Replies

“Nothing like this (slave state grievance against the King because he was threatening to free the slaves) is written anywhere in the link I gave.”

See grievance 27, your link.

“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.”

User jeffersondem said: (post 76) "One of the reasons that the 13 slave states rebelled was because the King was threatening to “free the slaves.""

User jeffersondem later said: "See grievance 27, your link. “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.”"

I'm looking for the "free the slaves" part. I don't see it. If you mean the domestic insurrections part, no, that's not what that is referring to. The British had to be extremely careful about what promises they made because Loyalist slave owners needed to be taken care of. And yes, hurting loyalist slave interests would've hurt the Crown because of their mercantilist tax generating schemes.

The incitement of domestic insurrections was purely revenge based. Kill your slave masters for enslaving you. Anyone held as a slave seeking freedom (only patriot slave owners, mind you) was encouraged to sneak away in the night and go join the British military.

"The British mobilization of slaves was a double-edged sword. Dunmore had called only on the slaves of patriots to join his troops. There was, however, the danger that the slaves of loyalists would do the same."

War in an Age of Revolution, 1775-1815

You are putting your anti-Americanism on display again - your foolhardy rush to blame everything everywhere slavery related all on the United States completely left you blind to the issue of loyalist slave owning.

Whoops.

Which brings us all the way back to the beginning - the only place you found abolitionism (where it was to be found) was in the Patriot side. There was none of it on the loyalist side. The Brit of the 1700s did not issue blanket proclamations such as that. They were a slave empire - Would it be a complete surprise to you if I were to inform you that Britain had slavery in various parts of the Caribbean?

Sadly, I think that's news to you. All you really seem to be good at is trolling. Why are you still here?

jeffersondem quoting Declaration: "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.”

We have covered this ground before and jeffersondem insists the words, "domestic insurrections" can only refer to slave revolts, nothing else and therefore our Founders were primarily, even exclusively, worried about Brits "freeing the slaves" in their Declaration of Independence.

It's nonsense, of course, because there were no slave revolts in 1776, or later, but there were many "domestic insurrections" -- attacks by British loyalists against American patriots -- and that is the true meaning of this Declaration item.

As ProgressingAmerica points out, slave revolts could just as easily attack slaveholder Loyalists as Patriots and so that is not what Lord Dunmore called for in November, 1775.
Rather, Dunmore called for, in effect, Patriots' slaves to sneak off and join the British army, offering them freedom in exchange.

But Dunmore's & Clinton's proclamations did not help win the war for the Brits because, unlike insane Confederates of the 1860s, during the Revolutionary War Gen. George Washington also offered slaves freedom in exchange for military service.

One result was that at the surrender of Yorktown in 1781, a British observer noted that roughly one in four of US troops was African American, serving in integrated units.

So our Revolutionary War was not about Brits threatening to free American slaves, but rather was about Americans offering slaves freedom in exchange for military service, and that proved to be one of the margins of our victory.