that illustrates the paternalistic attitude of white reformers of the time. For example, the committee believed neither African colonization nor resettlement in Haiti had any chance of succeeding on the grounds that African Americans were unprepared for self-rule. Of course, James Forten and Prince Saunders must have balked at such conclusions, even if they were well intended. What made the committee’s recommendations particularly irksome to free black leaders were the specific comments that sounded nearly identical to the types of racialist comments made by members of the American Colonization Society. For example, William Rawle, the president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and a member of the American Convention, opposed colonization yet agreed with one of the main colonizationist tenets: White racial hostility and African American poverty were major obstacles for assimilating blacks within northern cities.42 Even so, Rawle was well aware of free blacks’ animosity toward colonization, and for this reason he supported the idea of settling free blacks in the West. Fearful perhaps that Rawle’s comments sounded too much like those of colonizationists, other members reminded him that the Convention’s constitution forbade supporting such a plan, and this may have halted further efforts that year to promote the creation of an African American settlement in the West.
However, this did not end the debate over colonization.43 When the American Convention met for its next annual meeting in 1819, some members arrived still determined to discuss colonization further. In fact, some of them had heard of blacks who were indeed considering colonization to West Africa, and this contingent called on their peers to reopen debates about colonization and the ACS. These members pointed to a report from the Kentucky Abolition Society affirming that a group of blacks in Kentucky had written to both the American Colonization Society and its Kentucky state auxiliary to request passage to Africa. Thus, they called on their American Convention colleagues to take a closer look at colonization and not dismiss it outright without a more thorough examination of its potential benefits. But as historian Beverly Tomek has shown, in the end the majority of American Convention members held firm in their rejection of colonization as a waste of resources that could better be used for other humanitarian purposes.44
While the Convention had moved on, Prince Saunders toured northern cities in the late 1810s, promoting Haitian emigration and struggling against such skepticism. He hoped his close ties with British abolitionists would help persuade people that his Haitian emigration plan had merit. As he had done in the preface to his Haytian Papers, Saunders frequently reminded white audiences that he was “personally acquainted” with Wilberforce and Clarkson, and that he had their unwavering support for “any object, which might serve to advance the great cause of African improvement and happiness.”45 Such references to distinguished English abolitionists, esteemed in the minds of American Convention members, suggest that Saunders understood emigration to Haiti as part of a larger human rights struggle transcending national borders and ethnic particularities. Rather than present emigration as an isolated phenomenon, Saunders connected Haitian emigration with the global movement against slavery, the slave trade, and African oppression. Like Olaudah Equiano, Paul Cuffe, and Prince Hall, Prince Saunders understood that his fight for African American self-determination and improvement had a transnational context.46
Saunders returned to Haiti in August 1820, but violence erupted shortly after he arrived there. Before long, King Christophe died and Saunders fleed the country aboard a ship bound for Philadelphia. His troubles were far from over: before his ship left the port it was hijacked, and the robbers who boarded the vessel took Saunders’s clothes and other possessions, leaving him at the mercy of Christophe’s successor, President Jean-Pierre Boyer. Upon meeting Boyer, Saunders faced the task of convincing him to embrace the American emigration plan, arguing that a unified Haiti under Boyer would inspire African Americans seeking refuge from racial oppression in the northern United States. For this reason, he explained to President Boyer, thousands of African Americans would immigrate to Haiti if Boyer were to bestow his blessings on the project and back up such support with the financial means necessary to make it happen. Boyer, however, seemed indifferent, and Saunders left the island for Philadelphia believing that Boyer was “possessed of very little ability to govern” and that he was “prejudiced against blacks.”47
Despite what Saunders thought about him, Boyer actually did acknowledge the benefits to Haiti of black American immigration.48 Because Boyer sought the United States’ recognition, he thought that an African American presence in his country would boost its appeal in the eyes of American statesmen. He also recognized that Haiti would benefit from skilled African American artisans and agricultural laborers.49 As for those emigrants recently manumitted in the United States, Boyer hoped to entice them with an offer of free land in Haiti, and soon enough this became a major feature of Boyer’s recruitment efforts. Boyer also sought to undermine the American Colonization Society’s African colonization plan by demonstrating Haiti’s advantages over those of West Africa.50
Even though Saunders was frustrated with Boyer’s lack of cooperation, other black leaders continued to advocate Haitian emigration during the mid-1820s. Thomas Paul returned to his role as chief advocate of Haitian emigration just as Saunders faded from the picture.51 Paul frequently reminded audiences that “having been a resident for some months in the Island of Hayti, I am fully persuaded that it is the best and most suitable place of residence which Providence has hitherto offered to emancipated people of colour, for the enjoyment of Liberty and equality with their attendant blessings.” Furthermore, he claimed that “a country possessing an enterprising population of several hundred thousand of active and brave men, who are determined to live free, or die gloriously in the defence of freedom, must possess advantages highly inviting to men who are sighing for the enjoyment of the common rights and liberties of mankind.”52
Blacks in Philadelphia shared Paul’s interest in Haitian emigration, and in July 1824, some of them met to consider President Jean-Pierre Boyer’s invitation to resettle in the nascent black republic. To clarify their position on colonization, they began the meeting by denouncing “any measures which may be taken to transport them to the coast of Africa.” According to one account, “The free blacks of Philadelphia have unanimously protested against the execution of the plan to colonize them in Africa; and have expressed their determination to discountenance it. Their attention, it appears, is turned to Hayti.” The meeting continued with discussion about the “favorable climate, a fruitful soil and a free government [where] they may acquire all the privileges which the most favored Whites of the most favored country can enjoy. . . . blacks and mulattoes are continually leaving this country and taking advantage of the invitation of the Haytians.”53
Philadelphia blacks were not alone in their interest in the Haitian emigration plan. In fact, free blacks in Maryland came under the influence of Haitian emigration when an elected agent, George McGill, returned from Haiti excited about President Boyer’s support for African American immigration. McGill shared with the audience his opinions about Haiti as a location for resettlement, reading a letter he had from Secretary General Inginac. In this letter, Inginac explained that “His excellency has been charmed to hear that the decendants [sic] of the African, form the project of coming here and carrying their industry into a free country, which guarantees to them an honorable existence under the protection of a constitution.” This sense of shared racial identity between African Americans and Haitians reinforces the notion that a sense of African diasporic unity underpinned the Haitian emigration movement. Secretary General Inginac proclaimed, specifically, that Haitians were “interested more than any other in the fate of the descendants of the Africans, whose blood runs in their veins,” and hoped to provide blacks in America with an opportunity to help “the Haytiens form at this time a society whose end is to favour the emigration of our American brethren into the Republic.”54
Individual accounts of life in Haiti also encouraged black Americans to seek Haiti as a refuge from the American racial caste system. According to one newspaper account, John Lewis, “a respectable man of colour,” spent several years in Haiti and then returned from the nascent republic “perfectly satisfied with the stability of the government there established.” Upon returning
