ABSTRACT
SOCIAL SCIENCE
Kpor, Johnny Woanto B. A. Fort Valley State College, 1972
A Nation of Two Worlds: Liberia
Adviser: Dr. John D. Reid
Thesis dated May, 1977
A descriptive analysis of the history of Liberia covering the life of its people extending as far back as the age of the continent. The lifestyle, family structure, political units and economic enterprise of the aborigines are presented. Historical facets show the liberation of black people in America and their return to Africa who by their capitalistic value became known as Americo-Liberians.
Emphasis is given on how the Americo-Liberians con¬ trolled the life and destiny of the total population of the country. The two cultures - the African and the Western - separated the country into two worlds.
The demarcation of the nation is hampering the national unity. Efforts for unification is a continuous state of affairs that exist today. A NATION OF TWO WORLDS: LIBERIA
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO TIE FACULTY OF ATLANT UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR Tilt DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
3 (
JOHNNY WOANTO KPOR
DIVISION OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
MAY 1977 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. THE GRAIN COAST 4
The Kinship System 6 Marriage and Family 9 The Exercise of Power 10 Government 12 Europe and the Grain Coast 13
III. THE LIBERATION OF BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA AND THEIR RETURN TO AFRICA 15
Allocation of Land 21 Confrontation With Indigenous People 22 Reason for Commonwealth 30
IV. THE UNSTABLE RELATIONSHIP: THE BASIS OF THE POWER STRUCTURE 37
The Efforts of the Aborigines 39 Grebo Uprising 40 Indigenous Politicians 44
V. DOMESTIC COLONIALISM: TAXATION 46
Slavery in Fernando Po 51 Unequal Participation in the National Government 58
VI. STRUGGLE FOR UNIFICATION 65
VII. CONCLUSION 75
BIBLIOGRAPHY 80
li CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Liberia is one of the oldest independent states of Africa.
The history of this land and its people extends as far back as the age of the continent. Before the infiltration of the freed slaves from America, ancient civilization had flourished along the coast.
The inhabitants of the region had developed their own life-style fashioned after a highly centralized family structure, political units, and economic enterprise.
Unfortunately, all that written records reveal to us about the history of the land is the history of the Americo-Liberians from the time of their arrival until now. Historians have been biased and reluctant to research the rich cultural heritage of the people who originally lived in this part of the continent.
Along with the unscrupulous attempt on the part of the educators to simply ignore the glorious past of the people, they have also intentionally failed to write the truth about the inter¬ play between these two groups of people. Throughout the years, tension had developed between the freed slaves and the aborigines which had divided the people of the nation into a highly stratified social environment.
There is a continuous struggle and social friction intensi¬
fied by motives geared toward controlling the land. Each of the
groups wants to claim the nation as being rightly its own. Thus,
this power struggle creates an unhealthy atmosphere for national unity. 1 2
Presently, the political, social, and economic life of the nation is being dominated by the minority Americo-Liberians who control the national wealth while the majority taxpayers are left unattended. There is a cry from the masses for equality, equal participation in the political arena, and equal opportunity for education and employment. There is a cry requesting for the government to appropriate sufficient money for rural development schemes. The people want honesty in human relations and a com¬ plete elimination of the neo-colonialism practiced by the American capitalists. The mass exploitation of the working class and of the poor people is hampering national progress.
In days gone by, opportunities were not opened to the
"native." The slogan or cliche of the time was "who knows you."
This meant that unless one was a member of the ruling class of the
Americo-Liberian family, doors were closed to him. Irrespective of one’s qualifications, he was denied a job or good education if he did not belong within the family circle of the social elite that made up the "family."
This class discrimination found considerable expression within the rural localities. In the native’s mind, all men were brothers, but the Americo-Liberians’ brutality forced the natives into battles with them. The Americo-Liberians, from a psychological perspective, were conditioned by a displaced aggression mechanism received in slavery abroad. They were seeking retribution for their treatment abroad.
Some of them continued to engage in slave trade even after they arrived in Liberia. Natives were sold into slavery and shipped 3
to the Spanish island of Fernando Po, which is located in the gulf
of Guinea and is part of the colony of Spanish Guinea. All of the
inhuman treatment of the natives perpetuated the long trend of
grudges and animosity which separates the nation socially and otherwise. Liberia is a land of two nations because these groups have not reached the point where they are able to appreciate and
respect the other’s values.
The purpose of this thesis is to point out how the abori¬
gines have been discriminated against in all fields of endeavor.
The writer shall attempt to show how the discrimination in all
areas has impeded the viability of Liberia as a state or nation.
In order to understand the underlying factors which have perpetuated this kind of relationship, a look will be taken at the people’s culture, language, and the politics of the interwoven life structure. In addition to these, the writer will show the
influence and the impact of European-American infiltration within
the interplay of the two groups. The role played by and the effect
of American foreign policy in maintaining the Americo-Liberians in power shall also be examined.
From the beginning of this struggle on the part of the
natives to share in the bodypolitic, there have been several
superfluous pronouncements of unification which have never come to
reality. The natives are still making continuous efforts to gain
inclusion in the Liberian political process.
Finally, the writer will show whether or not the contemporary
political struggle might lead to the achievement of national unity
and then point out, from the writer’s viewpoint, whether it shall
come through evolution, revolution, or assimilation. CHAPTER II
THE GRAIN COAST
As early as the 14-00 Ts, the Portuguese explorers began to penetrate the coast of West Africa in search of trading posts. It was in fact from the 12th century A.D. that Europe took an interest in West Africa .•*- Even long before the slaves and the freed slaves settled in this area now called Liberia, Spanish sailors had trans¬ acted business with the West African kings. From 520 to 470 B.C., a Carthaginian named Hanno had developed a sophisticated trade link on the West African Coast. Trade was transacted with the Moors,
Normandy, and the French Empire, with their main commodities being
grain or pepper. This type of grain is the spicy seed called
"grains of paradise" which were brought there. These seeds grow at 3 ground level in fluted red pods called melegueta pepper.
Because of the excessive production of grain in this part of
the continent, the region was called the Grain Coast until the 19th
century when the name was changed to Liberia, under the regime of 4 the incoming settlers from America.
^Lawrence A. Marinelli, The New Liberia (New York, 1964), p. 23.
2Ibid., p. 24. 3 Winifred J. Harley, Third Year With George W. Harley in Liberia (Depute, 1971), p. 19. 4 Ernest J. Yancy, The Republic of Liberia (Tel-Aviv, 1967), p . 33. 4 5
The inhabitants of the Grain Coast did not have a central¬ ized form of government. The land now called Liberia was, and still is, divided into about 29 distinctive linguistic groupings called tribes, but these ethnie groups can be classified into
16,c groups : 1
Ethnic Group Male Female Total Percent
Bassa 81,74-4 84,112 165,865 16.3
Belle 2,575 2,890 5,465 0.5
Dei 2,619 2,777 5,396 0.5
Gbandi 13,245 15,354 28,599 2.8
Gio 40,797 42,411 83,208 8.2
Gola 23,267 24,028 47,295 4.7
Grebo 36,617 40,390 77,007 7.6
Kissi 17,985 16,929 34,914 3.4
Kpelle 105,916 105,165 211,081 20.8
Krahn 24,956 27,596 52,552 5.2
Kru 39,026 41,787 80,813 8.0
Loma (Buzzi) 26,253 27,638 52,891 5.3
Mandingo 15,742 14,008 29,750 2.9
Mano 35,647 36,475 72,122 7.1
Mende 3,107 1,867 4,974 0.5
Vai 14,000 14,898 28,898 2.2
Other Tribes 1,358 941 2,299 0.2
Descendants of Americo- 7,704 7,151 14,855 1.5 Liberians
•'-Thomas D. Roberts, Area Handbook for Liberia (Washington, D. C., 1972) , p. 1. 6
These ethnic groups, despite their diverse differences in language, tastes in food, clothing, and so forth, have many things in common with many sharing the same basic life-style. A study of one group pretty well provides the reader with some insight to the other groups. As Wilson describes the tribes of Liberia:
The tribal society is pivotal, and the tribe is an agrarian commune, a fraternal association, a confederation of families, a colonizing institution, a protective group, a congregation, and a government. Tribal villages, with populations ranging from a dozen or less to more than a thousand, become merged into a clan group, frequently of four to six thousand. As a rule, two or more clans compose the tribe.
The above quote enhances the idea that the people of the Grain
Coast shared only one major difference, and that difference was language. The relationship the kinship system had on all tribes relative to culture, and so forth, follows.
The Kinship System
All men in the Grain Coast community were brothers at one of three levels -- the moral level, united by sexual taboo; the historical level, united by supposedly common ancestry. It was always necessary for a person in the traditional setting to respect the norms of a community that exhibited lineages at one of the levels listed above. It was necessary for persons to help each other in whatever manner necessary to reflect family harmony and
togethernesss.
In the sexual taboo, marriage was exogamous. Close relatives
and distant relatives did not marry each other. People in a given
•^Charles Morrow Wilson, Liberia (New York, 1947), p. 63. 7 tribe and given environment were considered relatives and therefore had to abide by the sexual taboo.1
As can be seen from the material above, it is a religious custom of these people to cherish all aspects of family ties even from a social standpoint. Moreover, this idea enhances the opinion of many that tribal pride was inspired through various pro¬ hibitions that made marriage more sacred.
The historical level, where all men in the community were considered brothers, presupposed that as long as one's heritage was traceable by lineage from one generation to another, he could claim relationship with other individuals who could also trace their lineage to the same generation and family. These traditional men 2 felt that their historical experiences had been the same.
At the mythical level, there is a belief in having common ancestors. Every person in a given tribal unit entertained the thought of being related to any member of the same tribe because the tribe started out from one man and one woman. From these two, the tribe gets its roots. The common ancestor was usually thought of as the father of the tribe. In Liberia, each of the tribes is said to have a common ancestor.
Therefore, it is perhaps these common ancestors that the rest of the tribe rely on for making important decisions. Typical of
■^Edwin W. Smith, Knowing the African (London, 1946), pp. 80-84.
2 Kenneth Little, West African Urbanization (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 26-27.
3j. L. Gibbs, People of Africa (New York, 1965), p. 226. 8 this very same gesture is the way the American family is struc¬ tured. Basically, that same principle is prevalent with the eldest of any one family being respected as possessing sound judgment in practically all matters of concern, with the strongest of respect being devoted to the male in any family.
Two or more people establish family ties through recognizing the similar traits expressed by various other members of a group.
According to Kenneth Little in his work, West African Urbanization, even in the present modernized African cities, migrants moving from the country or agricultural settings and going into industrial centers usually organize themselves into groups of tribal units and continue to seek an identity with each other. Fraternity, for example, is particularly stressed so much that members are expected to aid each other in times of difficulty, such as visiting each other when sick, or swelling the procession at a funeral.^- To some extent, it helps to explain the idea of nepotism and favoritism in the
African government. Leaders boost into power those who are related to them on any of the three levels mentioned above.
The norms of a society were accepted by an individual if and only if he was bound to that society through lineage. Morals and 2 norms are respected only where there are family ties. Because of this belief, the writer finds it convenient to discuss some of the principles of marriage and family life-styles in the next topic.
■^Little, op. cit., pp. 87-88.
^Gwendolyn Carter, African One-Party States (New York, 1966), p. 376. 9
Marriage and Family
A marriage within the society was not a matter between two
individuals but between two families. Professor Gibbs wrote:
The choice of a Liberian bride is not a matter for the individual alone. Parents and other agents still exercise considerable control over marriage. Matchmaking for marriage not only unites the bridal couple but also establishes a new and injected relationship between their respected lineages.!
Because this was a dominant custom, it can be easily seen that
family members of both parties involved were drawn closer together in that each was desirous of their respective family member getting what they considered the "best” in marriage.
The men of tribal origin wanted to acquire more than one wife for either social, political, or economic reasons. The social implication to polygamy in Liberia was the fact that the husband found himself as much at home in the region or area from which the wife originated, with the prestige attached. Politically, all his wives, close and distant relatives, traditionally considered them¬ selves under the husband’s political camp. These people could be called upon at any time to support his political cause. More important, however, was the economic reason. All the wives were agriculturally productive, serving as manpower to produce agricul¬ tural products for market and domestic consumption with the benefit and profit solely belonging to the husband. In this Liberian society, a man who had sufficient money could marry as many women as he was able to support.
! Gibbs, op. cit., p. 339. 10
Traditionally, the dowry (bride price) was paid in Liberian marriage as a token of appreciation from the parents of the groom to the parents of the bride for the wife. The dowry could be an exchange: one woman for another, or in like fashion, cattle, brain rods, kila, and so forth; but of more importance was the fact that a dowry was paid for women. The tribes practiced it among themselves -- the Mano, Kpelle, Gio, and so on. A man paid part of the customary $40 dowry, or he may have paid nothing but agreed instead to work for the girl's father. On the other hand, he may have taken as his wife one of the surplus wives of an
"important man" (a chief or country-witch-doctor) in return for farm labor and political support.^ This practice was part of the Biblical tradition also. The story of Jacob and Rebecca is very much African, or tribal.
The Exercise of Power
In the African or Liberian traditional way of life, there were two political systems — one of which was centralized and admitted the principle of sovereignty. The centralized government had a well-defined system of authority to which everyone was subject.
The other was decentralized and did not adhere to the principle of sovereignty. In a decentralized system, the power of authority was exercised on particular occasions by the family head or elders who were concerned with the case. In this system, the power did not go
^■John Middleton, Black Africa: Its People and Their Cultural Today (London, 1970), pp. 14-16. 11
beyond the family. The family heads performed the rites and
explained the social conduct to the other members of the family.^
The original political system was always the decentralized
one until there was a cause for centralized government to be
established, resulting from conflicts among several tribes attempt¬
ing to conquer another region. In addition, the new authority must function before it could be considered a centralized govern¬ ment. Between two equal societies, there there was no mutually
acknowledged authority, the relationship was either one of mediation
or one of war. In most cases, issues between various tribes were
resolved through mediation, but some were resolved through tribal war. The reason why wars were fought was that there was no third party or authority to serve as a mediator between these tribes or
bring them under one political umbrella. The only possible step
that could be taken was force, especially after mutual negotiation
failed. Notwithstanding, tribal people were generally friendly to people of different ethnic origins.
The sources of authority was found initially in the family at
one or more of the levels of the family as defined above. Problems
of greater difficulty were referred in the decentralized society to
higher levels of the family. The well-being of the society was
maintained by strict adherence of its members to moral and social
values and beliefs. The original political system was always
1Ibid., pp. 101-110.
2 Paul Bohanna, Africa and Africans (New York, 1964) , pp. 14-15. 12 decentralized, whereas a centralized political system came into being either through conquest or through defense.^- In a sense, it is one example of an American trend in government. Specifically, the idea of a majority and democratic features in nature.
Government
Governments were organized politically around village group¬ ings of varying sizes. The central cohesive element of the unit seems to have been a key identification by a core group with a
"special" family that produced the owner of the land. No one individual can own the land. Land belongs to the entire family, both living and dead; and, in order for the family to maintain unity, it must maintain its tie with the land. Mbiti wrote that:
Africans are particularly bound to the land as it is the concrete expression of both their Zamani and their Sasa cultures. The land provides them with the roots of existence, as well as binding them mystically to their departed.
The land and peoples identified with this special family were supplemented by more or less autonomous villages that attached their loyalties to the unit for protection and perhaps because of a need for relationships higher than local structures could provide.
The need for legitimate use of land and for "fatherly" guidance by a higher authority, all of which could be supplied by the owner of 3 the land and his family.
^Daryl Forde, African Worlds (London, 1968), p. 129. 2 John S. Mbiti, African Religion and Philosophy (London, 1967), p. 27.
^Sevend E. Holsoe, "A Nation-Building in Liberia,” Liberian Studies Journal (3 vols., Depute, 1968), p. 21. 13
Because the land did not belong to any one individual, a closer relationship among parent members of these tribes was possible. Moreover, we see instituted here somewhat of a demo¬ cratic type of government where each member of a tribe had input as far as decision-making regarding land was concerned. In the next topic, the author shall deal with the aspect of the Europeans’ entrance into the Grain Coast and the effect this gesture had on the existing system of land-holding.
Europe and the Grain Coast
Europeans would have settled and made the Grain Coast a colony, but it was felt that the land had no mineral resources, and above all else, the climate was not favorable to their health.
Besides, the tribal people were hostile to most of them.
Around the Grain Coast, the tribes unified to take precautions when dealing with English and Dutch traders, but not the French.
The reason for this was that the indigenous people felt that the
Dutch and English were not friendly and their motives were to gain all they could from the indigenous people for little or nothing, whereas the French were more genuine in their relationship with the natives. Therefore, they seemed to have appreciated the French more readily than the Dutch and English. Lawrence Marinelli wrote in his work, New Liberia, that:
The nativew would board the French ship unarmed and the French in turn did not fear to enter tribal villages with goods in hand . . . The English and Dutch had unsuccessfully tried to capture slaves instead of buying them, and this
^Marinelli, op. cit., p. 60. 14
had unified the coastal tribes in their hostility toward the white man. White traders along the entire Grain Coast were either killed or forced to leave. Not until Ulrik Nordenskiold, a Swede, visited Liberia late in the 18th century did any European nation again serious consider colonizing the area.l
Mr. Marinelli said that the Grain Coast was not only a grace for white folks, but especially for the English and Dutch.
Because the French were popular with the natives of the Grain
Coast, in 1726, King Peter, Lord of the Mesurado, presented to the
Chevalier des Marchais, on behalf of the French government, the island later called Bushrod’s Island for the purpose of establish¬ ing a colony. Des Marchais insisted on having the colony placed on
Cape Mesurado and submitted the scheme to the Senegal Company. But for a decision of the Senegal to base its operations farther up the coast at Dakar, the whole history of Liberia might have been changed 2 drastically.
In the forthcoming chapter, the incoming of the freed slaves from America is traced and examination of how the culture of the natives was disturbed due to the differences in political opinions on both parts, is explored.
^Ibid., pp. 28-29.
^Ibid., p. 29. CHAPTER III
THE LIBERATION OF BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA
AND THEIR RETURN TO AFRICA
Liberia was founded by a number of white Americans who were concerned with slavery and slave trade, and the unfortunate posi¬ tion of "free persons of color." This liberation movement had originated earlier with the British about 179-0. In 1772, a deci¬ sion of the high court of England written by Chief Justice Lord
Mansfield in the case of James Somerset had freed the slaves in
Great Britain. This decision declared that slavery was illegal in England and that Negro servants were free men with the right to choose their employmentWhile America still continued the slave practice, the British were conspiring to liberate American slaves unofficially and to send them to the large sector of British North
America, which is now known as Canada. For the most part, it was the British who initiated a recognizable effort to abolish slavery through this liberation idea.
The idea of liberating American slaves was borrowed from the
British by Thomas Jefferson in 1777.2 3 His idea was supported by his
T Christopher Fyfe, A History of Sierra Leone (London, 1962), pp . 13-IB.
2J. Gus Liebenow, Liberia: The Evolution of Privilege (New York, 1969), pp. 1-2. 3 Fyfe, op. cit., p. 15. 15 16
fellow Virginian, Ferdinando Fairfax, a United States Congress¬ man.
Several efforts were made to have the United States Congress
allocate a place for the freed slaves, hut Congress could not
agree on the terms and the place. However, Dr. William Thornton, a revered London physician, exhibited the moving spirit and drive to Initiate such action after having migrated to Boston in 1798.
In Boston in 1816, he began proselyting for "human and Christian
emancipation .
Other advocates of liberation were Governor James Monroe of Virginia in 1801 and James Forten, as well as other Negroes of the Philadelphia Bethel Church. They proposed various plans to
establish "Black States" or territories in Louisiana or elsewhere in America. J. Gus Liebenow, in his book, Liberia, states that
there were several divisions among the people regarding where the
freed men were to go. Some felt that the Negroes should be sent
far beyond existing national boundaries, while others felt that 2 they should create a few black states for them.
However, to say which of these moves at that time would have been practical is beyond the scope of this paper. On the other
hand, if these aspects of liberation were incorporated into our present-day society, the writer thinks it is reasonable to say that
both would not be feasible. This theory is supported by the fact
■^William Innés, Liberia (New York, 1971), pp. 3-4.
, op. cit., p. 1. 17 that it is virtually impossible for racial togetherness to exist.
By "togetherness," the writer means the sharing of the same democratic principles to insure racial harmony as much as possible.
The leaders of the Colonization movement decided that the only feasible solution was to establish a colony on the West
Coast of Africa to serve as refuge for free American Negroes who desired repatriation to the land of their ancestors.
The underlying issue was the fact that American Negroes were not considered as citizens of the United States. Negroes were rapidly growing in number as compared to the growth of the white population at that time. These freed black people who, according to popular demands of white Americans, were not citizens. This notion was later interpreted by the United States Supreme CourtTs decision involving Dred Scott vs. Sandford: 19 Howard 393, 15 L.
Ed. 691 {1857} . This decision states that:
The people of the negro race . . . are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the words "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.2
From this, one arrives at the conclusion that the Constitution was but a legal weapon to force blacks to keep their distance in any effort to gain complete freedom. Also, it was a meter stick that
^Wilson, op. cit., pp. 9-10.
“AJLpheus T. Mason and William M. Beaney, American Constitutional Law (Bth ed., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1968) , p . 33. 18 spelled out the degree of involvement blacks could engage in with this political system.
Another reason why the Colonialization Society wanted to send
Negroes out of the United States was that they saw the new colony as a beachhead for Christianity and the spreading of western cul¬ ture and civilization. These were ideas rooted in "pacificism,” prohibition, and other experiments in morality.^ Those persons who advocated this idea were Robert Finley, a Presbyterian minister from New Jersey; William Thornton, a leading Quaker from New York;
John Caldwell of the American Bible Society; and a host of Baptist,
Congregationalist, and other Protestant men.
Those political activists, including Thomas Jefferson and
Governor James Monroe, repeatedly held that the Negro population was a threat to the nation. Weinstein and Gatell indicated that the white man had some apprehension of slave rebellions if the blacks, freed and non-freed, were left to multiply. It was even becoming evident that the slave population was rapidly growing in number.
Both men wrote:
. . . By 1700, there were 6,000 slaves reported in the colony. By 1708, the figure had risen to 12,000, and it was reported that 3,000 of these had been imported between 1705 and 1708. Within another seven years the number of slaves had almost doubled, and by 1742, there were 42,000 slaves in the colony. This figure was more than doubled in the next decade, for by the late 1750’s, there were well over 100,000 Negroes in Virginia. By the 1780’s, this figure had phenomenally doubled again, and by the first federal census of 1790, there were over 292,000 slaves in the newly created state of Virginia.
*1 ^Liebenow, op. cit., p. 2. 2Allen Weinstein and Frank 0. Gatell, American Negro Slavery (New York, 1968), p. 123. 19
Consequently, Virginia tried to control the size of their slave population. Robert McColley stated in his work the following:
Turning these unfortunates free, on the other hand, would be a disaster for both the Negroes and the whites. The former race had not the moral fiber, intelligence, and industry necessary for citizenship in the society of the latter. Hostility and jealousy were bound to result from a coequal existence within the same territory, until one race enslaves or destroys the other. On the other hand, if the races should not destroy one another in civil war, the black must eventually interbreed with the white, destroying the intelligence and beauty of the superior.l
This theory is very evident in our modern-day society as the races
have closely knitted more liberal attitudes on race relations. In
the writer’s opinion, this gesture has become debatable since many
feel this idea of racial harmony has tended to destroy whatever true
identity either race possessed.
As a political measure, and a possible remedy for the serious
evils arising from slavery and the contact of races, Thomas p Jefferson suggested a plan of colonization.
No other person can explain to us better the reasons for the
liberated slaves leaving America than the freed slaves themselves.
In their Declaration of Independence, they had set up reasons why
they left the American shores in search of a new land. Ernest
Jerome Yancy, the son of a former slave from Maryland, wrote:
^Robert McColley, Slavery and Jeffersonian Virginia (Urbana, 1964) , p. 118. p P. J. Staudenraus, The African Colonization Movement, 1816-1865 (New York, 1961), p. 2. 20
... In making this declaration to the world, the people of the new Republic of Liberia feel they should explain to the world why they have come to declare themselves members of a free and independent state. They feel they must explain why they left the land of their birth to settle on this dangerous coast and why at this moment, they wish to form a new and independent nation.
We feel all men are born with special rights - the right to live; the right to be free; the right to have, to enjoy, and to defend property. These rights have no meaning unless there is a settled form of government upholding them. And all people have the right to choose and adopt that form of government which -- in their opinion — is most likely to protect these human rights.
We the people of the Republie of Liberia were long ago inhabitants of the United States of America. In some parts of that country we were prevented from enjoying the natural rights of man; in other places, the people looked down upon us as if we were less than human . . .
We were everywhere prevented from governing or sharing in government.
We had to pay taxes without being allowed to have any say in fixing those taxes.
We were made to pay a share of the cost of the government when that same government refused to protect us.
We were put into a separate class and everything was done to stop us from improving ourselves in any way. Strangers from other lands were considered before us. We gave voice to our complaints but no one would listen to us.-L
The above information is extremely relevant today as the Constitution has enabled many, if not all, of these grievances to be answered for the benefit of all peoples.
ancy, op. cit., p. 33. 21
Allocation of Land
The federal government did not "underwrite the entire scheme" of the American Colonization Society. However, President
James Monroe (for whom the capital of Liberia was later named) allowed the Society’s agents to go to West Africa to suppress the slave trade and find bases for the resettlement of the rescued
African.
The federal government did not react immediately to this proposal because of their desire not to become involved in the founding of colonies as the Monroe Doctrine spells out.
In 1818, slave-trading was declared to be piracy by the
United States Congress. Congress further requested that President
Monroe institute the proper negotiations with residents of the
Coast of Africa so that they may become agents for receiving Negroes taken from captured vessels of the United States Navy and Coast
Guard. This authorization by the Congress appropriated $100,000 to carry out this program.
In March, 1818, the American Colonization Society dispatched a ship and a committee headed by Samuel J. Mills to negotiate for a colony site near Sierra Leone in what is now Liberia. Late in
1819, President Monroe officially approved the purchase of the site chosen by the Colonization Society and sent two representatives, the
Reverend Samuel J. Bacon and John P. Bankson to complete the plans for a colony of American-freed Negroes. With the help of the
President, his agent chartered the Elizabeth, with 86 Negroes
^Marinelli, op. cit., pp. 30-31. 22 aboard and convoyed by the Cyane (a sloop-of-war of the United
States Navy), sailed out of Philadelphia for West Africa.^
This gesture was the first positive effort on the part of the government to abolish slavery and insure fair and impartial treat¬ ment of slaves. With the program being in its early developmental stages, one would certainly expect various problems since proper funds were on hand to implement the program and all that was necessary was the appointment of good leaders to get it underway.
In this respect, examination of the next topic will be made to determine whether the intention of the Americans was truly designed to benefit both the returning freed slaves and the aborigines as was discussed earlier in this chapter.
Confrontation With Indigenous People
When the pioneers came in contact with the Africans, they attempted to negotiate for land as commanded by the Colonization
Society. During the initial stages of negotiations, the natives did not willingly accede to the proposals. The African concept includes the idea that land is a non-negotiable commodity, and could not be sold or bought. Since the land belonged to the people, the indigenous people contended that no one person or group could claim ownership as there were no legal titles to the land. The community collectively utilized the resources of the land. However, there were certain alien groups who came to purchase land that the
^Charles H. Huberick, The Political and Legislative History of Liberia (New York, 194-7), p. 60. 23
tribes had had decentralized control over for many generations.
The aborigines had long held the idea that the land belonged to their ancestors and to succeeding generations and should not be sold to strangers. Although this was not a common practice with
the aborigines (under their norms and ethics), they would allow the
Americans who had migrated to the Grain Coast to portion off the land. However, this would, by no means, give them any legal title
to the land.
Under the leadership of Captain Robert F. Stockton, Dr. Eli
Ayres of the Colonization Society and representatives of the United
States government, the tribal chiefs and kings were assembled to
discuss all facets of the program. The chiefs and kings repudiated
the request and as a result of this, purchasing of the land was not
made with the overall concensus of the tribal people. Instead, it
was with violence that the Negroes gained control.'*' Richard West,
in his book, Back to Africa, stated that the natives, at the time of
the treaty ratification, were entirely unarmed. He further stated
that Captain Robert F. Stockton, a representative of the United
States government, pulled out a pistol and gave it to another of his
aides, Dr. Eli Ayres, and instructed him to use it if the situation
demanded it. West further contends that Captain Stockton, at that
instant, pulled another pistol and aimed it at King Peter's head,
thus demanding approval of the sale of the land. Therefore, with
very little, if anything to say, King Peter was forced to comply
1Ibid., pp. 188-89. ^Richard West, Back to Africa: A History of Sierra Leone and Liberia (New York, 1971), pp. 101-104. 24 with the conditions. This further enhanced the general concept of slavery, with forced decisions that were not in the interest of the tribal people, as it shall be pointed out later.
These deeds were instrumental in bringing about conditions and problems that have not been fully resolved, even now. These malicious acts focused the attention of many aborigines upon hold¬ ing the land rather than cultivating it. In comparison, this holding of land closely characterizes those conditions and incidents of a feudalistic government; that system of government based on land-holding.
This contract or treaty was ratified by six kings making their marks in the appropriate places with Captain Stockton and
Dr. Ayres signing it as representatives of the United States govern¬ ment and the American Colonization Society. This territory included the whole of Cape Mesurado and the mouth of the St. Paul
River running back from the coast a certain distance.!
The text of the original instrument by which this important territory was acquired is recorded in Huberick as follows:
KNOW ALL MEN, that this contract, made on the fifteenth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one, between King Peter, King George, King Zoda, and King Long Peter, their Princes and Headmen, of the one part; and Captain Robert F. Stockton and Eli Ayres, of the other part; WITNESSTH: that whereas certain persons, citizens of the United States of America, are desirous to establish themselves on the western coast of Africa, and have invested Captain Robert F. Stockton and Eli Ayres with full powers to treat with and purchase from us the said Kings, Princes, and Head-men, certain Lands viz: Dozoa Island,
1 Hubernick, op. cit., p. 196. 25
Also all that portion of Land bounded north and west by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the south and east by a line drawn in a southeast direction from the north of Mesurado River, WE, the said Kings, Princes, and Head-men, being fully convinced of the Pacific and just views of the said Citizens of America, and being desirous to reciprocate the friendship and affection expressed for us and our people, DO HEREBY, in consideration of so much paid in hand, viz: Six Muskets, one box Beads, two hogsheads Tobacco, and cask Gunpowder, six bars Iron, ten iron Pots, one dozen Knives and Forks, one dozen Spoons, six pieces blue Baft, Four Hats, three Coats, three pairs shoes, one box Pipes, one keg Nails, twenty Looking-glasses, three pieces Handerchiefs, three pieces Calico, three Canes, four Umbrellas, one box Soap, one barrel Rum; and to be PAID, the following: three casks Tobacco, one box Pipes, three barrels Rum, twelve pieces Cloth, six bars Iron, one box Beads, fifty Knives, twenty Looking-glasses, ten Iron Pots different sizes, twelve Guns, three barrels Gunpowder, one dozen Plates, one dozen Knives and Forks, twenty Hats, five casks Beef, five barrels Pork, ten barrels Biscuit, twelve Decanters, twelve glass Tumblers, and fifty Shoes, FOREVER CEDE AND RELINQUISH the above described Lands, with all thereto appertaining or belonging, or reputed so to belong, to Captain Robert F. Stockton and Eli Ayres, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said Premises, for the use of these said citizens of America . . .WE, the Kings, Princes, and Head-men, for a proper consideration by us received, do further agree to build for the use of the said Citizens of America, six large houses, on any place selected by them within the above described tract of ceded land.^
From reading the document, it is obvious that the white representa¬ tives of the United States government obtained African land for a very small amount of supplies which cannot begin to equal the value of the land that they were receiving in return. Along with this, there was a blatant disregard for the rights of the inhabitants of the Grain Coast in view of the fact that the document was conjured up by and for Americans without any consultation with the inhabitants
1Ibid., pp. 195-196. 26 or any consideration for their desires and sovereignty. Conse¬ quently, the United States used the document to take advantage of the aborigines but were also physically coerced into accepting and signing the document as a binding contract which inevitably gave Americans title to the land.
The circumstances surrounding the so-called contract, giving
Americans legal title to the land, were not at all understood by the inhabitants who were unaware at this point that, by virtue of the document and the proper signing of it, the ownership of the land had been conveyed to American settlers. This subsequently led to a continuous dispute over who had the inherent right to the land which had, prior to that time, belonged to the inhabitants as a whole, as opposed to any specific group.
Just three months after the official arrival of the freed
Negroes at Cape Mesurado on January 7, 1822, a British ship arrived in the harbor whose destination was Sierra Leone. When the Commander of the British ship refused to pay the appropriate custom duties as requested by the tribal sovereign, King George, a battle began between the British crew and the inhabitants of the Grain Coast with the newly arrived American settlers taking sides with the British crew lending them physical and material support. Consequently, many of the aborigines were killed by the American settlers, and vice versa. This situation, along with other factors, convinced the natives that the American settlers were not at all concerned with or interested in developing a meaningful relationship with them or cooperating with them to promote friendship, understanding, and harmony. Along with this, American settlers showed no appreciation 27
or respect whatsoever to the aborigines while occupying and using their land.’*' The writer feels that this lack of interest and
cooperation on the part of the American settlers was instrumental
in bringing about the present and continuing disunity in the
country.
In view of the apparent polarization between the aborigines
and the settlers, the aborigines made numerous efforts to regain
control of their land. The efforts were manifested in several wars between the two groups. In these wars, the aborigines’ efforts were unsuccessful in view of the superiority of the American
settlers' modern weapons supplied by the United States government
over the aborigines' primitive weapons of bows and arrows. Once the
Americans realized the superiority of their weapons, they developed
new confidence in their ability to hold and dominate the land 2 irrespective of the rights and interests of the aborigines.
The writer feels it is worthwhile to mention specifically
some of these efforts in order to gain a better understanding of the
predicament. The first two efforts resulted in victories over the
inhabitants. These victories were used to proclaim a national
holiday which is still celebrated today. Liberia's Thanksgiving
holiday is considered to be the first victory over the indigenous
people and is celebrated on November 11 of each year. The conflict
leading up to the holiday began on November 7, 1822, when reports
••-Ibid., pp. 106-107.
2 Ibid., pp. 108-110. 28
reached the settlers about the native preparations for an attack
on the settlers. Consequently, this information was used by the
settlers to prepare retaliatory action with their modern weapons
against the natives. The settlers out-maneuvered the aborigines,
killing between five and eight hundred.'*'
The second major victory for the American settlers occurred
in early December, 1822, when a cannon was fired by an American
settler, Matilda Newport, on the aborigines as a further effort to
suppress the opposition of the aborigines’ efforts to regain con¬
trol of their land. The firing of the cannon had the effect of
disrupting the natives who had heretofore been totally unaware of
the use of this type of weapon. The sound alone literally petri¬
fied the aborigines, as it was the first time they had experienced
such a loud noise. This resulted in giving the settlers an addi¬
tional advantage over the natives since, after firing the cannon, they realized how this terrorized the aborigines and could be
continuously used to foster their ambitions. This event was
interpreted as a distinct victory over the inhabitants and was
declared a national holiday known as "Matilda Newport Day," which is 2 celebrated on December 1 of each year.
Naturally, this victory provided the settlers with a more
firm and determined attitude about securing their rights. As a
matter of fact, this victory was the general framework for a system
■*"John Janson T. McPherson, History of Liberia (Baltimore, 1891) , p. 35.
^Huberick, op. cit., pp. 284-285. 29 widely used during that time known as feudalism, with the princi¬ pal concern being the acquisition and holding of land.
After these two victories over the inhabitants, the American
Colonization Society took steps to frame a Constitution in an effort to gain control over the political and economic resources of the territory. The Constitution was written and adopted in
Washington, D. C., by the Colonization Society for the settlement on the Grain Coast. The Constitution declared the territory a country and renamed it Liberia with its capital being named
Monrovia, in honor of President James Monroe. The Constitution also stated that, " . . . there should be one Governor to govern the whole settlement appointed by the American Colonization Society carrying out any orders sent by the Society." But the governing of the settlement was to be placed in the hands of officers who were to be chosen or elected by the members of the settlement. The Consti¬ tution reached the settlers in Monrovia in 1829."^
With this gesture, it shall be discovered that this was the beginning of a form of government that is quite familiar because it is a democratic form of government with the chief of operations being the governor and the governmental orders being carried out by his servants (officers) .
It should be mentioned also that after the adoption of the
Constitution and subsequent events of restructuring the society, several states within the American Union began to take steps to send
■^West, op. cit., p. 300 . 30 their freed slaves or freed Negroes to Liberia to live. Thus, the decade after 1832 was marked by the great immigration of freed slaves to Liberia because there was a place for freed Negroes where the fear of slaves' rebellion was no longer prevalent in the United States. These newly arrived settlers had no political ties in terms of being united as a body politically in Liberia until it was necessary to unite against the attempts by the aborigines to destroy them.
Reason for Commonwealth
From those early days until the widely extended territory closed with Sierra Leone on the West and the French Ivory Coast on the East, the history is a succession of wars. A few of the wars were the Battle of Crown Hill on November 11 and December 1, 1822;
and the Dey and Gola wars which lasted for three years, from
1824-1827.
These wars came about as a result of the Americo-LiberiansT
refusal to respect the aborigines’ rights and privileges that were
taken away from them through the manner in which the land was purchased. Much damage was done to the major towns and victory for
the Americo-Liberians was followed by an assertion of sovereignty
over the lands overrun by a new title of "Conquest by War.”"*"
In this state of affairs, one readily concludes that without
adequate training and preparation, it was almost inpossible for the
aborigines to protest what they thought was theirs. Moreover,
without open trade routes and passageways, it was virtually impossi¬
ble to keep supplies available for immediate use.
Henry F. Reeve, The Black Republic (New York, 1964), pp. 44-45. 31
From 1822 to 1839, numerous Americo-Liberian colonies, independent of one another, were established along the coast of
Liberia on the initiative of the American Colonization Society and other organizations set up on its model in several American states. These included a Pennsylvania and New York settlement
(Grand Bassa County), a Georgia settlement along with the Carolinas combined and established Mesurado County in 1832 with a total population of 2,297 by 1838. The first move toward consolidating the isolated settlements into a "Commonwealth” occurred in 1839 in response to tribal hostility for mutual defense.^
The Americo-Liberians learned early that the survival of their community depended upon cohesion. They learned also to defeat tribal uprisings with cannons and guns. As late as 1915, the United
States government provided the settlers1 communities with military advisors and weapons to put down an uprising among the Krus. These were an energetic people who rebelled again in 1931-1932.
No doubt had these military advisors not been provided by the
United States, an uprising would have developed that perhaps would have broken any and all means of communication that had had any degree of effect in the past. Also, it is reasonable to assume that a full-scale war would have been the ultimate end.
The Commonwealth of Liberia survived for ten trying years without being considered a nation in any sense diplomatically. The
^Robert W. Clower, et al., Growth Without Development (Evanston, 1966), p. 6. 2 Ibid., pp. 6-8. 32
British created a crisis by defying the levy imposed by the
Commonwealth of Liberia, citing the ill-defined legal status of the colonies. In 1845, Liberia impounded the Little Ben, a ship belonging to a Sierra Leonean, for nonpayment of harbor dues. The
British retaliated by sending a warship into the port of Grand
Bassa and seizing a Liberian-owned freighter on the charge that the owner was suspected of slave trading. The British Commodore Jones wrote to Governor Roberts in 1844- that the right to impose dues could only be exercised by sovereign and independent states."*"
The United States was not willing to go so far as to declare
Liberia an American colony because the Monroe Doctrine stipulated that the United States should not be engaged in colonizing any nation outside of the western hemisphere. Subsequently, independence was the only solution for Liberia existing.
The Commonwealth era gave way to a Republican form of govern¬ ment immediately following the formulation and adoption of the
Constitution in 1847, and the Declaration of Independence. This
Constitution was written by Simon Greenleaf, a Harvard University professor, upon the recommendation of the American Colonization n Society. The Constitution was fully accepted for the new state.
Therefore, the Constitution, with its statutory laws, did not evolve out of the natural conditions and surroundings of Liberian life, but was superimposed from without.
The Constitution Convention which assembled in Monrovia on
July 5, 1847, marked the introduction of a familiar, but altogether
•^West, op. cit., p. 153. 2 Reeve, op. cit., p. 33. 33 new, political framework for the Republic. On July 26, 1847, the long-awaited decision to form a national government was resolved.
On that day, the Declaration of Independence, written by Hilary
Teage, declared in part, " . . .We were made a separate and distinct class, and against us, every avenue of improvement was effectively closed. Strangers from other lands, of a color different from ours, were preferred before us . . . . That same day, the Constitution of the Republic and the Declaration of
Independence were signed and presented by the president of the
Convention to Governor Roberts. On Monday, July 26, 1847, the
Commonwealth of Liberia was declared to the world as a free, sovereign and independent state, by the name of the Republic of
Liberia.
In analyzing the Liberian Declaration of Independence, Dr.
Nnamdi Azikiwe observed in Dorum’s book that:
The Liberian Declaration of Independence Is a critique of man’s inhumanity to man. It is not necessarily modelled after any one particular country's proclamation of rights. Rather, it is a synthesis of the Constituion of Clarendon, Magna Charta, Statues of Uses, Petition of Rights, Bill of Rights, the American Declaration of Independence, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. It is the tragic story of a free people, victims of circumstance, who were obliged to leave their native land, and to renounce forever the shores which engendered and condoned the inhuman practice of slavery.
This Declaration of Independence is a historical epic and literary masterpiece. It is a matchless
•^Alfonso K. Dorum, The Constitution of the Republic of Liberia and the Declaration of Independence (New York, 1970), pp. 16- 17. 34
document in the records of African political institutions. It is destined to arouse the lethargy of millions of Africans, at home and abroad, to a realization of the political destiny of the black man in the history of the world. Unfortunately, this document failed to give the Liberian indigenes the praise due to them for not only accommodating the immigrants, but also assimilating and amalgamating with them. It failed to recognize the political acumen and the social and material cultures of the African tribes which inhabit these regions. This little oversight, due probably to Christian zealousness, might have averted the ever-presistent bugaboo of the aboriginal problem.
The above quote clearly indicates and explains the lack of concern
regarding the original inhabitants of Liberia by the immigrants who
designed and prepared the Declaration of Independence. It is also
unfortunate that the aborigines had no input or participation in the
framing of the Declaration of Independence. In this respect, the
immigrants not only left out the interests of the aborigines, but
went about the business of adopting a Declaration of Independence
based on the system that oppressed them and caused them to leave
American shores. Even though this was the case then, no changes
have been made to date to indicate this fact of blindness on their
part. In this regard, Henry F. Reeve stated that:
... As Liberians were without the education of the schools from which the laws were evolved, it was natural for them to stumble and fall in the attempt to administer and carry into effect a system of law-giving handed to them complete and up-to-date from the United States, which was based upon conditions resulting from centuries of civilization.2
1Ibid., pp. 17-18.
Reeve, op. cit., p. 35. 35
One of the greatest defects in the Constitution which has been the guiding light to discrimination against the original inhabitants is that no provision was made regarding their govern¬ ment, customs, and traditions. As stated above, the tribal people of African descent were not considered citizens of Liberia from
1821 to 1944. The tribal groups constituted a population estimated at between 1,500,000 to 2,300,000 or 99 percent, corrprising about
28 distinct tribes.^-
By virtue of this fact, the Constitution did not recognize the national cultures of the African tribes. According to the
Constitution, all questions regarding the African tribes were to be determined through the authority vested in the chief executive.
Thus, the executive was given power to determine the destiny of the majority of people who had not been included as a part of the newly structured government. In essence, this means that the tribal people were relegated to a position of being foreigners in their own country since they were denied the rights and privileges of citizenship which will be dealt with at length in the subsequent chapters .
The only means by which the aborigines were accorded equal status in the ruling government was to accept the values of
Christianity and western civilization at the expense of their own.
Along with this, it was much easier for newly arriving immigrants to obtain citizenship. James J. Martin states that the tribesmen were
l-Hubernick, op. cit., p. 1231.
2Ibid., p. 1230. 36 always subjugated and discriminated against because they were not citizens- He went further and quoted A. F. Russell, then Vice
President of Liberia in 1883, to have said:
Emigrants coming to the country to become voting citizens must draw a town lot, or a piece of form land freely granted. Two acres of the farm must be put under cultivation of some kind, a magis¬ trate given a certificate that this has been done. "Deeds in Fee Simple" are given, three years in general allowed. Then and not until then is an emigrant accounted a citizen, fastened to the soil and the right of suffrage and the right to every office set before him. The natives must subscribe to civilized habits for three years by living decently clad, or covered from his former nude state with the very same free ...(?) draw and improve the land shown, on the same conditions - how else should it be?l
Consequently, tribal people were set apart and treated as subordinates and as inferior group. Discrimination against tribal people hardened into a policy as well as a habit of mind. In law as well as in fact, two distinct social classes were created --
Americo-Liberians and aborigines. The family structure which served to increase the division between these two groups will be dealt with in the next chapter.
James J. Martin, "How to Build a Nation,” Liberian Studies Journal. Vol. II, No. 2 (Spring, 1969), pp. 18-19. CHAPTER IV
THE UNSTABLE RELATIONSHIP: THE BASIS
OF THE POWER STRUCTURE
Family Structure in the Political System
There is an extended family system within the tribal and the
Arnerico-Liberian groups. The basic cleavage is centered around the differences between cultures -- African versus western and the structure of the family system. The settlers brought with them the religious philosophy of Christianity and were totally blind to the concept of African spiritualism which is quite different from
Christianity as previously discussed.
The settlers1 economic philosophy was different from the
Africans’ in that the former’s economic philosophy was one of rugged individualism oriented toward a free enterprise system; whereas the latter’s economic philosophy was based on a communal economic system.^ Consequently, the economic and religious philo¬ sophy characteristic of each group partly explains the basis for the cleavage of the family structure in both groups.
The usual family patterns of the settlers, their descendants and others who accepted the settlers’ way of life differed substan¬ tially from those of most tribesmen who, despite tribal variations of language and customs, shared some broadly-defined features of
-k)orum, op. cit., p. 108.
37 38
family organization. Since the settlers were Christians whose values had been established in the United States or the British
West Indies, their ideal conception of marriage was monogamous union, and the place of the nuclear family was fundamental. The tribal people, on the other hand, stressed polygamy as an ideal type since it was economically more profitable for the family to maintain itself collectively in this condition. For the Americo-
Liberians, the maintenance of the family was, and is, through political, social, and economic association. At birth, one has bilateral ties with the mother and father, but as one grows up into the system, other ties are acquired through marriage, and so forth.
Through birth or marriage, the Americo-Liberian becomes a member of a series of cooperative groups that exploit the tribal people and also serve in providing political allies to each other in time of crisis in relation to their advanced standing in the community. These family allies also provide information to each other regarding changes in the political climate and access to positions of authority through nepotism which prevents the tribal groups from participating.^-
As the above information suggests, every cooperative group that has established its political ties extends certain personal obligations on each of its parent members which provides for a
very close relationship. In this respect, a complete channel of communication is prevalent that provides for a smooth and operative political climate.
1 Liebenow, op. cit., p. 135. 39
Within the Americo-Liberian family, the ties of each indivi¬ dual to the others in the family are based on social and political survival of the group. They interact not as individual personali¬ ties, but as members of different family groups. Within the
Americo-Liberian circle, this extended family system is used to maintain the supremacy of the non-tribal over the tribal community.
This family structure has infiltrated the political system and has effectively excluded the tribal groups. For example, the presi¬ dent’s cousin is the ambassador to Israel and the ambassador to
Israel’s cousin is the ambassador to the United Nations. The wife of the ambassador to the United Nations is the daughter of the ambassador to Sierra Leone, who is the son of the representative of
Maryland County.The nature of this political arrangement complete ly prevents the African tribal people from any accession to power in the political system.
The next topic attempts to deal with the efforts of the tribal people to regain power and control of their own destiny.
The Efforts of the Aborigines
The indigenous people have made countless efforts to throw off the yoke of Americo-Liberian domination. These efforts, however have taken on many forms. Some have been tribal revolts; some have been tribal economic sanctions, such as tribesmen refusing to grow crops because of taxation without representation. On other occa¬ sions, there have been efforts made by educated indigenous political leaders within the Congress or within the diplomatic field to
1 Ibid., p. 136. 40 institute nationwide changes within the political structure. Names of these persons will be listed in later passages. Most of the efforts were extremely unsuccessful and the consequences were great due to the ability of the power structure to wipe out resistance.
Some of the group efforts, on the part of the aborigines, are discussed below.
Grebo Uprising
First of all, the Grebo uprising developed when the Liberian government, without any regard for the interests of the Grebo tribe, sold a portion of their land to the French government in
1892. In fact, a treaty was drawn up in 1892 relinquishing the largest portion of Maryland County which was heavily populated by the Grebos.^ This greatly antagnoized the native population, as the value of the treaty was not fully realized because the land belonged to the community at large, as mentioned previously. Along with this, a boundary line was established on the land geographi¬ cally separating the Grebo population, placing those who occupied the richest portion of the land under French domination, and the remaining Grebo population remaining under Liberian rule. It
should be emphasized that the transaction or sale of the land was without the knowledge of the aborigines.
The Grebo tribe concluded that the Liberian government did not have their interest at heart with respect to land and other
considerations important to the Grebo population. In retaliation,
^Charles M. Wilson, Liberia (New York: William Sloane Associates, Inc., 1947), p. 18. 41 the Grebo population appealed to the British government for future protection from the Liberian government by hosting the British flag in Cape Palms. The Grebo population was willing to be sub¬ jected to British colonialism rather than the continued domination of their land by the Liberian government. The following quote illustrates how the natives felt at the time when G. M. Haliburton wrote in the Liberian Studies Journal that:
The Grebos appear to be an intelligent people, and to have among them some well-educated men. They hate and despise the Liberians, whom they look upon as thieves and outcasts, and as they are clever enough to see that they cannot remain independent, they openly state their wish to be placed under the protection of Great Britain ... It was during this brief period of crisis that the Union Jack was raised at Cape Palms by William Wade Harris, who had chosen a good moment for a Grebo Rising.
In reaction to the Grebo efforts, the Liberian government made an agreement with the German government for war supplies to be used against the Grebo population. This gesture was initiated in an effort to put an end to the GrebosT plans against the Liberian government. The Liberian government also prevented the Grebo tribe from getting support from the British government or any other source by cutting off all means of communications and controlling the trade routes. In fact, the Liberian government was successful in using diplomatic tactics to prevent the British from Intervening in the dispute. Even though the Grebo population was not allowed any out¬ side support, the Liberian government received and used outside support. From Germany alone, they received 1,000 rifles and 200,000
■^G. M. Haliburton, "The Prophet Harris and the Grebo Rising of 1910,” Liberian Studies Journal, Vol. Ill, No. 3 (Fall, 1970), p. 33. 42 rounds of ammunition which were used indiscriminately against the
Grebo population. Additionally, the Liberian government asked the
United States to take an interest in the war, since their mis¬
sionaries were also in danger. The U. S. S. Birmingham, that was near the capital, was authorized to give the support of its prestige to the Liberian government if necessary
Due to these efforts by the Liberian government, the Grebo tribal efforts were suppressed. In the writer’s opinion, this one
element alone was a decisive factor in the relationship that was
established between these people. Moreover, it shall be revealed that the United States’ interest in this case has since become a major step in establishing a closer line of communication with both the outside world and the Liberian government.
In regard to this effort by the Grebo people, there were
several other attempts made by them to oppose the Monrovia govern¬ mental control, but those attempts were counter-acted, as usual, with a more modern force from the central government against
the tribal people’s arrow and spears.
The ’’force" of oppression of the Liberian government was
not only against the Grebo people, but also against other tribal
groups such as the Krus.
The Americo-Liberians’ institutionalized discrimination
against tribal people became severe to the Kru population in
Caldwell, a settlement near Monrovia, in 1915. The unhealthy
relationship between the tribal people of Caldwell and the Americo- 43
Liberian settlers on the coast reached a climax when the settlers accused the Krus of having killed one of their citizens. The alleged killing was thoroughly investigated by the Americo-
Liberian authorities and the Krus were completely exonerated.
Because of this exoneration, the settlers were dissatisfied and expected the government to punish the Krus. Because of the failure of their expectation, they decided to take the matter into their own hands.^ The settlers continued to make false accusations against the Krus, however. Extra legal action by the settlers against the Krus included a curfew which required all the Krus -- men, women, and children -- to be in their houses by six p.m. An extra legal edict provided that any Kru male found outside his residence after six p.m. would be shot. Offenses against property, including burning and tearing down homes, the taking of Krus ’ cattle, and destroying of offspring, were carried out by the 2 settlers. All of these acts were designed by the settlers to terrorize the Krus in order to keep them in subjugation.
After being subjected to this cruelty for some time, the
Krus finally revolted. Following the outbreak at Caldwell, the uprising spread throughout the coastal region which was heavily populated by the Krus. The Krus, throughout the coastal region, were also in subjugation to the Americo-Liberians and were waiting for an opportunity to strike. The Krus in Sinoe County were successful in cutting off communications linking Sinoe County with
-'-Reeve, op. cit., pp. 73-74.
^Ibid., p. 75. 44 the rest of the country. In response to the KrusT efforts, the
Americo-Liberian government sought outside help again. In this respect, Henry F. Reeve, in his work, Liberia, stated that:
The Liberian government appealed to the American government for help, and the cruiser Chester came to these waters. The Liberian Frontier Force (the paid police) , under a black American captain, sent by theUnited States government in connection with the American loan negotiations, defeated the Kroos /sic/ with great slaughter in several battles. But the Kroos also did some deadly work; in January 1915, they captured a sail boat flying the Liberian flag, and killed twelve of its occupants, one being last year’s graduate of the Liberian College, a young man of great promise.^
The above quote clearly indicates and explains the suppression of the aborigines’ efforts and the continuous existing demarcation between the two people.
Indigenous Politicians
There have been several efforts exerted on the political system by aborigine politicians. Didhwo Twe, the Kru leader, challenged the political system in 1929 when he introduced a bill against slavery and forced labor. Within two days, he was thrown out of his elective position as a member of the House of Repre¬ sentatives and fled the country to save his life by taking refuge under British protection at Sierra Leone. He returned after a p twenty-year exile.
In 1951, Twe challenged Tubman in the election of that year for the presidency, but was again obliged to flee the country on the
•^Ibid. , pp. 77-78. ^Carter, op. cit., pp. 360-561. 45 eve of the election, where he remained in exile in Sierra Leone until 1960, when President Tubman granted him pardon and freedom from prosecution.**" In his election speech, Tubman, however, had charged that TweTs hands were stained with the blood of treason, rebellion, and sedition, and that he had been unfaithful and disloyal to his trust as a Liberian citizen.
Liebenow, op. cit., p. 115. CHAPTER V
DOMESTIC COLONIALISM: TAXATION
The Thorndike dictionary defines colonialism as a "policy or practice of a national holding colonies in subordination; often with or for economic exploitation." The colonizer always assumes a superior position over the subject he colonizes. Historically, colonial powers have had a tendency to move into a region that would allow them complete economic, social, political, religious, and educational control over the indigenous people they meet there.
The English, French, Dutch, and Spanish all took part in the colonization of North America and Africa. The strategies and different tactics used to acquire the land, wealth, and control over the natives of the lands were all colonial in nature. In like manner, the freed slaves living in Liberia who new called them¬ selves Americo-Liberians have continuously used the same methods of exploitation to control the indigenous people of Liberia. The writer termed this process "domestic colonialism" in that the
Americo-Liberians are no longer regarded as outsiders or aliens in the land. They have been considered citizens from the time of their arrival until now. In fact, It was they who set the standards for citizenship for both their kind and the aborigines which had been dealt with at length In previous chapters.
In 1864, when the natives were not yet citizens of the country in the eyes of the Americo-Liberians, taxes and revenue had
46 47
to be paid to a government that did not support or protect them.
Henry F. Reeve pointed out this fact clearly when he wrote:
The government had for the past year or more, and without giving any notice, pounced upon the tribal chiefs for hut and other taxes; they having had no time to prepare payment for these claims in kind, the officials sent up, under escort of a detachment of the Liberian Frontier Force, not only confiscated their cattle, grain, etc., but brought down (to Monrovia) as hostages numbers of their boys who were relegated to work for no payment on the Liberian officials1 coffee farms for some time, then shipped to Fernando Po, for which the Liberian government received 15 per head; head money from the Spanish government^
The above material suggests to the writer that there was no compati¬
ble degree of representation for the taxes that were levied upon the
chiefs by the Americo-Liberian government. Furthermore, certain
elements of kidnapping was prevalent in this issue as well as forced
slave labor.
The Liberian government made great promises of establishing
schools with the money collected from taxation, but this was never
a reality. There were no schools built for the natives by the
government until the early 1950’s. A poll tax of one dollar a year was levied on each male adult to be collected from their chiefs in
1864 with the understanding that the funds would be used to estab- 2 lish schools throughout the country. As a matter of fact, the
government did not concern itself with public education until the
1950’s. Gwendolyn Carter, in her African One-Party State, wrote
that:
^Reeve, op. cit., p. 124.
2 McPherson, op. cit., p. 379. 48
Until 1950, over 80 per cent of primary and secondary instruction was in the handle of Christian missions, which have received only token financial support from the government . . . The best education is still provided by these voluntary agencies. In the government schools the patronage element is highly signifi¬ cant in the appointment, promotion, and assignment of teachers, and the post of school supervisor is openly acknowledged as a convenient base for one with political ambitions. Unfortunately, even the students are exploited by the government and their teachers for many purposes unrelated to education.^
Unfortunately, there was a political approach to education as can be observed as a case in point today. As a matter of fact, with education being in the hands of Christian missions, it leaves little reason to exploit regarding their need for financial support from the government. In this same respect, it was no doubt the
Christian missionary’s movement to provide quality education which became a political issue by various government figures rather than a means of bettering the natives’ backgrounds and making productive individuals out of them.
This type of false promise to collect taxes purposely for the establishment of schools was not carried out. All over the country, the tax-payers were not provided with any benefit from the taxes they paid. Brutal treatment was always the method used for the taxation. Even today, the Liberian Frontier Force is still using force on the tribal people to collect taxes. They usually imprisoned and placed under hard labor those who did not have their tax money at the time the payments were due. In respect to the lack of educational opportunities for the aborigines, Jane J. Martin
1 Carter, op . cit., p. 379. 49 quotes President J. S. Payne when he described the Grebo War as a war against civilization and Christianity, as saying that the ability of the Grebo to face the Liberian government was increased because of the diffusion of education among them by the mission schools
Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the mission schools were sincere in their efforts to provide educational opportunities for all without respect to conditions as they existed. In addi¬ tion, one can easily see that quality education would soon become a threat to the tax system being used as more qualified and influen¬ tial members of the two tribes would result from this quality education provided by the missions.
Along with the inhumane treatment through taxation, there was another form of exploitation or domestic colonial strategy of labor force recruitment called "porter laborers." Before and after
World War II, the natives were forced to work in domestic slavery under the Americo-Liberians and on their farms for several months and years without any pay. The Liberian Frontier Force was the agent used to recruit natives from the villages to work on the 2 farms of Americo-Liberians. This information seemingly establishes a basis for a form of government known to many now as feudalism.
Under this system of government, the Americo-Liberians were able to
•kjane J. Martin, "How to Build a Nation," Liberian Studies Journal, Vol. II, No. 2 (Spring, 1969) , p. 21.
2 Liebenow, op. cit., p. 54. 50
maintain land for cheap labor. Under the circumstances, it
appears evident that various traces of the United States' govern¬
ment is present here, with the power structure centered around
capital gain on the part of the rich ruling class.
In most cases, the tribesmen felt themselves powerless.
When the Americo-Liberian district commissioners levied unautho¬
rized taxes, or the people were forced to work for little or no
pay on the farms of officials and prominent private Americo-
Liberians, the people felt themselves helpless and powerless to
complain. They were never considered the equals of the immigrants,
nor treated as brothers; instead, they were utilized as house
servants from the early days of the settlement. Their natural
products, crops, and even their persons have always been looked
upon as a field of exploitation in trading and taxation. The
Archbishop of Canterbury, in speaking about the Americo-LiberiansT
misuse of their power and their oppression of the aborigines, in
1931, wrote:
. . . Surely it is one of the most lamentable tragedies of history that those who went forth 100 years ago as the liberators of the members of their own race, bearing the motto, "Love of Liberty has brought us here," should be con¬ tinuing there in the face of the civilized world as the oppressors of these people — about 10,000 Americo-Liberians tyrannizing over 2,000,000 members of inoffensive native tribes ... We cannot rest still while this blot upon the whole of the civilized world remains, and it would be a relief if we could know that His Majesty’s Government, possibly in close cooperation with
1 Reeve, op. cit., p. 58. 51
the United States of America, will do all that is possible to terminate a state of things which has become intolerable.1
From reading the above quote, it is evident that the tragedy of man's inhumanity to his fellow man is still in existence in
Liberia. A country whose founders left American shores because they were denied every necessity of life to seek freedom and justice and to westernize the original inhabitants, carried with them the system they disliked and imposed it upon the aborigines.
Intimidation became the key word of the government’s native policy and came to embrace the indigenous people. This force developed into slavery abroad.
Slavery in Fernando Po
Liberia was accused by the League of Nations of indulging in illegal slave trade. It sounds inconceivable for a people who were once slaves themselves, and opposed to slavery; a people whose main claim for leaving America for Liberia was to escape from brutal and inhumane treatment to search for a world of freedom and liberty, would subject the natives of Liberia to slavery. In the history of
Liberia, the epoch of man's inhumanity to man, especially black over black, was seen during the period of 1923-1934-. Liebenow wrote:
What aroused the international community, however, were the midnight raids on tribal villages by Liberian soldiers seeking laborers for the cocoa and other plantations on the Spanish island of Fernando Po. What made the forcible recruitment particularly obnoxious was the active or at least tacit approval of many high Liberian officials,
^James C. Young, Liberia Rediscovered (New York: Doubleday, Doran, and Company, Inc., 1934-) , p. 115. 52
including Vice President Allen Yancy. It was even charged that President King himself was involved in the lucrative enterprise, which brought $45 a head for each of 3,000 men exported and a bonus of $5,000 for every additional group of 1,500 recruited.!
The above information attests to the fact that many of the acts of
slavery did not have their beginnings in a land where slavery was a
formidable way of life; but instead, was cultivated by those who had been enslaved themselves on a foreign shore, clinging steadfastly to
the aspects involved therewith.
Richard West, in his book, Back to Africa, provided similar
illustrations of this type of activity. He said that Liberian
officials acted as Spanish Consuls in recruiting laborers and taking
a commission for each man hired. He further states that L150 ($390) per man was fixed by the Spanish government for the Liberian legis- 2 lature in payment for recruiting men for Fernando Po.
Another account on the Fernando Po situation was presented by
Thomas J. Faulkner, the unsuccessful candidate for the presidency of
Liberia in 1927. He fled to the United States after losing the
election. While in America, he published articles in newspapers pointing out that the Liberian government officials initiated and
used forced labor amounting almost to slavery. Moreover, he related
the fact that young men were kidnapped and used as laborers in
Fernando Po, and that the government refused to investigate charges 3 of brutal treatment by government officers.
^Liebenow, ibid., pp. 67-68.
^West, ibid., p. 302.
^Dorum, ibid., p. 109. 53
The League of Nations set up a special committee to investi¬ gate the situation. After this committee visited Liberia, it provided a summary of its investigation which was published in
January, 1931. The committee’s report revealed numerous abuses, the most serious one being an organized system of forced labor in connection with the Fernando Po Cocoa plantation. Furthermore, it cited specifically how officials and relatives of President
Charles C. B. King received a fee in the amount of $45 for every person recruited, as well as citing how other Liberian officials, including Vice President Allen Yancy, ordered Liberian soldiers to apprehend any person for these purposes."*"
The League of Nations scrutinized the accusations made in the report by the special committee, which was a tripartite com¬ mission consisting of representatives from the United States, Great
Britain, and Liberia. The commission was headed by Dr. Cuthbert
Christy, a physician who had many years of experience in West
Africa. Recommendations made by the committee were as follows:
1. Abandonment of a policy of the closed door in favor of the open door toward western nations (the press, and visitation to all part of the country by foreigners).
2. Extension of education to all, irrespective of whether one is a descendant of settlers or of aborigines.
3. Radical reconstruction of native policy for humane treatment and the assurance that barriers between civilized and uncivilized Liberians would be broken down. Suppression of the aborigines should cease. Humiliation
1Ibid., pp. 109-110. 54
and degradation of chiefs should he stopped and their tribal authority reestablished.
4. Complete reorganization of the administration of the Hinterlands.
5. Pawning and domestic slavery be made illegal as a preliminary measure to total abolition.
6. The shipment of laborers abroad should cease.
7. Road programs should be curtailed for more efficient supervision.
8. The Frontier Force should be under stricter control by the officers, and their duties should be reconsidered by a repeal of the Revised Statutes, Section 1082.
9. Immigration of the best type of persons of African descent should be encouraged from the United States to open educative links with American trade affairs.
Naturally, the above recommendations were drawn up in the interest of all involved, as many of the problems that had been dominant were spelled out in significant fashion. Further, it is noted that many of these recommendations deal with a basic format
to establish law and order, placing deeper restrictions on that body responsible for aggressive acts to insure forced slave labor.
In short, these recommendations, if attended to properly, were to
draw closer lines of communication between Africa and the United
States; however, this was no guarantee that such would exist.
At this time in this history of Liberia, there was a serious need for reform, but the Americo-Liberians were not willing to make
any type of changes in the existing order. The report of the
commission was read by the United States' Secretary of State,
1Ibid., pp. 110-111. 55 notifying President Charles C. B. King that the United States was
"profoundly shocked." On several occasions, letters were sent to the government of Liberia urging them to change, but to no avail.
President King and other members of the government were bitterly opposed to reform. In fact, they would rather have resigned than change the situation. President King and Vice President Allen
Yancy did abruptly resign in December, 1930, as a result of this situation. King was then succeeded by his Secretary of State,
Edwin Barclay, as acting president.
The resignations of King and Yancy and the coming into power of Edwin Barclay did not improve the situation. The brutal treat¬ ment of the aborigines continued. Buell records that:
At the beginning of 1932, the American, British, and French governments informed the League of Nations that the Monrovia government had "massacred" hundreds of Kru people by way of reprisal for testi¬ mony before the international commission.
Another reliable source commented on the same issue. West, the author of Back to Africa, wrote:
The British case for exercising a mandate was much improved in 1932 when reports reached the outside world of a massacre of the Krus by Liberian troops . . . Sir John Simon (British Ambassador to Liberia) expressed himself satisfied that the proceedings of the Liberian Frontier Force in the Kru country were tyrannical and high handed in any inexcusable degree.^
He hinted that the killings were a reprisal against the Krus for having given evidence to the Christy commission.
^"Raymond Buell, Liberia: A Century of Survival: 1847-1947 (New York: Cornell University Press, 194-7), p. 38. 2 West, op. cit., p. 308. 56
The Liberian government had been warned by the League to put
down arms against tribal people in Liberia and reform their unfair
play. It was quite obvious that the Americo-Liberians were not
ready to live as brothers with the aborigines. Barclay, succeeding
King, was expected to provide a better relationship between these
two groups, but he was as bad a tyrant as his predecessor and his
officials. He used the Frontier Force to tyranize the people.
James Young, a writer on the subject, stated that President Barclay
proved to be the most dictatorial of all Liberian presidents. In
fact, he related that the Liberian legislature enacted a sedition
law in 1933 which would penalize persons voicing any criticism of
the president or the government's native policy. The law stipulated
that persons guilty of this offense would be imprisoned for three
to seven months, and their property would be taken from them."*"
The Kru tribe could not rise in revenge at this time because
all of their ammunition had been surrendered to the League of
Nations, who had requested that both the aborigines and the Americo-
Liberians put down their arms and live together as brothers. The
Krus, at the time, were relying upon the intervention of the League
of Nations because they had lost confidence in the Liberian govern¬
ment in providing them with protection and security. On the other
hand, the Kru chief could not revolt because he was in a dilemma.
He did not want to be arrested and treated like the other chiefs
had been treated in the war of 1915, when President Daniel E. Howard
and his Frontier Force arrested and executed 84 chiefs in the year
1 Young, op. cit., p. 105. 57
1917. So it was that for the second time, the League's attention had been focused on Liberia. This time, it involved the case of the massacre of the Kru tribe.
This second commission of the League to Liberia was headed by Brounot, the former French colonial governor. The commission was set up to investigate and report its findings and make recommenda¬ tions to the League. After careful research and scrutinizing, the
League proposed having Liberia come under European rule as a colony.2
This plan was never fully implemented because of the delay the
Liberian government imposed in an effort to prevent its direction through legal channels. Nevertheless, the Liberian government was willing to adhere to and accept the proposal of the League for
Liberia to divide the country into counties and provinces for easy administrative purposes. Buell stated that the Liberian government accepted only the League’s recommendation that provided for three provincial commissioners, three deputy commissioners, and two medi¬ cal officers, who then would be ’’appointed” by the Liberian govern¬ ment. This meant that the whole territory of Liberia would be divided into three provinces and administrated by the provincial and 3 deputy commissioners. However, this plan did not materialize fully as recommended by the League of Nations.
The Fernando Po incident clearly indicates a number of things.
First and foremost, it illustrates how former American slaves came
■^Ibid., p . 112.
^Buell, op. cit., p. 37.
^Ibid., pp. 37-38. 58 to Liberia as freed men and eventually, through their own sense of superiority over the natives, enslaved the aborigine population, subjecting them to some of the same evils they had experienced themselves. Secondly, the Fernando Po incident raised the whole question of whether it would have been more beneficial to be colonized at that time by the British as opposed to Americo-
Liberians. It was a fact that other African countries, such as
Nigeria and Ghana, who were colonized by the British, were more highly developed educationally and politically than Liberia. The proposition could be advanced that Liberia would have been much better off today had they been under British colonization instead of Americo-Liberian colonialism. Another point worth mentioning in this respect is that the newly independent African countries such as Nigeria and Ghana are now ruled by their native population, whereas native Liberians are still powerless at the feet of the
Americo-Liberians. It will be brought out in the next topic how the aborigines are denied the right to participate in the national government.
Unequal Participation in the National Government
The Liberian government operates on three levels, just as the
American government does. The power of the government is divided into three branches — Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. This
concept is more or less a theory than a fact, however. The Execu¬
tive branch, which is headed by the president, has always exerted more power than the other branches. The concern here is to see how
the structure of the Legislature is and how representations are made. 59
To begin with, the historical perspective is viewed. Before
189-7, there were no counties or provinces. The leaders, during the commonwealth period, made the decisions for the people. After
1847, the constitution made provision for the establishment of five counties. Charles H. Huberich stated in his work, The Political and Legislative History of Liberia, that:
The Constitution, Article II, Section 2, as amended in 1849, 1861, and 1927, provides:
The representatives shall be elected by and for the inhabitants of the several counties of Liberia, and shall be apportioned among the several counties of Liberia as follows : The County of Montserrado shall have five representatives; the County of Grand Bassa shall have four; the County of Sinoe shall have four; the County of Maryland shall have four; the County of Grand Cape Mount shall have four; and all counties thereafter which shall be admitted into the Republic shall have one repre¬ sentative, and for every ten thousand inhabitants, one representative shall be added.•*-
These counties were located within the coastal region which were settled by the Americo-Liberians 45 miles inward to the interior.
Representation within the five counties to the legislature composed of only the Americo-Liberian settlers. The tribal population, according to the Constitution, was denied representation. However, they allowed each tribe a representative from their delegation. The duty of the tribal observer was just as the title implies; the person was to observe. According to Huberick, the Revised Statutes state in Section 2, ,TA11 tribes complying with the provisions of law contained in Chapter VI shall be represented in the Legislature 2 by their chiefs."
•*-Huberich, op. cit., p. 1106. ^Ibid., p. 1107. 60
Despite the fact that the tribal people were to be repre¬ sented by their chiefs, the chiefs were not granted any power to exercise on behalf of the people by way of the right to vote and propose bills because they were non-members. Huberich states:
Revised Statues Section 1135. Native representa¬ tion . . . The delegates are not members of the House of Representatives. Undoubtedly each branch of the Legislature may give permission to non¬ members to address the House and participate in debates. But to grant to non-members the right ^ to vote on measures is clearly unconstitutional.
The representation within the five counties was primarily drawn from the Americo-Liberian population that settled around the coastal region. These counties comprised both indigenous and Americo-
Liberians, but no indigenous inhabitants were ever elected as representatives from these counties at that time. These representa¬ tives, drawn from Americo-Liberian groups, articulated interests, aspirations, and needs of their own kind. The Hinterland, where most of the natives lived, was essentially a region of exploitation.
As mentioned previously, the captivity of the natives by Fernando Po drew the attention of the world international body, the League of
Nations.
It was through the efforts or recommendations of the League of
Nations that the formation of the three provinces came about. The intention of the League at the time was to grant to the natives power to share or participate in the government, but unfortunately, the equal participation which was intended by the League for all
Liberian people was partially achieved. The establishment of the
^Ibid., pp. 1107-1108. 61 three provinces allowed the natives representation for the tribal groups was infinitesimal as compared to the representation of the
Amerieo-Liberian group. The total population of the five counties is comprised of both indigenous and Amerieo-Liberian groups living within the coastal region, with the Amerieo-Liberian population totaling lM-,855.-*-
There was an uneven distribution of political power in
Liberia as a continuation of Americo-Liberian oppression based on the fact that until 1964-, the aborigines were not citizens of their own land.
It has been pointed out that the president exercises more power than any person or group of people in the country. Those officers appointed by him pledge their allegiance and loyalty to the president only. Because they are not elected by the people, their first and foremost commitment is to the president. In order to win favor with the president for reappointment, they make an all-out effort to please him and support any policy he initiates.
Due to the fact that all positions other than the presidency are appointed jobs, the candidates for these positions do not fully voice the sentiment of the people or their constituents.
Another point that deserves careful consideration regarding the Liberian government is the fact that the educated natives are very seldom appointed to the legislature. The president appoints semi-literate and illiterate people to the Senate and the House of
Representatives because he can easily subjugate them, controlling
■^Clover, op . cit., p. 1. 62 their thoughts and actions. These illiterate congressmen, who are not acquainted with the written laws of the land, are not any match for the Americo-Liberian legal professionals. The president realizes that if a sufficient number of native Liberians were educated in legal matters and appointed to Congress, they would challenge the inadequacy of the system to function on national levels in the government. Because of the small representation of the aborigines in Congress in Liberia, the people’s freedom has lagged.
One of the strategies used by the Americo-Liberians in suppressing the indigenous people in Liberia was the denial of adequate educational opportunities. From the founding of the
Republic, education in the country had been overwhelmingly in the hands of foreign missionaries and expatriates. Until 1950, over
80 per cent of primary and secondary instruction was in the hands of mission schools, with only token financial support from the government. The missionaries were not permitted to go too far in the Hinterland to open up schools for the tribal people. They were conditioned by the government to remain within the coastal region 1 among the Americo-Liberian settlers and work there.
Even at this late period, education had not been fully systemized and still possessed a great deal of political overtones.
It compels one to wonder how the missionaries were able to provide
even a token education with the limited amount of financial
assistance that was available for this purpose, not to mention the
^Carter, op. cit., pp. 379-381. 63 political control the government was exercising. As it was, the
Americo-Liberians were skeptical about the ability of education to make loyal citizens of native subjects. As a result, most of the
development of the country is found along the coastal areas. It was not until the late sixties that the World Health Organization (WHO)
of the United Nations started vigorous health and educational programs among the tribal people. Although attempts had been made
to develop the Hinterland, this gesture was hindered because of a
certain awareness of the government that the natives would strive
to gain control of government functions.
There are three institutions of higher learning in Liberia.
They are Cuttington College and Divinity School; the University of
Liberia; and the Lady of Fatima Teacher Training College. Only one of these is government supported; the rest are sponsored by Chris¬
tian missions. The standard of education at the University is lowest when compared to the other two. The bulk of the students who make up the total enrollment of Cuttington and the Lady of
Fatima come primarily from indigenous backgrounds.^
This passage clearly explains that education, which is the principal tool by which human resources are improved and developed
in the progress of a nation, is denied the aborigines of Liberia;
therefore, in the areas of education, the Liberian government had never served the people. Until everyone is entitled to education
and not just those advantaged Americo-Liberians, Liberia’s
Liebenow, op. cit., pp. 101-104. 64
educational system will deteriorate over a period of years to come.
At this time, the government does not invest a reasonable portion of its gross national income to the educational sector. Most of the Liberian government’s national expenditures are given to entertainment and diplomatic functions. CHAPTER VI
STRUGGLE FOR UNIFICATION
When Tubman came to power in 19 M4, his principal concern was the introduction of two policies for reform. The policies
were the "Open Door" and "Unification" policies. The latter was designed to "bridge the gap" which separated the Americo-Liberian minority from the tribal majority. The policy was immediately inacted in the Legislature. President Tubman was very enthusiastic about this policy. He traveled around to many parts of the country holding executive councils and conferences with the tribal chiefs.
During these times, the chiefs sought the correction of wrongs and requested new programs in health and education. Due to the fact that Tubman himself was not bound by legislative restraint, he was able to offer substantial justice to the indigenous people although preceeding presidents had failed to do so.
As a result of the policy, some considerable changes have been brought about within Liberia, especially within the social
spheres. The policy had developed some level of awakening for the appreciation of indigenous values. Americo-Liberians are gradually
realizing the fact that their outlook on life is being undermined.
They are changing their names from European ones to African, and
some are attaching themselves to certain tribal groups even though
they may not be capable of communicating in these languages.
Liebenow writes :
65 66
... It has once again become respectable for someone named Caine to call himself Kandakair and a Freeman to resort to the tribal form of Fahnbulleh . . . Thus County Superintendent George F. Sherman became G. Flama Sherman upon his appointment as Ambassador to Ghana.
Tubman’s Unification Policy gained its roots from various sources. The desire for change cannot be completely attributed to
Tubman or the Americo-Liberian elite as though they were wholly and solely responsible for bringing about the idea of change without a catalyst. In the first place, the credit is due to the wave of nationalism which was undermining foreign domination and all types of colonial-imperialist exploitation in other parts of Africa. As
Liberians travel to other parts of Africa and see the vigorous action taken by other nationalist leaders, they return home to suggest change. The nationalist unrest and upheavals that were taking place after World War II elsewhere in Africa was feared in
Liberia. The Americo-Liberians felt that it would one day come to p Liberia; therefore, Tubman was willing to make some effort for change.
The change which Tubman advocated was not achieved as anticipated as the policy met several obstacles. It was not favored by all the "elites." Some of them were too proud to even accept the indigenous people as brothers. The relationship con¬ tinued to be but a tolerable one, even though there was incompati¬ bility beneath the surface. Therefore, the question became
•^Liebenow, op. cit., p. 77.
^Ibid., pp. 77-78. 67 undoubtedly apparent as to whether or not Tubman had intended to actually unify the nation since this was a nation where equal participation in the government was unheard of even after the policy went into effect. It is in this regard that Liebenow pointed out that:
Tubman’s Open-Door Policy, for example, has ingeniously expanded the financial means for continued subsidizing of the system of Americo- Liberian privilege. At the same time, the revenues from iron ore, rubber, and other resources have provided the financial and technical means for the suppression, seduction, and control of dissent on the part of the tribal majority . . . Has provided the Americo-Liberians with new and more effective techniques for the art of political survival.-*•
Another question that comes to mind is whether or not this was primarily designed to hypnotize the indigenous people and make them submit to the national government and also encourage them to pay their taxes easier. The motive behind the policy had been very ambiguous. Unification is not only changing one’s name to an
African name, nor does it imply only finding an affiliation with a tribe or tribal group. As Clower pointed out, ” . . . The truth is that the unification policy cannot work, except in reverse, until 2 tribal rights are not merely protected, but clearly respected.
Unless the Americo-Liberians assume a more positive and more genuine position and become authenic in their relationship with the tribal majority, the unification will remain a mere theory on paper.
■^Ibid. , p . 206 .
^Clower, et al., op. cit., p. 99. 68
The unification was designed to provide more strategies and tactics for dealing with the indigenous people. Liebenow writes:
"The quarter of a century during which Tubman has ruled Liberia has provided the Americo-Liberians with new and more effective techniques for the art of political survival.’*' The unification and integration concept was designed to decentralize the different tribes and disassociate them from their own culture and values.
In an effort to distract the attention of these indigenous people and their concern for African culture, certain areas of the policy were designed. By assimilating them into the Americo-Liberian system, they would forget the terrible past they and their parents had experienced under Americo-Liberian pressure. The detribaliza- tion plan was not accepted readily by the tribes. Gwendolyn Carter pointed out in her work, African One-Party State, that:
The most critical problem facing the government of Liberia is that of national unity -- the erasing of the legal, political, economic, and social barriers separating the tribal people from the descendants of the settlers. Despite the advances which have been made under Tubman’s Unification Policy, there is much evidence indicating that the experiment in cultural assimilation of the two communities is far from complete. The rank discrimination against the tribal people which was so blatant and public during the administrations of Tubman’s predecessors is now becoming increasingly rare. Covert discrimina¬ tion in government employment as well as in social relations continues, however, and the tribal people still tend to regard themselves as Bassa or Kpelle rather than as Liberians.2
■^Liebenow, op. cit., pp. 206-207.
2 Carter, op. cit., p. 380. 69
From reading this quote, the indication is clear, as it explains the aborigines’ strong unwillingness to assimilate into the
Americo-Liberians’ circle.
In 1964, President Tubman declared the three provinces as counties. The central, western, and eastern provinces were combined and divided into four new counties: Nimba, Lofa, Grand
Gedeh, and Bong Counties. This signified that there would be equal representation in Congress, and that all counties would be provided equal representation in the government. Unfortunately, conditions remained the same. Despite the fact that some indig- enouse people were appointed as senators and representatives, they were mere tokens. Either uneducated people were appointed, or the educated which were appointed were supporters of the establishment and thereby easily influenced.
The declaration of this unification was made in 1944, but the actual implementation came into effect 20 years later. The coun¬ try’s social standing is by no means in any better condition now than it was before the launching of the Unification Policy. The policy was designed to perpetuate the old order so that regardless of one’s qualifications, Tubman would take it upon himself to
appoint those he favored into offices. The people, by no means, were at liberty to go contrary to the choice of the Chief of State who is the supreme authority in the land. In this connection,
Mrs. E. Sirleaf, in her commencement address at the College of
West Africa (high school) in Monrovia on December 21, 1972, stated
that, "... Of what use are election campaigns if there is only 70
one candidate . . . . By virtue of the decree published in 1933
by President Barclay, Tubman’s choice will stand unopposed. The
contrary will be regarded as sedition and an abortive attempt to
overthrow the established and constituted government of the
Republic. Buell pointed out that:
At Barclay’s request, the Liberian legislature enacted a sedition law of 1933 (still on the statue books) which penalizes any criticism of the president or the government’s native policy with imprisonment of from three to seven months and confiscation of property. The same penalty is imposed upon anyone providing information to a 2 foreign government on affairs of domestic concern.
With the backing of this act, the president appointed unquali¬
fied persons and placed them in office with no opposition from the people. These are those semi-literate and illiterate people who
can easily be subjugated and their thoughts and actions controlled.
They are the ones who are not any match for the Americo-Liberian
legal professionalists. The qualified citizens aspiring for the
positions are not selected for fear that they may be a threat to the
Americo-Liberian system.
As previously stated, the few educated indigenous people who
have acquired positions in the government are those who become so
obligated and duty-bound to the Americo-Liberian way of life that
they are willing, at all costs, to succumb to the Americo-Liberian
dictatorship. In fact, some of the educated and assimilated
1Ellen J. Sirleaf, ’’The Constraint of an Involved Society,” The Liberian Age, Vol. 26, No. 100 (December 22, 1972), p. 6. 2 Buell, op. cit., p. 9. 71 tribesmen have become the vanguards of Americo-Liberian exploita¬ tion. ^ Not all educated indigenous citizens are willing to accept
Americo-Liberialism. The present generation of indigenous people are becoming impatient and disgusted with the system as it stands.
Today, Cuttington College students are a living monument to developing a new level of consciousness in the indigenous people.
This is basically due to the fact that the majority of the students of Cuttington come from tribal origin. Cuttington is located in the Hinterland among the native tribesmen and has exerted much influence and appeal to the people as a center of education.
The desire for change is mounting and emerging simultaneously with the desire for power within the tribal community. On the other hand, the feeling of a nationalist spirit is playing its part among the political activists which includes students and revolu¬ tionaries all over the country and abroad.
Students are writing derogatory statements and placing placards on public toilet doors and bathrooms. Some of them read thus: "Down with Tubman and his Americo-Liberian elite. We will kill them before the end of this decade"; "Kill Richard Henry,
Tolbert, and all Americo-Liberian exploiters"; "We want Fahnbullah we want Native regime." Liebenow in his book commented:
Arnold Zeitlin, an AP writer, reported in April, 1968, that a rash of graffiti was appearing on walls in Sinkhor, the fashionable suburb of MonroviaTs elite. "Shameless Dog" and other signs project the difference in living standards of the two classes. One sign that read, "Death to all Congo Bitches" illustrates the curious way in which all descendants of settlers are designated by the lowest class of that group, just as "Honky" has become the black-militant term for all whites in America in 1968.
^Ibid., p. 217. 72
This new awareness and new level of consciousness is activating some citizens to express openly in their speeches the weakness of the nation. Mrs. Ellen J. Sirleaf in the same commencement address on
December 21, 1972, at the College of West Africa said that Liberian students should help "remove the curtain of deceit and fear in discussing our national plight." She further pointed out certain ills of the Liberian social, political, and economic spheres. She said that a "privileged few" have commended the wealth of the nation for their own gains. She further added that:
We must internalize our commitment to removing the troublesome and consistent prejudice of class differentiation. For you there is an identity crisis in which you are consumed with the question of what it means to be an African, and more impor¬ tantly, you are confused with what it means to be a Liberian.l
The emerging of the freedom of expression in the Liberian society became crystal clear immediately after the death of President
Tubman when William R. Tolbert came into office in 1971. At this time, he openly informed the public that his regime accepts and will encourage freedom of expression and the press. He told the nation that the only way a leader could know the likes and dislikes of his people is through the press and advised that nobody should fear any- 2 thing but wrongdoing.
This declaration of freedom of expression in press and public places was welcomed by the general public. Several provocative and
^Sirleaf, ibid., p. 6.
2The Liberian Age, Vol. 26, No. 101 (January 28, 1972), p. 10. 73 and stimulating articles had been seen flashing here and there.
Commencement addresses had begun to reflect the long-suppressed feeling of the students and other political advocates. Unfor¬ tunately, the president wasted no time in bringing back the old suppression and intervention in the news media. Restrictions were made and the openness for self-expression was limited. Many of the problems still remain as some of the semi-educated are ambitious and seeking power. The freedom of expression is merely a state¬ ment which cannot always be exercised by the people.
In view of all this, many indigenous scholars are not only attacking the system from within and from without, but are demand¬ ing constitutional change and change in all inscriptions which refer only to the Americo-Liberians. For example, they are saying, "We want to change the Motto of the Country from TThe Love of Liberty
Brought Us HereT to a more inclusive statement in which both indigenous people and the Americo-Liberians will feel part of, instead of the present outmoded ones that spell disunity, such as
TThe Love of Liberty Unites Us Here.T"^ The motto of the land was written by the Americo-Liberians who refused to accept the aborigines as brothers. Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe pointed out the same problem that said the love of liberty did not bring everybody to Liberia, for other people were on the land before the American-freed slaves 2 landed there.
■^Dorum, op. cit., p. 113.
2 Ibid., p. 17. 74
When Tolbert took office in 1971, he launched a policy he called, "Total Involvement for Higher Heights." The aim of this policy was to improve conditions of the people through hard work and cooperation with the government.^ The people are not yet totally involved in the government with full participation for a higher level of development.
It can be inferred at this time that Tolbert's efforts are comparable to Tubman's own strategies embodied in his unification concept. The Unification Policy was not affected or implemented until 20 years after its conception; therefore, the actual implemen¬ tation of the "Higher Heights Policy" will take some time. Changes, however, are inevitably occurring within activities of the Liberian people that would suggest that they cannot wait any longer for the perfect implementation of this policy. If the Americo-Liberians do not submit to change as commanded by the masses, the natives will undoubtedly press harder than ever before to bring about the changes desired.
Stanton Peabody, "The Policy of Higher Heights," The Liberian (July 10, 1971) , pp. 1-4. CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSION
The writer has had the chance to talk to many educated aborigines who embrace the same ideas. They all agree that the only solution to the Liberian problem is a massive revolution.
History has taught us that anyone who through unjust discrimination or even cruelty, keeps another in an inferior position, occupies that position himself. As a matter of fact, this theory is further supported by the fact that if given a chance, the underprivileged could make the necessary adjustments to better themselves. This had been the attitude of the Americo-Liberians, as they had been afraid that the indigenous people would surpass them if they were given the opportunity through education and political rights.
The indigenous people cannot be held in bondage much longer.
The pressure from the Liberian experience is making a revolution inevitable. The indigenous people are rising up to acquire a new level of consciousness and the spirit of nationalism awakens them from the long nightmare of Americo-Liberian domination. The situa¬ tion will invariably tend to destroy the cracking, crumbling, absolute Americo-Liberian political structure.
The future of Liberia, as the writer sees it, is almost on the verge of transformation and reformation to produce one of the most bloodly civil wars Afric has ever experienced.
An analogy to point out the moribund state in which the
Americo-Liberians are in today can be their resemblance to the
75 76
to the dinosaur. Every Americo-Liberian of the 20th century has
some dinosaur bones in his body. They are the last generation that will ever live with their ideologies. They have enjoyed being
dinosaurs — those giant, marvelous beasts -- running Liberia.
However, some new, lesser, punier, but craftier species of
indigenous people are emerging, biting at their vulnerabilities and
attacking them in all professions and fields of endeavor, but the
ones in power are not taking heed.
The future of Liberia rests in the hands of the aborigine
people. It is just a matter of time until the inevitable course of history will take on a new look. As far as the writer is concerned,
evolution and assimilation have proven to be of no use, and these
avenues have not proven to be a solution to the problem.
An attempt has been made in this paper to show the reasons why
the writer regards Liberia as a nation of two worlds. It was begun
by presenting the historical facets that undergird the separation of
the people. The aborigines historically have lived in a communal
system unbroken by tradition and custom. The system imbedded in
them a very deep sense of human relations and love for people. This
system of life included marriage through an extended family system;
a centralized and decentralized form of government, religion, and so
forth. The land upon which they lived — then the so-called "Grain
Coast" -- was later to be infiltrated by foreign immigrants from the
New World.
The American-freed slaves were sent to the Grain Coast as a
place of refuge from the suppression they had experienced in Ameri¬
ca. With the fear that the black population in America would 77
eventually increase to a point that they could become a threat to
the white community, they were being disposed of in this manner.
Upon their arrival to the Coast, these people were engaged
in constant struggles and war with the indigenous people in an
effort to take their land. With the help of the American govern¬
ment and the American supply of arms to the colonists, they were
able to acquire the land from the natives by signing a partial
condition of purchase which, of course, was not done by unanimous
support of the people. The agreement stipulated that there would
be a peaceful coexistence between these people, and that both
groups would participate in the running of the country.
Unfortunately, the incoming colonists — the so-called
Americo-Liberians — have controlled the life and destiny of the
total population of the country. The Americo-Liberians have not
been willing to share power and develop the lot of the people.
President after president has used dirty political tactics to ex¬
ploit the people by making them pay taxes in support of the govern¬
ment.
Several of the tribal groups have risen in opposition against
the Americo-Liberian tyranny, but to no avail because the American
government continues to perpetuate and nourish such despotic regimes
by arming them against the tribal majority.
The Americo-Liberians have even engaged in slave trade, sell¬
ing the aborigines into Fernando Po for hard labor, and also
practicing a force labor system in which the Frontier Force was
used to recruit the indigenous people to work on the farms of the
Americo-Liberians for no pay. 78
Had Liberia been subjected to British colonialism as opposed to Americo-Liberian colonialism, the writer speculates that the inhabitants would have been better off relative to their present conditions. This speculation is based on the affirmation example of Ghana and Nigeria, given earlier in the paper, as having been ruled by native populations. Furthermore, the writer of this paper also speculates that if Liberia was currently under British
rule and receiving the same treatment as they are receiving now under the Americo-Liberian, worldly attention would be directed
against the Europeans such as in Angola, Mozambique, and South
Africa. Additionally, if this were the case, more support would be
given the inhabitants by virtue of the white rule. As it stands how, no attention is given to the struggle being waged in Liberia
because it is a struggle between people of the same color.
The Americo-Liberian has failed to provide the indigenous
people with quality education, to develop roads, transportation,
housing, medical facilities, and communication facilities . Trade
and commerce has also been denied the people; yet, they are expected
to pay taxes and support the government. A very recent newspaper,
The Liberian Age, dated Tuesday, August 21, 1971, indicated
Superintendent Felix 0. Lawrence’s warning to the chiefs that:
"Tribal chiefs and other officials responsible for the collection of
Government taxes within the territory of Marshall will be arrested
and dismissed if they fail to collect the 1971-1972 taxes within two
months."
The Liberian government had long provided a policy which was
intended to integrate the people, but the Americo-Liberians had not 79 been willing to live with the indigenous people as brothers.
Presently, with the liberal approach taken by the new regime, it seems that the indigenous people will soon change these conditions and will gain power. The writer is making such assertions because of the fact that all over the country, the people are developing a deep sense of national spirit among themselves. They are striving to change certain old established customs and laws such as the
Constitution, Seal, Motto, Flag, and so on. These emerging ideas are in the making. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Bohanna, Paul. Africa and Africans. New York: The Natural History Press, 1964.
Buell, Raymond L. Liberia: A Century of Survival: 1847-1947. New York: Cornell University Press, 1947.
Carter, Gwendolyn. African One Party State. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1966.
Clower, Robert W., et al. Growth Without Development. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1966.
Dorum, Alfonso K. The Constitution of the Republic of Liberia and the Declaration of Independence. New York: Exposition Press, 1970.
Forde, Daryl. African Worlds. London: Oxford University Press, 1968.
Fyfe, Christopher. Africa and the Africans. London: Oxford University Press, 1963.
Gibbs, J. L. People of Africa. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1965.
Harley, Winifred J. Third Year With George W. Harley in Liberia. Depute: University of Delaware Press, 1971.
Huberick, Charles H. The Political and Legislative History of Liberia. New York: Central Book Company, Inc., 1947.
Liebenow, J. Gus. Liberia: The Evolution of Privilege. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969.
Little, Kenneth. West African Urbanization. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1965.
McColley, Robert. Slavery and Jeffersonian Virginia. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964.
McPherson, John J. T. History of Liberia. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1891.
Mbiti, John S. African Religion and Philosophy. London: Herneman Publishers, Inc., 1967.
80 81
Mason, Alpheus T. and Beanney, William M. American Constitutional Law. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1968.
Marinelli, Lawrence A. The New Liberia. New York: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 1964.
Middleton, John. Black Africa: Its Peoples and Their Cultural Today. London: The MacMillan Company, 1970.
Reeve, Henry F. The Black Republic. New York: Negro University Press, 1964.
Roberts, Thomas D. Area Handbook for Liberia. Washington, D. C.: The American University Press, 1972.
Staudenraus, P. J. The African Colonization Movement: 1816-1865. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961.
Smith, Edwin W. Knowing the African. London: Lutter Worth Press, 1946.
Weinstein, Allen, and Gatell, Frank 0. American Negro Slavery. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.
Wilson, Charles Morrow. Liberia. New York: William Sloane Associates, Inc., 1947.
Wilson, Charles Morrow. Liberia: Black Africa in Microcosm. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1971.
West Richard. Back to Africa: A History of Sierra Leone and Liberia. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1971.
Yancy, Ernest J. The Republic of Liberia. Tel-Aviv: Japheth Printing Press, 1967.
Journals
Haliburton, G. M., "The Prophet Harris and the Grebo Rising of 1910." Liberian Studies Journal, Vol. Ill, No. 3 (Fall 197 0): 33.
Holsoe, Sevend E., "A Nation-Building in Liberia." Liberian Studies Journal 3 vols. (1968): 21.
Martin, James J., "How to Build a Nation." Liberian Studies Journal Vol. II, No. 2 (Spring 1969): 19. 82
Magazines
Peabody, Stanton, "The Policy of Higher Heights," The Liberian Age, July 10, 1971, pp. 1-H.
Sirleaf, Ellen J., "The Constraint of an Involved Society," The Liberian Age, December 22, 1972, p. 6.