People say we messed up with integration. You know when we really messed up?
Options
The Lonious Monk
Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭
The American Revolution
As with most things we were taught in school, key issues were left out when discussing the American Revolution. Namely, some of the reasons it happened. We all know about the "No taxation without representation" and Boston Tea Party and all that, but something we weren't taught is that the colonists were also afraid that the British were going to abolish slavery in the colonies. Slavery was outlawed in the Britain and Ireland in 1774. Slaves in America had gotten word of it and were actually petitioning the Brits to abolish it in America too.
https://www.quora.com/Did-slave-owning-American-colonists-fear-the-British-would-eventually-outlaw-slavery-in-America-Did-this-help-motivate-the-War-of-Independence
Some slaves were serious enough that they basically escaped their slave masters to join up with the British. Still, when the fighting started, more slaves fought for the colonies. I'm sure there were reasons at the time, but looking back, that was just crazy. Think about it, if the slaves had revolted in large numbers during the Revolution, there is no way America could have won and maintained slavery. The colonists would have either had to quell the slave revolts and been crushed by the British or accept the slave independence in hopes that they would join the colonists or at the very least stay neutral. On top of all that, the Colonists' victory at Yorktown was what ended the war, but that was only accomplished because of information provided by James Armistead, a slave. Had blacks taken a unified stand and sided with the Brits, the Colonists may never have obtained the information needed to win that battle. And if blacks were a force in helping the Brits win, that may have expedited the abolishment of slavery, which even the colonists believed would come soon.
It's crazy how whites nowadays treat us like we don't belong or like this isn't our country. They just don't know how deep it goes. If we hadn't stuck up for this country or at the very least stayed in our place, there would be no U.S. as we know it.
As with most things we were taught in school, key issues were left out when discussing the American Revolution. Namely, some of the reasons it happened. We all know about the "No taxation without representation" and Boston Tea Party and all that, but something we weren't taught is that the colonists were also afraid that the British were going to abolish slavery in the colonies. Slavery was outlawed in the Britain and Ireland in 1774. Slaves in America had gotten word of it and were actually petitioning the Brits to abolish it in America too.
https://www.quora.com/Did-slave-owning-American-colonists-fear-the-British-would-eventually-outlaw-slavery-in-America-Did-this-help-motivate-the-War-of-Independence
Some slaves were serious enough that they basically escaped their slave masters to join up with the British. Still, when the fighting started, more slaves fought for the colonies. I'm sure there were reasons at the time, but looking back, that was just crazy. Think about it, if the slaves had revolted in large numbers during the Revolution, there is no way America could have won and maintained slavery. The colonists would have either had to quell the slave revolts and been crushed by the British or accept the slave independence in hopes that they would join the colonists or at the very least stay neutral. On top of all that, the Colonists' victory at Yorktown was what ended the war, but that was only accomplished because of information provided by James Armistead, a slave. Had blacks taken a unified stand and sided with the Brits, the Colonists may never have obtained the information needed to win that battle. And if blacks were a force in helping the Brits win, that may have expedited the abolishment of slavery, which even the colonists believed would come soon.
It's crazy how whites nowadays treat us like we don't belong or like this isn't our country. They just don't know how deep it goes. If we hadn't stuck up for this country or at the very least stayed in our place, there would be no U.S. as we know it.
Comments
-
Inte what?
-
I was actually taught by a Liberal that Brtian promised slaves their freedom if they joined but their intention was too never free them. The British just needed more soilders and Americans that were willing to trade on the Americans.
But British was likely to bring Blacks back home or to Africa as slaves. -
silverfoxx wrote: »I was actually taught by a Liberal that Brtian promised slaves their freedom if they joined but their intention was too never free them. The British just needed more soilders and Americans that were willing to trade on the Americans.
But British was likely to bring Blacks back home or to Africa as slaves.
That's incorrect. As I said, Britain abolished slavery there 2 years before the revolution began. There was no guarantee that they would free slaves in America. The important thing is that Americans believed they would free slaves and that was another reason they chose to rebel. -
i like the read and all and i can see the brits doing it for their own gain but im going to quote the words of kizzy for this. "Never trust a toobob." /thread
-
The Slavery Abolition Act wasnt passed in Britain until 1833. Quora is a poor source.
-
Nah....
Blacks messed up by never establishing a state in the Union..
-
The Slavery Abolition Act wasnt passed in Britain until 1833. Quora is a poor source.
The Somerset v Stewart case in Britain found that the law did not support slavery:The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law [statute], which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.[1]
The finding basically meant that no one had any legal rights to owning slaves. So whether there was an anti-slavery law in the books or not, slavery had effectively been rendered inert as evidenced by the fact that Stewart was immediately freed after the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart
Before you say wikipedia isn't a good source, they have a PDF of the ruling right at the very beginning of the article. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Slavery Abolition Act wasnt passed in Britain until 1833. Quora is a poor source.
The Somerset v Stewart case in Britain found that the law did not support slavery:The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law [statute], which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.[1]
The finding basically meant that no one had any legal rights to owning slaves. So whether there was an anti-slavery law in the books or not, slavery had effectively been rendered inert as evidenced by the fact that Stewart was immediately freed after the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart
Before you say wikipedia isn't a good source, they have a PDF of the ruling right at the very beginning of the article.
Interesting...
But how was slavery rendered inert after this ruling which was in 1772, slavery wasn't abolished in Britain until 1833? The ruling is so narrow, according to the article, that legal scholars don't agree as to the precedent that was even set. Even in the last line of the decision the judge states that he " cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England"... -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Slavery Abolition Act wasnt passed in Britain until 1833. Quora is a poor source.
The Somerset v Stewart case in Britain found that the law did not support slavery:The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law [statute], which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.[1]
The finding basically meant that no one had any legal rights to owning slaves. So whether there was an anti-slavery law in the books or not, slavery had effectively been rendered inert as evidenced by the fact that Stewart was immediately freed after the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart
Before you say wikipedia isn't a good source, they have a PDF of the ruling right at the very beginning of the article.
Wikipedia is fine as a source, granted that the source is provided. My point is that using the UK as a reference point as if their some bastion of anti-slavery is a bit disingenuous when you look at how they were one the biggest perpetuators of slavery in recent history. -
thegreatunknown wrote: »
Interesting...
But how was slavery rendered inert after this ruling which was in 1772, slavery wasn't abolished in Britain until 1833? The ruling is so narrow, according to the article, that legal scholars don't agree as to the precedent that was even set. Even in the last line of the decision the judge states that he " cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England"...
Read the whole line. By case, he's talking about the enslavement of Stewart, that's why he follows the part you quoted by saying "therefore the black must be discharged." Abolishing slavery basically means making it illegal, as in it is now unlawful to own slaves. That wasn't done until 1833. What this ruling did was set a precedent that there was no legal grounds to own a slave. In other word, you could all yourself a slaveowner if you wanted, have plantation, and have purchased a bunch of slaves, but if they all wanted to say "? You" and walk off your plantation, you had no legal rights to keep them there. That's not abolition, but it's a big deal. Remember, in the US, the Slave Watch, existed just to find runaway or escaped slaves and return them to their masters. Such a body couldn't have existed in England after this ruling.
Wikipedia is fine as a source, granted that the source is provided. My point is that using the UK as a reference point as if their some bastion of anti-slavery is a bit disingenuous when you look at how they were one the biggest perpetuators of slavery in recent history.
You're missing the entire point of this topic. In on way am I promoting the UK as a bastion of anything. The British Empire is a stain on human history in many ways. The ruling was made and held in Britain essentially taking the power of slaveowners. Initially, it only applied to Britain and not any of the colonies, but it did spread slowly. Slaves in America heard about it and some of them tried to petition the British government for a similar ruling of the American colonies. The point I'm making is that even if the British didn't have any intention of abolishing slavery right away before the Revolution, they did offer to do it during the Revolution as incentive to get blacks to fight for them. There is no reason to believe that they would have gone back on that given that they had already taken a step towards ending slavery. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for blacks to have sided with the colonists under those circumstances given the colonists had made it clear that they would not abolish slavery.
The situation with the Native Americans adds another wrinkle. Many of them also sided with the colonists, while most stayed out of the fight. However, that wasn't really in their best interests either. After all, the colonists had already made it clear that they wanted to expand into the Native lands where as the British government had set strict rules against any attempt to do that. The Brits had planned to work out a treaty which basically left the lands out west to the Natives recognized as their own nation. Now how long would they have honored that after the war, who knows, but it's still a better option than allowing the colonists to win given that the colonists would most definitely encroach on the Native lands if they won.
It just seems that for whatever reason, people who have suffered at the hands of America went to bat for America at a time when they probably should have been on the other side. And had they been on the other side, there probably would be no America as we know it.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »thegreatunknown wrote: »
Interesting...
But how was slavery rendered inert after this ruling which was in 1772, slavery wasn't abolished in Britain until 1833? The ruling is so narrow, according to the article, that legal scholars don't agree as to the precedent that was even set. Even in the last line of the decision the judge states that he " cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England"...
Read the whole line. By case, he's talking about the enslavement of Stewart, that's why he follows the part you quoted by saying "therefore the black must be discharged." Abolishing slavery basically means making it illegal, as in it is now unlawful to own slaves. That wasn't done until 1833. What this ruling did was set a precedent that there was no legal grounds to own a slave. In other word, you could all yourself a slaveowner if you wanted, have plantation, and have purchased a bunch of slaves, but if they all wanted to say "? You" and walk off your plantation, you had no legal rights to keep them there. That's not abolition, but it's a big deal. Remember, in the US, the Slave Watch, existed just to find runaway or escaped slaves and return them to their masters. Such a body couldn't have existed in England after this ruling.
Wikipedia is fine as a source, granted that the source is provided. My point is that using the UK as a reference point as if their some bastion of anti-slavery is a bit disingenuous when you look at how they were one the biggest perpetuators of slavery in recent history.
You're missing the entire point of this topic. In on way am I promoting the UK as a bastion of anything. The British Empire is a stain on human history in many ways. The ruling was made and held in Britain essentially taking the power of slaveowners. Initially, it only applied to Britain and not any of the colonies, but it did spread slowly. Slaves in America heard about it and some of them tried to petition the British government for a similar ruling of the American colonies. The point I'm making is that even if the British didn't have any intention of abolishing slavery right away before the Revolution, they did offer to do it during the Revolution as incentive to get blacks to fight for them. There is no reason to believe that they would have gone back on that given that they had already taken a step towards ending slavery. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for blacks to have sided with the colonists under those circumstances given the colonists had made it clear that they would not abolish slavery.
The situation with the Native Americans adds another wrinkle. Many of them also sided with the colonists, while most stayed out of the fight. However, that wasn't really in their best interests either. After all, the colonists had already made it clear that they wanted to expand into the Native lands where as the British government had set strict rules against any attempt to do that. The Brits had planned to work out a treaty which basically left the lands out west to the Natives recognized as their own nation. Now how long would they have honored that after the war, who knows, but it's still a better option than allowing the colonists to win given that the colonists would most definitely encroach on the Native lands if they won.
It just seems that for whatever reason, people who have suffered at the hands of America went to bat for America at a time when they probably should have been on the other side. And had they been on the other side, there probably would be no America as we know it.
Bro, I know what abolishing means.Furthermore, I'm in law school and I understand common law vs. statutory law.
You made some fair points, but the ruling didn't nullify the institution, which was my point. Yes it set a precedent. So even with the common law ruling, slavery was still widely practiced for six more decades in the Empire until the statutory law was made. -
thegreatunknown wrote: »
Bro, I know what abolishing means.Furthermore, I'm in law school and I understand common law vs. statutory law.
You made some fair points, but the ruling didn't nullify the institution, which was my point. Yes it set a precedent. So even with the common law ruling, slavery was still widely practiced for six more decades in the Empire until the statutory law was made.
That's fair. I'll just point out again thought that the ruling really only applied to Britain not the entire empire. I just point that out because you guys keep referring to the abolition law that covered the empire, or what was left of it at that time. So even if this ruling was ironclad, that law still would have been necessary.
Anyway, you guys are right. There is no guarantee that Britain would have freed the slaves in the U.S. had they won, but the point I was making was that people in the colonies believed Britain would and that was part of their motivation for rebelling.
