FROM THE PULITZER PRIZE COMMITTEE
Posted on 05/06/2020 5:05:51 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
It’s a Putzer Prize.
I’ll bet he won’t be getting any Pulitzer Prizes anytime soon.
This is such BS. There were opponents of slavery in Britain, of course, but there was no serious effort to abolish it underway in 1776. Slavery would not be abolished in the British Empire for another 50 years.
Jefferson actually had a section in the Declaration of Independence blaming slavery on George III. Adams and Franklin made him take it out.
Her article in the Slimes was roundly disputed at the time by MANY historians from all political sides. It was not “history” it was “her story” and it tried to rewrite the facts.
“At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire,”
Everyone living in India during the Raj and all the coolies would be fascinated to know they were not slaves. Brits make a lot of hay on outlawing slavery, but the fact is that they had large amounts of essentially free labor living under their jackboot in their colonies. Fighting the ability of the Americas to import slaves was a competitive advantage for England more than a moral jihad, despite several hit movies.
And even when they did abolish, it was for much less pure reasons than are frequently given.
Was it a Pulitzer Prize for Fiction?
England didn’t abolish slavery until after the Revolution in their colonies.
RE: Can we rename the Pulitzer as the Duranty Prize
GOOD IDEA. But will the Pulitzer family and those funding it agree?
The 1,000 years of African/ME muslim enslavement, colonization, theft and terror of Europeans and Americans is ignored.
There is only one thing special about 1619. It’s a prime number.
In November of 1770, the [British] Board of Trade advised the King and his Council to disallow Virginia's act imposing an additional duty on imported slaves...According to the Board of Trade, Virginia's assembly intended to prohibit absolutely the slave trade. Such an action, in the board's opinion, would damage the economy of Great Britain and the colony. The lack of new slaves necessarily would limit tobacco production and would in turn raise prices, reduce consumption, and ultimately diminish the Crown's revenue from the tobacco trade...The Privy Council accepted the board's recommendation... [A Planters' Republic, 1996, citing Board of Trade to His Majesty, 23 Nov. 1770]
Before passing the act for a slave duty on March 21, the [Virginia] House agreed to send an address to the King asking for permission to limit slave traffic to Virginia...The Virginians acknowledged the value of the slave trade for some merchants in Great Britain, but they argued that the prohibition of the trade would encourage the settlement of the colonies "with more useful inhabitants" to the eventual benefit of the whole empire. The burgesses' appeal also emphasized the inhumanity of the trade and the potential threat that unchecked importations might present to the security of the American colonies.
"...the burgesses requested that the King 'remove all Restraints on your Majesty's Governors of this Colony, which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check so very pernicious a Commerce.'" [A Planters' Republic, 1996, citing Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1770-1772]
So it appears that the "drivers of negroes", as Samuel Johnson (King George's pensioner) had called them, were trying to end the slave trade in their state, but His Majesty's government wouldn't allow it.
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.