What's the AMERICAN take on the revolutionary war (regarding slaves)

[Lord Justice]

I ask favour (by want of much curiosity, learning, and share of knowledge) the ON Topic views, opinions, facts, and speculations of the war from American members and friends herein. It saddened me to find but 1 slight mention in the sister thread, pertaining to this topic (post 6 Takeda) on slavery. I am sensible to the fact it is or can be a most sensitive topic given the locus, and can so falter may it be put upon the not so well behaved. I desire and insist it stays on topic, that we carefully and maturely consider the posts, and that you will please to pardon my manners. On urging this, I can fondly persuade myself of worthy responses. We have spoken about much already Indian tribes etc This subject matter we so dearly missed and it is more than apt to say it did and could have had a more major impact or upset during the Revolution war. I do not, nor can confess myself to have more insight other than what I am about to put. Thank You. :timeout: It is said during the early skirmishes of the war, congress was pushing Washington to let go some of his most loyal soldiers, African Americans. From the offset Free American blacks served the patriot cause well and with the same concerns of their white compatriots. Creeds Hill (effectually known as Bunker hill) Concord, Lexington. However recruiting black soldiers he had trouble with, because congress did. :oops: As the militia was fast becoming a continental army, and not longer just a northern one, armed blacks created a loaded issue in congress. (Southern States) opposed to making soldiers out of them. :nope: Washington himself was no different from any other southern planter regarding blacks, thus the slave holder he was, issued his own order banning black recruits in congress!! " The rights of mankind and the freedom of America will have numbers sufficient to support them without resorting to such wretched assistance. " Though the great irony of the closest friend of the general his personal slave Billy Lee!! :har: VIRGINIA, NOV, 1775 Washington and congress decision to reject black soldiers played perfectly into the British hands thus Lord Dunmore issued the famous Proclamation which created havoc, the chance for freedom with the Brits. :03::hmmm: Thomas Jefferson estimated in VIRGINIA alone 30,000 African Americans walked off the plantations, and many becoming soldiers subjects to the crown. Even Free blacks travelled plantation to plantation embolden slaves to escape. ( PUSHING ON ) As Jefferson stumbles across the central question in his 1st draft for independence, who will become a free American?? Would the new nation mean rights to every man, woman, child, and even slave?? The rich, property owners?? Who's to be included in this new nation about to unfold?? :hmmm: Talk of Freedom, Liberty, spreads to the 500,000 colonists whom were black, 1/5th of the population. Slavery dividing the colonies, such talk of independence. Some colonists drew the line of giving Liberty to slaves, others bristle at the hypocrisy of fighting for independence while sanctioning slavery. :doh: Ironically Jefferson with over 100 slaves at that time wrote in his draft " Among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " :o Thus many slaves fled from cities, plantations across America. Washington's plantation = 17 slaves ran. Jefferson's plantation 23 ran. What was best for them? patriot or loyalist did not matter. Then Jefferson taking aim to amend in his draft of slavery and of its wrongfulness, yet fell short of calling an end of slave holding. :shifty: Major battles were looming, compromises had to be met, the British were soon to be coming back in there thousands!! As the delegates at congress tore into Jefferson's draft of independence, after 3 days of debate 89 different things were removed, including anything on the practice of slavery. They could not fix it, they chose to ignore/ postpone for another day, that bad day was the civil war!!! :yep: Remarkable, I humbly welcome your sentiments, regarding facts, individual opinions, and speculation of how the continentals would have favoured etc.. :salute:

[Stealhead]

I think you more or less answered your own question there.They made a compromise from the start if they banned slavery they risked many plantation and land owners likely siding with the British and that would have done them little good so they did what they did.

I do not think that they thought the issue of slavery would last as long as it did or cause a war later but I guess they where too busy during and after the war to think about or deal with it fully.

Also to an extent the Revolutionary War was also a civil war for those living in the colonies obviously not all of them where on the same side so doing anything that might upset a faction that might go the other way if pushed was just not an option.I think they more or less thought that they would have to compromise for the time being to secure victory over the British and face the other issues later it is just that they never did.

[Sailor Steve]

Your points are good ones, but nothing new. We Americans have wrestled with that problem ever since that time, and never reached a final conclusion. I well address a couple of them, though.

First, the Declaration's "89 things removed". Unless you count each individual word as a "thing", I don't see how that is possible. Eighty-nine changes, sure. A great many of those changes were made by Jefferson himself and his fellow 'Committee Of Five' members John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. The removal of the Slavery clauses was partly, as Stealhead said, to appease the Southern States. This would carry over into the Constitutional debates eleven years later, and again the Southern States would force the hand of the others.

But there is another reason those parts were removed, and that is that Jefferson in those parts blamed King George for the slave trade itself, which was pretty silly, and the Congress recognized that fact when apparently Jefferson himself did not. He said that was his favorite part of the document.

Here you can compare the three versions of the document side by side.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/compare.htm

And here you can see the changes made by the committee before it ever got to the Congress as a whole.
http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html

Second, the question of slaves running away. Who wouldn't? But were the numbers you named the number who ran away during the war, or the total number during those men's lifetimes? I've not read the documentation on that.

Third, British stirring up slaves to run away is a bit disingenuous, seeing that Great Britain herself, while not allowing slaves in-country as far as I know, continued to traffic in slaves until 1807 and didn't outlaw slavery altogether until 1833.

But you asked how Americans feel about it. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I think anyone who ever engaged in the trafficking of other human beings, or owned other human beings was wrong, pure and simple. The justified it to themselves at the time, but many of the wrestled with the problem. Washington stipulated in his will that all his slaves be freed upon the death of his wife. Madison had a friend who hated the practice so much that he sold his land in Virginia and took his entire 'family' to Kentucky, where he bought all the land he could and divided everything equally between himself and his former slaves. But he was just one man, and the country as a whole continued the practice for far too long.

So were the Founders hypocritical on that point? Certainly. But they were also conflicted about it. What should they have done differently? What could they have done differently? I don't know.

[gimpy117]

why were the slaves not freed?

the same reason why so many other evils are perpetuated: "if we do this the economy will collapse!"

[Stealhead]

I forgot to say my thoughts on slavery if that is part of what was being sought I also feel that it is wrong no matter the point in time in history and it does still occur to this day sadly.

My mother has been doing the whole family geology thing and I have many relatives that lived in the south before and during the Civil War.Several relatives fought for the Confederates one if fact was hanged after being a captured deep behind northern lines he was a raider so I'm sure he knew the risks.Other for wealthy relatives did actually own a small number of slaves
and interestingly enough my mother found a US census from the late 1880s I think was the time and three of the former slaves are listed as "family members" and they lived in the same house so I guess they decided to stay as a group rather than separate also my lost their wealth during the war so its not like they where forcing the others to stay the only thing is the census taker did not write down the former slaves last names so who know who they are related to now.

I yeh yei Gimpy come up with something better I know that you are smarter than that reply.

[Sailor Steve]

I thought it was quite a good reply, and true.

[Lord Justice]

I think you more or less answered your own question there.



I think they more or less thought that they would have to compromise for the time being to secure victory over the British and face the other issues later it is just that they never did. 1) In part yes, to answering my own question, but is more sought in relation to probabilities, how events may have indeed changed the course thus perhaps putting down a more decisive and speedily resolve to the war. 2) It was a very daring compromise indeed.

Your points are good ones, but nothing new.

First, the Declaration's "89 things removed". Unless you count each individual word as a "thing", I don't see how that is possible. Eighty-nine changes, sure.



But were the numbers you named the number who ran away during the war, or the total number during those men's lifetimes?



But you asked how Americans feel about it. I can't speak for anyone but myself, 1) History is not new. 2) (Things) was my test :know: Though it was mistaken, was not lost upon me. I fear you imagine I have been inattentive, but the truth is, and I blush to tell you was bait to cheer my own motives. I shall relate, I placed it out of proper context to be found like a bouncing betty. Thus it lets me observe the character, personality, and grace to whom is entering my lines. (Surely they must see it, does there conduct and good grace excuse inaccuracies?) I had hoped betty would have fell on a lesser natured hand, unfortunately it was you, but I suppose the show of reason and moral courage you so easily bear, which is often troublesome to you does sometimes preponderate. We cannot control necessity though we often persuade ourselves, that certain postings are our choice, when in truth we have been unavoidably impelled to them, in this instance (Things). When I post I sometimes examine weather I have been governed by mere fancy, or by motives, or caprice, some will say the latter. I like your post and certainly reward it as you direct, here the mind assumes a nobler tone, it is truly charming. :yep: 3) I thank you for the information pertaining to the drafts for independence :yeah: On my part I shall return favour to tell you the numbers of slaves that ran was aimed at the war period, though I cannot be 100 percent certain. :06: 4) With regard to your last in my quote! I also asked for individual opinions, stated in my last - original post.

why were the slaves not freed?

"if we do this the economy will collapse!"It was a great risk not too,its quite possible the country may have collapsed no matter what, under bitter British resentment and rule. It was a big gamble.

[Sailor Steve]

On my part I shall return favour to tell you the numbers of slaves that ran was aimed at the war period, though I cannot be 100 percent certain. :06:
Fair enough. Just because I haven't seen that statistic doesn't make it not so. I don't have an answer though.

4) With regard to your last in my quote! I also asked for individual opinions, stated in my last - original post.
I tend to not have opinions where I don't have facts. My personal feeling? I hate the idea of any human being held in bondage by another. My great-grandfather fought for the South during the Civil War, and his father owned slaves. It's not something I'm proud of, but it's something I accept, since it's all history now.

[Lord Justice]

My personal feeling? I hate the idea of any human being held in bondage by another. My great-grandfather fought for the South during the Civil War, and his father owned slaves. It's not something I'm proud of, but it's something I accept, since it's all history now.Steve, be assured ( I hope that assurance is needless) that what diminishes your happiness equally Impairs mine. I do not agree with slavery. :cool:

[Jimbuna]

Slavery was and is barbaric...simple fact IMHO.

[Growler]

We must remember to exercise caution when viewing history, as the mores of social and political acceptability change frequently over intervening years. As proof, I submit the Blitz, and the subsequent Allied bombing campaigns of 1940-1945, wherein civilian casualties were expected, versus the feelings around civilian casualties in today's aerial bombing strikes.

While it is abhorrent to us in the West today that persons be held against their will by some form of subjugation, slavery as a form of punishment or control has existed for most of human history.

[Stealhead]

Well do not forget that obviously there had been slavery occurring while the
the US where still colonies answering to the King and paying taxes to the King therefore by default the King was supporting slavery it was obviously known that slavery was occurring on the many plantations that where paying taxes(before they decided to no longer pay them that is).

If England would have won the war I highly suspect that they would not have done anything about slavery not immediately anyway.Also at the Boston Massacre at least one freed black man was killed by British fire so I suspect that most slaves and freed men would either have fled and sided with neither.

By and large the idea of slavery was something that was acceptable to a portion of the population many of these people felt that they where actually improving the slaves lives because they where "savages" before. (not sure how being a slave makes your life better)

Obviously there where people who did not agree with slavery during the Revolutionary War and it took many years until the 1850s really that the Abolitionist movement was powerful enough to actually have effect.

EDIT: why is the site nerfing my paragraphs?That is not how I typed them in.

[Lord Justice]

If England would have won the war I highly suspect that they would not have done anything about slavery not immediately anyway.Also at the Boston Massacre at least one freed black man was killed by British fire

I see 2 Bettys here in your 1st 4, :03: I hold fourth sensibly. 1) Good point I am inclined to agree. 2) The (freed) black man you put was Crispus Attucks the martyr of the revolution. I must ask was he really (freed)?? and black??

Bostonians, accepted him as mixed race. Indians, as Wampanoag. Anti slavery movement, as Black. Historians = *Free* man or Escaped slave.

[Lord Justice]

individual opinions, and speculation of how the continentals would have favoured etc.. :salute:I am much pleased with how this thread is being represented and presented, its hard to find fault when matter and manner are delightful. Thank you. :yeah: Now we are fast covering the facts, soon we shall torment with many sentiments to which we are already no strangers. In your humble opinions, if many slaves, and free African Americans had been passed and permitted service with the continentals, how much of an impact would it have made? Do you think they would have been divided within regiments? Should they have been given a worthy role or just fodder? (understanding of course congress was short on funds this is speculation ) but permit me to say, the speculation for debate here may thus have put an abrupt halt to the war. That said there may have been much resentment within continentals own ranks given this right. How important really was the fight, could the southern whites respect ? all in the name of Liberty. :hmmm:

[Stealhead]

Hmm good question. I do know that some black men did serve in some militia units obviously with whites so they did not seem to have much issue or theyd have not allowed them.

Here is a link to Wikipage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_Revolutionary_War

about about African Americans serving during the war on both sides.According to it only salves where barred from serving not freed men.I am pretty sure I read this in a book about early American wars but was not 100% sure on it from memory alone so your statement about no blacks being allowed is not 100% correct and it seems it was up to the state militia.If they had allowed slaves(some Northern states promised freedom for service) it probably would have a been benefit to some extent I'd think.Either they would have been freed or they would have used their military training to resist(more likely the later) or the general population would have become less supportive of slavery. OK there was a full ban placed eventually but it did not apply to men already in.

Also Crispus Attucks was mixed African and Wampanoag so he probably was never a slave.They just like to say that in official history sources another thing I tend to forget.(I am a bit weak on this time period to be honest not committed to memory as say WWII is)

Should they have been given a worthy role or just fodder? I think they where used in most every role from infantry to spying and everything in between.

[Lord Justice]

during the early skirmishes of the war, congress was pushing Washington to let go some of his most loyal soldiers, African Americans. From the offset Free American blacks served the patriot cause well and with the same concerns of their white compatriots. Creeds Hill (effectually known as Bunker hill) Concord, Lexington. However recruiting black soldiers he had trouble with, because congress did. As the militia was fast becoming a continental army, and not longer just a northern one, armed blacks created a loaded issue in congress. Washington and congress decision to reject black soldiers played perfectly into the British hands thus Lord Dunmore issued the famous Proclamation

Hmm good question. I do know that some black men did serve in some militia units obviously with whites so they did not seem to have much issue or theyd have not allowed them.



.According to it only salves where barred from serving not freed men.I am pretty sure I read this in a book about early American wars but was not 100% sure on it from memory alone so your statement about no blacks being allowed is not 100% correct and it seems it was up to the state militia.

I please to allow for any new steps, but none before some others, if anyone is behind or less apt, more will pain me to keep them on par. I ask you read my early quotes from above some more, I thank you again, but beg you not so churlish.

[Stealhead]

Well it was a late night post and I had read your OP a day or so ago sorry though you never mention in your OP that black soldiers who had enlisted before the ban where allowed to stay in service after the ban.

Also I am a bit lost in your post where you said:"I see 2 Bettys here in your 1st 4" not sure what you where meaning here I assume that you are not in agreement that the King was supporting slavery by taking in taxes from sources that used slavery yet did nothing to proclaim it should be banned at the time.

[Lord Justice]

Well it was a late night post and I had read your OP a day or so ago sorry

Also I am a bit lost in your post where you said:"I see 2 Bettys here in your 1st 4" not sure what you where meaning here It is okay, no apology necessary, hurry was obliging me to sleep also. I could clarify on the other matter, but feel it not of proper conduct in this thread to do so.

Do you think the war would have ended much sooner, if all African Americans were allowed to bear arms against the British? :hmmm: