FreePeopleofColor USA: Difference in identity between the North/South and how it relates to Liberia

[IllmaticDelta]

I see some people keep bringing up the ADOS that became Americo-Liberians w/o at least giving full context of their identity and cultural practices PRIOR to emigrating (1820s) to Liberia while ignoring the differences between that subset




and the ADOS cultural blend after the Civil War + Jim Crow + One Drop rule that gave birth to the modern ADOS identity.

Origins of African-American Ethnicity or African-American Ethnic Traits


The newly formed Black Yankee ethnicity of the early 1800s differed from today’s African-American ethnicity. Modern African-American ethnic traits come from a post-bellum blending of three cultural streams: the Black Yankee ethnicity of 1830, the slave traditions of the antebellum South, and the free Creole or Mulatto elite traditions of the lower South. Each of the three sources provided elements of the religious, linguistic, and folkloric traditions found in today’s African-American ethnicity.30


Essays on the U.S. Color Line » Blog Archive » The Color Line Created African-American Ethnicity in the North









So let's look at some recent posts....

I peeped it and nothing changes

ADOS black people aren't the problem, we've always extended our hand. Africans are the ones on some towards us. One star.

.

Trash post. The history of Liberia says different.

How r you halfwit nikkas still regurgitating shyt that's been debunked

@IllmaticDelta has a whole thread addressing this BS already

And that's my last post on this shyt because I hate fighting over it so much and breaking up the diaspora into smaller and smaller subgroups is the stupidest shyt we could do. If Africans "don't count", and now Free Blacks "don't count", and now light-skinned who could have passed but still were considered (and considered themselves) Negro like Charles Drew and Mordacai Johnson and James Weldon Johnson and Homer Plessy and Arnold Bertonneau and John Mercer Langston and Walter Francis White "don't count", and Americo-Liberians therefore "don't count", then why even bother fighting the White Supremacists? We can have plenty of fun and joy just infighting the entire time instead.

Heck, Booker T. Washington, Archibald Grimké, and Francis James Grimké were all supposed to have been sons of slaveowners, do they "not count" too? We gonna cancel Beyoncé now too? How far we want to keep hair-splitting this goddamn divisive bullshyt for literally zero reward?

I rock with you but there was a big difference between these people that went to Liberia and the people who stayed in the USA and fought Jim Crow. The people that went to Liberia never even faced the One Drop Rule that came later, that people like Homer Plessy and Walter White had to face.




The difference is the people who went to Liberia (at least the elites) reflected early Southern caste systems; and considering most of the people who went to Liberia came from the South in a time that pre-dated the One Drop Rule and JIm Crow, it's a mistake to compare them to Booker, Grimke, Plessy and Walter White.

I think I might have to make a thread explaining how Free People Of Color identity in the North vs the South played out in the USA circa the time in which FPC went to Liberia and most ADOS were still slaves on plantations in the South

.
.
.

Now, let's look deeper into the FPC's:

Who/what were Free People Of Color and where did they live?

In the United States, the terms "freedmen" and "freedwomen" refer chiefly to former slaves emancipated during and after the American Civil War, by the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. Slaves freed before the war, usually by individual manumissions, often in wills, were generally referred to as "Free Negroes" or free blacks. In addition, there was a population of African Americans born free, descendants of families of unions between white women (indentured servants or free) and African men (whether indentured servants, slave or free.) According to laws in the slave states, children were born into the status of their mothers; thus, mixed-race children of white women were born free.[5] There were numerous such families formed in the Upper South before the Revolution, and they migrated west into Kentucky, West Virginia and Tennessee with neighbors.[5] For the first two decades after the Revolution, thousands of slaves were freed in the Upper South, and most northern states abolished slavery, some on a gradual basis.

In Louisiana and other areas of the former New France, free people of color were classified in French as gens de couleur libres. They were born to African or African-European mothers and white fathers of mixed-race African and French or other European ancestry. The fathers sometimes freed their children and sexual partners, and the Creoles of color community became well-established, particularly in New Orleans before Louisiana became part of the US

In United States history, a free Negro or free black was the legal status, in the geographic area of the United States, of blacks who were not slaves.

This term was in use before the independence of the Thirteen Colonies and elsewhere in British North America, until the abolition of slavery in the United States in 1865, which rendered the term unnecessary.

Slavery was legal and practiced in each of the European colonies at various times. Not all Africans who came to America were slaves; a few came even in the 17th century as free men, sailors working on ships. In the early colonial years, some Africans came as indentured servants, as did many of the immigrants from the British Isles. Such servants became free when they completed their term of indenture; they were also eligible for headrights for land in the new colony in the Chesapeake Bay region, where indentured servants were more common. As early as 1619, a class of free black people existed in North America.[1]

The free Negro population increased in a number of ways:

1. children born to colored free women (see Partus sequitur ventrem)
2. mulatto children born to white indentured or free women
3. mixed-race children born to free Indian women (enslaving Indians was prohibited from the mid-18th century, but did continue until Emancipation)[2]
4. freed slaves
5. slaves who escaped[3]

In addition, slaveholders manumitted some slaves for various reasons: to reward long years of service, because heirs did not want to take on slaves, or to free slave concubines and/or their children. Slaves were sometimes allowed to buy their freedom; they might be permitted to save money from fees paid when they were "hired out" to work for other parties.[8] In the mid-to-late 18th century, Methodist and Baptist evangelists in the first Great Awakening encouraged slaveholders to free their slaves, in their belief that all men were equal before God. They converted many slaves to Christianity and approved black leaders as preachers; blacks developed their own strain of Christianity. Before the American Revolutionary War, few slaves were manumitted.

The war greatly disrupted the slave societies. Beginning with Lord Dunmore, governor of Virginia, the British colonial governments recruited slaves of rebels to the armed forces and promised them freedom in return. The Continentals gradually also began to allow blacks to fight with a promise of freedom.[9] Tens of thousands of slaves escaped from plantations or other venues during the war, especially in the South.[10] Some joined British lines or disappeared in the disruption of war. After the war, when the British evacuated New York, they transported more than 3,000 Black Loyalists and thousands of other Loyalists to resettle in Nova Scotia and Ontario. A total of more than 29,000 Loyalists refugees were eventually evacuated from New York City alone. The British evacuated thousands of other slaves when they left southern ports, resettling many in the Caribbean and others to England.

.
.
.
where did most of the Americo-Liberians come from?

.
.
.as you can see, they were mainly from the South: Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina and North Carolina. They had smaller amount from Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky and Mississippi. What kind of identity and cultural traits did FPCs exhibit in the South?

If you want to know how early FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR ( afro-europeans/triracials) in the American South saw things, look no further than all the FPOC "Indian" groups scattered around the South

........most of the of the light skinned people that went to Liberia were from Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas; the same places that had these early, more fluid colorlines

 

[IllmaticDelta]

@xoxodede

@K.O.N.Y

@Supper

@Cadillac





cont on Southern FPC identity/cultural traits

The elite of what came to be Americo-Liberians also came from this:

 

[IllmaticDelta]

How about the Northern FPOC? How did they differ from the Southern ones?


The Black Yankees

The newly formed Black Yankee ethnicity of the early 1800s differed from today’s African-American ethnicity. Modern African-American ethnic traits come from a post-bellum blending of three cultural streams: the Black Yankee ethnicity of 1830, the slave traditions of the antebellum South, and the free Creole or Mulatto elite traditions of the lower South. Each of the three sources provided elements of the religious, linguistic, and folkloric traditions found in today’s African-American ethnicity.30

Black Yankee ethnicity was also not the same thing as membership in America’s Black endogamous group. The difference between Black Yankee ethnicity and Black endogamous group membership is that ethnicity is to some extent voluntary whereas which side of the color line you are on is usually involuntary. Mainstream America assigns to the Black side of the endogamous color line people of many different ethnicities whose only common trait is a dark-brown skin tone. These include West Indians, some East Indians (sometimes), recent African immigrants, and (until recently) African-looking Muslims and Hispanics. Finally, the endogamous color line was imposed in 1691 but the earliest evidence of Black Yankee ethnicity dates from the mid 1700s.

Although less wealthy than the Louisiana Creoles, the Black Yankees had developed a strong supportive culture that could withstand the buffeting of social upheaval. They were usually ostracized from mainstream society due to the endogamous color line. According to contemporary accounts, they responded with grace and dignity, making a virtue of their separation. It was not uncommon to see lines of quiet, well-behaved children following their parents to Sunday service with the gravitas and pietas of Roman elders. Their preachers taught that they were put on earth to be tested.31 Their lot was to serve as example to the white folks of how civilized Christians behave.

Most Black Yankees distinguished themselves from slaves—indeed many families had no history of slavery but descended from indentured servants. Nevertheless, many were active contributors to and activists in the abolition movement. This is in strong contrast to the biracial elite of the Gulf coast and Latin America, who owned slaves and defended slavery as a noble institution.32 The contrast was due to the lack of an independent Black ethnicity among Hispanic planters of part-African ancestry, and this lack was due, in turn, to the absence of an endogamous color line.

In some ways, Black Yankee culture (religion, language, music, dance, food, costume) was indistinguishable from that of White Yankees. For example, the boisterous interactive style of many African-American church services today would have been alien to them, since it originated in the slaveholding South. Daniel A. Payne was a Black Yankee, a career AME minister in Philadelphia. He was a sympathizer of the Underground Railroad, so its organizers asked him to preach to a group of newly escaped slaves. His diary reports:

After the sermon, they formed a ring, and with coats off sung, clapped their hands and stamped their feet in a most ridiculous and heathenish way. I requested that the pastor go and stop their dancing. At his request they stopped their dancing and clapping of hands, but remained singing and rocking their bodies to and fro.33

Although the endogamous color line was stricter in the antebellum North than in the antebellum South, it was less strict in 1850 and 1860 than in 1970 and 1980.34 The children of interracial marriages in the Northeast were usually census-reported as “Negroes” rather than as “Mulattoes.” This resembles today’s customs and contrasts with the more permeable color lines of the lower South. According to Joel Williamson, “In 1850 in the five states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, mulattoes actually outnumbered blacks by 24,000 to 22,000, while in the older-settled New England and Middle Atlantic states blacks outnumbered mulattoes by about three to one.”35


The Black Yankees set many of the patterns of modern African-American life. They developed the supportive church-centered social structure found in African-American communities today. Long before the South was segregated, they faced isolation and cyclical rejection by mainstream society. They were also the first to articulate the dilemma that continues to occupy Black thinkers to this day: integration versus separatism.

The Northern FPOC contingent are/were the ones WHO DID NOT go to Liberia and are the ones who pioneered modern ADOS identity in a way that bypassed complexion and phenotypes.

Spoiler

 

[IllmaticDelta]

The story of how when Frederick Douglas who was from the South, changed his entire identity/racial outlook once he met Black Yankees in the North, encapsulates the difference between Northern & Southern Free People Of Color

Douglass considered himself to be neither White nor Black, but both. His multiracial self-identity showed in his first autobiography. Introducing his father in Narrative, Douglass wrote, “My father was a white man.” In this text, his mother was a stranger whom he had never seen in daylight, he could not picture her face, and he was unmoved by news of her death.4 Not only did Douglass adopt a fictional Scottish hero’s name, he emphasized his (perhaps imagined) Scots descent through his father. When visiting Great Britain in 1845-47, Douglass extended his stay in Scotland. He immersed himself in Scottish music and ballads, which he played on the violin for the rest of his life. Having plunged into a Scottish ethnic identity, Douglass wrote to his (then) friend, William Lloyd Garrison, “If I should meet you now, amid the free hills of old Scotland, where the ancient ‘black Douglass’ [sic] once met his foes… you would see a great change in me!”5 Upon arriving in Nantucket, Douglass hoped to represent a blending of both endogamous groups, a man who was half-White and half-Black:

Young, ardent, and hopeful, I entered upon this new life in the full gush of unsuspecting enthusiasm. The cause was good, the men engaged in it were good, the means to attain its triumph, good…. For a time, I was made to forget that my skin was dark and my hair crisped.6

But acceptance by White society was out of reach for Douglass. He discovered that, in the North, there was no such thing as a man who was half-Black. White ships’ caulkers in New Bedford denied him a chance to work at his craft because in their eyes he was all Black.7 When he joined the Garrisonians on a boat to an abolitionist convention in Nantucket, and a squabble broke out because the White abolitionists demanded that the Black abolitionists take lesser accommodations, Douglass found himself classified as Black by his friends. Later in Nantucket, Douglass so impressed the Garrisonians with his public speaking that abolitionist Edmund Quincy exchanged reports with others that Douglass was an articulate public speaker, “for a ******.”8 Repeatedly, Douglass tried to present himself as an intermediary between America’s two endogamous groups. But the Garrisonians made it clear that he was expected to present himself as nothing more than an intelligent “Negro.” He was told to talk only about the evils of slavery and ordered to stop talking about the endogamous color line. “Give us the facts [about being a slave]. We will take care of the [racial] philosophy.” They also ordered him to “leave a little plantation speech” in his accent.9 In their own words, they wanted to display a smart “******,” but not too smart.

Douglass’s cruelest discovery came after he broke with the Garrisonians and went out on his own. Abolitionist friends of both endogamous groups had warned him that there was nothing personal in how Garrison had used him. The public did not want an intermediary; they wanted an articulate Black. Douglass soon discovered that his friends were right. His newspaper, The North Star,failed to sell because it had no market; White Yankees wanted to read White publications and Black Yankees wanted to read Black ones. Indeed, Black political leaders resented Douglass’s distancing himself from Black ethno-political society. There was no room in Massachusetts for a man who straddled the color line.

Douglass dutifully reinvented himself. He applied himself to learning Black Yankee culture. “He began to build a closer relationship with… Negro leaders and with the Negro people themselves, to examine the whole range of Negro problems, and to pry into every facet of discrimination.”10 Eight months later, The North Star’s circulation was soaring and Black leader James McCune Smith wrote to Black activist Gerrit Smith:

You will be surprised to hear me say that only since his Editorial career has he seen to become a colored man! I have read his paper very carefully and find phrase after phrase develop itself as in one newly born among us.11

From that day on, Douglass never looked back. The public wanted him to be hyper-Black and so hyper-Black he became. His later autobiographies reveal the change.12 Narrative (1845) says that his “father was a white man,” My Bondage and My Freedom (1854) says that his father “was shrouded in mystery” and “nearly white,” and The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass (1882-1892) says flatly, “of my father I know nothing.”13 Narrative says that his mother was a stranger whose death did not affect him, and Bondage and Freedom reports that he was “deeply attached to her,” Life and Times says that “her image is ineffably stamped upon my memory,” and describes her death with “great poignancy and sorrow.”14

And yet, although he donned a public persona of extreme Blackness, he continued to see himself as half White Scottish in his private life. When he eventually married Helen Pitts, a woman of the White endogamous group, even close friends were bothered by the mismatch between the public and private Douglasses.15 In a speech in 1886 Jacksonville, Florida, Douglass justified his intermarriage on the grounds of his own multiracial self-identity. According to James Weldon Johnson:

Douglass spoke, and moved a large audience of white and colored people by his supreme eloquence. … Douglass was speaking in the far South, but he spoke without fear or reservation. One statement in particular that he made, I now wonder if any Negro speaker today, under the same circumstances, would dare to make, and, if he did, what the public reaction would be; Douglass, in reply to the current criticisms regarding his second marriage, said, “In my first marriage I paid my compliments to my mother’s race; in my second marriage I paid my compliments to the race of my father.”16

* * * * *

The clash between how Douglass saw himself in 1838 and the public persona that he was forced to portray, was due to the presence of African-American ethnicity in the North.17 Free citizens of part-African ancestry in the South, especially in the lower South, lacked the sense of common tradition associated with ethnic self-identity. This essay traces the emergence of African-American ethnicity and the subsequent evolution of the color line in five topics: Origins of African-American Ethnicity explains how the imposition of a unique endogamous color line eventually led to the synthesis of a unique ethno-cultural community in the Jacksonian Northeast. African-American Ethnic Traits outlines the customs of the Black Yankee ethnic group to show that they gave birth to many of today’s Black traditions. The Integration versus Separatism Pendulum introduces a debate that has occupied Black political leaders since colonial times. The Color Line in the North contrasts the harsh enforcement of the intermarriage barrier in the free states with the more permeable systems of the lower South (as presented in the preceding three essays). The National Color Line’s Rise and Fall concludes this section on the endogamous color line by presenting two graphs. The first shows that which side of the endogamous color line you were on was most hotly contested in U.S. courts between 1840 and 1869. The second shows that the color line grew abruptly stronger during Reconstruction, was at its harshest during Jim Crow, and began to recover only around 1980.

Essays on the U.S. Color Line » Blog Archive » The Color Line Created African-American Ethnicity in the North

 

[IllmaticDelta]

The elite Americo-Liberians were free people of color who lived in the south, decades before the one drop rule and jim crowism. The color & class lines between afrodescendants were more broken up/less unified in the south at that time

The Afram identity that we know today (blurring of complexion and admx) is a NORTHERN AFRAM creation, not a Southern one.

 

[IllmaticDelta]

Related thread

UNCP students face racist Lumbee natives at BLM march in Pembroke, NC





A Man from this family even went to Liberia (henry chavis)

William Solomon Bibby (1835-1916) is shown seated in the center with his wife Julia Chavis (1845-1939) and their children and two grandchildren. William Solomon Bibby is a direct descendant of Mary Bibby b. 1727. His mother was Nancy Bibby and his grandfather was Revolutionary War veteran Solomon Bibby. Julia Chavis may be a direct descendant of the previously mentioned Rebecca Chavis (1721-1768). Julia Chavis’ father was William Chavis who may have been a son of Peter Chavis. This photo was taken at the family farm in Franklin Co, NC in 1898. (My great-grandfather Edward Brodie Howell’s first wife Mary Bibby is standing on the right and the grandfather/great-grandfather of NBA coach Henry Bibby/NBA player Mike Bibby is Charlie Bibby seated on the bottom left)

dibby = bibby (article mentions them owning slaves in the USA)

 

[Professor Emeritus]

@IllmaticDelta , I respect your research on the topic. But your entire thesis is predicate on the suggestion that entire groups have be defined by successive generalizations. That methodology very quickly leads to false assumptions.

Your argument is basically, "A majority of Americo-Liberians were from Southern states, and most Black folk who left for Liberia from Southern states were like XYZ, therefore Americo-Liberians must have been mostly like XYZ." But that logic doesn't actually hold.

Here's an example. "Most voters in 2020 voted for Biden. And most Biden voters were white liberals. Therefore most people who voted in 2020 must have been White liberals!" That logic progression doesn't work at all - in fact only about 30% of the electorate was White Biden voters and many of those white Biden voters weren't even liberals. A majority of the majority is not a majority of the whole. An actual look at the Biden electorate finds that it was mixed between white liberals, white moderates, white conservative never-trumpers, all but the most conservative black folk, a variety of Latino folk, and some liberal Asians and others. None of them can define the whole.

In the case of Americo-Liberians, is the true that many were free Blacks from the South, and many free Blacks from the South were mixed-race of a certain persuasion or members of other groups you mentioned. But it doesn't follow from that that all Americo-Liberians were that way or even that Americo-Liberians were dominated by such groups.

I already demonstrated that of the first 10 Americo-Liberian presidents, 2 were Black Northerners and 2 were very dark-skinned freed slaves from southern states. Others were clearly mixed and others looked very much like they could pass for White (though even some of the white-passing ones were descended from slaves and themselves considered "no better than a slave" in the state they came from, according to the source you posted earlier). Within 20 years of Liberia's founding there was an entire political party built around dark-skinned Americo-Liberians of both North and South and the party was powerful enough to win elections even though there were dark-skinned Americo-Liberians coming to power in the other party as well! That alone suggests that this narrative of Americo-Liberians being dominated by any one particular social background is too simplistic - they were not a monolith. No dark-skinned Northerners and dark-skinned Southerners would have been to come to power nearly half the time even in the early years if it were so.

 

[IllmaticDelta]

@IllmaticDelta

In the case of Americo-Liberians, is the true that many were free Blacks from the South, and many free Blacks from the South were mixed-race of a certain persuasion or members of other groups you mentioned. But it doesn't follow from that that all Americo-Liberians were that way or even that Americo-Liberians were dominated by such groups.

??? It's was confirmed in real time by actual dark skinned Americo-Liberians and West Indian/ADOS people who went to Liberia in the respective period that the elite Americos were mulattos

I already demonstrated that of the first 10 Americo-Liberian presidents, 2 were Black Northerners and 2 were very dark-skinned freed slaves from southern states. Others were clearly mixed and others looked very much like they could pass for White (though even some of the white-passing ones were descended from slaves and themselves considered "no better than a slave" in the state they came from, according to the source you posted earlier).

I explained to you that dark skinned leaders prior to 1870 were exceptions, not the rule

Spoiler

Within 20 years of Liberia's founding there was an entire political party built around dark-skinned Americo-Liberians of both North and South and the party was powerful enough to win elections even though there were dark-skinned Americo-Liberians coming to power in the other party as well! That alone suggests that this narrative of Americo-Liberians being dominated by any one particular social background is too simplistic - they were not a monolith. No dark-skinned Northerners and dark-skinned Southerners would have been to come to power nearly half the time even in the early years if it were so.

Again, it was the mulattos (w/a few exceptions) with the power until around 1870

Spoiler

Even the dark skinned Americos had to play a subordinate role to the mulatto faction

Spoiler

 

[IllmaticDelta]

Southern Free People Of Color (mixed ones) in that time period in the USA were not exactly united with their darker brothers/sisters; especially not with ones who were still slaves

This FPC (mulatto) in North Carolina even warned the ACS about what might/could happen once these types got to Africa (Liberia)

..
.
.
.

It's pretty hard NOT to see that the FPC from the South brought those same plantation views of darker blacks/slaves within the USA and applied it to native africans once they got to Liberia

.
..
again, these people were from a different caste from "negros" when they were in the USA in that time period

 

[Professor Emeritus]

??? It's was confirmed in real time by actual dark skinned Americo-Liberians and West Indian/ADOS people who went to Liberia in the respective period that the elite Americos were mulattos

No one has denied that many elites were mulatto (just like many elites back in America were mulatto at that very same time). But not all Americo-Liberians were mulatto, not even all of the leaders. Just like we could say that rich white men have dominated leadership of the Democrat party since 1980, but it would be completely false to claim that Democrats are just a bunch of rich white men. And it should be clear that when quoting individual perspectives at the time like you did there they are still presenting solely their own perspective, which can't be taken as definitive fact just as no single current individual's claim about leadership can be taken as fact.

I explained to you that dark skinned leaders prior to 1870 were exceptions, not the rule

3 of the first 6 presidents being dark-skinned is far too many to be described as a mere "exception". And I'm not sure what relevance "prior to 1870" is supposed to have to the discussion when Americo-Liberians ruled all the way until 1980 and then again after that with Charles Taylor. Even if we only count Americo-Liberians who were actually born in America, that includes all of them up to the 11th president in the 1890s.

 

[IllmaticDelta]

No one has denied that many elites were mulatto (just like many elites back in America were mulatto at that very same time).

The American ones in the USA lived through Jim Crow/1 Drop Rule; the ones who went to Liberia didn't which is exactly why when one speaks of the mulattos (FPC) who went to Liberia in that pre-Civil war time period, it's important to highlight the differences in racial identification between the two periods. It would easily explain why things played out the way they did!


When the mulattos went to LIberia an imported a plantation-based caste system; this is what mulattos were facing/morphing into in the USA

But not all Americo-Liberians were mulatto, not even all of the leaders. Just like we could say that rich white men have dominated leadership of the Democrat party since 1980, but it would be completely false to claim that Democrats are just a bunch of rich white men. And it should be clear that when quoting individual perspectives at the time like you did there they are still presenting solely their own perspective, which can't be taken as definitive fact just as no single current individual's claim about leadership can be taken as fact.

The elite were mulattos; and yes, so were most of the leaders before the late(r) 1800s. This has been confirmed by everyone who went to Liberia in those early years/decades, even as late at the 1860s

3 of the first 6 presidents being dark-skinned is far too many to be described as a mere "exception".

Dude: I'm not just talking politics/presidency, mulattos ran everything from the aforementioned govt to


education (Blyden and Crummell both called out the mulatto faction over this)

.
.
.
commerce

And I'm not sure what relevance "prior to 1870"

because the narrative of africans being enslaved & mistreated by "American Blacks" originated in this period of mulatto domination before dark skinned Americos gained control

is supposed to have to the discussion when Americo-Liberians ruled all the way until 1980 and then again after that with Charles Taylor. Even if we only count Americo-Liberians who were actually born in America, that includes all of them up to the 11th president in the 1890s.

See above post about the "narrative"

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The American ones in the USA lived through Jim Crow/1 Drop Rule; the ones who went to Liberia didn't

Except we already established that one drop rule was already being practiced throughout White American society at that time in a social sense and that 1/8th and 1/4th rules had been enshrined into law at times in states like Virginia as early as 1707. Some of the specific passages you already posted showed that even some of the "white" among the Americo-Liberians had considered themselves Black in America and were seen that way by society as well.

You keep posting 1-2 people's generalizations of the dynamic as if that's authoritative even when it contradicts other evidence out there. It's not the bright line you're trying to make it out to be.

 

[IllmaticDelta]

Except we already established that one drop rule was already being practiced throughout White American society at that time in a social sense and that 1/8th and 1/4th rules had been enshrined into law at times in states like Virginia as early as 1707.

Those are blood fraction laws for who could be legally "white"; not One Drop Rules as to who was "Black," because the other category of non-whites was "Free colored" which was separate from "negro/free negro" in that they were mixed (mulatto, triracial, zambo-mustee, quad or octaroon etc..). See below:

.
.
they were a totally different caste

and it reflected in their attitudes

Some of the specific passages you already posted showed that even some of the "white" among the Americo-Liberians had considered themselves Black in America and were seen that way by society as well.

Where at? Those mixed types weren't considered "negro" but "colored" which actually was a different caste

You keep posting 1-2 people's generalizations of the dynamic as if that's authoritative even when it contradicts other evidence out there. It's not the bright line you're trying to make it out to be.

What I posted is the exact narrative: Read pretty much anything on the history of Liberia, the mulatto dynamic and what they did stands out so much that it can't be avoided. I've quoted at least 6 difference sources in what I posted about Liberia, from 19th century ADOS and West Indians from/in America; 19th century white observers, to 20th and 21th Century Liberians (Americo and Native)

 

[IllmaticDelta]

@im_sleep

@CarolinaBigAggie.







cont on FPC from the South:

.
.
.
.
.

See,

.
.
.
.
.
The people who now call themselves "Lumbee Indians" are actually early ADOS from the "free colored" (aka not free negro) caste

who have been free so long (1600s Virginia and because they descend from white mothers and black fathers, it was illegal for them to be enslaved) that over time they looked down on slaves/darker people and what would become freed men after the Civil War. Since their "Colored caste" was always above that of the enslaved or even the free negro, when slavery was abolished and they lost their caste because of the later Jim Crow laws and One Drop Rule, they increased the anti-black rhetoric and made up an Indian identity to keep their caste above that of a "black." Their type of thinking existed all over the South amongst FPC but they were one of the factions who circumnavigated the dilemma with a fake identity that some white people of power aided them in for their own benefits (politics)


.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

Spoiler

.
.

.
as I already pointed out, many of the FPC that went to Liberia were FPCs from North Carolina (many were even of the same faction as what came to be Lumbees) and already had a outlook on slaves/darker people, so when they got to Liberia, it just continued on because there was no Jim Crow/One Drop to keep them in check

 

[IllmaticDelta]

Those are blood fraction laws for who could be legally "white"; not One Drop Rules as to who was "Black," because the other category of non-whites was "Free colored" which was separate from "negro/free negro" in that they were mixed (mulatto, triracial, zambo-mustee, quad or octaroon etc..). See below:

more context: Free dark skinned people were called "Free Negroes" while mixed types were called "Free People Of Color"

Shields Green (1836? – December 16, 1859), who also referred to himself as "'Emperor"',[1]: 387 [2][3] was, according to Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave from Charleston, South Carolina, and a leader in John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry, in October 1859.[1]: 387 [4] He had lived for almost two years in the house of Douglass, in Rochester, New York, and Douglass introduced him there to Brown.

As was usual at the time, Green's skin color was commented on: he was "a negro of the blackest hue",[28]: 83  "a black negro",[29][30] "a full blooded negro,"[19] "a regular out and out tar colored darkey."[27]: 1787  At that time, those of darker skin color, or "more African blood", were considered by whites to be inferior, less civilized than those with lighter brown skin, "mulattoes", usually the result of rape of female slaves by their white owners. In part because of his skin color, and in part because of his fighting skill, Green was "the most despised of Brown's captured men".[25]: xv  "Of all the raiders to stand trial in Charlestown, Shields Green was the most notably harangued, maligned, and browbeaten by the vindictive prosecuting attorney—the harshest words being reserved for the darkest of the Harper's Ferry raiders."[25]: 137 

His hair was short and curly.[31]