The Revolutionary War was about slavery preservation?
Found this on FB.
Kinda puts a different perspective on history.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00J8DOMIG
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)in the way folks have been misled into thinking:
"Africans residing in the colonies overwhelmingly sided with London. In this trailblazing book, Gerald Horne complements his earlier celebrated Negro Comrades of the Crown, by showing that in the prelude to 1776, the abolition of slavery seemed all but inevitable in London, delighting Africans as much as it outraged slaveholders, and sparking the colonial revolt."
"The so-called Revolutionary War, Horne writes, was in large part a counter-revolution, a conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others—and which today takes the form of a racialized conservatism and a persistent racism targeting the descendants of the enslaved. The Counter-Revolution of 1776 drives us to a radical new understanding of the traditional heroic creation myth of the United States."
Is the truth just too hard to face?
..............
Thanks for the post, maybe will make a few more Americans do some much overdue navel-gazing.
malthaussen
(17,219 posts)Makes sense, among all the other reasons that caused the colonists to revolt. Doubt it was of much importance in most of the colonies, though, since there were only a few where there were many slaves, and before the cotton boom slavery was not as big a deal as it became later. (This is not to say slavery was not a big deal, only that it became more so when the economics started to make a real difference)
-- Mal
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It was decades before England banned slavery and the slave trade. Slavery would have continued in Colonies until mid 1800s even if colonies remained part of England.
The main reason for the Revolutionary War was trade. England had all kinds of trade restrictions, tariffs, and taxes placed on the colonies. Merchants wanted to get rid of them.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)1772: Somersett's case held that no slave could be forcibly removed from Britain. This case was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law in England and Wales, and emancipated the remaining ten to fourteen thousand slaves or possible slaves, mainly domestic servants.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It didn't affect the rest of the British Empire. The slave trade continued for another 35 years until abolished by the Slave Trade Act of 1807. Slavery itself continued another 61 years in British Colonies, until abolished in 1833 by the Slavery Abolishment Act. Thus, Americans did not declare Independance to preserve slavery, which would have continued to remain legal for another 61 years had American Colonies remained British.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Trade, taxes, tariffs. Not one mention of slavery. Not one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)So there was no difference. There was little slave trade with English soil anyway, so slave traders didn't lose business there. The high demand for slaves was in the southern American colonies and Carribean. They had agricultural economies centered around labor-intensive crops...tobacco, cotton, rice, indigo, and sugar cane.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)"The British case only applied to England", someone once wrote.
Because the Colonies refused to accept British law, all of it...then came 1776, to protect all kinds of trade, including the human kind, domestic and international human trade.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Somersett Act didn't apply to them, nor did it apply to American Colonies. Claiming otherwise is simply false.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)You have provided no evidence the Somersett Act applied to the British Colonies, because it didn't. Plantation owners (who owned far and away the most slaves) largely remained loyal to the crown. Many emigrated to other British colonies in the Carribean after US Independence. Slavery is not cited as a cause of American Colony revolt, trade taxes and tariffs are. If you want to double down in the face of all evidence to the contrary, go ahead. Mighty foolish though.
brush
(53,925 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Plus, you'll have to cite a source. Some dudes FB blog isn't going to make the grade.
brush
(53,925 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)You haven't cited a single shred of evidence.
brush
(53,925 posts)You're kidding right?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I've already linked to Wiki. No reference to slavery as a cause. None. It's your turn. You're the one making the claim.
No reference to slavery: http://www.revolutionary-war.net/causes-of-the-american-revolution.html
Follow the money: http://www.historycentral.com/Revolt/Americans/Leading.html
Still no mention of slavery...imagine that: http://americanhistory.about.com/od/revolutionarywar/a/amer_revolution.htm
Ooooo, a mention of slavery! Crown-appointed Governor of Virginia promises emancipation to slaves fighting with British troops against rebels. No emancipation for other slaves, and slavery not cited as a reason for revolution by rebels: http://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/4thjuly.cfm
brush
(53,925 posts)It's as devastating to those people as it is to you that slavery was one of the reasons for the war.
They would never admit it just as you won't.
And I'm done.
Try reading the books mentioned in the OP if you want a source.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)can write an academic-seeming book, right? Peer-review is central to credibility in the humanities, especially history, and it seems that fellow historians don't buy the "slavery was the cause of the Revolutionary War" hypothesis.
brush
(53,925 posts)Your minimizing of slavery here in the 1700s seems to be "head in the sand" territory. There were thousands of slaves working plantations at the time. Tobacco was the big then as the soil had not yet been depleted by the over planting of it.
If banning slavery in England was boiling up, of course the slaveholders here were worried as the colonies were still under rule of the crown. Many of the most prominent founding fathers were slave holders, Washington included, so it doesn't seem farfetched to me at all that they were worried about losing their slaves.
It's a hard pill to swallow that slave holding was one of the reasons for the Revolutionary War but it makes sense.
I know the revelations in these books muddy the great ideals of "liberty and justice for all" that we've been taught all our lives about the American revolution and the founding fathers, but many of us understand the great hypocrisy of slave holding (and fu_king) Thomas Jefferson's high principled words of "all men being equal" in the Declaration of Independence were words that did not in anyway pertain to the large numbers of enslaved people making him and others rich here in this country at the time.
The Civil War was just the final reckoning of the problem.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)But that would have remained legal until 1833. The vast majority of slaves were in the south, which still had a good number of Loyalists. They would have gladly remained British Colonies.The Independance movement was primarily coming from the New England region, who's economy was primarily based on merchants and shipping. It was British taxes on goods, and restrictions on American shipping that caused the Colonies to revolt.
brush
(53,925 posts)But by 1772, British Chief Justice Mansfield had declared slavery illegal in England and Jefferson and the founding fathers would surely have been aware of that.
There's no denying the glaring hypocrisy, especially that of Jefferson.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Why would they ban it at the same time they were allegedly fighting to preserve it? It's the stupidest argument I've ever seen.
brush
(53,925 posts)Only Vermont banned it during the war — 1777.
The southern states had many more enslaved people and thus much more at stake if slavery was banned.
And both Washington and the aforementioned and supreme hypocrite Jefferson were slave holders from a southern state so please stop with the "they were trying to ban it" argument.
It's a bitter pill to swallow and goes against all that we were indoctrinated with as school kids (it's perpetuated constantly even now, especially with 4th of July media programming and commercials/ads), but it's like I alluded to in an earlier post, a good number of the founding fathers got rich from slave labor.
It's indisputable history — unvarnished, unburnished, warts and all. We need to deal with and not hold onto the propaganda that the founding fathers some kind of saints. After all they came up with and signed off on the three/fifths compromise.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Pennsylvania was 1780, others all in and around that time. Most slave owners werent especially keen on independence.
So, northern revolutionaries ("allegedly" fighting to preserve slavery) are banning it asap. Southern slave owners aren't too crazy about independence. How does that make sense? Your argument is utter bullshit. A fabrication.
brush
(53,925 posts)the war was that slave holders wanted to keep their slaves.
And as far as Pennsylvania freed slaves, read below:
"The act that abolished slavery in Pennsylvania freed no slaves outright, and relics of slavery may have lingered in the state almost until the Civil War. There were 795 slaves in Pennsylvania in 1810, 211 in 1820, 403 or 386 (the count was disputed) in 1830, and 64 in 1840, the last year census worksheets in the northern states included a line for "slaves." The definition of slavery seems to have blurred in the later counts. The two "slaves" counted in 1840 in Lancaster County turned out to have been freed years before, though they were still living on the properties of their former masters."
And what about all the other states, especially the southern ones who, like I said, had much more at stake.
You're twisting yourself in pretzels with your denial. Some of the most admired founding fathers were slave holders and had a motive to keep it that way.
It's history, it was their way of life, made much easier by unpaid slave labor.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Some dude posts his blog on FB, and you buy that bs hook line and sinker.
The northern colonies did not have an economy based upon slavery. They didn't own a lot of slaves. They began banning slavery while still fighting the Revolutionary War. Why would they fight to preserve slavery and then ban it?
The southern colonies did have an economy based upon slavery. However, their support for revolution/independence was lukewarm, at best. England gave and protected their monopoly on tobacco. Similar economic protections existed for cotton. The Somersett Act did not apply to them. By and large, they wanted to stay in the British Empire. They weren't fighting to preserve slavery...it was already preserved, under favorable financial conditions. They didn't want to fight at all.
So your argument is illogical. There is no fact to back it up. You are only stating a grossly misinformed opinion. Try studying up on the lead up to the Revolution, and get back to us when you have a clue.
brush
(53,925 posts)You keep saying that the northern states began banning slavery during the war. Where is that evidence save for Vermont and Pennsylvania (that had no slaves by then)?
So why did the southern states fight if they didn't want to?
The three fifths compromise written into the Constitution anyone?
And you keep arguing that that was the only reason for the war. Of course it was not, but considering everything the south had at stake, it's only logical that preserving slavery was a consideration.
I know it soils myth but "taxation without representation" was surely not the only reason for the war.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I'm saying it had no relation to the War. None.
And the 3/5 Compromise had nothing to do with preserving or abolishing slavery. It was already accepted that the southern states could keep slaves. The 3/5 Compromise was result of a fight over apportionment of Congressional Seats in The HoR. Slaves were not citizens. Northern states did not want to count them towards apportioning seats in Congress, since that would give them more seats. Southern states wanted slaves included in apportioning Congressional seats, since that would give them more. We look back and consider it a ridiculous idea, but in those beginning days of the Country preserving national unity despite differences took precedence over logic and reason.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)
You're making the most ignorant, illogical, and unfactual argument I've ever seen.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)to outlaw the slave trade thirty years before Britain did so.
brush
(53,925 posts)And neither Washington or Jefferson freed their own enslaved people until they died, also long after the war.
Very big of them, huh.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)They also passed several laws earlier while still a colony that were vetoed by Royal Governors.
brush
(53,925 posts)
Jeff Murdoch
(168 posts)The book is the source for the ideas that you disagree so much with.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The reviews aren't universal. It sounds like the author has made a conclusion first, then tried to justify it. My own opinion, having admittedly not read the book, is that his premise flies in the face of logic and facts.
Yes, there were slaves in the northern colonies. But their economy wasn't based on slavery. The northern states began banning slavery while the Revolutionary War was still happening. Others banned slavery shortly after. Why would the fight to preserve slavery and almost immediately ban it? That simply makes no sense.
Somersett Act... 1772. There were uprisings in response to British actions during the decade prior. Were the Northern colonists clairvoyant? Not likely. Each uprising by American rebels was a response, not a pre-emotive strike. The Somersett Act only applied to British soil, not to colonies. Slavery continued in other colonies until 1833...61 years later. Nope, not likely a cause.
Southern states.... Yes, they had a slave-based economy. They also had a tobacco monopoly granted them, and very favorable trade with England in cotton, rice, and indigo. There simply wasn't the anti-crown rebellion in the south that there was in the north. Was there a Charleston Slave Party to equal the Boston Tea Party? No. The south was by and large contented with the status-quo with England...they were becoming wealthy because of it.
Finally, the words of the founding fathers themselves. Any mention of preserving slavery in the Declaration? No. If preserving dlavery was a primary reason for Independance, wouldn't you think it would be mentioned? Was preserving slavery mentioned in any of the petitions of grievances sent to the King? No. Not a peep.
So, in a nutshell, I suspect the author is putting the cart before the horse. I'll check the book out, but I'm expecting more of an ideological rant than a logical factual treatise.
brush
(53,925 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 5, 2015, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)
the books, huh?
I asked you in my first response to you, how could you call something hogwash without having read the books?
And now you say you will check out the books.
That should have been your first response instead of going on about believing stuff on FaceBook — and invoking Abe Lincoln? Why Lincoln?
Twisting yourself into rhetorical pretzels of uninformed hubris in post after post arguing against the premise of the books without having read the books mentioned in the OP is not a good look.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And if that's the summary of the book, then I'm calling bullshit. If the colonies were fighting to preserve slavery, then why were they beginning to ban slavery before the war was even over? That makes sense to you? It fails even simple logic. Secondly, slavery is unmentioned in the Declaration of Independence, unmentioned in the Paris peace treaty, unmentioned in any of the grievances sent to GIII, and unmentioned in any of the pamphlets published and distributed by the Patriots. If it was a major cause, why is it not mentioned one single time? Nada. Zip. Further, the colonists were rebelling from the conclusion of the French and Indian War, which was a decade prior to the Somersett Act, which didn't even apply to them. How does that make sense? It doesn't. You have failed to answer any of these questions, why is that? If you have read the book, and are defending it, shouldn't those questions be answered?
brush
(53,925 posts)
Gothmog
(145,722 posts)
Igel
(35,382 posts)One note ...
History is different from science in several important ways. In science, one collects data to find a generalization or process that makes predictions. Then one tests those predictions in ways that might falsify the generalization. One does not generally test the predictions in ways that are intended to handily confirm the generalization. The goal is truth; to critically think about the hypothesis is to examine its underpinnings, look at the data, examine the logic in order to find flaws. A flawed hypothesis might be repaired; it might be trash.
When you get people trying to find data to support not the creation of a hypothesis but the hypothesis itself, you know you're not dealing with science. The goal is to support a claim, to support a narrative, an idea that you believe to be true. This happens in science too often; on rare occasions such a long-term belief-driven methodology produces results. Sadly, when that happens the take-away message is that it's routine. It's not. Most such belief-driven science founders and fails and is completely forgotten. Since we only remember the successes, and what we see is all there is to take into consideration (for fast, easy, sloppy thinkers if they don't know it already it doesn't exist), we assume that it happens all the time. Many critical-thinking exercises are intended to squash the "what you see is all there is" mode of smugness. They give a claim, and ask, "What kinds of evidence would disconfirm this, and where would you look?"
History is rather the opposite, esp. popular history and history that fits what most people want to think. The goal is to present just what you find compelling, what's needed to show you're right. And then ask people to draw the conclusions you've drawn, as you draw them, based on all and only the data they know. The only reason for acknowledging counterarguments is to dismiss them, often by relying on people's faulty knowledge of their underpinnings and supporting data. After all, what you see is all there is (to know). It allows one-note wonders to write and write and write.
This is made easier when people are motivated to reach a given conclusion, when they already have something that they want or need to believe is true. Religion is the unifying factor in the universe? Fine: Then the entire American saga is about religion, the one and only real driving force. Class politics? Sure. I can write that story. Enlightenment philosophy? That's doable. Great and bold, proud and ambitious men seeking to produce a city on a hill? Can do. You want the men to be greedy capitalist bastards? I can do that, as well. It's all about social movements and Every Man? Write on! It's all about slavery, as is everything else? Not a problem. It's about the Illuminati? Not a problem, Igel "knows" Weishaupt. All can be written as convincing histories. Pick an audience that seeks confirmation and being told they're right and it's easy. All those histories would be one-note histories. Half a truth is worse than a lie in many cases. 1/10 a truth, 1/50 a truth is even worse. They'd all be incomplete as to be wrong.
Beethoven's symphony #5 in c opens with a three-note sequence followed by a drop of a minor third. The same two bar sequence is then repeated a full step lower.
Blue canary wouldn't be able to handle even that meager material, but at least it's humble enough to know that if it were a lighthouse it wouldn't be able to keep the beaches shipwreck free.
Happy day 185 of 2015!
