November 25, 2024

America Has Done Mass Deportation Before

From the Indian Removal Act of 1830 to the deportation of Mexican-Americans during the Great Depression, Trump can easily find precedents for his policy. None of them ended well.

Eric Foner
Black and white photo of people waving to a train.
Relatives and friends wave goodbye to a train carrying 1,500 undocumented Mexicans being expelled from Los Angeles back to Mexico.(NY Daily News Archive via Getty Images)

Among Donald Trump’s numerous promises during the presidential campaign, none generated more enthusiasm from his supporters—or denunciation from opponents—than his plan to deport the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Such a massive uprooting of population would shock the rest of the world, not to mention throwing the labor market in many states into chaos. Yet the idea of ridding a society of persons deemed undesirable is not without precedent.

Large groups have been forcibly removed from their homelands in modern times, including Spanish Jews in 1492 and Acadians—French settlers expelled by the British from Nova Scotia during the Seven Years War. In the United States, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 led to the expulsion to present-day Oklahoma of virtually the entire Native American population east of the Mississippi River, a forced march that came to be known as the Trail of Tears. During the Great Depression, state and national authorities transported thousands of persons of Mexican ancestry out of the United States.

The plan for ridding the country of an unwanted population that gained the widest support from political leaders was spearheaded by the American Colonization Society, founded in 1816. Seeking to end slavery without creating a large new population of free African Americans, the society proposed the gradual liberation of enslaved men, women, and children (who numbered 4 million when the Civil War broke out) and their transportation, along with the half million Black persons already free, out of the United States.

“Almost every respectable man,” Frederick Douglass observed, belonged to the society, including John Marshall, James Madison, Daniel Webster, Roger B. Taney, and even Harriet Beecher Stowe, (whose abolitionist novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin ends with the hero, George Harris, affirming his “African nationality” and emigrating from the United States). Colonization was a uniquely American idea. As Harper’s Weekly pointed out, many societies in the Western Hemisphere harbored slavery, but nowhere else was it proposed “to extirpate the slaves after emancipation.” The idea of colonization enabled its advocates to imagine a society freed from both slavery and an unwanted African American presence.

Like the idea of expelling undocumented immigrants today, colonization formed part of a long debate about who can claim to be “real” Americans and whether the nation should be welcoming or exclusionary. Supporters of colonization believed the United States was intended to be a white republic. Trump’s deportation plan should be viewed in the context of other efforts to curate the population, including Indian removal, Chinese exclusion, and the 1924 law that severely reduced immigration from southern and eastern Europe. In 1862, in the midst of the Civil War, the House Committee on Emancipation and Colonization called for the removal of Black persons so that “the whole country” could be occupied by whites. We hear echoes of this outlook today from adherents of “replacement theory,” for whom deportation is a way of reversing what they claim is a conspiracy to substitute non-white newcomers for white Americans.

Perhaps colonization’s most prominent advocate was Thomas Jefferson, whose infamous discussion of Black people’s physical and intellectual capacities in “Notes on the State of Virginia” was accompanied by an elaborate plan for gradual emancipation and deportation. Children born to slaves would be educated at public expense and when they reached adulthood freed and transported to Africa. Simultaneously, ships would be dispatched to other parts of the world to bring to the United States an “equal number of white inhabitants.” Jefferson acknowledged that it seemed pointless to go to all this trouble to “replace one group of laborers with another.” But, he warned, without colonization the end of slavery would be succeeded by racial warfare or what he coyly called racial “mixture” (something Jefferson himself practiced but, when it came to the broader population, abhorred).

Shortly before his death in 1824, Jefferson proposed that the federal government deport “the increase of each year” (that is, recently born children). He anticipated that, like family separation during Trump’s first term, the removal of “infants from their mothers” would arouse objections on humanitarian grounds. But such complaints struck him as “straining at a gnat.” Trump’s outright falsehoods about undocumented immigrants echo the words of Henry Clay, the Kentucky politician who served as the colonization society’s president. Clay denounced the Black population for being innately prone to criminality. This, he declared, was why the mass removal of liberated slaves was “absolutely indispensable.”

Even the Great Emancipator for years advocated the government-sponsored settlement of black Americans in Africa, the Caribbean, or Central America. Before the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln served on the Board of Managers of the Illinois Colonization Society. During the first two years of his presidency, he promoted colonization and urged lawmakers to appropriate funds to implement it. In his annual message to Congress in December 1862, Lincoln stated bluntly, “I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization.”

Jefferson and Clay were the statesmen Lincoln most admired. Unlike their’s, however, Lincoln’s plan coupled emancipation with voluntary, not mandatory. colonization, which is why it got nowhere. Slave owners did not wish to give up their human property, even when offered monetary compensation, and nearly all Black leaders insisted that their people should be recognized as “colored citizens” of the United States. Lincoln was not obsessed with the specter of racial “mixture” and did not stigmatize Black people as a danger to the safety of white Americans. He told a group of Black Americans who met with him in the White House that he supported colonization because racism was so deeply embedded in American society that former slaves could never enjoy equality in this country.

At the end of 1862, on the day before he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln signed a contract with a shady entrepreneur for the transportation to an island off the coast of Haiti of hundreds of slaves who had found refuge with the Union army during the Civil War. But with the proclamation came a dramatic change in his outlook. The document contained no reference to colonization but instead envisioned emancipated slaves taking their places as productive members of American society. It urged them to “labor faithfully for reasonable wages”—in the United States. And for the first time, Lincoln opened the armed forces to enlistment by Black men, a key step toward recognizing them as American citizens.

Confronted by radically changing circumstances and widespread opposition, Lincoln abandoned his earlier plan. Dropping colonization from his approach to slavery enabled him to begin imagining the United States as a biracial society of equals. It is doubtful that we can hope for the same evolution from Donald Trump.

Independent journalism relies on your support


With a hostile incoming administration, a massive infrastructure of courts and judges waiting to turn “freedom of speech” into a nostalgic memory, and legacy newsrooms rapidly abandoning their responsibility to produce accurate, fact-based reporting, independent media has its work cut out for itself.

At The Nation, we’re steeling ourselves for an uphill battle as we fight to uphold truth, transparency, and intellectual freedom—and we can’t do it alone. 

This month, every gift The Nation receives through December 31 will be doubled, up to $75,000. If we hit the full match, we start 2025 with $150,000 in the bank to fund political commentary and analysis, deep-diving reporting, incisive media criticism, and the team that makes it all possible. 

As other news organizations muffle their dissent or soften their approach, The Nation remains dedicated to speaking truth to power, engaging in patriotic dissent, and empowering our readers to fight for justice and equality. As an independent publication, we’re not beholden to stakeholders, corporate investors, or government influence. Our allegiance is to facts and transparency, to honoring our abolitionist roots, to the principles of justice and equality—and to you, our readers. 

In the weeks and months ahead, the work of free and independent journalists will matter more than ever before. People will need access to accurate reporting, critical analysis, and deepened understanding of the issues they care about, from climate change and immigration to reproductive justice and political authoritarianism. 

By standing with The Nation now, you’re investing not just in independent journalism grounded in truth, but also in the possibilities that truth will create.

The possibility of a galvanized public. Of a more just society. Of meaningful change, and a more radical, liberated tomorrow.

In solidarity and in action,

The Editors, The Nation

Eric Foner

Eric Foner, a member of The Nation’s editorial board and the DeWitt Clinton Professor Emeritus of History at Columbia University, is the author, most recently, of The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution.

More from Eric Foner

Martin Luther King Jr. at the March on Washington

Martin Luther King’s Dream at 60 Martin Luther King’s Dream at 60

King offered Americans the choice between acting in accordance with the constitution and resistance—often violent—to change.  In many ways, we face the same choice today.

Eric Foner

Eugene Debs at the US Penitentiary in Atlanta

The Crusade Against Civil Liberties During World War I The Crusade Against Civil Liberties During World War I

Adam Hochschild’s latest book, American Midnight, examines a dark era in US history in which Woodrow Wilson and his administration went to war at home as well as abroad. 

Books & the Arts / Eric Foner

The Many American Revolutions

The Many American Revolutions The Many American Revolutions

Woody Holton’s Liberty is Sweet charts not only the contest with Great Britain over “home rule” but also the internal struggle over who should rule at home. 

Books & the Arts / Eric Foner

The Gilded Age’s Democratic Contradictions

The Gilded Age’s Democratic Contradictions The Gilded Age’s Democratic Contradictions

A new history examines how the late 19th century’s raucous party system gave way to a more sedate and exclusionary political culture that erected more and more barriers to particip...

Books & the Arts / Eric Foner

The Capitol Riot Reveals the Dangers From the Enemy Within

The Capitol Riot Reveals the Dangers From the Enemy Within The Capitol Riot Reveals the Dangers From the Enemy Within

But the belief that America previously had a well-functioning democracy is an illusion.

Eric Foner

The Making of the Radical Republicans

The Making of the Radical Republicans The Making of the Radical Republicans

How did the struggle for emancipation become a mass politics?

Books & the Arts / Eric Foner