WI Back to Africa Scenario for African Americans

[oca2073]

Thinking about the nadir of American race relations, supposing the Civil War doesn't happen, I think a Back to Africa program will be viable.

In 1868, the British discover diamonds in South Africa. A Gold Rush will begin soon. The British are fighting the Boers and could use a huge loyalist population to dominate the region. South Africa is full of arable land and hospitable with few tropical diseases. Climate-wise it is even better than the American South.

The technology to transport people across oceans in steamships is maturing fast. In 1859, the SS Great Eastern was built. It's designed to carry 4000 passengers from Britain to Australia without coal refuelling.

Imagine in a no Civil War scenario, the abolitionists petition the ATL president who comes up with a plan. US federal govt begins to buy slaves from southern slaveowners and ship them to British South Africa. (Since this is the nadir of US race relations period, the North doesn't want an influx of Blacks either. Southern opinion only agrees to compensated emancipation if the Blacks are shipped out.) Buying out the slaves will cost billions USD (over the course of decades), approximately the same as the OTL Civil War. Slaves from the least profitable/struggling plantations will be targeted first. Indentured servitude labour from Eastern Europe and Southern Italy replaces slave labour.

In South Africa, they help the British defeat the Boers and are given land and settle in OTL modern day South Africa. When the British take over Zimbabwe, former African American slaves are used to help the British cement their control. They are natural British loyalists: English speaking, Protestant, and grateful to the British for land and freedom. Because of the influx of Blacks and their influence, apartheid is butterflied away too.

Eventually, most if not all of the former slave population is deported to South Africa. Perhaps the program ends by the 1920s. Up to 90% of US African American population is deported.

 

[Mark E.]

Wasn't Liberia created to accommodate freed slaves? Only a minority migrated.

 

[riggerrob]

Wasn't Liberia created to accommodate freed slaves? Only a minority migrated.

Yes. And then those recent immigrants disrupted Liberian politics because they formed a distinctive voting Bloc.

What percentage of American black slaves could read and write circa 1860?
What percentage of Liberian natives could read and write circa 1860?
What percentage of South African blacks (Bantu, Bushman, Xhosa, Zulu, etc.) could read and write circa 1860?

 

[Lusitania]

This been posted dozens of times. There was no political will and the huge costs plus need for large military involvement would stop any plan that was more than funding those who wanted to return to Africa.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Once industrialization kicks in, perhaps you can get the Firestone Corporation (who has one of the world's largest rubber plantations in Liberia) to recruit African Americans to move back to Africa with the promise of a job and low cost of living, and no racial discrimination (since Americo-Liberians were the ruling class)?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Purchasing slaves at anything like market prices would 1) bankrupt the national government, 2) create weird unintended effects like slave owners setting up baby factories to cash in on the bonanza.

The only way this could even conceivably work is as part of a larger abolition package. And even just covering the passage costs of millions would do really nasty things to the US budget.

 

[Lusitania]

Once industrialization kicks in, perhaps you can get the Firestone Corporation (who has one of the world's largest rubber plantations in Liberia) to recruit African Americans to move back to Africa with the promise of a job and low cost of living, and no racial discrimination (since Americo-Liberians were the ruling class)?

why would they the rubber plantations were not in Liberia. Like the premise of the thread this is not realistic

 

[Intosh]

Yes. And then those recent immigrants disrupted Liberian politics because they formed a distinctive voting Bloc.

The Black Americans and the Black Caraibeans who came to Liberia and Sierra Leone don't form a distinctive voting bloc. They came as colonists, deprived local people of their lands and rights and weren't better colonial masters that the Europeans. And unlike the Europeans, they continue to usurp the power and the wealth of both countries until the terrible civil wars of the 90's and the 00's.

 

[oca2073]

Wasn't Liberia created to accommodate freed slaves? Only a minority migrated.

Yes, and the project failed because Liberia has a host of tropical diseases + no farmland which made colonisation prospects impossible. Very high death rate. South Africa is different.

 

[oca2073]

This been posted dozens of times. There was no political will and the huge costs plus need for large military involvement would stop any plan that was more than funding those who wanted to return to Africa.

I think in the late 19th century with slavery still ongoing, the political will would be there and the costs of transportation reduced dramatically due to improving technology. The US would presumably build 20 ships like the SS Great Eastern and be able to move 500,000 people annually. America became significantly more racist in the late 19th century, the North wouldn't want the freed slaves to migrate to their states and the South would want the Blacks gone if abolition became a reality.

 

[oca2073]

Purchasing slaves at anything like market prices would 1) bankrupt the national government, 2) create weird unintended effects like slave owners setting up baby factories to cash in on the bonanza.

The only way this could even conceivably work is as part of a larger abolition package. And even just covering the passage costs of millions would do really nasty things to the US budget.

Hmm, it appears that the average slave price in 1860 was $800, thus buying them up would cost the federal govt billions. However, the US Civil War cost 5.2 billion USD in debt. Basically, if you butterfly away the Civil War as my POD suggests, that would be sufficient to buy up the slaves and ship them to Africa.

The key is to buy slaves from struggling plantations first and the most profitable ones later. Also, if the shipping capacity was 500,000 per annum, that would be sufficient to counter the baby factory possibility.

 

[oca2073]

The Black Americans and the Black Caraibeans who came to Liberia and Sierra Leone don't form a distinctive voting bloc. They came as colonists, deprived local people of their lands and rights and weren't better colonial masters that the Europeans. And unlike the Europeans, they continue to usurp the power and the wealth of both countries until the terrible civil wars of the 90's and the 00's.

South Africa is different than Liberia/Sierra Leone. For one thing, there's a crazy amount of agricultural land available. Roughly 79% of ALL SOUTH AFRICA land is ARABLE. That's 96+ million hectares. And with apartheid South Africa incoming, an injection of Blacks would actually prevent it from occurring providing more equality for the native Blacks.

 

[Elfwine]

Why would it prevent apartheid from occurring even if the considerable obstacles to this occurring are somehow overcome?

This really doesn't seem like anyone is coming out better off or happy with it, except maybe those getting a substantial amount of money from the project. Definitely not either the free states in general or the ex-slaves, though.

The Great Eastern is an impractically huge and expensive ship, for example. "The US will just build twenty of them." is hardly going to be straightforward or easy or cheap.

 

[oca2073]

Why would it prevent apartheid from occurring even if the considerable obstacles to this occurring are somehow overcome?

Because with millions of African Americans fighting for the British, being given land, the Boers are basically screwed. They become British loyalists and the British forbid Apartheid from occuring + the African Americans are strong enough so that the discrimination can't be based on skin colour. However, native Blacks may still be discriminated on the basis of language/culture, ect. But assimilation by becoming English speakers is far easier and not so unjust.

This really doesn't seem like anyone is coming out better off or happy with it, except maybe those getting a substantial amount of money from the project. Definitely not either the free states in general or the ex-slaves, though.

It depends. African Americans are spared the horror of post-Reconstruction, no lynchings/KKK/Jim Crow + land and opportunity and eventually voting rights in South Africa. Apartheid in South Africa is butterflied. Southern Whites without the resentment of the Civil War PERHAPS becomes less racist quicker. Same with the Northern US, without the perceived "menace" of an influx of freed Blacks, they will POSSIBLY become less racist towards South/East Europeans/Asians/Native Americans/Latinos, but this is just hypothetical. This would be caused by scientific racism not coming into fashion in the US.

The Great Eastern is an impractically huge and expensive ship, for example. "The US will just build twenty of them." is hardly going to be straightforward or easy or cheap.

SS Great Eastern cost 6 million USD to build, which is not a lot of money for the federal govt. And yes, moving the Blacks to South Africa will cost billions, but it will be no more expensive than the OTL Civil War which is butterflied in this scenario.

 

[Lusitania]

I think in the late 19th century with slavery still ongoing, the political will would be there and the costs of transportation reduced dramatically due to improving technology. The US would presumably build 20 ships like the SS Great Eastern and be able to move 500,000 people annually. America became significantly more racist in the late 19th century, the North wouldn't want the freed slaves to migrate to their states and the South would want the Blacks gone if abolition became a reality.

Really and how many blacks they have to shoot and how many thousands of soldiers they need to round up, arrest and kill the blacks and whites who support them. This is nothing more than a white supremacy idea

 

[Slime_blob]

Why South Africa? I don't think British would allow it. Also like funding that is like very pricy as others have said.

imo best case would be couple thousand people moving to Africa, preferably Liberia or other location, Congo imo best. And flow of subsidies, constantly that's like funding development and others cause death rates are mainly due to lack of development and sanitation and others which in turn cause disease and like deaths which are alot in Liberia.

The colonist would have been like da ruling class of these Liberia like settlements and Liberia. America or like Rhodesia, discriminating probably against the natives who didn't assimilate and or integrate to the Americo Liberian or other term society and culture

 

[oca2073]

Really and how many blacks they have to shoot and how many thousands of soldiers they need to round up, arrest and kill the blacks and whites who support them. This is nothing more than a white supremacy idea

I'm assuming the Blacks are willing to leave to be free from slavery. Without the Civil War, there is no prospect for freedom otherwise. South Africa is NOT Liberia. There is plenty of arable land available, no tropical diseases, a hospitable clime. Unlike Liberia, there will not be a large death rate.

Remember White Northerners also supported the Back to Africa idea on principle OTL. They didn't actually want the free Blacks to come north. Southern Whites will be compensated.

 

[oca2073]

Why South Africa? I don't think British would allow it. Also like funding that is like very pricy as others have said.

No more costly than the American Civil War. Also, the British are fighting the Boers and would welcome a new loyalist population since South Africa is super important to their empire.

imo best case would be couple thousand people moving to Africa, preferably Liberia or other location, Congo imo best. And flow of subsidies, constantly that's like funding development and others cause death rates are mainly due to lack of development and sanitation and others which in turn cause disease and like deaths which are alot in Liberia.

South Africa is the ONLY part of Africa where this is possible, due to the combination of hospitable climate, no tropical diseases, and tons of agricultural land and natural resources.

The colonist would have been like da ruling class of these Liberia like settlements and Liberia. America or like Rhodesia, discriminating probably against the natives who didn't assimilate and or integrate to the Americo Liberian or other term society and culture

Better than OTL apartheid still.

 

[Elfwine]

Because with millions of African Americans fighting for the British, being given land, the Boers are basically screwed. They become British loyalists and the British forbid Apartheid from occuring + the African Americans are strong enough so that the discrimination can't be based on skin colour. However, native Blacks may still be discriminated on the basis of language/culture, ect. But assimilation by becoming English speakers is far easier and not so unjust.

I don't see millions of people fighting for the British here. Not just in terms of how much of the population is actually potentially/actually enlisting, but every other reason to be at best unenthusiastic subjects - and that assumes the British even want these newcomers armed and so forth. That feels like a fairly substantial if, as does this having any positive impact on the non-white inhabitants of the colony.

It depends. African Americans are spared the horror of post-Reconstruction, no lynchings/KKK/Jim Crow + land and opportunity and eventually voting rights in South Africa. Apartheid in South Africa is butterflied. Southern Whites without the resentment of the Civil War PERHAPS becomes less racist quicker. Same with the Northern US, without the perceived "menace" of an influx of freed Blacks, they will POSSIBLY become less racist towards South/East Europeans/Asians/Native Americans/Latinos, but this is just hypothetical. This would be caused by scientific racism not coming into fashion in the US.

I'm, not sold on this having those positives (land and opportunity and voting rights, instead of being exploited and treated as third class citizens at best in a country they didn't even want to move to in the first place and didn't want them to move there either). It's not strictly impossible, but I don't think it's very likely.

And if racism is so high in the US that people will spend billions of dollars on this, I do not think the odds of them being less racist than OTL any time soon are at all good.

SS Great Eastern cost 6 million USD to build, which is not a lot of money for the federal govt. And yes, moving the Blacks to South Africa will cost billions, but it will be no more expensive than the OTL Civil War which is butterflied in this scenario.

Six million USD, times twenty, times the issues for launching and so forth, is enough to be yet another "no one wants to pay this much for this". The entire federal budget in 1860 is about 78 million ( https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_1860USln ) so far as it requiring extraordinary - and unwelcome - sources of income.

Butterflying the ACW does not make people eager to spend billions of 1860s dollars.

You're talking about a colossal project here that is going to have to generate colossal amounts of support to make even potentially workable, and that purely as far as the American side of things, nevermind anyone else's .

 

[Mark E.]

Hmm, it appears that the average slave price in 1860 was $800, thus buying them up would cost the federal govt billions.

I saw a slave price list that had costs of $3500 for physically fit men. Only the weakest were $800. Still, that was high for the year. The rule of thumb I heard was that a slave had the value of a house.