The Years the Locusts Have Eaten: Liberia 1816-2004

By Joseph Tellewoyan

This is a historical narrative of Liberia and the Liberian people. It begins with
the formation of the Liberian state by the American Colonization Society (ACS) during the early nineteenth century, and ends in a colossal civil war in the 21st century. In their trepidation of a slave insurgency of Haitian proportion, and in their zeal to separate the races, the ACS created Liberia as a homeland for free African-Americans, under the guise of philanthropy. The leading proponents of this back-to-Africa movement included: Presidents Monroe, Madison, Jefferson, Jackson; Chief Justice John Marshall, and Francis Scott Key. These men were not only slaveholders who refused to manumit their slaves, but they were also steadfast segregationists.
Although the legislative efforts of the ACS facilitated the eventual suppression of the slave trade, the grand design of creating a permanent homeland in Africa for all African-Americans triggered the death of thousands of innocent Americans, and initiated the creation of a banana republic.
From 1822, when the Liberian state was created, to its collapse in 2003, Liberian leaders never made a pungent attempt to establish and maintain democratic institutions. The nation remained mired in a labyrinth of self-inflicted wounds, brought on by authoritarian rule, rampant corruption, ethnic hatred and intolerance, and anarchism. The political psychosis rose to a sadistic level by a bloody coup detat in 1980, which claimed the lives of the top echelon of the government, and brought to power a brutal military dictatorship. A decade later, a series of full-blown civil wars from 1990 to 2003, inflicted fatality to over ten percent of the population, dislocated over three-quarters of the Liberian people as refugees, and wrecked the entire infrastructure of the country. This is the epic struggle of the Liberian people.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Apr 4, 2005
• ISBN: 9781465324740

Joseph Tellewoyan

Joseph K. Tellewoyan spent the last ten years researching and writing this book on Liberia. He was born in Liberia, and has a Bachelors of Science Degree from Cuttington College, Liberia, and a Masters Degree from New York University. He currently lives in Roebling, New Jersey with his wife.

Book preview

Copyright © 2006 by Joseph Tellewoyan.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any

form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,

or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing

from the copyright owner.

This book was printed in the United States of America.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[e-mail]

27264

Contents

Dedication

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Chapter 1

Inception of African-American Colonization: 1816-1819

Chapter 2

The Years of the Ancestral Search: The Search for Land in Africa, 1820-1822

Chapter 3

The Years of the African Voyage: Planting an American Colony in Africa, 1822-1828

Chapter 4

The Touchstone Years: 1829-1839

Chapter 5

The Years of the Commonwealth :1839-1847

Chapter 6

The Years of the Slave trade: Liberia’s Role

Chapter 7

Search for Self-Government: Liberia’s Independence And The Waning of Colonization

Chapter 8

The Maryland Years: Maryland in Africa, 1831-1853.

Chapter 9

The Dispossessed Years: Liberia’s Political and Economic Problems

Chapter 10

Beyond the Hills: Expedition into the Interior of Liberia 1857-1874

Chapter 11

The Years of Political Realignment: Coup d’état of 1871

Chapter 12

The Years of Encroachment: The Financial Crisis and the Grebo War, 1872-1878

Chapter 13

The Years of the Hurricane: Liberia in the Scramble for Africa 1878-1900

Chapter 14

The Years of the Jackal: American and European Lien 1904-1926

Chapter 15

The Years of Impressment: Colonization of the Hinterland 1920-1930

Chapter 16

The Years of the Jaundice: Firestone & the League of Nations in Liberia, 1926-1935

Chapter 17

The Years of Seduction: Liberia and War Years, 1939-1945

Chapter 18

The Years of the Elephant: Tubman 1944-1955

Chapter 19

The Years of the Rice Birds: Scramble for Natural Resources 1946-1960

Chapter 20

The Twilight Years: Tubman Years 1963-1971

Chapter 21

Speedy, The Tolbert Years: 1971-1980

Chapter 22

Years of the Bugle: Military Dictatorship, 1980-1990

Chapter 23

The Years of the Cat and the Mouse: Charles Taylor Extradition Case, 1984-1985

Chapter 24

The Years of the Mongoose and the Rattlesnake: Liberian Civil War 1989-1996

Chapter 25

The Years of the Tsetse Fly: Taylor Years, 1997-2003

Endnotes

Bibliography

Dedication

This book is dedicated to those—Liberians, foreigners and innocent civilians—whose lives were tragically lost or impaired during the catastrophic period of our history from April 12, 1980, to 2004. It is especially dedicated to my uncle, Zubah Koryan who was beheaded by rebel forces on his farm in Lofa County; to my brother, Andrew Tellewoyan, who was summarily executed by rebel forces in Voinjama, Lofa County; to my hearing-impaired brother, Yankoi Tellewoyan, who was shot in the back by ECOMOG forces in Monrovia; to my older brother, Solomon Tellewoyan who died under mysterious circumstances in Monrovia, during the civil war; to my uncle Zubaryea Koryan, who bled to death in Monrovia from infected hemorrhoids; and to my stepfather, Larveä Johnson, who died in Lofa County after he ran out of his diabetic medication. May all of their souls rest in eternal peace!

Acknowledgements

I was inspired and motivated to write this book, when the Liberian civil war erupted in 1990. Out of total frustration, I began writing articles about the conflict and distributing them to my friends and fellow Liberians. In the historical analysis, I pointed out the root causes of the war and proposed solutions to ending the bloodshed. One of my friends who observed the assiduous effort that I was garnering into the work, suggested that I draw together all the articles that I had written, and publish them in a book. The proposition was admirable, but I knew that writing and publishing a book required enormous amount of research, travel, funding, and work. I was not certain that I could accomplish such a lofty goal with the limited resources that I had. However, after giving the idea further thought, I decided to meet the challenge.

The first awareness that dawned upon me was the fact that I had very little education in Liberian history, despite the fact that I had obtained my primary, secondary, and college education in Liberia. The rudimentary education that I had in Liberian history was limited to historical dates and names of Presidents of Liberia. That realization served as an impetus in my research work. I was also motivated to learn the history of my country and pass the information on to many of my countrymen, who suffer similar flaws. Another motivating factor was my fascination with the historical accounts of my people and my country—indigenous and repatriate Liberians.

The first task that I set out to resolve was the title of the book. A few days after I made the decision to write this book, I stumbled on a title. The inspiration came from my recollection of a sermon given by a Liberian Episcopal Bishop in the late 1960s, entitled, The years the locusts have eaten. I searched the Holy Bible and found the source in Deuteronomy Chapter 28, verse 38, and the verses resonated the character of the Liberian state. I was on the run.

The next step was research. My destination was the incredible library system of the United States. It was mind-boggling to discover that the library system in the United States had all the historical documents that I needed to write the history of the Liberian state, from its formation in the early nineteenth century, to its demise in the 1990s. That awareness was gratifying, because I knew that there were very few research documents left in Liberia, given the mayhem that had been inflicted on the country. That premonition became a reality, when I visited Liberia in 1996 and decided to continue my research work at the National Archives of Liberia. There was nothing left in the building except a few desk and a useless text book that was given to me by the director of the archive, which basically listed historical dates and names of Presidents. Out on the street of Monrovia, I saw the partial remains of the archive, which were being sold by small street vendors

During the duration of my research, I spent my time at New York Public Library, located in Harlem and 42nd Street; The Library of Congress; The National Archives; and the Franklin Roosevelt Library, in Hyde Park, New York. Working and completing this book would never had been possible without using the extensive resources of these libraries; consequently, I extend my thanks to all the individuals who helped to access the books, microfilm, pictures, and articles that I needed to do my work. I especially thank the people at the New York Public Library on 42nd Street and in Harlem for the tremendous assistance and the voluminous resources that were made available to me. The research materials at these centers were invaluable. I also extend my special thanks to the people at the Franklin Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, New York. It was there that I obtained pictures and documents on President Franklin Roosevelt’s visit to Liberia. The Library of Congress, and the National Archives in Washington, D.C and Massachusetts provided me important documents on the extradition case against Charles Taylor—one of the men who brought so much death, mayhem, pain, and suffering to the Liberian people.

I would never had written this book without the resources of these libraries. And finally, I thank the United States Government, federal, state and local, NGOs, and individuals who established and have funded the library system of the United States. The system is analogous to money in the bank for academics and researchers.

I also offer my gratitude to all my friends and relatives who encouraged me to complete this project over the years.

Introduction

During the 1980s and 1990s, the world witnessed one of the most brutal military dictatorships and one of the most horrific civil wars in Liberia. Many people saw images of death, mayhem, human suffering, and degradation on television, radio, in the newspapers, and the internet, but very few people, especially in the United States, had an understanding and appreciation of the history of Liberia and the underlying factors that plunged the country into an abyss of murder and mayhem. In the wake of this devastation, American leaders made national policies about Liberia and its survival, as if it was just another failed state in Africa that they had no obligation to or historical connection with. Their justification for not being fully engaged in Liberian was that the United States did not have a national interest in Liberia. Additionally, many people, including scholars, world leaders, and reputable news organizations, exclusively ascribed the creation of the Liberian state to African-Americans of the nineteenth century. What they probably did not know was that the Liberian state was America’s creation. Very few Americans understand that the founders of the Liberian state were distinguished political leaders of the United States, who attempted to solve the question of slavery and race in America, by resorting to the grand scheme of colonizing all free African-Americans in Liberia.

The men that conceived the idea of colonizing African-Americans, financed it, and nurtured it, were not African-Americans or ordinary Americans—majority of African-Americans opposed colonization—but leaders of the American Government, the American clergy, and the American aristocracy. The American political leaders who fostered the creation of the Liberian state included: Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson; Chief Justice John Marshall; Speaker of the House of Representatives Henry

Clay; and Francis Scott Key, the author of the national anthem of the United States—to name a few. These were the men who supported the American Colonization Society (ACS), and served as the brainchild of African-American colonization; they were the ones who raise the money that was needed to implement the plan; it was with their acquiescence, that the ACS obtained money and the legal standing from the American Government and the public to purchase land in Africa; they were the ones who provided the public resources which helped to transport thousands of African-Americans to Liberia; they were the ones who named key cities and streets in Liberia after themselves and in memory of those who contributed to colonization; and they drafted the constitution which prohibited whites from becoming citizens of that country, as a means of separating the races.

The very basis on which the Liberian state was founded was segregation. In its infancy, the Liberian state took on the character of its founders, by fostering racial and ethnic segregation. Over the years, this cancerous societal affliction took on a character of its own, and bred internal discord, despotism, and institutional corruption. Since its incipiency, democratic institutions have never taken hold in Liberia. The country remained politically and economically dysfunctional; many of its leaders raided the public treasury while ruthlessly silencing political dissent; and public servants used public service as a ticket out of poverty, while others used it to fraudulently enrich themselves. Like locusts, many Liberian leaders of the past and present have pilfered the resources of the country, with little regard for the welfare of the people or concern and well being of future generation. These are the factors that contributed to the rise and fall of the Liberian state. This is the history of Liberia.

. . . Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather but little in; for the locusts shall consume it.

HOLY BIBLE

Deuteronomy 28:38

Chapter 1

Inception of African-American Colonization: 1816-1819

Worthless is all liberty which neither frees the spirit, improves the condition, nor raises the character.

Ralph Gurley, Life of Jehudi Ashmun,1835

The formation of the Liberian state began with the grand scheme of deporting all newly manumitted slaves and free African-Americans—who were then called, the Free People of Color—from their homeland in the United States to a territory outside the boundary of the United States. This movement began in the late eighteenth century after the War of Independence, and took on national prominence during the second decade of the nineteenth century. The preliminary plan that the architects of colonization toiled with was to expatriate all newly manumitted slaves in one of three places: the western region that bordered the United States, the West Indies, or back to their ancestral homeland in Africa. Fundamentally the long term goal was to segregate the black race from the white race. The initial reaction of the American people to the concept of colonization was wide-ranging. Some saw the movement as an act of philanthropy and compassion for a people who were struggling to free themselves from the indignity of slavery and racism. Notorious racists and slaveholders were blissful about the goal of the movement, because it enhanced the separation of the races. A number of

Americans extrapolated the cost of undertaking this enormous mission and found it to be politically and financially unattainable. Abolitionists and opponents of colonization who knew the leaders of the movement and their motivation saw forewarning signs that pointed to racial segregation. Yet, the colonizationist were steadfast in their goal.

The organization that was created to implement African-American colonization was called the American Colonization Society (ACS). During its incipiency, foremost leaders of the United States led the ACS. Their social and political status ranged from the sacred domain of the American clergy, to the very pinnacle of American political power. By 1816, the leading architects of colonization included former President Thomas Jefferson; President James Madison; Presidentelect James Monroe; former Senator and future President Andrew Jackson; Speaker of the House, and later Secretary of State, Henry Clay; Chief Justice John Marshall; Secretary of the Treasury and later presidential candidate, William H. Crawford of Georgia; Attorney General William Wirt; Bushrod Washington, nephew of George Washington and Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court; Francis Scott Key, attorney in the United States Justice Department, and author of the national anthem of the United States; Elias Boudinot Caldwell, Clerk of the United States Supreme Court; Senator John Taylor of Virginia; Congressman Charles Fenton Mercer of Virginia; John Randolph, Congressman and future Senator from Virginia; Richard Rush, United States Ambassador to the Court of Saint James; Daniel Webster, Congressman from Massachusetts, and a host other distinguished Americans. The clergymen included Rev. Robert Finley, Right Rev. Bishop White, Rev. Dr. James Lorry, Rev. Dr. S. B. Blach, Rev. Obadiah B. Brown, Rev. William Hawley, and many other distinguished clergymen.

While a small minority of ACS members supported the cause of colonization as a means of prohibiting the slave trade and abolishing slavery, the undeniable goal of the leadership of the ACS was the eventual de-Africanization of the United States. The character of the leadership of the ACS painted an irrefutable picture of its true goal. Its leading proponents, including Jefferson, Madison, Clay, Marshall, Key, Washington, and Jackson, were all slaveholders and domestic slave traders.

The abolitionist, who subsequently emerged to oppose slavery, contested this back-to-Africa movement. They argued that leaders of the ACS were all slaveholders, who were neither committed to the welfare of African-Americans, nor to the prohibition of the slave trade and the abolition slavery. They stressed that the whole concept of colonization was nothing more then a scheme by slaveholders and racists Americans to deport all free African-Americans from the land of their birth, and subsequently separate the races and increase the price of slaves. Years later, some of these charges were substantiated, when in 1821 Justice Bushrod Washington, President of the ACS sold 54 of his slaves to a buyer in Red River, Louisiana; and in 1828 when, former President James Monroe, one of the key architect of colonization sold his slaves for $5,000 to slaveholders in Florida.[Noonan, John Thomas. The Antelope: The Ordeal of Recaptured Africans in the Administration of James Monroe and John QQuincy Adams, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1977, pp. 107 and 152]

The ultimate goals of the ACS were threefold: end the slave trade while maintaining the institution of slavery; forestall a race war; and eventually separate the races. The colonizationists abhorred the amalgamation of the white race with the black race, which in their view was being promulgated by free slaves. For them, the very thought of coexistence with manumitted slaves was repugnant. Coexistence implied that white America would eventually have to share political and economic power with their former slaves; it gave credence to the amalgamation of the races; and it spelled the abrogation of slavery, the workhorse of the Southern aristocracy and economy. Moreover, white Americans lived in a perennial state of consternation about a major slave insurrection in the United States, which Henry Clay, called a powder keg that would blow up into a colossal race war. Some white Americans called it the St. Domingo virus, a generic reference to the slave rebellion in Haiti. Thomas Jefferson continually wrote about the probability of a race war, pitting all of the black people of the Caribbean and the United States against the whites in the United States. During his tenure as Secretary of State, the first foreboding signs of such a hazard began with the Haitian revolution of 1791. After the successful overthrow of slavery in Haiti by Toussaint Louverture, Edward Stevens, the United States Consul in Haiti, reportedly wrote to General Thomas Maitland, Commander in Chief of the British Expeditionary Force, and surmised that the West Indies and the United States were on the verge of being invaded by Toussaint Louverture and his forces. President Monroe personally came face-to-face with a slave insurrection, called the Gabriel Conspiracy, when he served as Governor of Virginia. Another leader of colonization, Bushrod Washington, also experienced the peril posed by slave rebellion, when he was forewarned that a major conspiracy was afoot by his slaves, who planned to kill him and destroy his plantation.

For many colonizationists, the premonition of this catastrophic event descending on America began 1790 and peeked in 1810, with the massive increase in the number of African-Americans that gained their freedom. Table 2 shows that during that period, about nineteen percent of the American population was African-American. In 1790, only eight percent of the African-American population was free, and 92 percent was in bondage. However, within a decade, eleven percent of the African-Americans were free, and 89 percent were in servitude. In another ten years, the number of free African-Americans rose to thirteen percent, and the slave population dropped to 87 percent. On a standalone basis, the number of African-Americans who were free was even more staggering to the colonizationists. Table 1 shows that in the decade from 1790 to 1800, the number of African-Americans who were legally free increased by 82 percent, from 59,467 to 108,398. In another decade, from 1800 to 1810, the census showed that the population of free African-Americans rose by 72 percent. Comparatively, Table 2 shows that in three decades from 1790 to 1820, the white population in the United States was increasing at a decreasing rate. From 1790 to 1800, the white population increased by 37 percent; from 1800 to 1810, the rate dropped to 36 percent; and from 1810 to 1820, the rate decreased further to 35 percent. Additional analysis of Table 3 shows that the decreasing rate was particularly noticeable among the white population in the South. From 1790 to 1800, the white population in the North increased by 36 percent. In the next two decades, the rate remained stable at 40 percent. Conversely, the Southern white population grew by 35, 30, and 27 percent, during the three decades, from 1790 to 1820. Similarly, the free African-American population began to increase at a decreasing rate, after 1800; however, the unprocessed numbers was just too staggering for those who saw the danger posed by free African-Americans. Commenting on the dramatic increase in the number of free African-Americans, Charles Fenton Mercer, one of the workhorses of the ACS said:

The rapid increase of the free people of color, by which their number was extended in the ten years preceding the last census of the United States . . . if it has not endangered our peace has impaired the value of all the private property in a large section of our country.¹

General Robert Goodloe Harper, who was one of the founders of the Maryland Colonization Society in Maryland, a subsidiary of the ACS, called the presence of free Africans in the United States, a great evil. He wrote that :

Such a class [offree African-Americans] must evidently be a burden and a nuisance to the community; and every scheme which affords a prospect of removing so great an evil must deserve to be most favorably considered.²

Added to this anxiety was the hazard of slave revolt. During this period, the incendiary word was, insurrection. White America was awaken to this implacable reality in 1791, when St. Domingo, current day Haiti, erupted into a full-blown slave rebellion. The account of the Haitian Revolution is so essential in understanding the added motivation of the colonizationists to deport all free African-Americans out of the United States, that the narrative must be told at this juncture.

The Haitian Revolution began on August 14, 1791, when Boukmans, a Jamaican voodoo priest, who served as a gang foreman in St. Domingo—present day Haiti—motivated two hundred other gang foreman to rebel against their masters. By the end of 1791, over 100,000 slaves had revolted against their masters, culminating in a full-blown revolution on the island. In the mayhem that ensued, Boukmans was apprehended by the white authorities of the island and executed. He was killed when he and his men attacked Le Cap, a northern coastal town in northern Haiti. Other warlords followed Boukmans footsteps, including: Jean-Francois, who called himself, the Grand Admiral and Commander-in-Chief; another leader was General Bissou, the self-styled Generalissimo of the Conquered Territories,; and the ruthless Jeannot, who called himself the Grand Judge. However, the most enduring and charismatic rebel leader was Francois Dominique Toussaint Louverture, a full-blooded African, whose parents were brought to the island of Haiti as slaves from Dahomey—current day, Republic of Benin, in West Africa. In about a year, Toussaint consolidated the revolution, and took full reigns of power on the island. In September 1792, France responded to the revolution by dispatching 6,000 troops and three new commissioners to take over the administration of the island by force. While French troops battled the forces of Louverture, the French Revolution erupted, and claimed the head of Louis XVI at the guillotine. The white planters in St. Domingo who were royalists, responded to the execution by transferring their loyalty to Britain. Shortly thereafter, British troops invaded St. Domingo and took over the southern part of the island, from Jeremie to Port-Au-Prince. In 1793, the political situation in Haiti became so dreadful for whites on the island that over 10,000 white refugees left St. Domingo for the United States, carrying with them horrific stories about the overwhelming power of Louverture and the Haitian people. In the wake of this news, there were serious discussions in American political cycles about the threat that Toussaint posed to the Unite States. There was even some speculation that he might invade the United States and free the African-American slaves. In a letter to James Monroe, dated 1793, then Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, wrote about the growing political power of the black people in the West Indies:

I become daily more convinced that all the West Indian Islands will remain in the hands of the people of color, and a total expulsion of the whites sooner or later take place. It is high time we should foresee the bloody scenes which our children certainly, and possibly ourselves (south of the Potomac), have to wade through and try to avert them.³

In 1798, five years after the British invasion, Brigadier General Thomas Maitland, the commander of British forces in St. Domingo, was forced to withdraw his troops after suffering heavy losses. Over 40,000 of his men either died or sustained serious injuries. Military expenditures of the invasion force was estimated at 20 million pounds sterling. Although Maitland later claimed that many of his men died from the scourge of yellow fever and malaria, many contemporary historians agreed that the majority of the lives were lost in fierce battles against the forces of Louverture.

In January 1801, Louverture extended his reign and political power, when he invaded San Domingo, present day Dominican Republic. Domingo, which was then the Spanish section of the island, was emancipated and the two islands were united under the rule of Louverture. After the annexation of the Dominican Republic, the powers of Louverture became almost absolute. He inflicted military defeats, first against French forces, followed by the British and the Spanish. News of these military victories sent tremors in the heart of political leaders in the United States.

While Toussaint and his people rejoiced and celebrated their victories against the European powers, Napoleon Bonaparte arrived on the world stage. In his strategic plans of global dominance, St. Domingo became a stepping-stone to a possible invasion of the American continent. The island had cheap slave labor, and immense resources to finance French expeditions in the Americas. In Napoleon’s global scheme of world domination, Louverture was obviously in the way, and had to be removed by all means necessary. Consequently, in 1801, Napoleon assembled an armada of 86 ships and 40,000 men to invade St. Domingo [Haiti], and San Domingo [Dominican Republic] and restore slavery and French rule. Leading this expeditionary force were some of Napoleon’s best generals, including: Rochambeau, who saw action in Martinique; General Dogua, who was famous for his exploits in the battle of the pyramids; General Humbert who saw action in Ireland; and his brother-in-law General Victor Emmanuel Leclerc, who was married to his favorite sister Pauline. During the French invasion of Haiti, General Leclerc requested United States assistance in the form of military supplies; however, President Thomas Jefferson refused, in an apparent fear of not provoking Louverture into a possible military response against the United States.[Brodie, Fawn M. Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, P. 343.] Despite United States refusal to support the French invasion, General Leclerc pursued his military campaign against Louverture, with overwhelming manpower and modern weaponry. Despite French military superiority, however, French forces suffered stunning defeats at the battles of Crete-a-Pierrot, and Ravin-a-Couleuvre. In less than two months after his arrival in St. Domingo, General Leclerc reportedly lost over 5,000 men.

Louverture was on the verge of another stunning victory against French forces, when he tragically decided to make peace with the devious and deceptive General Leclerc. Shortly after the peace treaty, Louverture was arrested on the orders of Napoleon, and sent to France, where he died in prison on April 7, 1802. The capture of Louverture and the subsequent reinstatement of French rule in St Domingo was however, a Pyrrhic victory. French forces lost over 63,000 men, including General Leclerc’s⁴

The prior military defeat of the British, Spanish, and French forces by Toussaint Louverture did not go unnoticed in the United States. In 1800, at the height of the Haitian Revolution, a national alarm was raised in the United States, when Gabriel Prosser led an abortive slave revolt in Virginia. The plot was discovered and brutally crushed. Two years later, in 1802, the Easter Conspiracy again rocked the institution of slavery.

In the midst of these hazards, small but significant political changes began to alter the very foundation of the slave trade. In 1794, a congressional act prohibited United States citizens from investing in companies that imported slaves in the United States. In 1807, Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, which stipulated that, The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress . . . was amended, thereby abolishing the slave trade. Five years after the abolition of the slave trade in the United States, and immediately after the War of 1812, the United States and Britain pledged in Article 10 of the Treaty of Ghent, that:

Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice, whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object.⁵

At the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the great powers also dedicated themselves to abolishing the slave trade, and commissioned Britain to head that noble task.

While Britain and the United States were unilaterally framing legislation to abolish the slave trade, slavery as an institution continued to flourish in the South. Table 2 shows that thirteen years after the slave trade was officially abolished and criminalized, the slave population in the United States increased by 33 percent. Table 2 also shows that the slave population in the United States increased by 390,000 during those years. This created a paradox for leading colonizationists, including Bushrod Washington, Henry Clay, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. Although they benefited from slavery and the slave trade, the massive increase in the supply of slaves, concomitantly enlarged the free African-American population, and concurrently raised the specter of slave rebellions. To check this national menace, the colonizationist formulated a three-prong plan to bring the situation under control. First, they would work toward the abolition of the slave trade; second, the institution of slavery would be supported at a reasonable level; and third, as the slaves were manumitted, they would be colonized outside the borders of the United States. In the opinion of the colonizationist, this grand design would not only result in the de-Africanization of the American continent, but would gradually result in the abolition of slavery, which was perceived as a time bomb.

One of the original theorist of colonization was President Thomas Jefferson. During his incumbency as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson had toiled with the idea of colonizing free African-Americans in Sierra Leone, but never secured the cooperation of British authorities. The former president had the trepidation, that like the slaves in St.

Domingo, the American slaves and their free brothers in the United States and in the West Indies might rise up against their white oppressors, which would culminate into a major warfare. This anxiety was reinforced by several aborted slave rebellions, including the Gabriel and Easter Conspiracies of 1800 and 1802 respectively.

The concept of colonization was not a Prometheus idea conceived by the American Colonization Society. Years earlier, the Society of Friends in England, under the aegis of Dr. Forthergill and Greenville Sharp, founded the colony of Sierra Leone, to settle free blacks from England and fugitive African-American slaves who sided with England during the Revolutionary War. In 1787, Dr. William Thornton, a British Quaker in the Virgin Islands conceived of the concept of colonization, when he proposed to free his slaves and send them back to Africa. Unfortunately, the idea was a quicksand for the time. However, the full scale application of African-American colonization was initiated by ACS.

Image578.PNGImage587.PNG

Although the scheme of colonization did not advance as quickly as the proponents wished, the initiative continued to recur, primarily because of the trepidation of some white Americans, that the increasing number of free African-American, coupled with the potential of slave revolts, real or imagined, was a hazard to the status quo. One of the men, who kept the idea alive, was former President Thomas Jefferson. The former President of the United States was not only a slaveholder, but he benefited handsomely from slave labor, and had at least one child called Eston, by his slave mistress, Sally Hemings. DNA samples collected from a direct descendant of Thomas Jefferson, and another given by a direct descendant of Sally Hemings, and tested by the University of Leicester in England, confirmed that Eston was indeed the son of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. [Reference: „Jefferson‘s DNA Trial", Newsweek, November 9, 1998, p. 66; Jefferson and Sally Hemings, Together at Last The New York Times, November 2, 1998, p. A26]. Despite this prolong and loving affair with Sally Hemings, Jefferson viewed the Negroid race as inherently inferior to the Caucasian race. On manumission of the slaves, Jefferson wrote that:

As far as I can judge from the experiments which have been made to give liberty to, or rather, to abandon persons whose habits have been formed in slavery is like abandoning children.¹⁰

On the broader question of emancipation, and the incorporation of African-Americans in American society, Jefferson expressed his views in a letter dated August 25, 1814, to Edward Coles:

The idea of emancipating the whole at once, the old as well as the young, and retaining them here, is of those only who have not the guide of either knowledge or experience of the subject. For men, probably of any color, but of this we know, brought up from their infancy without necessity for thought or forecast, are by their habits rendered as incapable as children, of taking care of themselves, and are extinguished promptly wherever industry is necessary for raising the young. In the meantime, they are pests in society by their idleness, and depredations to which this leads them. Their amalgamation with other colors produces a degradation to which no lover of this country, no lover of excellence in the human character, can innocently consent.¹¹

By 1817, the colonizationist had the backing of former Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and President James Monroe, who had just succeeded to the presidency. The ACS also had the support of key cabinet officials, including : Secretary of the Treasury William H. Crawford, and Attorney General William Wirt. The only cabinet member who raised serious questions about the whole concept of colonization and the legality of using public funds to achieve that end, was Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. Adams referred to some of the colonizationist as political and economic speculators, who wanted to reduce the supply of slaves and thereby increase the price. From the Supreme Court, the colonizationist had the support of Chief Justice John Marshall, Associate Justice Bushrod Washington, and Elias Boudinot Caldwell, Clerk of the Supreme Court. From Congress, the colonizationists could count on the support of Speaker of the House of Representative Henry Clay of Kentucky; Daniel Webster of Massachusetts; John Randolph of Virginia; and Charles Fenton Mercer of Virginia, who later turned out to be one of the workhorses of the movement. The other supporters of the movement included: General Andrew Jackson, who later became seventh President of the United States; Richard Rush of Pennsylvania, who became ambassador to Britain during the administration of James Monroe and later served as Secretary of Treasury of the United States in the John Quincy Adams Administration; Francis Scott Key of Georgetown, attorney and author of the national anthem, and Rev. Robert Finley a clergyman.

President James Monroe was probably the most important patron of the ACS. He was a slaveholder who knew the institution of slavery, and was fully aware of the threat that the institution posed to white America. Although he questioned the turpitude of slavery, he did not believe in its abolition. His position on this wedge issue of his time was probably configured during his tenure as Governor of Virginia in the late eighteenth century. On August 30, 1800, the Governor was warned of a slave rebellion through a Virginian named Moseby Shepherd. The authorities had received warning of the impending rebellion from one of the co-conspirators whose name was Pharaoh. Slaves of Henrico County, Virginia, had allegedly concocted a scheme to kill their masters, seize the armory, and burn Richmond, the capital. Subsequently, twenty-five of the conspirators were apprehended and summarily executed. As a precautionary measure, Governor Monroe issue General Orders, dated September 15, 1800, in which he called up the 9th, 19th, 23rd regiment, and fifty men from the 33rd regiment, to crush any potential revolt. Subsequently, in a letter to the Mayor of Richmond dated December 27, 1800, Governor Monroe proposed a passport system to control the free movement of African-Americans in Richmond and other cities He wrote that:

It is represented that many Negroes were yesterday and still are in town from the country, perhaps from the coal pits, who acting in a body at their ordinary labour, are more capable of forming and executing any plan, such as dispersed on estates. I should suppose it would have a good effect to expel those Negroes from the town, and prohibiting their entering except in the day, to be admitted at a certain hour and depart in such a time. For this purpose it would be necessary to enregister all the Negroes of the town, and pass a law that each should have a passport or certificate from his master, shewing (sic) he belonged to the town to enable the constables or watch to execute the restriction on those from the country. The Negroes from the country have no business in town, but to attend at market; that being ended they ought to depart.¹²

In another letter about the slave rebellion to the Speaker of the General Assembly of Virginia, dated December 5, 1800, Monroe articulated his views on the increasing menace of a slave rebellion. He suggested that:

What has happened may occur again at any time, with more fatal consequences, unless suitable measures be taken to prevent it. Unhappily, while this class of people exists among us[,] we can never count with certainty on its tranquil submission.’¹³

On June 15, 1801, Monroe wrote his friend and mentor President Thomas Jefferson, about a modify resolution of the Virginian General Assembly, which recommended that the Federal Government purchase land outside the United States for the colonization of the free African-Americans:

Sir, I enclose you some resolution of the General Assembly of this Commonwealth, passed at its last session explanatory of a resolution of the preceding session authorizing a correspondence with your relative to the purchase land without the limits of the state, to which persons obnoxious to the laws or dangerous to the peace of society may be removed . . . . The resolution which I have now the pleasure to communicate to you have removed all doubt on that subject, by confining the attention in procuring the asylum sought to the accommodation of Negroes only . . .¹⁴

The Virginian resolution proposed further, that slaves that committed crimes be deported to Africa, and that free African-Americans have the option of either going to a Portuguese or Spanish settlements in South America, or to Africa. An additional idea proposed during this period was to purchase land in the western United States and have all free African-Americans deported there. President Jefferson questioned the practicality of this proposal, on the grounds that the inhabitants in that region—the Spanish, Mexicans and Indians—might not sell their land, and that the United States might expend to that area of the country in the future, and might have to contend with hostile African-Americans. In Another letter to President Jefferson, dated June 11, 1802, Governor Monroe discussed the suggestion that Jefferson had made, about deporting rebellious slaves and free African-Americans to the West African colony of Sierra Leone:

Sir, I find your letter of the 3rd that you think Sierra Leone, on the Coast of Africa, a suitable place for the establishment of our insurgent slaves, that it may also become so for those who are or may hereafter be emancipated, and that you are disposed to obtain the assent of the company to such a measure through our Minister in London, while your attention will be directed in the interim to such other quarters as may enable us to submit a more enlarged field to the option of our Assembly.¹⁵

President James Madison and Chief Justice John Marshall were also deeply involved in the colonizationist movement. In response to a letter from President James Madison, regarding the constitutionality of using territorial fund to remove free African-Americans from the United States, Chief Justice Marshall expressed his view that:

’The removal of our colour population is, I think, a common object, by no means confined to the slaves states, although they are more immediately interested in it. The whole Union would be strengthened by it, and relieved from a danger, whose extent can scarcely be estimated. It lessens very much, in my estimation, the objection in a political view to the application of this ample fund . . .¹⁶

James Madison—President of the United States 1809-1817, father of the United States constitution, and later president of the ACS in his last days—articulated his views on slavery, colonization, and the segregation of whites and blacks in a letter to Robert Evans. He proposed the abolition of slavery under the following conditions: it had to be done gradually, so that the Southern economy would not be disrupted; and it had to be done with the approbation of the slaveholders. Like President Thomas Jefferson, President Madison did not believe in the equality of the races and therefore did not condone racial coexistence. He wanted all free African-Americans deported to a colony in Africa. In a letter dated June 15, 1819, to Robert J. Evans, President Madison proposed the following:

"’A general emancipation of slaves ought to be 1. gradual. 2. equitable & satisfactory to the individuals immediately concerned. 3. consistent with the existing & durable prejudices of the nation.

‘That it ought, like remedies for other deep rooted, and wide spread evils, be gradual, is so obvious that there seem to be no difference of opinion on that point.

‘To be equitable and satisfactory, the consent of both the Master & the slave should be obtained. That of the Master will require a provision in the plan for compensating of what he has had as property guaranteed by the laws, and recognized by the constitution . . .

‘To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the U.S. the freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a white population. The objections to a thorough incorporation of the two people, are with most of the Whites insuperable, and are admitted by all of them to be very powerful . . .’"¹⁷

Madison was also a slaveholder and a domestic slave trader. In 1834 he sold 16 of his slaves under the pretense that he needed the money to support and eventually free the remaining slaves that he held. [.Ralph Ketcham, James Madison, University Press of Virginia, 1998, p. 629]. Henry Clay, Speaker of the House of Representatives was another colonizationists and a slaveholder, who did not conceal his abhorrence toward free African-Americans. In a speech before the American Colonization Society, he charged that:

Of all classes of our population, the most vicious is that of the free colored. It is the inevitable result of their moral, political, and civil degradation. Contaminated themselves, they extend their vices to all around them, to the slaves and to the whites. If the principle of colonization should be confined to them; if a colony can be firmly established and successfully continued in Africa, which should draw off annually, an amount of that portion of our population equal to its annual increase, much good will be done. If the principle be adopted and applied by the states, whose laws sanction the existence of slavery, to an extent equal to the annual increase of slaves, still greater good will be done.¹⁸

Francis Scott Key, author of the Stars Spangled Banner, and an attorney in the Justice Department of the United States, was also a colonizationists, a slave holder, and a proponent of racial segregation. In the following speech to the Pennsylvania Colonization Society, Key articulated the ACS‘ goal in getting the cooperation of the slave masters:

’May it not then be laid down as plain truth, which we ought never to lose sight of; that, whatever plan may be adopted to effect this great object [colonization] it must be carried on with the consent of the slave owners. ’The Colonization Society, I undertake to show presents such a scheme. Slave holders have given it their approbation; they will approve it; and can approve of no other. Any scheme of emancipation without colonization, they know and see and feel to be productive of nothing but evil, to the manumitted themselves."¹⁹

The other distinguished Americans who actively supported the cause of colonization and participated in the formation of the ACS included: William H. Crawford of Georgia, Richard Rush of Pennsylvania, Charles Fenton Mercer of Virginia, Daniel Webster, General Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, and Justice Bushrod Washington of Georgetown. William H. Crawford, the tall and handsome Georgian was a slaveholder who had a distinguish public career in both the legislative and executive branches of the United States Government. He was former United States senator from Georgia, and later served as President Pro Temp of the Senate. In the executive branch, he served as United States ambassador to France, Secretary of War, and Secretary of the Treasury under Presidents James Madison and James Monroe; and his ambition to become President of the United States almost became a reality in 1816, when he ran a close presidential contest against James Monroe. Another devoted colonizationists was Andrew Jackson, at the time, commander of United States forces in the South. General Jackson made a name for himself, when he invaded Florida—Florida was at the time under

Spanish control, and the land was allegedly being used by Indians as a sanctuary, to kill Americans—and forced Spanish forces to withdraw to Cuba, thereby effectively expelling Spain from that territory, and bringing it into the territorial fold of the united States. General Jackson later became the seventh President of the United States, and served two terms from 1829 to 1837.

Another distinguished colonizationists was Bushrod Washington, nephew of the late President George Washington, and one of the six Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Bushrod Washington was born in 1762, in Bushfield, Westmoreland County, Virginia, to John A. Washington, the younger brother of George Washington. He attended the College of William and Mary, and owing to the influence of his famous uncle, studied and practiced law under the watchful eyes of James Wilson, an eminent jurist, who later became Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Bushrod was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1787, and was appointed Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court by President John Adams in 1798. He was thirty-six years old at the time of his elevation. After the death of President George Washington, his will designated Bushrod as the executor of his estate, which included the property at Mount Vernon, and all the slaves. During Bushrod‘s management of the Mount Vernon estate, he had an inauspicious experience with his slaves, when he received word that they had conspired to burn Mount Vernon. It was an experience that did not only frightened him, but also left an „unfavorable effect on his wife‘s nerves."²⁰ This experience clearly influenced Bushrod’s support for the concept of colonization.

While distinguished political, military, and religious leaders brought clout and prestige to the ACS, the workhorses of the movement, during the early stages of its formation were: Charles Fenton Mercer of Virginia, and Robert Finley of New Jersey. Both Mercer and Finley had vital political connections in the United States Government. Mercer was the godson of Bushrod Washington, and Finley was married to the sister of Elias Caldwell, Clerk of the United States Supreme. Charles Fenton Mercer was born in Fredericksburg Virginia, in 1778 to a second generation of Irish-American immigrants.

He graduated from Princeton in 1797 at age nineteen, and was elected to the Virginian General Assembly House of Delegates in 1810, as a Federalist. During his tenure in the Virginia legislature, he was elected to the powerful position of finance chairman, where he established a name for himself and made friends in high places. In 1817, he was elected to the United States House of Representatives, where he effectively used his position in the cause of the colonization. Like most of the other colonizationist, Mercer was a slaveholder. Mercer’s views on the free African-American population were as racist as many of his fellow colonizationist. His personal antipathy for free African-Americans made him to allege that over half of the men were thieves, and the same percentage of free African-American women were whores.²¹ Like the other leading colonizationist, Mercer believed that the very presence of free African-Americans in the United States was a menace to the moral fiber of American society and to the way of life of the southern aristocracy. It was during his tenure in the Virginian House of Delegates, that Mercer committed himself to colonization, by working on the removal of the free African-Americans from the state of Virginia. During a visit in Washington, he discussed the idea with Elias Caldwell, and asked for his support. Caldwell passed the idea on to his brother-in-law, Rev. Robert Finley of New Jersey, who not only embraced the concept, but also made himself the point man for the movement.

The other workhorse of the ACS was Robert Finley. He was born in 1772 to a Scottish-American minister. He taught in the South, where he experienced the institution of slavery first hand. He was later ordained a priest in the Episcopal Church, and in 1816 was appointed President of the University of Georgia. During that same year, he published Thoughts on the Colonization of free Blacks, in which he fully conceptualized, crystallized, synthesized, and evangelized the idea of colonization. After the publication of his essay, he and Mercer visited Washington to promote and lobby political and community leaders on the idea of colonization. They called on President James Madison of the United States, and visited William Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury. They also saw the leaders of the legislative and judicial branches of government, including Speaker of the House of

Representatives, Henry Clay, Chief Justice John Marshall, and Associate Justice Bushrod Washington. At a meeting in a tavern, Finley and Mercer obtained the firm commitment of Clay, Crawford, Bushrod, Key, and eleven other distinguished American leaders on the central question of colonization.

In a letter to John P. Mumford of New York, one of his distinguished friends, dated February 14, 1816, Finley wrote:

On this subject the state of the free blacks has very much oppressed my mind. Their number increases greatly, and their wretchedness too as appears to me. Every thing connected with their condition, including their color is against them; nor is there much prospect that their state can ever be greatly ameliorated, while they shall continue among us. Could not the rich and benevolent devise means to form a colony on some part of Africa, similar to the one in Sierra Leone . . . Ought not Congress . . . grant them a district in a good climate, say on the shores of the Pacific Ocean.²²

In his campaign to win over Henry Clay and other leading political figures—many of whom were either slave holders or sympathetic to the institution of slavery—Rev. Finley assured them, at a meeting held in Congressional Hall on Saturday, December 21, 1816, that:

This Society deals with freemen and freemen alone. It leaves the individual states, according to the constitution, to manage their slaves and slavery system, in their own preferred way. And it leaves the rights and immunities of slave owners entirely untouched.²³

After a series of contacts in various states, the friends of colonization decided to meet in Washington to organize and formalize the movement. On a cold morning on Saturday, December 21, 1816, a crowd of curiosity seekers gathered in Washington City (Washington, D.C.) to watch the arrival of the distinguished political, military, and community leaders to Congressional Hall. The celebrities entered the chamber of the House of Representatives, and began the first meeting of the ACS. The eminent American leaders who attended the meeting included: Chief Justice John Marshall, who is reported to have made a hazardous journey through a winter storm just to get to the meeting; Henry Clay of Kentucky—Speaker of the House of Representatives, 1811-1820, 1823-1825; United States Senator, 18061807, 1810-1811, 1831-1842, 1849-1852; Secretary of State, 1825-1829—

who served as presiding officer of the meeting; Bushrod Washington, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and nephew of the late President George Washington; Elias B. Caldwell, secretary of the United States Supreme Court, in whose house the United States Supreme Court held its session for twenty four months after the British burned Washington, D.C. in 1814; Francis Scott Key, attorney, and author of the Star Spangled Banner, national anthem of the United States; General Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, later President of the United States 1829-1837; Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford; Chief Justice John Marshall, who later served as the President of Colonization Society in Virginia, and was later elected honorary Vice President of the ACS in 1825; Richard Rush, who in the following year would become Minister of the United States to Britain in the Monroe administration; congressman Daniel Webster and other distinguished Americans. The other leading citizens who were not there in person, but were members and supporters, included: former President Thomas Jefferson, one of the ideologues of colonization; James Monroe, President-elect of the United States, one of the primary proponents of colonization; and President James Madison, who actively supported the ACS and its goals, and later became its president in 1835. Twenty-eight distinguished Americans from eight of the thirteen states of the Union were present.

The meeting began with the reading of a letter from former President Jefferson to John Lyland on the question of the colonization of free Africa-Americans. The letter, which was dated January 11, 1811, indicated that Jefferson had made up his mind about sending free blacks out of the United States during his presidency; however, he noted that he attempted to negotiate with Portugal for a land in South America, and had communicated with the British Government on sending Free African-Americans to Sierra Leone, a colony founded by Britain for fugitive slaves who sided with the English during the Revolutionary War, all of which were aborted. He warned that the national mind was probably not prepared for the scheme, and that many of the free African-Americans would probably not voluntarily consent to immigrate to another country. Part of his statement read as follows:

’Sir: you have asked my opinion on the proposition of Ann Mifflin, to take measures for procuring, on the coast of Africa, an establishment to which the people of Colour of these states might, from time to time, be colonized, under the auspices of different governments. Having long made up my mind on this subject, I have no hesitation in saying that I have ever thought that the most desirable measure which could be adopted for gradually drawing off this part of our population—most advantageous for themselves as well as for us . . . Exclusive of motives of humanity, the commercial advantages to be derived from it might defray all its expenses; but for this the national mind is not prepared. It may perhaps, be doubted whether many of these people would voluntarily consent to such an exchange of situation, and but few of those who are advanced to a certain age in habits of slavery would be capable of governing themselves.’²⁴

Jefferson indicated further, that in 1805, he had explored the question of colonizing African-Americans in Sierra Leone with the Sierra Leone Company—the abolitionist and philanthropic organization that founded and managed Sierra Leone from 1787 to 1808—through the American ambassador in London, but had not succeeded because of two reasons: first, the managers of the company indicated that the Sierra Leone Company was on the verge of bankruptcy and was about to be taken over by the British Government;—it became a British Crown colony in 1808—and second, that African-Americans who emigrated to Sierra Leone years earlier, had not significantly contributed to the welfare of the colony, . . . that their idleness and turbulence, had kept the settlement in constant danger of dissolution, [and that only] the Maroon Negroes, from the West Indies, were more industrious and orderly . . . and supported the authority of the Government and its laws. Consequently, they wanted no more African-Americans in Sierra Leone.

Despite that gloomy outlook from Jefferson’s letter, the American Society for Colonizing the Free People of Color was formed and their leaders were elected. The officers included a president, thirteen vice presidents, twelve managers, a secretary, one recording secretary, and a treasurer. Justice Bushrod Washington became President; Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, William Crawford, Richard Rush, and Robert Finley became five of the thirteen vice presidents; Francis Scott Key was one of the twelve managers; and Elias Caldwell was elected secretary.

As the meeting progressed, Henry Clay and Elias Caldwell clarified two key questions: the mission of the society, and the location of the proposed colony. The delegates agreed that the ACS would do nothing to interfere with the institution of slavery, and the proposed colony would not be located on the North American continent. One of the reasons for the latter decision was the concern by some delegates, that an African-American colony on the American continent might form alliances with enemies of the United States. Bushrod Washington, Francis Scott Key, Elias Caldwell and six other delegates, drafted the constitution of the Society. According to Article 2 of the ACS constitution, the objective of the Society was . . . to aid the colonization of Africa by voluntary colored emigrants from the United States, and to promote there the extension of Christianity and civilization.²⁵ A committee consisting of Francis Scott Key, Elias Caldwell, and six other delegates were appointed as the Congressional lobbyist.

The mission of the ACS was a Herculean task in terms of cost and conscription of African-Americans for the mission. The idea that free African-Americans would be recruited on a voluntary basis to leave their homeland for Africa was disingenuous to say the least, since a grand conspiracy already existed among key leaders of the ACS, to have African-Americans removed from the United States. On the eve of the founding of the ACS, the population of the Free People of Color numbered over 200,000, many of whom were born in the United States and had no connection whatsoever with the African continent, except the color of their skin. Added to this grand conspiracy was the difficulty of deporting such a large number of people, which required enormous resources and political support from the American people. According to the biographer of Robert Finley, the initial reaction of the American public to the concept of colonization was described as visionary and impracticable. Despite this public sentiment, the architects of colonization went ahead with their plans.

One of the first decisions that was made was to begin the search for a colony in Africa. At the end of its first meeting, the Board of Managers of the ACS passed a resolution, which stipulated that Samuel J. Mills and Ebenezer Burgess, both clergymen, were to depart on a mission to England and Sierra Leone, West Africa, to explore the possibility of establishing a colony for free African-Americans on the West Coast of Africa. After the ACS meeting in Washington, there was a chorus of disapproval from the African-American community. African-American leaders raised serious concerns about the concept of colonization, and remonstrated on the grounds that the leaders of the ACS had not consulted them. They convened meetings in Richmond, Virginia, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and passed resolutions, which characterized the concept of colonization as cruel and [a] direct violation of those principles which have been the boast of this republic.