Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
36 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Was US Independence War a Conservative Revolt in Favor of Slavery? (Original Post) Shankapotomus Jun 2014 OP
From studies, it was a liberal revolt against an entrenched monarchy. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2014 #1
The conservanuts of the time period were the "Tories". TxVietVet Jun 2014 #4
The point is our definition of liberal and conservative are not the same as theirs. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2014 #12
Thank you. Bucky Jun 2014 #24
Conservatives back then believed government and religion were one and the same.... Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2014 #5
TeaBaggers think Jesus wrote The Constitution, 3/5ths-of-a-person language and all. ErikJ Jun 2014 #6
I like the Cthulhu version. Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2014 #7
Best way to get teabaggers to turn on Jesus Shankapotomus Jun 2014 #11
This is why I wish we had a like button. +1 Agnosticsherbet Jun 2014 #13
What bothers me most about that picture is that Bucky Jun 2014 #27
Ha, just needs black-face now. What's going on in the bottom right corner? ErikJ Jun 2014 #29
Conservatives have moved beyond that. Now they practice "smart face" minstrels Bucky Jun 2014 #33
Yes, I've noticed how they've co-opted lots of liberal's phrases, memes. ErikJ Jun 2014 #34
For the Southerners, I think yes. Benton D Struckcheon Jun 2014 #2
Wrong and wrong Bucky Jun 2014 #28
Fascinating stuff! Here's a longer radio interview with Horne RufusTFirefly Jun 2014 #3
Thanks Shankapotomus Jun 2014 #18
You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed the interview. RufusTFirefly Jun 2014 #21
YES HoosierRadical Jun 2014 #8
It's a very provocative hypothesis Shankapotomus Jun 2014 #9
Slavery was legal in NJ I believe, at the time, and maybe elsewhere... Benton D Struckcheon Jun 2014 #10
Its not a hypothesis, it is the TRUTH. HoosierRadical Jun 2014 #36
Does it claim that Northerners, say those from Massachusetts, fought the Revolution JDPriestly Jun 2014 #15
I listened to the whole radio interview Shankapotomus Jun 2014 #17
READ the book HoosierRadical Jun 2014 #35
TBH, no. If anything at all, it's quite the exercise in *revisionist* history. AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #14
But if you're getting rich off a game-- Shankapotomus Jun 2014 #16
I'm afraid some of this is a tad inaccurate, TBH(no offense). AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #19
"I've done years of studying Western history..." Shankapotomus Jun 2014 #20
I believe there's been a misunderstanding. AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #22
About that "first draft of the Declaration" Bucky Jun 2014 #31
First time I have heard this but it makes perfect sense. K and R Quixote1818 Jun 2014 #23
It makes little sense. Bucky Jun 2014 #26
Sorry, but this guy has his facts wrong. Here's what really happened. Bucky Jun 2014 #25
No. HooptieWagon Jun 2014 #30
It was a businessmen's revolt against taxes Warpy Jun 2014 #32

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
1. From studies, it was a liberal revolt against an entrenched monarchy.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 12:35 PM
Jun 2014

But the definition of liberal and liberalism and conservative and conservatism was different than. Those ideologies have evolved over time.

TxVietVet

(1,905 posts)
4. The conservanuts of the time period were the "Tories".
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 12:56 PM
Jun 2014

They stayed loyal to the King and the status quo. "Rich white man's rule".

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
12. The point is our definition of liberal and conservative are not the same as theirs.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 05:00 PM
Jun 2014

Time and ideology has changed.

Compared to the forms of government at the time, it was a liberal revolution. Today, not so much. But we 2014'ers are revolting.

It was incredibly liberal to set up a system to recognize and legitimize the rights of men. It would take two generations to expand those rights to non-land owners, three quarts of a century to attempt to bring men of color into the mix. Almost a century and a half to allow women a little liberty.

My point is that systems evolve, and our definitions today are no applicable to those current when George, Thomas, and Benjamin were walking the earth rather than inhabiting our coins and dollar bills.

Bucky

(53,795 posts)
24. Thank you.
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 01:57 PM
Jun 2014

I'll need to watch the video and make my own comments below, but your words are spot on.

As long as the British held onto Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas, there wasn't going to be much of an antislavery movement in Parliament. Much of the rhetorical and moral power behind the antislavery movement later on in the 180s in Britain was inspired by the talk about liberty and freedom that came out of the American Revolution. So the matter, as you say, is complicated by the constant evolution of views and economic interests of different historical eras.

People frequently confuse opposition to slavery with opposition to the slave trade, but these were entirely different political movements. The equivalent today would be to confuse the buy-American-cars movement with the antipollution movement. Much of the political support in the US in the Federal Era for cutting off the slave trade came from Virginia and Maryland, where slaves were plentiful and importing new ones hurt chattel property values.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
5. Conservatives back then believed government and religion were one and the same....
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 01:22 PM
Jun 2014

The classic "God and Country" and the belief that The King was appointed by God and all those born under His Kingdom had a duty to be loyal to Him. That is STILL their belief system to this day as demonstrated clearly under Bush where they expected us to follow blindly the way they did or be accused of treason.

This is ALSO why they are currently having a major meltdown under Obama. Because they actually believe we are telling them that they have to follow blindly behind him. That is ALSO why they are denying he's the actual President. They feel a "Demoncrat" only gets into office through theft and they really feel they are strengthened by God because they can resist being seduced by his evil charms.

Now the Conservatives have the NERVE to claim THEY were the ones that rose up against the King.

They claim the Revolutionary War was a Tax Revolt.

That's right, to them the war was about PERSONAL GREED.

These are the same idiots who are screaming that Obama raised their taxes to give "his own kind" more Welfare benefits. Like the famous "Obamaphone". A fine example of a Conservative myth which lets them hate every black person with a cell phone because they believe that they paid for it. Tell them their taxes are LOWER and they want to fight about it.

Good goddamn thing the media is librul or we'd have a real problem in this country.

Shankapotomus

(4,840 posts)
11. Best way to get teabaggers to turn on Jesus
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 04:33 PM
Jun 2014

is to remind them Jesus is not an American citizen. Nor is the notion of the Judeo-Christian God a product of America. It was imported from the Middle East.

How anyone can hold what's depicted in that painting as some kind of "American Paradise", I can't imagine. Talk about nationalistic melodrama. Jaheez. The painter no doubt thinks his work depicts the answer, but it's the problem.

Bucky

(53,795 posts)
27. What bothers me most about that picture is that
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 02:41 PM
Jun 2014

it looks like Lincoln is singing "Mamie" Al Jolson-style.

 

ErikJ

(6,335 posts)
29. Ha, just needs black-face now. What's going on in the bottom right corner?
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 02:51 PM
Jun 2014

Judge crying, papers scattered, pregnant woman, guy counting money.

Bucky

(53,795 posts)
33. Conservatives have moved beyond that. Now they practice "smart face" minstrels
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 03:11 PM
Jun 2014

They say and do things that mimic smart people, all in a broad cultural effort to oppress the smart and reinforce the political power of the stupid.

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
2. For the Southerners, I think yes.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 12:52 PM
Jun 2014

But a lot of evidence has been lost.
The best evidence is indirect: the Constitutional requirement to return someone who owes labor to someone else (a clever way of saying an escaped slave has to be returned), and the various declarations of secession by the Southern states, which heavily stressed this same thing.

Bucky

(53,795 posts)
28. Wrong and wrong
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 02:49 PM
Jun 2014

There are scads of primary sources from the American Revolutionary and Early Republic eras. It's one of the best documented time periods for historical research. The Confederate declarations of the 1860s tells us nothing about the political motives of the revolutionaries of the 1770s. What happened in the 3-4 generations between those two times is pretty significant (rise of a viable abolition movement, the ending of the slave trade, the growth of industrialism and the rise of the cotton-raising industry and the competing cotton production from India and Egypt, and the disinvestment in slaveholding enterprises by the financial elites in Europe and the Eastern US states).

Slavery vs antislavery didn't emerge as a contentious political divide until after 1800.

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
3. Fascinating stuff! Here's a longer radio interview with Horne
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 12:52 PM
Jun 2014
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/103221

He was on KPFA's "Against the Grain" last month, talking about this book.

Thanks for posting!

By the way, one has to wonder whether the colonists wouldn't have been so private-property obsessed if it weren't for slavery. After all the British Parliament passed the Inclosure Act in 1773, which began the pattern of privatizing that continues to this day. The idea of the Common (a place where citizens -- commoners -- could take their animals to graze) was very important to many American colonists.

Shankapotomus

(4,840 posts)
18. Thanks
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 07:01 PM
Jun 2014

Excellent interview. While he didn't hit upon every point I hoped he would to make his case, I suspect there is definitely something to his hypotheses. Just look at the results: The colonies throw off Britain's rule. Britain bans slavery in its colonies in 1833. Slavery continues in the United States another 32 years after that and is only abolished at a price in human lives far heavier than Britain payed to abolish it in the majority of their colonies. It makes perfect sense that you would want to get Britain out of the equation to protect slavery because you would naturally conclude they would be much harder to oppose than any new government formed out of the emancipated colonies, especially if representatives from slaves states make up part of that new government.

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
21. You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed the interview.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 08:21 PM
Jun 2014

BTW, that's a fascinating, stimulating radio program in general. The name, as you probably surmised, comes from its mission to challenge the conventional wisdom.

HoosierRadical

(390 posts)
8. YES
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 03:09 PM
Jun 2014

the USA must acknowledge the TRUTH of this nation's founding. I recommend the following book;

Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies and Sparked the American Revolution. Alfred Blumrosen. Listed below is a blurb;

In 1772, the High Court in London brought about the conditions that would end slavery in England by freeing a black slave from Virginia named Somerset. This decision began a key facet of independence.

Slave Nation is a fascinating account of the role slavery played in the drawing of the United States Constitution and in shaping the United States. At the Constitutional Convention, the South feared that the Northern states would leave the Convention over the issue of slavery. In a compromise, the Southern states agreed to slavery's prohibition north of the Ohio River, resulting in the Northwest Ordinance. This early national division would continue to escalate, eventually only reaching resolution through the Civil War.

Shankapotomus

(4,840 posts)
9. It's a very provocative hypothesis
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 04:02 PM
Jun 2014

that deserves further attention. After all, it was the debate over slavery that sparked the Civil War. To this day elements in the south and on the Right like to deny it was over and about slavery. Is it such a stretch that the debate over slavery sparked the Revolutionary War for Independence? It just so happened the north and south at the time shared a mutual disgust for England so the threat to slavery didn't need to be brought to the forefront.

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
10. Slavery was legal in NJ I believe, at the time, and maybe elsewhere...
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 04:07 PM
Jun 2014

...north of the Mason-Dixon, so it wasn't nearly the divisive issue it became later. I think everyone at the time agreed it needed to end at some point, but for them it was a hazy time in the future somewhere.

HoosierRadical

(390 posts)
36. Its not a hypothesis, it is the TRUTH.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:32 AM
Jun 2014

Below you will find a list of books pertaining to the subject.

The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823. David Brion Davis.

The Internal Enemy: Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832. Alan Taylor

Ebony and Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America's Universities. Craig Steven Wilder

Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification.

The Slaveholding Republic: An Account of the United States Government's Relations to Slavery

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
15. Does it claim that Northerners, say those from Massachusetts, fought the Revolution
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 05:45 PM
Jun 2014

for slavery. Because if it does, I would like to know what the evidence is. My Yankee ancestors were very opposed to slavery.

Shankapotomus

(4,840 posts)
17. I listened to the whole radio interview
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 06:55 PM
Jun 2014

and I didn't hear him claim anything like that so I guess you're good. I suspect what more likely happened is the North and South had the mutual goal of ridding the British but for different reasons. But it all amounted to an amalgamation of reason under the name "protecting our interests." The South had different interests than the North, like protecting slavery, that didn't really need to be named at the time.

HoosierRadical

(390 posts)
35. READ the book
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:17 AM
Jun 2014

Your ancestors may have been opposed to slavery, but, the entire US economy at that time was dependent on the enslavement of human beings, see who funded ship building, banking, insurance, etc.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
14. TBH, no. If anything at all, it's quite the exercise in *revisionist* history.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 05:12 PM
Jun 2014

Yeah, you read that right, by the way. Dr. Horne's little screed is just that; revisionist......similar to how RWNJs like David Barton try to tell us that America was founded as a "Christian Nation&quot tm), etc; same general MO, just on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Regarding the Somersett case, I'd like to point out that it only involved keeping slaves out of Britain proper. It had nothing to do with the Colonies, nor was it intended to. And abolition, as a concept, didn't actually begin to really take off in Great Britain, whether amongst lawmakers or people on the street, until after the Revolutionary War had concluded. TBH, though, a good part of this did indeed have to rely on the success of the Revolution, and had it not been, I'm afraid that, sadly, that it could not be guaranteed that slavery in the British Empire would have ended with as early as it did in our world. In fact, it might very well have lasted longer, perhaps a half century, or even slightly longer than that.

Also, anyone who's done any amount of reading on the subject of the Revolution will know that, originally, much of the original support for the Rebellion came from the Northern states.....the slaveowners in the Carolinas and Georgia in particular were, if anything, largely Loyalist in their leanings and only began to join the Patriots in large numbers when it became clear that this was a battle that could be won.

So, even though he does make a few good points here, it does not change the fact that Dr. Horne's book is still a revisionist writing.










Shankapotomus

(4,840 posts)
16. But if you're getting rich off a game--
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 06:49 PM
Jun 2014

the game being slavery--wouldn't you want to secure your own government in order to protect your game? Given the strength of the monarchy and British power, whether they were planning to prohibit slavery or not, wouldn't you want to remove the monarchy's control to reinforce your own hold on the practices that have made you rich? You would want nothing to interfere with that and a monarchy calling the shots is potentially an intrusive authority. Any large outside power over you can wreck your game and you know it. And the way to protect your practices is to seize power or be the government.

This might have been a motivation for the south to join forces with the north to expel the British? They could see, like the north, that they weren't in charge of their own affairs, slavery could be jeopardized, and it would be better if they could rule themselves.

Maybe slavery wasn't the sole variable that brought the colonies to rebel but, as it was a practice that made many colonists rich, it certainly can be included in the equation.

As to your point about the Revolution helping to end slavery in the world earlier, I have to disagree. If anything the revolution extended slavery, especially in the United States. Britain did not suddenly hit upon the idea of ending slavery after the Revolution as a way to get back at the colonies. It was an idea that was getting bounced around before even the Revolution and in the 13 colonies themselves. It was even debated in the Continental Congress. The first draft of The Declaration of Independence even renounced slavery. The notion of ending slavery was in both Britain proper and the colonies. The colonist were still British subjects at the time so this was not an idea alien to the British. But to get the slave states to join with the other states they had to leave out any words that would jeopardize slavery.

The problem was the colonist's won and which authority do you think was going to threaten the practice of slavery more...a monarchy with absolute power in control or a weak and newly formed experimental government?

Additionally, it seems kind of a stretch to grant the time frame in which slavery ended as the achievement of the nation that took the longest to end it themselves.

The fact is Britain had ideas to end slavery and so did the emancipated and pre-emancipated colonies. But who did away with slavery first? The British. Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. Banned it in their colonies. Why? Probably because the British had the power to do it. When the Revolutionary War took Britain's power away in the colonies slavery didn't get banned in the states in 1833 as it would have. It didn't get banned here sooner because our government's authority was mostly untested. It didn't command the respect that the British empire did to be so bold as to abolish something that might be contested and require us to back up with action.

So, if anything, I think the American Revolution extended slavery in the states.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
19. I'm afraid some of this is a tad inaccurate, TBH(no offense).
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 07:16 PM
Jun 2014

the game being slavery--wouldn't you want to secure your own government in order to protect your game?


Here's the thing, though; none of the (major) founders, even Jefferson and others who had inherited plantations, were all that attached to the institution. In fact, even they saw slavery as a "necessary evil", as it were.

Given the strength of the monarchy and British power, whether they were planning to prohibit slavery or not, wouldn't you want to remove the monarchy's control to reinforce your own hold on the practices that have made you rich? You would want nothing to interfere with that and a monarchy calling the shots is potentially an intrusive authority. Any large outside power over you can wreck your game and you know it. And the way to protect your practices is to seize power or be the government.


Britain, however, had no intention of short-term abolition in the colonies at that time, even after the Somersett ruling.


As to your point about the Revolution helping to end slavery in the world earlier, I have to disagree. If anything the revolution extended slavery, especially in the United States. Britain did not suddenly hit upon the idea of ending slavery after the Revolution as a way to get back at the colonies.


Maybe not, but I find it all too interesting that abolition only really took off in Britain after the Revolution had ended.....I don't think it can be denied that sore feelings probably accounted for at least some of the support for abolition outside those who were truly invested in it(such as Wilberforce, et al.).

It was an idea that was getting bounced around before even the Revolution and in the 13 colonies themselves. It was even debated in the Continental Congress. The first draft of The Declaration of Independence even renounced slavery.


That's actually true. Though, you see, that actually greatly harms Dr. Horne's case, especially that last part.

The notion of ending slavery was in both Britain proper and the colonies.
The colonist were still British subjects at the time so this was not an idea alien to the British.


The idea itself may not have been totally alien, no. But it wasn't all that popular yet in 1772, either, including in Britain itself.

But to get the slave states to join with the other states they had to leave out any words that would jeopardize slavery.


And even then, as I pointed out earlier, pro-slavery leaning Southerners didn't largely join in until towards the end of the war, when they felt that the Patriots were surely going to be victorious. In fact, if anything, before 1780, a good number of them, if not a majority, were very much pro-Loyalist(probably because many of them knew that Britain had no current intent of abolishing slavery in the colonies).



The problem was the colonist's won and which authority do you think was going to threaten the practice of slavery more...a monarchy with absolute power in control or a weak and newly formed experimental government?


Believe it or not, there was a law proposed in 1784 that actually would have prevented slavery from spreading west of the Mississippi River....and even abolished slavery by 1800.....and this clause failed by just one vote, a politician from N.J. who couldn't make it to the debate due to illness. Had it not been for that unfortunate circumstance, abolition would have begun at the dawn of the 19th century, and might have even finished before Britain's real world efforts in 1833.

The fact is Britain had ideas to end slavery and so did the emancipated and pre-emancipated colonies. But who did away with slavery first? The British. Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. Banned it in their colonies. Why? Probably because the British had the power to do it.


That is true, yes. But do note the above, however.

When the Revolutionary War took Britain's power away in the colonies slavery didn't get banned in the states in 1833 as it would have. It didn't get banned here sooner because our government's authority was mostly untested. It didn't command the respect that the British empire did to be so bold as to abolish something that might be contested and require us to back up with action.


To be truthful, however, this assumes that history would have continued virtually exactly as it did in our world; unfortunately, that is far from guaranteed. In fact, with the Revolution crushed, there really is actually a significantly greater chance that it would actually have lasted longer; again, look at the history; and look at what actually happened and why. I've done years of studying Western history in general, so I do have a fairly good idea of what I'm talking about here.








Shankapotomus

(4,840 posts)
20. "I've done years of studying Western history..."
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 07:49 PM
Jun 2014

Okay, I will acknowledge that...For examination's sake we can throw out most of my points...But here's the one point you haven't answered above:

"Additionally, it seems kind of a stretch to grant the time frame in which slavery ended as the achievement of the nation that took the longest to end it themselves."

How does everything you're saying justify that? You're citing all the facts that support the analysis that the colonist's winning their war with Britain helped end slavery sooner and refute Dr. Horne's case, but they didn't end slavery sooner than Britain did. So why didn't they?

Forgive me any presumption but you seem to be speaking as if there was no effort at all on the part of the colonists to preserve slavery while simultaneously seeming to point the finger at Britain for extending it even though they ended it earlier. 500,000 people had to die in the South's struggle to preserve slavery. i don't think there is a comparable struggle over slavery on Britain's side.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
22. I believe there's been a misunderstanding.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 10:08 PM
Jun 2014
You're citing all the facts that support the analysis that the colonist's winning their war with Britain helped end slavery sooner and refute Dr. Horne's case, but they didn't end slavery sooner than Britain did. So why didn't they?


Well, as I pointed out, a law had been proposed in 1784.....or, rather, part of a law, that would indeed have severely limited slavery in the U.S., prohibiting it's extension beyond the Mississippi River and would have even begun abolition in the year 1800. In fact, I would have posted this earlier, but here's a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1784

The situation is honestly rather complex, and frankly, I can't explain absolutely everything on the fly.....as knowledgeable as I may be, I'll be truthful and admit that I do have my limits on *how* I'm able to disseminate said knowledge(so I would never be a good teacher, for example). I can say, however, that by the time the 1820s rolled around, Wilberforce and company had been able to permanently change the direction of the Empire away from slavery, while, at the same time, the cotton gin was just becoming popular in the southern United States.

Forgive me any presumption but you seem to be speaking as if there was no effort at all on the part of the colonists to preserve slavery while simultaneously seeming to point the finger at Britain for extending it even though they ended it earlier


Well, that's not what I said, though. You definitely misread what I wrote, somewhere.....no offense meant(hey, it's happened to me too). But if you'd like some clarification, I did write that my earlier point that abolition was not all that popular in Britain until after the Revolution had concluded, and I do stand by my point that if the Revolution had failed, then it might very well have taken quite a bit longer to eliminate slavery in the Colonies(or at least the Southern Colonies), and perhaps the Empire as a whole, due to the alternate circumstances. To be fair, however, it's not impossible to suspect that, indeed, things could have taken a very similar course as in our world, and it might very well have ended by 1835 or so. All I'm saying is, it really wasn't a sure thing either way, and in my view, perhaps especially not the latter.

Bucky

(53,795 posts)
31. About that "first draft of the Declaration"
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 03:02 PM
Jun 2014

No, the first draft of the DoI did not talk about abolishing slavery. This is a common misconception. What Jefferson's first draft denounced was the slave trade, which was an entirely separate political question. From our modern perspective, we have trouble seeing the distinction, but that's our bias. Jefferson tried to denounce the Crown for supporting the importation of slaves for the same reasons a Senator from Michigan might want to denounce car imports from Germany and Korea. Virginia had a surplus of slaves and was slowly selling stocks south toward the slave-poor states of Georgia and North Carolina. South Carolina was about half black, demographically, at the time, but conditions there were the closest to the Caribbean, where the harsh tropical climate resulted in high slave mortality rates and helped drive the need for most of the slave trade.

In the Constitutional Convention, 13 years later, the delegates from Virginia and Maryland supported efforts to end the importation of African (but mostly Caribbean) slaves, while it was the slave poor Deep South states and the slave-carting New Englanders who wanted the trade left open for another generation.

Jefferson's philosophical quibbles about slavery as an institution never won out over his love of the lifestyle it afforded him.

Bucky

(53,795 posts)
26. It makes little sense.
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 02:38 PM
Jun 2014

He's ignoring what the people who led the revolt actually said and he's dead wrong about there being a fear of abolition from London among the colonial slave holders. There was no viable antislavery movement in England until long after England lost its political control over the slaveholding colonies--that is, after the elite investors who controlled Parliament had lost most of their economic investment in slave-driven profits.

Bucky

(53,795 posts)
25. Sorry, but this guy has his facts wrong. Here's what really happened.
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 02:36 PM
Jun 2014

The Sommersett Case was a narrow ruling that this writer misrepresents. Slavery wasn't ended in Britain until the late 1830s. Saying there was going to be "rapid movement toward abolition" is delusional. Before the revolution, there were vast fortunes invested in the tobacco trade in the UK as well as American fortunes. Within a few years the cotton gin was going to make slavery even more economically profitable. There was zero worry in the Americas that slavery was in jeopardy from Parliament.

There were slave revolts in the prerevolutionary period, but the violence on the side of the slave population was in sharp decline in the run up to the Revolution. Americans had become much better than the Caribbean slaveholders at suppressing violence, in large part because they were holding Americans, not Africans, as slaves and were dealing with people who had been acculturated into perpetual servitude and in part because North American slaves were more likely to have families to worry about. Resistance to slavery more often took the form of running away, not rising up (with several notable exceptions, of course). Of course it's not hard to draw a link between slavery and American gun culture--that's one of the main reasons for having a well-regulated militia.

Professor Horne's description of the slave trade is pretty accurate. It should be noted that only a tiny fraction of slaves went to North America, however. Enslaved African Americans had pretty high fertility rates compared to those enslaved in the Caribbean, where the brutal sugar trade industry produced shocking mortality rates. About a third of the people shipped over in cargo holds died in the Middle Passage, but in the sugar plantations something closer to 80% of forced-workers died within five years. In the mainland colonies the conditions were milder, the climate was much closer to the savannahs of western Africa, and the work was harsh still but less deadly.

Most of the slaves imported to British North America actually came from the Caribbean, not Africa. I do like Prof. Horne's connecting the Carib economy & slave system with those of the tobacco colonies. He's good on the Carib slave revolt culture. There were some white immigrants to the BNA mainland, but not that many were leaders of the American revolt--only the Pinckneys of South Carolina and Alexander Hamilton come to mind and Hamilton had no experience with slaves. He came to NYC to go to college. There were more revolutionary leaders in 1776 who immigrated from Scotland than from all the Caribbean colonies.

What drove Americans to revolt against London was a nativist instinct, a desire to be in political control of their own country. People called their colonies or states their "country" back then--and a rare few like Franklin & Washington thought of the whole 13 as their country. The fear of slave revolts was around, of course, but it had no impact on the movement toward independence.

I will check out this book, however. I live just down the block from Gerald Horne's college. But he seems to be overstating his case and ignoring a HUGE body of primary sources explaining the actual causes of the revolution.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
30. No.
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 02:59 PM
Jun 2014

The rebellion was largely by the mercantile class of the NE who wanted to remove restrictions and tariffs on trade.

Warpy

(110,913 posts)
32. It was a businessmen's revolt against taxes
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 03:10 PM
Jun 2014

that made their products more expensive than those produced in England. Hanging onto their slaves probably made it more popular in Dixie.

We're just lucky they were the product of the Enlightenment instead of one of the Great Awakenings.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Was US Independence War a...