Christian Community and the Development of an Americo-Liberian Identity, 1824-1878 Andrew N
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2010 Christian community and the development of an Americo-Liberian identity, 1824-1878 Andrew N. Wegmann Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Wegmann, Andrew N., "Christian community and the development of an Americo-Liberian identity, 1824-1878" (2010). LSU Master's Theses. 525. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/525 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AMERICO- LIBERIAN IDENTITY, 1824-1878 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of History by Andrew N. Wegmann B.A., Spring Hill College, 2008 August 2010 To Dennis Alexander, for planting the seed. ii Acknowledgements To say the least, this project has taken some time. Though many people have helped me along the way, I have but little room to list those who helped me the most. Firstly, I must thank my parents, Julie-Ann and Richard Wegmann. From the very beginning of my life they have cared for both my physical and intellectual growth. They sent me to fine schools, and never told me that history, my favorite subject since fourth grade, was a useless field of study. They are, without a doubt, the most supportive, loving individuals I have ever known. In a similar vein, I thank my brother, Matt Wegmann, who, over the past half-decade or so, has become one of my closest companions, and one of my favorite conversationalists. Though in youth we fought incessantly, we now support each other in every effort, however hopeless or true. Of course, there are also my colleagues in the Louisiana State University History Department. Geoff Cunningham and Terry Wagner, my two closest friends, have, over many beers and late nights, played perhaps as large a role in the creation of this thesis as I have. I thank them from the bottom of my heart. Also, Spencer McBride also deserves note for sharing his advisor with me, and letting me know that I wasn’t alone throughout this process. Of course, I must not forget my advisor, Andrew Burstein, who, for nearly a full year, helped me create a reading list, provided support for my research, and read at least two full drafts of this thesis. He never gave up on me. He made me a better scholar, thinker, and person. He taught me how write history, and, in his own bizarre way, gave me the support I needed to realize my own potential, and the value of my skills. He is a good man, a good friend, and a remarkable mentor. I must also thank David Lindenfeld and Gibril Cole, the other two members of my thesis committee for reading full drafts of this paper, and offering kind and valuable criticism and support along the way. Prof. Cole, though on leave with a grant for the past year, so kindly iii broke into his own work to help me with mine. In similar fashion, Prof. Lindenfeld actively engaged my topic, and read two full drafts of this thesis in spite of his many more warranted obligations. Though not a historian, I have had some of the most intense historical discussions of my life with Malcolm Bromham over the past near decade. Although our escapades into the nightlife of New Orleans made me question my ability to finish this thesis on time, he kept me sane, and having fun. For that I am forever grateful. I am more so obliged to Melissa Garland, my partner and love. For the past four and a half years, she has provided me with a brilliant mind, beautiful face, and sharp wit. She tested my arguments, prose, and scholarship, as if my work was as important to her as it was to me. She made me think, and smile. She made me angry, and happy. She made it all worth it, somehow. I envy her abilities, her intellect, and her kindness. And I thank her for putting up with my hectic schedule, and long days of silent writing. Finally, though, I must mention a man who quite literally made this thesis a possibility almost 15 years ago. If not for Dennis Alexander I would never have realized the value of historical knowledge. He taught me, as early as sixth grade, that this subject – that which many people pass over for more lucrative fields – holds an innate value and force in human society. He showed me that history could be fulfilling, stimulating, and fun. He allowed me to understand the value of my work, the meaning behind my seemingly useless knowledge. Most importantly, he gave me the chance to shine at the one subject I ever loved, and offered me the support, so long ago, that eventually led me to graduate school. He taught me that history could be a profession, a life dream, and purposeful interest. He allowed me to think, and fail, and iv succeed. I’ve always wanted to be a man like him, and now, I can say that I am as close as I will ever come. Thank you, sir. This thesis is yours, a long time coming. v TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………..….ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………..…iii ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………….vii INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………......1 CHAPTER I: “A Debt of Patriotism and Humanity”………………………………………………......16 CHAPTER II: “Upon This Rock We Shall Build Our Hopes”……………………………………….....43 CHAPTER III: “He be God Who Make All Dis Man, Dem Bush, Dem Tree, Dem Riber”…………….78 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………...112 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………….…………………………..122 VITA……………………………………………………………………………………128 vi Abstract By the mid-nineteenth century, two separate visions of civilization and Christianity existed in Liberia. On the one hand, the settlers – the emigrants sent from the United States to Liberia by the American Colonization Society starting in 1822 – worshiped the external appearance of a Christian mind and “civilized” western body. They revered those citizens who spoke the best American English, lived in the grandest wood-framed houses, and wore the best American clothes. They required total indoctrination of natives into the “religion of the tall hat and frock coat” to maintain a stable, “civilized” American society. On the other hand, the black- led missionaries – the black Americans and frustrated settlers who broke off from the white-led missionary enterprise in the 1840s and 1850s – promoted the idea of a “civilized,” Christian mind. To them, the “religion of the top hat and frock coat” developed an exaggerated sense of “civility” both in Americo-Liberian society and the few native societies it touched. Accordingly, they worked to inject the native population with an understanding of a single benevolent God, solemn prayer, and spiritual immortality through translated scripture, and pidgin sermons. This split in cultural and religious practice gave rise to a new national and racial identity in the Liberian hinterland based on the pan-Negro principles of Edward Blyden, Alexander Crummell, and John Seys, among others. Led by the black missionaries, a new group of pan-Negro preachers rejected the “total indoctrination” practices of the Americo-Liberians, promoting a sense of racial unity and equality lost in Liberian settler society. They transplanted American- based Jacksonian individualism into the African context, allowing natives to experiment with, and learn the teachings of Christianity on their own. At the same time, however, the Americo- Liberian society, which existed strictly in the urban centers of Monrovia, and coastal settler towns, remained steadfastly American. Americo-Liberian leaders placed innate value on skin vii color, ancestry, and outward appearance, creating a racialistic meritocracy that banned dark- skinned blacks, and native Africans from the highest echelons of settler society. Both societies were Americo-Liberian by nature, separated by the fundamental difference between rhetoric and reality. viii Introduction On December 28, 1816, a group of American philanthropists, slaveholders, ministers, and politicians, both northern and southern, gathered in the chambers of the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., to form a society “for the colonization of the people of color of the United States.” Their mission was in part benevolent, religious, economic, and political. It touched each member of the group in a different way. To some, like Speaker of the House Henry Clay of Kentucky, a slaveholder who presided over the meeting, it represented a chance to bring equality and racial hegemony to the United States by granting the black population freedom elsewhere, while maintaining the hegemony of white racial power in America. “What is the true nature of the evil of the existence of a portion of the African race in our population?” he asked the gathered assembly. “It is not that there are some, but that there are so many among us of a different caste, of a different physical, if not moral constitution, who never could amalgamate with the great body of our population.”1 To others, such as John Randolph of Roanoke, a Virginia representative and slaveholder, the new society offered an organized way to thwart the social advances of the “promoters of mischief” who threatened peace within slave society by enlarging the threat of slave revolt and extending laziness among field hands.2 To others, the colonization of free blacks meant the salvation of a “debased” American population.