Posted on 07/15/2019 4:18:23 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
In fact, Mr. Madison's War (which considering his ties to Jefferson might classify it as one of our several Democrat inspired and ill considered wars) almost undid us. The Brits finally concluded that peace and a gradual reconciliation was better than more wars that they could at that time not really lose, but neither outright win, with their rambunctious and increasingly powerful cousins.
Actually, I’ve never given that a thought, and have never come across any information that might shed light on that possibility. I watched a program not long ago that focused on Bristol, England, and that it was the leading slave port in Georgian England.
Thanks. I hear the arguement that, but for the Revolution, slavery would have ended in the colonies in 1833, but I think that’s a bit simplistic.
As always when you’re speculating about what would have happened or could have happened or might have happened, it’s just that, speculation. An interesting parlor game, however!
Lars Larson interviewed Bryce Zabel on his show today...may have been a repeat.. He’s written a couple of “ what if?” books. What if the Beatles had ‘t split up? What if Kennedy survived Dallas?
You have left out some important details.
In practical terms, only slaves below the age of six were freed in the colonies. Former slaves over the age of six were redesignated as "apprentices", and their servitude was abolished in two stages: the first set of apprenticeships came to an end on 1 August 1838, while the final apprenticeships were scheduled to cease on 1 August 1840. The Act specifically excluded "the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company, or to the Island of Ceylon, or to the Island of Saint Helena." The exceptions were eliminated in 1843.[17]It's not like, "Hey Presto" and it was done.Payments to slave owners
The Act provided for payments to slave-owners. The amount of money to be spent on the payments was set at "the Sum of Twenty Million Pounds Sterling".[18] Under the terms of the Act, the British government raised £20 million (£16.5 billion in 2013 pounds, when calculated as wage values)[19] to pay out for the loss of the slaves as business assets to the registered owners of the freed slaves. In 1833, £20 million amounted to 40% of the Treasury's annual income[20] or approximately 5% of the British GDP[21] (5% of the British GDP in 2016 was around £100 billion).[22] To finance the payments, the British government had to take on a £15 million loan, finalised on 3 August 1835, with banker Nathan Mayer Rothschild and his brother-in-law Moses Montefiore. The money was not paid back until 2015.
My point is that England was among the first, if not the first, European nation to abolish slavery. They did so before we did, and without a war. Had they defeated us during the Revolution, then due to the Philipsburg declaration slavery would have ended here with our defeat.
If we are going to play the ever popular moralizing over slavery game then lets quit pretending that we have the edge. Britain abolished the Atlantic slave trade the very same year that our Constitution abolished it. And they abolished slavery in their colonies before we abolished it here. Moreover Britain’s navy put a whole lot more energy into shutting down the slave trade than we did. Nothing more complicated than that, other than that falling into the moralizing trap in the first place is a fool’s game.
True, tho you could add the Battle of Baltimore to the American “win column.” The British had to abandon their objective, that’s a defeat. Of course they did take Washington DC for awhile . . .The Brits finally concluded that peace and a gradual reconciliation was better than more wars that they could at that time not really lose, but neither outright win, with their rambunctious and increasingly powerful cousins.
In that context, a British general commented in 1820 that it was already too late to profit by fighting the United States. America (whose population was geometrically increasing with its large families of men who had been children during the previous war) had become so strong in just a few years, that Britain could not hope to hold Canada in any future conflict with the US. In that sense, the War of 1812 was a tragedy - if delayed a year or two, it might very well have been won by the US - or prudently avoided by both sides.Congress blundered by declaring war without even figuring out how to pay for it. It should have mounted a major - expensive - War Department upgrade program first.
They used a phased approach and bought the slaves out of bondage. That was not even tried in the US. Our federal government used aggression as the only recourse and didn't even attempt a peace commission.
"The Philipsburg Proclamation is a historical document issued by British Army General Sir Henry Clinton on June 30, 1779 intended to encourage slaves to run away and enlist in the Royal Forces.
"The proclamation extended the scope of Dunmore's Proclamation, issued four years earlier by Virginia's last Royal governor, Lord Dunmore, granting freedom to slaves in Virginia willing to serve the Royal forces. The new document, issued from Clinton's temporary headquarters at the Philipsburg Manor House in Westchester County, New York, proclaimed all slaves in the newly established United States belonging to American Patriots free, regardless of their willingness to fight for the Crown. It further promised protection, freedom and land to any slaves who left their master.
"The move was one of desperation on the part of the British, who realized that the Revolution was not going in their favor. In a way it was too successful: so many slaves escaped (over 5,000 from Georgia alone), that Clinton ordered many to return to their masters. Following the war, about 3,000 former slaves were relocated to Nova Scotia, where they were known as Black Loyalists. Many continued on to Sierra Leone, where they established Freetown, its capital."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipsburg_Proclamation
“Compensated emancipation”. I think it was actually done within Washington DC during the war.
The Brits chose to end slavery without bankrupting those who were invested in it while it was legal. Abolitionists in the US couldn’t have cared less about what the downstream effect would be. They were zealots, and even Lincoln wasn’t fond of them.
“Our federal government used aggression as the only recourse and didn’t even attempt a peace commission”
Confederates convened a peace conference in Washington DC in February 1861 in the attempt to avoid a war. Former US President John Tyler was a member. There wasn’t an equal interest from President Buchanan. And then Lincoln believed that a short war would force the seceded states back into the Union.
Why does everybody run for the tall grass on the issue of slavery when we don’t have to?
That right there is a progressive fallacy.
People who live in slavery under communism are not always bought and sold. The slaves who built the Great Wall and the Terracotta Army were not always bought and sold.
The slaves who ended up in the western hemisphere on British ships were slaves before they were bought and sold - enslaved by islamic raiders and other african conquerors.
How about all of the sex slaves held in captivity right now as we speak? Many of whom have never been bought and sold? Must not be slaves after all, if we follow this "bought and sold" business to its logical conclusion.
Let's talk.
Thanks for sharing!!
Probably because it’s a loaded argument and they are wise enough not to feed into the Left’s moral condemnation of America. Some slow wits think that the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson will escape the fate being meted out their Confederate heirs.
“That right there is a progressive fallacy.”
No, it’s called “logic”. You should give it a try some time.
“and they are wise enough not to feed into”
So the plan is to continue not responding and hoping it will just go away. Basically, respond with apathy.
This has been the plan over the last four decades of them calling the Founders racist. What exactly recommends this plan to you now as a good plan for the next four decades going forward?
The plan is to not be stupid enough to get drawn into arguments over the morality of slavery thinking that you will magically exempt the Founders.
The Founders who owned slaves aren’t going to be granted an exemption.
The Left are going to call the Founders racist no matter what anyone else says. It’s what they do. Dimwits like Dinesh and Beck think it’s a great idea to battle the Left on the ground of their choosing.
It’s usually not a good idea to act as useful idiot for the Left in their endless quest to denigrate and legitimatize America, unless your goal is to help them do it.
I don’t think anybody, including myself, thinks the Founders will receive some sort of an “exception”, nor is it a moral argument of slavery.
The problem stems from decades ago, when conservatives could and should have stopped sending their children off to the re-education centers we commonly refer to as “universities”. That refusal didn’t happen. So starting in the 80s when this idea of the Founders as racist was cooked up by academia, it was implanted into every non-conservative and conservative student possible and has since been increasingly implanted for the last 3 to 4 decades. So the argument is here, it was allowed to grow and fully bloom all of its flowers. The argument cannot be avoided. The only argument now is how to deal with it, we have no choice but to deal with it. We surrendered that choice of avoiding it 4 decades ago.
The real point isn’t what progressives call anybody. The point is what do the facts say. The facts say that early colonial and yes some founders were fighting against the British to prevent slavery from coming to these shores meanwhile his highness fought against this abolitionist wave and imposed slavery on us anyways, against our will. The facts say that the king and/or parliament during this time period are the ones who were on the wrong side of history.
The bottom line is that these facts give us, not the progressives, the advantage. Even if its a small one. You can leave that advantage on the table if you choose, many of us will not. Not sure why on earth you would do that since its the only advantage on this issue you will get(or that I have seen so far), but that is in fact your choice. And since we have the advantage here, it is in no way battling on the “ground of their choosing”. Progressives would never leave us on any ground with any advantage. This is our choosing.(as you pointed out, others are already here; Dinesh, etc.) Sitting around in apathy, now that is the “ground of their choosing”. What they want is for us to either feel hopeless, or to feel “above it all”. Neither is constructive and I reject both.
The only reason the progressives think they have an advantage is because most don’t know these facts exist. Their advantage is in the perception and decades of time, nothing more. That’s why I don’t post on my blog very often, because I’m not primarily a blogger. These facts are going up on YouTube and other places as fast as I can create and get them there, hopefully it will make up the time difference. Basically I’m trying to do something different than how others do. So far it doesn’t seem to be censored by big tech. Only time will tell.
I don’t like leaving in disagreement but think that you and I are just about done here. I do hope you have a good day/evening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.