Talk:American Colonization Society

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cait1017.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither Here Nor There[edit]

In the external links, why is there the excess backstory about the Institute for Historical Review? Without disputing the facts of what is being said about them, what exactly does their position on the Holocaust have to do with the price of eggs in this case? It's totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, not to mention the content linked to, and probably has no place in this entry.

Besides which, if we're going to make it standard wikipedia practice to mention every time someone links to an article on the internet by an author or group called anti-semitic by somebody or other, we're going to need to do a major revision of 90% of the external links.

January 16th, 2005, 11:53 A.M. GMT.

Corrections made to the article include the name of the man who founded the organization, Robert Finley, (not Robert Finlay).

References to "black Americans" were changed to the accurate term, which is "free Negroes," who were not Americans since they could not vote.

The National Colonization Society of America was founded in 1816. Some free Negroes had departed the United States voluntarily prior to 1816, which indicates that the United States was a hotbed of racial hatred in the quarter-century from 1790-1815. It is possible that an earlier Colonization Society called the American Colonization Society existed prior to 1816. Sierre Leone was created in Africa some two to four decades before Liberia was created.

The references to "blacks" should be removed. Free Negroes were called "colored" in the census reports of 1790, 1800, 1810, 1820, etc.

It is likely that the article still contains some statements which are either far-fetched or untrue.

What is the new word for what one used to called "American women" who were not Americans since they could not vote? We count on everyone to actively improve any statements which are either far-fetched or untrue. --Wetman 19:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How many encyclopedia articles about Shakespeare use only the language of his time?--JimWae 18:49, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

I have access to a big, fat encyclopedia that states that James Madison (but not James Monroe) was one of the Presidents of the National Colonization Society. President Washington's nephew, Bushrod Washington was a President at one time (and the owner of Mount Vernon, George Washington's mansion).

The copyright laws of the United states have been extended from the original 14 years to 95 years, today. It is illegal for Americans to utilize copyrighted items in great detail. The "Fair Use" provision of the law offers a little bit of protection.

The big, fat encyclopedia will be made available in the next ten years by Google which is making copies of numerous books. I have already employed the big, fat encyclopedia as the source of the name and the information about Robert Finley, sketchily. I hope that I haven't exceeded the "Fair Use" rule.

By the way, white women were Americans because the head of the family voted for himself, his wife, and his children.

There is a big difference between being deported (by force) and being transported (voluntarily) away.

January 17th, 2005 10:13 P.M. GMT

It is too complex[edit]

The subject of establishing free Negroes in some other place is too complex for a Wikipedia article. Books were written about the subject in the 19th century. Some men devoted much of their lives to the effort.

EXAMPLE; The nation's most radical Abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison (1805-79), was an advocate of immediate emancipation on the soil (freed slaves would remain here). Garrison's friend, Benjamin Lundy (1789-1839), favored the colonization of freed slaves to places such as Haiti and Mexico. In 1838, a mob burned Pennsylvania Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, destroying nearly all of his possessions. The action of that mob proved that many despisers of colonization existed in 1838, when the President of the United States was a Pro-slavery Democrat named Martin Van Buren, of the State of New York.

A big, fat encyclopedia could be written on the subject.

It all boils down to the following sentences. In the Roman Empire, Romans allowed the existence of an Imperium in imperio which is "a power within a power" or ""an empire within an empire" or "a state within a state," but the American empire builders scorned that notion. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln claimed that the United States was a "tree that should not have a crows' nest in it."

2:22 A.M. GMT January 27th, 2005

Original research moved to talk - source needed[edit]

Taken in the context of the previous quotes, Lincoln, ever the master diplomat, may have been seeking to placate the emancipated slave population with this overture while he waited for General Butler to report back to him on the feasibility of colonization. Regardless of the intent of Lincoln's proclamtion, like the issue of slavery, he knew that his suggestions could either be accepted or rejected by the States and as such he respected their sovereignty by leaving the issue of suffrage ultimately up to them, as was the case in his instructions for the reconstruction of the State of Louisiana.


The usages of multiple new terms such as "free blacks" and "African Americans" ruined the article. The people were called Free Negroes. Also, slaveowners remarked that Negroes were "docile" and that white men were "hostile" and not suited to slavery. "Indigent whites" is a novel expression. White men could purchase 80 acres of land in Ohio for one hundred dollars. Land in Ohio sold for a dollar and a quarter per acre, thus 400 acres (161.9 hectares) of land in Ohio costed 500 dollars. I had never heard of "indigent whites" in the United States until after Wikipedia was invented. Distortions of historical truths are placed in Wikipedia every day. "Indigent whites" appears to be a creation by a mythifier.HeyYallYo 02:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you saying there weren't any poor white people in the United States at that time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12 years old Wikipedians[edit]

Keep it in mind that a term such as "indigent whites" may be the creation of a 12-years-old individual. Wikipedia does not prevent 12 years old Wikipedians from contributing their thoughts.HeyYallYo 11:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last section reads like a high school persuasive writing assignment[edit]

This "assessment" only has one source citation to support incredibly sweeping claims about the effectiveness of the American Colonization Society which MUST be supported by facts. Also, the last paragraph should be deleted because it's far too editorialized for an enclyclopedia article, i.e. "America, not Africa, was their home and they had little desire to migrate to a strange and forbidding land to achieve someone else's dream." Save that for a 9th grade persuasive writing assignment, not for a fair encyclopedia article for the world to see.

Ethnic cleansing[edit]

It is fairly clear to me that the ACS was something that would be called an ethnic cleansing organization today. I think that it would be fair to name it so descriptively (but not pejoratively). There seems to be an awful lot of historical sensitivity to the ACS, up to and beyond the point where such sensitivity blends over into whitewash. I don't think that whitewash is ever NPOV. TMLutas (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The phrase "Ethnic Cleansing" is always used pejoratively these days-- you can't use it otherwise. Especially when it has connotations of genocide. You may disagree with the motives of the ACS from the viewpoint of today's values, but I don't think the phrase does them justice. They didn't think amalgamation would work and that whites' attitudes would hold back those of African descent for the foreseeable future. Who is to say they were wrong, unfortunately?PhilD86 (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Version 0.7[edit]

I can accept the importance of the topic, but this article has too many cleanup tags and negative Talk page comments to be usable for Version 0.7. If it can be cleaned up to B, with the cleanup/POV issues addressed, it would be a good choice for the next release. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PBS documentary[edit]

There's a PBS documentary that disagrees with key dates in this article. PBS documentary Simesa (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright problem[edit]

‎ This article has been reverted to an earlier version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Text entered in [1] duplicated at least in substantial part material from [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Other content added by this contributor may have been copied from other sources and has been removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. Content added by other contributors subsequent to the introduction of this material can be restored if it does not merge with this text to create a derivative work. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ----Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More on State Societies?[edit]

I'd like to have more mention of the State colonization societies. I think the article alludes to the different motives behind the movement; these separate societies reflected that.

In the North, the ACS would seem to be the refuge of the "moderate" abolitionist. I think of Harriet Beecher Stowe in Uncle Tom's Cabin, or Joseph Tracy, historian and secretary of the Massachusetts society, who admitted to the rightness of immediate abolition and inherent Negro equality, but feared the possibility of violent societal upheaval and Negro unpreparedness if sudden absolute freedom were attained.

Also, there was an additional motive for some of the more religious-minded-- the possibility of using the freedman to act as a base for Christian missionary activity in Africa. This would become more important after emancipation as it became evident that a mass emigration would not occur.

Unfortunately, I am not conversant enough on the subject to know if I'm just talking through my hat. I'm just not that satisfied with the article. The ACS is a great example of an ostensibly powerful idea supported by competent, well-meaning people that fizzled out. I'd like to know more on why it failed. It may seem obvious now, but it wasn't so obvious then.PhilD86 (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Debate: few slaveowners? Randolph silenced?[edit]

There is a revisionist/ scholarly debate going on at this time with this topic, which means that assertions of any kind should be backed, not by what a scholar says, but by evidence. And when an issue is in contention, it should be mention as such. The best practice calls for even citing the names of those who make the claim, and to include, always, the other side.

I want to invite a discussion on this issue before I submit a change to the article. I content the use of the word "few" to indicate the amount of slaveowners members of the ACS. That they were not the majority is not what I am claiming, but their numbers were not few either. Moreover, the ACS had a long live and it changed in nature and composition. When is it few and when is not it should be also mentioned. There is a long scholarly tradition supporting my statement.

Moreover, in this article Randolph is mentioned as voicing the idea for eliminating the Black population in the U.S. and quickly pushed aside as unimportant. Doing so is to ignore the main trait of this organization: its double voice. The evidence for the ACS' intention of seeing the Black population is so large and obvious that this article is risking appearing as the pet project of a few ideologists. I invite those with an interest on this article to voice your ideas. Thanks Historian (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on American Colonization Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content deleted[edit]

I am concerned about deleting content from the article without discussing it here or without rewriting it. This is not fair to those who have been working on this article for some time (which is not me; I only contributed minimally). The following paragraph was recently deleted and even when there are some prose issues with it, and I am not a fan of this new tendency in historiography, I still see it has some merits:

"Although Randolph believed that the removal of free blacks would "materially tend to secure" slave property, the vast majority of early members were philanthropists, clergy, and abolitionists who wanted to free African slaves and their descendants and provide them with the opportunity to "return" to Africa. Few members were slave-owners, and the Society never enjoyed much support among planters in the Lower South. This was the area that developed most rapidly in the 19th century with slave labor, and initially it had few free blacks, who lived mostly in the Upper South."

You find the changes here

I think we need to include and discuss recent works addressing the issues included in this paragraph too. It is good for all of us. Cheers, Historiador (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General cleanup of the article[edit]

Over the last week or so, I've added citations to Origins, Preparation of colony, Motives, Fundraising, African Repository Journal, and Dissolution. I had to reword the information on the African Repository Journal, Fundraising, and Preparation of colony because the information in all three sections was directly plagiarized from the Library of Congress web exhibit on colonization.

Under First colony, I found all of the same exact information on a personal webpage from Denison Unversity, but unfortunately the person did not reference any of their information and I can't find any sources to back their writing up. It is the only source I've found that mentions anything about the first settlers dying of yellow fever and the ship 'Nautilus'. That same Denison source is used for Expansion and growth of the colony, but again, I've found nothing to back this information up. I didn't want to delete either section because I'm sure the information is out there somewhere. Under Civil War and emancipation, historians Stephen B. Oates and Michael Lind are referenced to follow Lincoln's changing stance on colonization, but their specific works are not listed. Does anyone know which specific works are being talked about in this section?

Overall, I just attempted to find accessible sources for the uncited sections and reworded blatantly plagiarized sections. I took one part of the introduction and inserted part of into Colonization as a solution to the problem of free blacks and into Paul Cuffee. I know wikipedia recommended cutting down the introduction and I felt the introduction paragraph on Cuffee worked better in the actual Paul Cuffee section. Obviously if anyone disagrees with this larger edit, feel free to revert it back to the original! Cait1017 (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fantastic Work: Face-wink.svg Thanks It seems you are developing into a Wikiarchaeologist. We need more of this type of help. Let me suggest that those sections, sentences or claims for which you did not find sources (or found only weak sources), you tag them as such. In this page, you will find an assorted list of useful tags. Also look here: WP:TAGGING and WP:TAGS. Some refer to lack of citation, weak sources, sources not verified, etc.
The points you are asking others to address seem appropriate. Would you list them in a column (or something else appropriate) so editors could visualize it better and even mark them as checked when completed? Again, thanks. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ACS' racist and racialist rhetoric[edit]

Bringing attention to the racist and racialist rhetoric of the organization is key to the entire historiography, but it is hardly covered here lately. The article resembles a pendulum, and at this very moment it seems to have been curated to keep the issue at the margins. If you are interested in this topic, you are welcome to comment here. Cheers, Caballero/Historiador (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Colonization Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reorganize / clean-up[edit]

I have been asked to take a look at this article to see to what extent the article can by better organized and improved. I have started a draft of User:CaroleHenson/American Colonization Society and am just starting to rebuild the article. If you have any comments or questions, please leave a message here or on the talk page for the draft.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has just dawned on me that a part of the problem with ACS is that "The Negro Problem" (what to do with them), which currently is a redirect to a book, needs its own article. There were a lot of ideas other than Liberia and the ACS. Lincoln wanted to send them to Chiriquí, today part of Panama:;singlegenre=All;sort=occur;subview=detail;type=simple;view=fulltext;q1=April+16%2C+1862=trgt
If I didn't have so many other things half written (see for another example) I'd do it. deisenbe (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks, I will take a look at that.
In the meantime, what I am finding is that there is a fair amount of duplicate information... and some uncited content... and some content that gets a little off track. There are also big blocks of quotes that either have been paraphrased or will be paraphrased, like the Opposition to colonization subsection on blacks.
Right now, there are some key sections, with subsections:
  • Background
Growth of slavery in the south
Growth in the number of free blacks
Early attempts at colonization
Paul Cuffee
  • Early history
  • Colony of Liberia
First colony
Expansion and growth
  • Opposition to colonization
Opposition from blacks
William Garrison
Gerrit Smith

Any comments, etc. are appreciated.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote this this morning. It needs notes, but it fills what I feel was a hole. Went amazingly fast. deisenbe (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, I will look at it!
Deisenbe I am not sure what you are looking to accomplish. If this is going to be a separate article. I wonder if the title could be something like "Alternatives to colonization of African-Americans". I don't see that it's cited much yet, so I guess this is just in early stages.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just posted the draft from my work space to the American Colonization Society article. It looks much shorter, mostly because there was a LOT of duplicated sentences (sometimes word-for-word, with the same source info (in a couple of places without the same ref name). There was also a lot of uncited content, some of which was also duplicate information - or made similar points.
It still needs some editing, but hopefully is much easier to follow now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is in fact much easier to follow. Thanks!
My intention is to finish drafting a new article, titled using the 19th-century term "The Negro Problem", on everything proposed for free blacks at the time. I just found out that Congress appropriated some money to assist emigration to Haiti. But I'm also in the middle of Reuben Crandall, after which I will get back to Lane Rebels and major moving material out of Lane Theological Seminary. But just now I've gotten distracted with Virginia v. John Brown, which I've just put Under Construction on. This is just the way I work, I work on multiple things at the same time. I also tend to read multiple books at the same time. deisenbe (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deisenbe Cool! I am glad.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding your new article: Is there another name for the title of the article other than "The Negro problem"? It sounds hurtful. I would hate to think of an African-American child coming across an article with that title... well, anyone of African-American descent. I think that there are other names that could speak to the real issue: that there were other alternatives that were looked at, as I mentioned above. Possible names:
Hopefully we've made strides since the 19th century.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's not called The Negro Problem I'm not going to write it. That is the term used by black leaders like Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. Dubois. Look at deisenbe (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am surprised by the sources with that name, but you've convinced me that it wasn't just used in the 19th century.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More discussion of corrections[edit]

That section was getting too big.

This correction is erroneous:

Even in the North, where slavery was being abolished, they faced Fugitive slave laws in the United States|legislated limits on their rights.

It wasn't the fugitive slave laws (which were federal, not Northern). Lots of other restrictions. Look at the Ohio Black Law crisis of 1829 (centered on Cincinnati). Lots of places just kicked them out, or wouldn't let them move in (which was completely legal). They couldn't send their kids to any school that had white students. Look at Canterbury Female Boarding School and Andrew T. Judson#White supremacist and colonizationist. Another article I'll write, to be titled New Haven Excitement, which is what Garrison called the episode, is about the 1831 intent to found a blacks-only college in New Haven, which almost produced a riot. They were treated like unwanted immigrants. Don't forget the slave catchers and the Reverse Underground Railroad.

For figures on black population, see John H. Van Evrie#Negros and negro "slavery"

Please leave in "so-called" before repatriation. That's a white term. It really wasn't repatriation, it was dumping them in thecmiddle of nowhere.

deisenbe (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry, Deisenbe, I am not having a great day and am not understanding this. Can we start first with what specific section you are talking about?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look at
  • I got read the riot act, back when I edited a union newspaper, on Black. In the United States, that is an ethnic group and as such should be capitalized. "White" is not an ethnic group. deisenbe (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"black" is used 182 times in the Slavery in the United States article and it is not capitalized. It is not capitalized in the sources I read.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was a diff to a number of sections. Is it possible for you to put the items in bullets or a list. I am not at all certain section for "so called" what you want done. I disagree about it being needed. I think that there are multiple ways that it is made clear that "repatriation" is a rationalization.... But I put it back.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I will take a stab at numbering the items:

  1. That section was getting too big. Please tell me what specific section you are referring to. I think your issues cross a number of sections. --- And, what you think needs to be done.
  2. This correction is erroneous: "Even in the North, where slavery was being abolished, they faced Fugitive slave laws in the United States|legislated limits on their rights."
    1. I am guessing that all of this goes here: "It wasn't the fugitive slave laws (which were federal, not Northern). Lots of other restrictions. "
    2. This totally makes sense to me. Former slaves biggest issue was keeping from being returned to slavery. I kept getting on stuck on that sentence, because it seemed nebulous when it was a huge, huge issue - that is why I added the link. A free - former enslaved - person wants to maintain their freedom, partly because they know that they will be treated very badly upon their return. I totally agree that there were a lot of other restrictions, but in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, they were several steps higher. So what if it's a federal law. The discussion is about "Even in the north..." This article is not intended to getting into all the restrictions, but we could add a note if you have content and a source.CaroleHenson (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. I am not understanding what you want me to do with this: "Look at the Ohio Black Law crisis of 1829 (centered on Cincinnati). Lots of places just kicked them out, or wouldn't let them move in (which was completely legal). They couldn't send their kids to any school that had white students. Look at Canterbury Female Boarding School and Andrew T. Judson#White supremacist and colonizationist."
  4. Or this: "Another article I'll write, to be titled New Haven Excitement, which is what Garrison called the episode, is about the 1831 intent to found a blacks-only college in New Haven, which almost produced a riot. They were treated like unwanted immigrants. Don't forget the slave catchers and the Reverse Underground Railroad."
  5. Or this: "For figures on black population, see John H. Van Evrie#Negros and negro "slavery" "
  6. Re this, I answered below and yes I know that repatriation is a misnomer: Please leave in "so-called" before repatriation. That's a white term. It really wasn't repatriation, it was dumping them in thecmiddle of nowhere.  Done See above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just giving you sources/ideas in case you wanted to expand on the legal restrictions in the North. I'll try to be clearer. deisenbe (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Started list.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of what? deisenbe (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I am feeling like I am being gruff. I may need to see if tomorrow is a better day.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This isn't a high priority for me, but casually looking I found this:

In the U.S. census race definitions, Black and African Americans are citizens and residents of the United States with origins in Sub-Saharan Africa.[118] According to the Office of Management and Budget, the grouping includes individuals who self-identify as African American, as well as persons who emigrated from nations in the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa.[119] The grouping is thus based on geography, and may contradict or misrepresent an individual's self-identification since not all immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa are "Black". (From Black people#United States.) deisenbe (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure what your point is... the Black people article is a bit confused. There are hundreds of uses of "black", some of which are capitalized and most are not. I have worked on a LOT of articles about African-Americans and I have not had anyone correct the use of "black"... and I have not run into the capitalization, except for the confused Black people article.

I am not seeing anything about this in MOS:ETHNICITY. We could ask for people to weigh-in here or take it to WP:TEAHOUSE or another forum.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

deisenbe, Your recent edits are changing the meaning on the content. The source for the information about Canada and Mexico did mention Canada and did not mention Central America. Your edits appear to be original research.

Also, you are making a change that makes it seem as if there were no cotton plantations until the cotton gin. Your wording changes the meaning of the sentence.

Do you have sources for your changes?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Cotton. There were no or almost no cotton plantations before the cotton gin. Cotton could not be raised profitably because of the prohibitive labor needed to clean it. Do I need to get a source for that?
  • Canada. Are you referring to this source: ? In it is: "should any of our brethren wish to emigrate, we recommend Canada or Mexico, as countries far more congenial to our constitutions, and where our rights as freemen are secured." I don't see that as recommending Canada for its climate. African Americans looking for a better climate in Canada? Seriously? See Black Nova Scotians (who protested the climate and got moved to Sierra Leone). As far as Central America, when Congress appropriated hundreds of thousands to send freed blacks there, it needs some mention, but I'm still working on it. Take it out if you want. ¶¶ I'm not asking you to do anything with any of the following: On sending ex-slaves to Central America, see "Abraham Lincoln and the Politics of Black Colonization" Permalink: ¶¶ I stumbled across the fact that there is a Liberia in Costa Rica from this time period. Today it is a provincial capital. I went through it once on a bus, en route to Nicaragua. But I don't know why it was named that, except that it has something to do with the pro-slavery filibuster (military) William Walker (filibuster), self-appointed ruler of rump regimes in Central America, until he was executed by a firing squad. The use of the term "filibuster" in this context antedates its use by the U.S. Senate. Fascinating the things I stumble upon. ¶¶ More to come. deisenbe (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The following is not requesting you to do anything: Original research — of course I'm doing original research. I wasn't going to mention it, but since it has come up, I was Distinguished Research Professor at Florida State University; you can verify this by clicking here to see the diploma awarding me that honor (loads slow). I have been the editor of two scholarly journals. One (2000–2007) was the journal of the Cervantes Society of America, which you can verify here, the other (1976–1992) was the Journal of Hispanic Philology: I also taught for many years at Florida State a graduate course on "Research Methods and Bibliography" and another on "Dissertation Writing Techniques" in the field of Hispanic Studies. There's an article on me in the Spanish WP ( and not only did I not write it, I didn't know it existed until six years after it appeared. ¶¶ I'm not claiming I should get a pass on anything, I just made a very embarrassing mistake, and it's far from the only one. My only claim is that I know well how to handle primary sources, how to do original research in the fields of history and literature, and how to format a good citation. I'm arguably doing original research on the present topic of sending free blacks places other than Liberia. I don't see the harm in publishing the result in WP, as opposed to some small journal I could probably place an article in. I'm not interested in formal publication any more, and then having a few dozen readers as compared with the hundreds or thousands my writing gets in WP. And then people like you read it and critique it. That seldom happens in the world of scholarly journals. ¶¶ The article on Bradley, as I left it in December, was pretty well sourced as well as well written, and I just looked at the citations, which are done right, at least to the extent I understand the policies. ¶¶ I hope I don't have occasion to regret mentioning it to you, but here is another piece of original research of mine, that I'm proud of: Greenwood, New York, insurrection of 1882. I can't find anything on it in any secondary source, and I've looked in 19th and early 20th century county histories. I've taken it all from newspapers. I think that by doing this original research, writing it up, and putting it in WP, I'm making WP better instead of worse. If I get serious grief about it, I'll go work on something else that won't be noticed, maybe the Spanish Wikipedia, where I have written several articles and have 2000+ edits. Actually, all this gives me a reason to get out of bed in the morning, and it's a lot more fun than traditional research ever was. deisenbe (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You lost me at

Original research — of course I'm doing original research.

I am going to remove this page from my watchlist. You aren't listening to me or to people that have commented on your other GA submissions. Best of luck!–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverted the deletion of cited content[edit]

I reverted an edit that got rid of about 5,000 characters - most of which was cited. To take out so much cited content from an article, it would be far better to discuss why.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I think the reverted edit was more or less valuable, I agree with this move, as the explanation for the edit was not clear, and such a large addition/change needs to be introduced, if anything, here first. Anwegmann (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for helping a newcomer. I would divide my edits yesterday into two parts, the first less contentious (in itself) and the second more so. First, I changed almost all of the section "Efforts to relocate free blacks other than to Africa." Its current, single citation pertains only to the last sentence, and it offers less overall historical context than did my edit, which cited recent scholarship on non-African colonization. Second, I thought the content under "Civil War and emancipation" superseded by, and contradictory with, the section on colonization in the article "Abraham Lincoln and slavery" (which I now understand might not furnish adequate grounds for change).
Without realizing it when I made my edits, I have raised a wider issue: does Wikipedia need an overarching article on the African American colonization/emigration/resettlement movement in its widest possible sense? As it stands, Wikipedia is Africa-focused: "colonization movement" redirects to "back-to-Africa movement," while non-ACS, even anti-ACS colonizationist activity is filed under an article on the ACS. Even in the last five years, though, the work of Nicholas Guyatt (Bind Us Apart: How Enlightened Americans Invented Racial Segregation), Ikuko Asaka (Tropical Freedom: Climate, Settler Colonialism, and Black Exclusion in the Age of Emancipation), Brandon Mills (The World Colonization Made: The Racial Geography of Early American Empire), and Sebastian N. Page (Black Resettlement and the American Civil War) has highlighted a far wider range of locations for black colonization, both inside and outside the United States.Marstonian (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marstonian: Those works are indeed remarkably good, especially Guyatt's and Mills's, which both relate more directly to the ACS. The problem with adding too much about the variety of ideas—and places—related to colonizationist ideologies in the 19th century is that the ACS itself did not very often entertain ideas outside of Liberia. And this is, in the end, the article about the ACS. A loose reference would be appropriate, but anything beyond something of a "content footnote" would be trying to jam too much breadth into the article. Now, as far as a new article is concerned, I would very much support that. Obviously, the back-to-Africa movement is a bit misnamed and does not cover nearly every colonizationist enterprise or idea. So a "Colonizationism in the United States" article, I think, would be of great benefit. And you're completely right: the literature on this topic, more broadly, as become a robust and active field. To your solid list above, you can throw Power-Greene's Against Wide and Tide, Banton's More Auspicious Shores, Wegmann's An American Color, Stewart and Marks's Race and Nation in the Age of Emancipation, Murray's Atlantic Passages, and both of Tomek's works, Colonization and its Discontents and New Directions in the Study of African American Colonization. Anwegmann (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From Canterbury Female Boarding School: "Though forgotten today, a proposed solution to "the freedman problem" was to give them land in some part of the country, a sort of reservation for blacks, or a Liberia in North America,[13][14][15][16][17] or in Chiriquí, in what is today Panama (see Linconia). — The "freedman problem" was what was going to be done with the growing numbers of free former slaves, how they would eat and where they would live. A main reason for opposition to abolitionism was that the only national policy on freed slaves was to get rid of them by shipping them off to Liberia. This solution was not working; participation was low, funding totally inadequate, and even the U.S. Navy with all its ships could not have transported blacks to Africa at the rate new blacks were being born." deisenbe (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. "An overdue reckoning for Black Freedmen on native lands" Boston Globe, a day or two ago. deisenbe (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've got to be honest. I have no idea what any of that has to do with this discussion. I can see they are examples, but I don't see how they add anything to what this discussion is trying to do—namely, answer Martsonian's question of what to do about the breadth of the ACS article and the apparent need for a possible new, more wide-ranging article on colonizationism/emigrationism/resettlement, etc. etc. Those are neat examples, though. Are you suggesting they can be used for the new article? Anwegmann (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. deisenbe (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Lincoln's plan ...."[edit]

This can't be true: it would make Lincoln a racist. Lincoln freed the slaves.

Technically it wasn't "Lincoln's plan" specifically, but it was the plan that was suggested to him and that he supported. Anwegmann (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

I reverted three edits which removed an entire section of content as well as swapping slave for Black. Since the 1600s there some were people of African American descent who were freed - and if their mothers were born free, their children were born free. So, not all Blacks were slaves.

It seems that the concern is that it is assumed that if the term Black is used, it means that they are 100% African American descent. It would be better to work out here what is an appropriate term to mean of (some) African descent or mixed race. Mulatto is offensive to some. See All Mixed up - What do we call people of multiple backgrounds from NPR.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

African American or Black American is an ethnicity and also includes people whose ancestors were both black and white. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is my understanding as well, although I understand why people want to be clearer. The next best label, imo, is mixed race or multiracial, but I think this would just introduce more confusion.
What about adding a note at the first use of Black or African American that individuals may also be of European, Native American or other descent?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
added clarification above about what children were born free.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took a stab at a note here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not just use free people of color in the lead? That is a term more appropriate to the time of the ACS's founding—indeed, "African American" did not exist as a universal term in the 1810s and 1820s—and it covers anyone of African descent. Anwegmann (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect, thanks Anwegmann!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem! Anwegmann (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation format[edit]

This is just a reminder to follow the standards of consistency laid out in MOS:CITEVAR, which state, rather clearly, that "[e]ditors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." If you think that the citation format in the article should change, you need to seek consensus before using any format that is not in line with what is already used in the article. Thanks. Anwegmann (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: HIST 2010 Early U.S. History[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kafein7days.

— Assignment last updated by HughCQuinlan (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]