ inhabitants. It also explores the difficult question of how to measure federal state power in the early republic, contrasting the fiscal-military state with the alternate model of an adjudicatory state, in which territorial citizens turned to federal law to claim rights. It notes the benefits of considering the two territories together and previews the individual chapters and their arguments.


2020 ◽  
pp. 130-178
Author(s):  
Christopher James Blythe

This chapter focuses on the Utah territorial period—a time marked by hostility between the Latter-day Saints and the federal government. Throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century, Mormon visionaries deployed prophecies of Gentile invasions on the Saints, as well as judgments on the major cities of the nation. The assurance that God would intervene against their enemies’ aggressions offered catharsis to the anxieties brought on by the U.S. Army’s occupation of Utah during the 1850s, the Civil War, and federal enforcement of anti-polygamy laws—what became known as “the raid.” In addition to prophecies introduced among the laity, there was also, during this period, an emphasis on Joseph Smith’s prophecy of a future American civil war that circulated widely in Mormon and non-Mormon circles. Apocalypticism prospered as tensions festered between Mormons and the federal government.


2018 ◽  
pp. 1149-1162
Author(s):  
Konstantin N. Kurkov ◽  
◽  
Alexander V. Melnichuk ◽  

The article studies some of the more complicated and sensitive issues of the Civil War in the South of Russia – relations of the Armed Forces of South Russia with the Krai governments of the Don and the Kuban and separatist movements as an important factor in the Whites’ defeat in the South of Russia. Both issues are covered in ‘Defamation of the White Movement,’ one of the last works of General A. I. Denikin. Its manuscript has been introduced into scientific use by the authors. Commanders and military authorities of the Volunteer Army with A. I. Denikin at its head were not tied down by regional interests and could pursue national interests in their policy in order to restore an all-Russian unity destroyed by the revolution. Regional concerns of the Don, Kuban, Little Russian, Caucasian independentists were in direct conflict with the national tasks that the Volunteer Army and the Armed Forces of South Russia strove to solve. Unlike the Don Ataman P. N. Krasnov, who was forced to cooperate with the occupation authorities of Imperial Germany, whose troops had occupied the territory of the Great Don Army for the most of 1918, and unlike other regional administrators in the German-occupied territories, the Whites did not cooperate with the occupiers and at times counteracted their anti-Russian policy. Denikin's propaganda successfully used this fact to fall back on traditional patriotic sentiments and to eat away at the Kremlin regime’s support. Centrifugal tendencies in the South of Russia did not allow the Volunteers to consolidate anti-Bolshevik forces and made an armed resistance to the Bolsheviks impossible. Hence A. I. Denikin’s uncompromising stand on separatist aspirations of independentists. In his view, it was the separatists’ activities in different regions of the former Russian Empire that hindered the successful offensive of the armed forces of South Russia, for instance, on the Moscow direction. Internal dissent was exacerbated by intervention of foreign forces – German occupation forces, the Allied Intervention, and active Bolshevik influence on the outskirts of the former Empire. The article compares Denikin’s text with testimonies of contemporaries and writings of historians. Thus, the authors have been able to show that his slender work reliably and accurately recreates the complex and dramatic situation, which led to the defeat of the anti-Bolshevik forces in the Civil War.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document