Both colonization and repatriation movements shared the premise of permanent racial difference

Evidence

As much as power was cemented racially in state formations within a global ordering, resistance to any part of the racial ordering of states, affairs, and people ultimately has had to assume proportionate global reach. Not only was the abolitionist movement transnational in organization, so too the debate in America concerning postslavery prospects for freed slaves conjured global movements. Thus the American Colonization Society, founded in 1817 by the likes of Jefferson, insisted on African repatriation (as did Lincoln famously later) because the racial differences between whites and blacks were deemed so naturalistically deep as to prevent “the races” living peaceably together. The Society was infamously instrumental in founding and funding the free state of Liberia. On the other side of the divide, the African Civilization Society, led by the likes of early “black nationalists” Alexander Crummell and later Edward Blyden, likewise looked to Africa as postabolition salvation for freed slaves. Crummell in particular argued that emigrating American blacks had the resposibility to “civilize” Africa into the virtues of Christianity and commerce (Crummell, 1996; Blyden, 1996). — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1746

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the broader theme of race as a naturalized, permanent division and to the paradox that pro- and anti-slavery sides converged on repatriation — echoes the ‘Separation’ logic in racial formation theory. — connects to: Expellees and repatriates occupy a distinct liminal category between internal and international migration — Manuel Borutta and Jan C. Jansen, Vertriebene and Pieds-Noirs in Postwar…, 57
• SEED: Possible essay angle: the shared naturalist presumption behind American Colonization Society and early black nationalism, and how ‘civilizing’ missions inverted victim and agent.