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

[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...olutionary_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]

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by 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.



.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]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

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?