By Derek M. Moore
Over the past few months, my inbox and comment section have been filled with one recurring question about the Back In Time: Did You Know? series:
“Why focus so much on Tubman and less on Tolbert?”
Many have expressed a strong desire to see more reflections on President William R. Tolbert Jr. and his time in office — and I completely understand that sentiment. His presidency deserves equal attention, and in the coming weeks I’ll continue this Back In Time journey with a new feature focusing on Tolbert’s era and the challenges he faced.
I’ve also encouraged others to start their own historical series. Liberia’s past is too vast, too layered, and too important to be told from a single perspective. Different voices, different viewpoints, and even disagreements all enrich this shared learning experience.
In fact, nothing stimulates understanding more than hearing from people who think differently. As the saying goes, “If all your friends think like you, or if you’re the smartest person in your circle, it’s time to find new friends.”
That’s why I welcome respectful pushback. I’m not offended by it — I’m delighted by it. It challenges my assumptions, adds new angles I might never have considered, and helps me learn from others. Please keep it coming — as long as we keep it civil.
Too often in our national discourse, disagreement is mistaken for dislike — as if having a different opinion means someone is your enemy or belongs to an opposing side. That mentality has held us back for far too long. If Liberia is to grow, we must learn to debate ideas without tearing down people. True progress is not born in the comfort of agreement, but in the courage to listen when others disagree.
At the heart of this series is not agreement, but awareness. My goal has never been to convince anyone to see history through my lens, but to spark the kind of dialogue that helps us all see Liberia’s past — and present — more clearly. When readers engage, even critically, it means the conversation is alive. It means we’re thinking, questioning, and learning together.
And yes — this post is longer than usual. But some topics demand space to breathe. The length is necessary to fully explain the historical and global context that shaped both leaders.
In truth, Tubman and Tolbert ruled beneath the same sky, but not within the same world. Their challenges, opportunities, and global realities were profoundly different — and to understand either man, we must first understand his time.
1. Two Worlds Apart — Context Shapes Leadership
The Cold War, Decolonization, and Global Alignment
When Tubman took power in 1944, the world was shifting into the Cold War. Liberia — one of only a few independent African states at the time — became a strategic partner of the United States. With global communism on the rise, Monrovia was seen as a diplomatic anchor for the West in West Africa.
That alignment brought advantages — foreign aid, investment, infrastructure — but also constraints. Liberia’s foreign policy often had to align with Western interests. Tubman’s leadership, therefore, cannot be separated from the Cold War logic of loyalty, stability, and anti-communism.
By contrast, Tolbert inherited a different world. By the 1970s, much of Africa was independent, and many leaders were exploring more non-aligned or diversified foreign policies. Tolbert opened Liberia to new diplomatic partners — from Cuba and China to the Soviet Union — while attempting to sustain U.S. ties, a delicate balancing act in a world no longer dominated by just two superpowers.
2. Economic Realities: From Growth to Pressure
Tubman’s Open Door Policy attracted massive foreign investment. Liberia’s economy grew significantly through rubber and iron-ore exports, roads, ports, and modern infrastructure. In his time, such openness was seen by many as progress.
Yet much of that growth failed to reach the broader population. The benefits of foreign investment were concentrated among political elites and foreign corporations, while many ordinary Liberians remained on the margins of the country’s economic success.
By the time Tubman passed away while still in office on July 23, 1971, in London, where he was undergoing surgery, Liberia’s economy had expanded impressively on paper but remained heavily dependent on foreign capital and raw exports. His long rule left a nation modernized in appearance but deeply unequal in structure — a system that his successor, William R. Tolbert Jr., would inherit along with heavy expectations for change.
Tolbert, however, confronted rising inequality, youth unemployment, and inflation. The 1970s oil shocks and global economic slowdowns hit Liberia hard. His reformist policies — price adjustments, social programs, and appeals for self-reliance — met resistance both from entrenched elites and citizens weary of economic hardship.
One of the most controversial of Tolbert’s proposed measures was to raise the subsidized price of rice from US $22 to US $26 per 100-lb bag in 1979 — though some international outlets, including Time Magazine, reported the proposed increase as high as US $30. The government argued this would encourage local rice production and reduce import dependency. Yet many Liberians — especially in urban areas already constrained by inflation and high living costs — viewed it as an unfair burden. The protests that followed, known as the Rice Riots (April 14, 1979), became violent. Security forces opened fire, resulting in dozens of deaths and many injuries, and the event severely damaged Tolbert’s credibility. Many historians treat it as a critical flashpoint in the unraveling of the Tolbert regime, contributing to the conditions that led to the April 12, 1980 coup.
In many ways, Tolbert was attempting to correct the very imbalances created under decades of the Open Door approach — yet his efforts exposed how deeply rooted those inequalities had become, and how difficult it was to change a system that served the few at the expense of many.
3. Tubman’s Power and the “Dictator” Label
No honest account of Tubman’s legacy can ignore that he amended the constitution to remove term limits, enabling indefinite reelection. Under his leadership, the True Whig Party maintained political dominance.
He centralized authority, controlled appointments, and governed through a network of loyal supporters — placing allies in key positions in return for political support. His administration’s reliance on personal loyalty and political favoritism made “who you knew” as important as ability — a pattern that became a persistent feature of governance. While direct claims of nepotism under Tubman are less clearly documented, his administration’s structure was built on loyalty and elite connections that reinforced a closed political system.
To critics, that made Tubman a dictator. To defenders, it made him a strong, stabilizing leader. Both views have merit. His long tenure brought continuity and modernization — but this progress came at the cost of limiting political diversity and genuine opposition.
Furthermore, such “big man” politics was common in postcolonial Africa: Nkrumah, Kenyatta, and others also centralized power in the name of unity and progress. In that light, Tubman’s style parallels patterns of his time more than purely personal ambition.
4. Tolbert’s Era — Reform, Risk, and Resistance
Tolbert, who had served as Tubman’s Vice President for many years, understood Liberia needed renewal. He expanded opportunities for indigenous Liberians, encouraged small-scale enterprise, and promoted the motto “Total Involvement for Higher Heights.”
He allowed more political voices and limited opposition, though the True Whig Party remained dominant in practice. That limited opening proved destabilizing. Moreover, Tolbert’s government was criticized for nepotism: his brothers and relatives held key government roles (for example, Frank E. Tolbert served as Senate President Pro Tempore and Stephen A. Tolbert as Finance Minister), reinforcing perceptions of favoritism and elite consolidation.
By 1979, discontent and expectations collided. The Rice Riots erupted. On April 12, 1980, Tolbert was killed in a military coup — ending Americo-Liberian ascendancy. His tragedy was not that he failed — but that he sought to reform a deeply rooted system at a pace the nation itself was not yet prepared to embrace.
In the end, both men led within the limits and possibilities of their time — Tubman built the framework; Tolbert tried to reform it. Each left lessons that continue to shape Liberia’s search for balance between continuity and change.
5. The Power of Dialogue — and My Thanks
Since sharing these historical reflections, I’ve been humbled by the incredible feedback they’ve generated. In fact, I’ve received ten times more private messages than public comments — which suggests many Liberians prefer to share their thoughts quietly. I respect that.
But I also want to thank everyone — especially public commentators — for maintaining civility and thoughtfulness. In a time when debates too often become personal, your restraint and insight have transformed this series into what it should be: a shared educational journey.
Please keep the comments coming. Every respectful voice adds value. We learn from one another, even when we disagree.
Final Thought
We must not compare our past through today’s comfort, but through the eyes of those who lived it. Tubman and Tolbert both strove to move Liberia forward — one through command, the other through reform. Both left lessons we cannot ignore.
