>Linconia was the name of a proposed Central American colony suggested by Republican United States Senator Samuel Pomeroy of Kansas in 1862, after U.S. President Abraham Lincoln asked the Senator and United States Secretary of the Interior Caleb Smith to work on a plan to resettle freed African Americans from the United States.[1]
>Abraham Lincoln proposed the colonization of the Chiriquí Province, now part of Panama, to create Linconia.
Colombia (which owned Panama at the time) could have helped out with security. Plus, there were freedpeople's colonies built, like the Georgia Sea Islands - they could have built one in Panama.
would be no point, if all the us would do later is reconquer the nig country they created and reintegrate them back within US society. though if we were given enough fertile land for our people to live in agriculturally i wouldnt have mind too much
Meh, I doubt they'd reconquer it, but by the modern day it'd probably be something a lot of wokescolds REE'd about and the U.S would probably implement some "right to return" for Liberians by the 1960 to give them easy access to citizenship and a way to move back.
Slavery was the biggest mistake in western history. The first strike was bringing them here, the second was not sending them back.
Imagine all of the Americans full of Europeans with no nogs, pajeets, chinese or muslims. Imagine the potential.
A group that wanted full segregation would have actually done full on segregation. Jim Crow deliberately failed to do that because full on segregation would have decimated the work force pool.
>It was profitable and Jim Crow was about keeping the same economic dynamics with as little change as possible.
So painfully wrong that I'm not even sure where to begin with how incorrect you are.
1. Most sharecroppers were white
2. Sharecropping had nothing to do with Jim Crow, Jim Crow was implemented in former slaves states that didn't have sharecropping e.g Maryland
4. It was about social power over a race viewed as socially subordinate; this is how the common man bought into Jim Crow
5. Slavery made money, yes, but the main reason it was believed in and fought for was due to the social power it exerted over what was viewed as an inferior race; this was the main philosophical defense of slavery with the sole exception of some far-right Fitzhugh types who defended it on a "its similar to feudalism" basis
>1. Most sharecroppers were white
Yet still worked in shotty conditions and were trapped in it for decades.
>2. Sharecropping had nothing to do with Jim Crow, Jim Crow was implemented in former slaves states that didn't have sharecropping e.g Maryland
Wtf do you call Louisiana amd Mississippi then?
>4. It was about social power over a race viewed as socially subordinate; this is how the common man bought into Jim Crow
Extremely reductions take.
>Slavery made money, yes, but the main reason it was believed in and fought for was due to the social power it exerted over what was viewed as an inferior race
Because it was super lucrative and America did not have the capacity to do abolition via how Britain did it via "paying" the slaves from owners/companies and freeing them.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why on earth do you think jim crow in Louisiana and Mississippi had anythign to do with the economy? Whites and blacks labored in the same jobs anyway, side by side. Jobs weren't segregated, at least manual labor ones were (some service industry ones like being a chaffeur etc were, which shows that, again, it was about humiliating a "lesser race")
You're the one with the reductive take.
No colonization experience and the last trial project failed miserable due to logistic issues
Wrong
Imagine if Booth had been caught, this plan might have worked. Especially if they got their 40 acres and a mule there.
This was the idea I think. Deport them to a land with deeds to land and some monetary compensation, probably from wealth taken from planters/rebels.
>Potential European slave labour you mean.
It could’ve been like Brazil when they abolished slavery, Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians and Italians went there to work. They worked for pennies, it’s true, but they were European. And eventually they became quite wealthy. It’s no wonder that the Southern region is best in almost every single metric, it was also the region with the least slaves and the most European immigration.
I bet there would be millions of europeans who would be willing to move to America to pick cotton and work at farms.
>And eventually they became quite wealthy.
A lot did not.
>It’s no wonder that the Southern region is best in almost every single metric, it was also the region with the least slaves and the most European immigration
The North was insistent on not industrializing with its planter elites while the South slowly did.
>I bet there would be millions of europeans who would be willing to move to America to pick cotton and work at farms
Not really.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
> A lot did not.
Most did. For Brazil standards that is. You don’t hear about Germans and Italians living in favelas, do you? Sao Paulo and Santa Catarina are big examples of Italian and German wealth in Brazil. >The North was insistent on not industrializing with its planter elites while the South slowly did.
Southeast industrialized more than the South, but excluding São Paulo, the latter is better in every single non economic metric: Safety, Healthcare, Education, IQ, etc.
Also they do not have the same state system of the US. The south and southeast send MORE money to the North and Northeast than they get back, and the latter two are STILL shit. Take a guess on why. Tip: not because of lack of industrialization. >Not really.
Great argument moron. Why do you think the ones who came to the Americas did if they didn’t really want to work here?
slavery was never profitable
yeah it was about keeping power over what they viewed as an inferior race, not money.
Why are you moronic.
I'm not, unlike you. It was about power over an inferior race. What the frick do you think Jim Crow was post-slavery? God you people are so stupid.
is that why it made so much money
Isn't that kinda what Liberia was? But not very many of them even wanted to go.
>Linconia was the name of a proposed Central American colony suggested by Republican United States Senator Samuel Pomeroy of Kansas in 1862, after U.S. President Abraham Lincoln asked the Senator and United States Secretary of the Interior Caleb Smith to work on a plan to resettle freed African Americans from the United States.[1]
>Abraham Lincoln proposed the colonization of the Chiriquí Province, now part of Panama, to create Linconia.
Huh, interesting
Imagine if Booth had been caught, this plan might have worked. Especially if they got their 40 acres and a mule there.
No colonization experience and the last trial project failed miserable due to logistic issues
Colombia (which owned Panama at the time) could have helped out with security. Plus, there were freedpeople's colonies built, like the Georgia Sea Islands - they could have built one in Panama.
Yes but sadly the freemason Booth managed to pass Lincoln's freemason head of security Pinkerton.
would be no point, if all the us would do later is reconquer the nig country they created and reintegrate them back within US society. though if we were given enough fertile land for our people to live in agriculturally i wouldnt have mind too much
Meh, I doubt they'd reconquer it, but by the modern day it'd probably be something a lot of wokescolds REE'd about and the U.S would probably implement some "right to return" for Liberians by the 1960 to give them easy access to citizenship and a way to move back.
Slavery was the biggest mistake in western history. The first strike was bringing them here, the second was not sending them back.
Imagine all of the Americans full of Europeans with no nogs, pajeets, chinese or muslims. Imagine the potential.
>Imagine the potential.
Potential European slave labour you mean.
It was profitable and Jim Crow was about keeping the same economic dynamics with as little change as possible.
A group that wanted full segregation would have actually done full on segregation. Jim Crow deliberately failed to do that because full on segregation would have decimated the work force pool.
>It was profitable and Jim Crow was about keeping the same economic dynamics with as little change as possible.
So painfully wrong that I'm not even sure where to begin with how incorrect you are.
1. Most sharecroppers were white
2. Sharecropping had nothing to do with Jim Crow, Jim Crow was implemented in former slaves states that didn't have sharecropping e.g Maryland
4. It was about social power over a race viewed as socially subordinate; this is how the common man bought into Jim Crow
5. Slavery made money, yes, but the main reason it was believed in and fought for was due to the social power it exerted over what was viewed as an inferior race; this was the main philosophical defense of slavery with the sole exception of some far-right Fitzhugh types who defended it on a "its similar to feudalism" basis
>1. Most sharecroppers were white
Yet still worked in shotty conditions and were trapped in it for decades.
>2. Sharecropping had nothing to do with Jim Crow, Jim Crow was implemented in former slaves states that didn't have sharecropping e.g Maryland
Wtf do you call Louisiana amd Mississippi then?
>4. It was about social power over a race viewed as socially subordinate; this is how the common man bought into Jim Crow
Extremely reductions take.
>Slavery made money, yes, but the main reason it was believed in and fought for was due to the social power it exerted over what was viewed as an inferior race
Because it was super lucrative and America did not have the capacity to do abolition via how Britain did it via "paying" the slaves from owners/companies and freeing them.
Why on earth do you think jim crow in Louisiana and Mississippi had anythign to do with the economy? Whites and blacks labored in the same jobs anyway, side by side. Jobs weren't segregated, at least manual labor ones were (some service industry ones like being a chaffeur etc were, which shows that, again, it was about humiliating a "lesser race")
You're the one with the reductive take.
Wrong
This was the idea I think. Deport them to a land with deeds to land and some monetary compensation, probably from wealth taken from planters/rebels.
>Potential European slave labour you mean.
It could’ve been like Brazil when they abolished slavery, Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians and Italians went there to work. They worked for pennies, it’s true, but they were European. And eventually they became quite wealthy. It’s no wonder that the Southern region is best in almost every single metric, it was also the region with the least slaves and the most European immigration.
I bet there would be millions of europeans who would be willing to move to America to pick cotton and work at farms.
>And eventually they became quite wealthy.
A lot did not.
>It’s no wonder that the Southern region is best in almost every single metric, it was also the region with the least slaves and the most European immigration
The North was insistent on not industrializing with its planter elites while the South slowly did.
>I bet there would be millions of europeans who would be willing to move to America to pick cotton and work at farms
Not really.
> A lot did not.
Most did. For Brazil standards that is. You don’t hear about Germans and Italians living in favelas, do you? Sao Paulo and Santa Catarina are big examples of Italian and German wealth in Brazil.
>The North was insistent on not industrializing with its planter elites while the South slowly did.
Southeast industrialized more than the South, but excluding São Paulo, the latter is better in every single non economic metric: Safety, Healthcare, Education, IQ, etc.
Also they do not have the same state system of the US. The south and southeast send MORE money to the North and Northeast than they get back, and the latter two are STILL shit. Take a guess on why. Tip: not because of lack of industrialization.
>Not really.
Great argument moron. Why do you think the ones who came to the Americas did if they didn’t really want to work here?
No. It was logistically unfeasible.