Was Liberia Founded By Freed U.S. Slaves? By Mary Kay Ricks In Tuesday's Washington Post, an editorial urging President Bush to send peacekeepers to civil war-wracked Liberia noted that the country was "founded by freed U.S. slaves." Is that true? Not quite. Although some freed American slaves did settle there, Liberia was actually founded by the American Colonization Society, a group of white Americans—including some slaveholders—that had what certainly can be described as mixed motives. In 1817, in Washington, D.C., the ACS established the new colony (on a tract of land in West Africa purchased from local tribes) in hopes that slaves, once emancipated, would move there. The society preferred this option to the alternative: a growing number of free black Americans demanding rights, jobs, and resources at home. Notable supporters of transporting freed blacks to Liberia included Henry Clay, Francis Scott Key, Bushrod Washington, and the architect of the U.S. Capitol, William Thornton—all slave owners. These "moderates" thought slavery was unsustainable and should eventually end but did not consider integrating slaves into society a viable option. So, the ACS encouraged slaveholders to offer freedom on the condition that those accepting it would move to Liberia at the society's expense. A number of slave owners did just that. When the first settlers were relocated to Liberia in 1822, the plan drew immediate criticism on several fronts. Many leaders in the black community publicly attacked it, asking why free blacks should have to emigrate from the country where they, their parents, and even their grandparents were born. Meanwhile, slave owners in the South vigorously denounced the plan as an assault on their slave economy. Abolitionist resistance to colonization grew steadily. In 1832, as the ACS began to send agents to England to raise funds for what they touted as a benevolent plan, William Lloyd Garrison revved up the opposition with a 236-page book on the evils of colonization and sent abolitionists to England to track down and counter ACS supporters. But the scheme had some fans. Slave states like Maryland and Virginia were already home to a significant number of free blacks, and whites there—still reeling from Nat Turner's 1831 rebellion, which emancipated slaves had a hand in—formed local colonization societies. Thus encouraged, Maryland legislators passed a law in 1832 that required any slave freed after that date to leave the state and specifically offered passage to a part of Liberia administered by the Maryland State Colonization Society. However, enforcement provisions lacked teeth, and many Marylanders forgot their antipathy to free blacks when they needed extra hands at harvest time. There is no evidence that any freed African-American was forcibly sent to Liberia from Maryland or anywhere else. By the 1840s, the American Colonization Society was largely bankrupt, and the transported Liberians were demoralized by hostile local tribes, bad management, and deadly diseases. The U.S. government would not claim sovereignty over the colony, so in 1846 the ACS demanded that Liberians declare their independence. In the end, around 13,000 emigrants had sailed to Liberia. Today, vestiges of the emigration can be seen in Liberia's Maryland County, in the American-sounding names we read in the papers, and, as reported on National Public Radio, in one Liberian restaurant's offer of Maryland-style fried chicken. http://slate.msn.com/id/2085169/
It might surprise some... but I support a Liberia task force wholeheartedly. On the surface, it might ring echoes of Somalia, but if we do it right then there will be no resemblence. I have far more confidence in this administration to do it right than I did Clinton's. Reasons why? Number one: brownie points. Sending a military (and hopefully civilian) task force to oversee a change of government and to reinstate stability at the request of Kofi would go a long way towards mending fences with the UN, which, despite my feelings about that body, I do not see as a bad thing. As ineffective and useless as the UN sometimes seems (and is), it still doesn't hurt to keep a good face there. Number two: The Iraq war seriously hurt our image in the minds of tens of millions of Africans, and saving an African country from another Sierra Leone would go a long way towards repairing that image. Again, some might not care what Africans think about us and our wars, and in the scope of things it is probably not as important as what others might think, but it certainly will not hurt. There are quite a few muslims there, I might add. Number three: We have been Liberia's protector since that country's inception. We have a duty to protect it, pure and simple. Duty. If we didn't want that responsibility then we shouldn't have agreed to it. Number four: Charles Taylor is a worthless piece of dog-sh*t who needs to be removed from power. I am all for removing worthless pieces of dog-sh*t from power wherever possible, regardless of how rich or strategically important their country is. Down with dictators, and long live democracy wherever we can spread it. Number five: Such a commitment would not be very large, and would not stretch our resources too much. We're probably talking about 500 to 2000 Marines (you guys can have this one) for several months, followed by a UN force that will be much easier to cobble together as long as we kick in the door. We're not talking about sending too much by the way of heavy equipment, or even necessarily deploying anyone who isn't already deployed, or for longer than they would already have been deployed. One Amphibious Ready Group will do the trick, and those guys are already deployed. Just move them onto land. No more than a handfull of tanks and helos, no real need for combat aircraft - just a few grunts who are already deployed and have nothing better to do now that Uncle Saddam's gone... In short, we're not talking about stretching ourselves thin with this one, we'll make some nice brownie points and mend some fences, and we can do a good thing (not to mention our duty) and help alot of people in the process. Unless US soldiers start dying on a daily basis, I see only positives here. Whether the strategic imperative is apparent or not.
After poking around a bit, it seems the only Marine ARG anywhere close is the <i>Iwo Jima</i> ARG on the other side of Africa (as of July 2). <a HREF="http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/news/.www/status.html">Status of the Navy</a> There were several other major Amphib ships that returned to the East Coast in late June and would not be candidates for Liberia. Checking with the <a HREF="http://www.26meu.usmc.mil/"26th MEU">26th MEU</a> web site notes they are at sea, but the link for the current status was not revealing any information. If transit time to Liberia is roughly a week and the <i>Iwo Jima</i> got orders to proceed to Liberia on Juy 4th (?), that would put them in the area at the end of next week. Otherwise, it might be an airlift of Army units and equipment into Monrovia if the Marines are not sent.
Mango: I would look for this to be a Marine operation. I think the Army wants to decline, as we are all currently deployed elsewhere... We should have 2 MEUs deployed at any given time. After the Cold War, we do not necessarily have one deployed in the Atlantic AO; I would not look at the 26th as being it anyway. Like the carriers, though, one never knows exactly where they are at. Transit time a week you say? Not surprising. At least, I wouldn't be. That said, though, I'm sure we can always pull an airborne batallion out of our asses if asked. Not that I think that's the likely course of events, of course...
You know they said the same thing about Somalia. The media showed endless footage of starving people and chaos and we sent our military into the breach to quell the crisis and restore hope (the name of this op) to the Somalis. It was a conspicuous failure as we were sent running away with our tail between our legs. Was the lives of the Somali people improved? Of course not. All we did accomplish was to kill some SF troops in a 3rd World cesspool in a meaningless battle. There is no pressing interest for us to intervene in Liberia. Besides, when we leave (which will be eventually) what's going to happen? The fighting will resume. We can't stop all the evil in the world. In fact, we have no business interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, except when those internal affairs affect our vital national interests. Peacekeeping is a load of mularkey and results in 1. ridiculous op tempos, thus resulting in lack of maintennance for equipment and much needed down time for our troops 2. casulties brought about by ridiculous ROEs (rules of engagement) 3. Last, simple schoolroom logic, who usually gets beat up the worst in a fight? The guy trying to break up the fight. That's why domestic violence calls are the most feared by policemen. I'm tired of the world laying every single problem at our doorstep. Take some ownership and deal with your own problems, world! We are not the panacea for every problem. As long as men exist, there will be fighting and killing. We can't put a stop to it all. This is a great quote from this piece: A much more serious weakness-perhaps a fatal flaw-lies in the very concept of peace enforcement, the notion that peace can be imposed on a reluctant and notoriously proud people at gunpoint and that the social fabric of their nation can be rewoven at the direction of outsiders. T. Frank Crigler, former ambassador to Somalia, 1987-90 Read the rest of the piece here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/jfq1002.pdf
bamaslammer: You should be reminded that until Les Aspen pulled out the 13,000 or so Marines with their tanks and AAVs the Somali mission was going quite well. Ending famine in Mogadishu? Mission accomplished. We saved millions of lives, or at least several hundred thousand. Mission didn't sour until the mission changed from relief to "get Aidid". About the same time, coincidentally, as when the Marines pulled out and took their armor with them... Just because we fuc*ed up then does not necessarily mean that we are destined to f* up now. As I said before, I have far more confidence in this administration to do it right than I did Clinton's. Not every African venture is going to be a Somalia. Look to Sierra Leone for a more recent example of what Western forces can do.
treeman, If it is going to be a Marine Unit and not the 26th MEU, then it is difficult to predict which one it is going to be. The Amphib Groups in the Pacific are too far away and the other major Amphib units seem to be stateside for R & R. It is possible that Marines could be flown into Monrovia and have their equipment flown in, but it would be unusual for them to be transported that way.
There are alot of ways we could do it, Mango. The how is not a particularly important question at this point for this discussion, although I will say that how we do it depends entirely upon when we want to begin and have it done by.
The mission went well when I was there, but it was not perfect. We did take some sniper fire and we were unable to intervene in some circumstances we should have been able to, but what really was pathetic was the way Clinton showed weakness after pulling the Rangers and Delta Force out after the Battle of the Mog. But the problem lies in the rationale behind the mission. I just don't think Liberia is a vital interest of the United States. I've always believed that peace will not happen in a warring country until someone wins conclusively. Imagine what would've happened if some outside force intervened and forced us to stop fighting our civil war? Without settling our differences once and for all time, we would still be two nations.
Such a commitment would not be very large, and would not stretch our resources too much. We're probably talking about 500 to 2000 Marines (you guys can have this one) for several months, followed by a UN force that will be much easier to cobble together as long as we kick in the door. I do not have any problem with sending 2000 Marines to Vietnam for several months. Semper Fi!!!
bamaslammer: The ROE were ridiculous, and you have the Clinton admin to thank for that. Luckily, this admin appears to be relaxing those somewhat... And I agree that it was ridiculous to pull everyone out after that night in Mogadishu - exactly the message that we don't want to send, the one that got dumbasses like Osama thinking that we are weak. I would tend to agree that Liberia is not a vital interest - no argument there. But I think that acting there will definitely bring benefits, and will be worth doing as long as it is done right. I would also tend to agree that in general, peacekeeping is only a temporary fix. One side has to win conclusively or it will just happen as soon as the blue hats leave. That is what happened in Sierra Leone, and why the Brits had to return. Personally, though, I have no problem with keeping a long-term presence there if A) it will not be large, and B) the UN foots the long-term bill in terms of both cash and troops. That would be 'doing it right' in my book... Such a mission would only be appropriate IMHO if we 'did it right' - not like Somalia, where we did so many things wrong. No Worries: You do know that we left Vietnam almost 30 years ago, don't you? And that we currently have no reason to send any Marines there? And, not that I would know personally as I am not a Marine, but I would expect that any Marines here would be insulted by a person such as yourself throwing our Marine slogans. And oh - for your sig - does the word "centrifuge" mean anything to you? Just a matter of time...
I'm more confused from the left that didn’t support the regime change/disarmament but yet support going to Liberia, than those that support going to war with Iraq and not Liberia. One had a dual purpose that was mainly based upon proactive measures (disarming Sadam), where as the left appeared to care about neither agenda (disarming or liberating). Now I do agree there is a crowd that would not have supported the war with the Iraq had it only one purpose, and that was liberating, and not disarming. I see the incontinency there. I’m part of the crowd that would have only supported the war for WMD only. As far as liberating Iraq only, I’m not so sure. Its not that I’m against helping them, but yet a crazy theory I have that the people in Iraq will never truly appreciate their freedom since they never fought and earned it for themselves. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong? As far as Liberia, I’m never a fan of sending our troops into harms way. I get upset now every time I see a Coalition troop killed and question whether those Iraq’s even appreciate that soldier’s sacrifice. We could easily leave now and let the radicals take over since “WMD have not been found,” but yet commit to rebuilding their country. (I like to guess responses , so I am assuming your going to mention “oil contracts, and making the Carlyle Group richer keeps us there.) In response to that , I’ll await to see the results on what the weapons inspectors find, and more about these alleged “lies.” I’m a little more patient than the rest, but if these guys purposely lied, which I hope isn’t the case, I will be highly upset at Bush. Impeach his incompetent “A—“. IMHO, this war will not be worth liberating Iraq, our soldiers blood spilled, just to free some ungrateful Iraqis that will hate us regardless. Our boys would have died in vain.
I wasn't aware that the left did support the action in Liberia. And you are correct that my argument only applies to a certain segment of the pro-war with Iraq crowd.
I don't know much about what's going on in Liberia, I've got reading to do I guess, but I'm all for saving innocent people. The point I'd like to make is for people who keep making jokes about the French military, particulary, the French soldiers. It's one thing to make fun of the politicians and the people of the country, but it's entirely different to talk about the soldiers. They are volunteers if I'm not mistaken and I have to believe they train just as hard as our boys. They're not the ones making policy, they are soldiers and those of you who haven't been in the service can talk all you want, but I bet if you mouthed off to a french soldier, he'd wipe the floor with you. Como tale vu a$$ hole!
And my confusion is directed to the segment that didn't support liberating Iraq (even if it wasn't the main purpose, but yet a conditional), but yet support Liberia.
Nice post, Oski. And it's the sort of thing we need to keep in mind, no matter whose soldiers they are. Not a job I would want to take on and I respect those who volunteer for it. Their leaders are another matter entirely.
