Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ProgressingAmerica; x; Renfrew; wardaddy; BroJoeK; Pelham; DiogenesLamp; central_va; woodpusher; ...
“I'm looking for the “free the slaves” part. I don't see it.”

Grievance 27 was part of your link; and that is linked to Dunmore’s Proclamation.

Read the link to the Dunmore Proclamation with me: “The proclamation declared martial law[1] and promised freedom for slaves of American Patriots who left their owners and joined the British army, becoming Black Loyalists.”

Perhaps you would now like to argue that information in the link you provided can't be trusted; or argue that “promised freedom for slaves” does not mean “free the slaves.”

Earlier you noted “the empire (who) hurt us in at least (the) 27 different ways listed in the Declaration of Independence.”

The freshly-minted 13 independent slave states did not like the British hurts and they said so in their Declaration. This includes the King's attempt to mess with their slaves and set them free.

As you yourself have said: “the Declaration says that Britain treated Americans badly.”

91 posted on 08/12/2023 5:17:53 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]


To: jeffersondem
Cited: "and promised freedom for slaves of American Patriots who left their owners"

Thank you for backing up what I just said, you're not even reading what you're posting.

"or argue that “promised freedom for slaves” does not mean “free the slaves.”"

Look at what you omitted. No, it does not mean that. You are twisting the language by hiding things. What I posted one reply up remains correct, this backs up my assertion, not your own.

92 posted on 08/12/2023 5:37:11 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (The historians must be stopped. They're destroying everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

To: jeffersondem; x; Renfrew; wardaddy; BroJoeK; Pelham; DiogenesLamp; central_va; woodpusher

All of this finger pointing misses the point, because your track record is to muddy the fingers until nothing is left but an intelligible husk of a former discussion. I’ll put it to you another way to bring this back to simplicity:

The empire forces slavery on the colonies by vetoing successfully enacted colonial laws in the early 1770s’ that would’ve at a minimum reduced the problem in regard to the slave question, then the empire turns around and weaponizes the very same slaves that the American legislatures were trying to put a stop to. Dunmore’s as you pointed out was in 1775. Of course, Dunmore (as governor) dissolved the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1774, to prevent any further “inconvenient” laws.

That’s how nefarious the whole situation got and the timeline couldn’t be more clear.

It’s good to be king. Or as they say in Vegas, the house always wins.


93 posted on 08/13/2023 12:37:21 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (The historians must be stopped. They're destroying everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson