Should the British Government be dissolved because they authorized slavery?

PGA Weblog ^

[Jan_Sobieski]

Let’s start by outlawing the Democrat Party in America for their slavery platform, KKK creation and support, segregation support, Jim Crow laws, and dependency enabling welfare. ;-)

[CodeToad]

I am a southerner, but even I recognize the slave States were democratic party members. That party needs disbanded.

[ProgressingAmerica]

You're very close. I worry that you intended that as a bit of sarcasm, not knowing you actually spoke a truth.

Many of the colonies, however, soon came to a realization of the objections against this species of trade. New England, Pennsylvania, and even South Carolina were anxious to discourage it by imposing a heavy tax on slaves. Among the Southern leaders, Jefferson and Lee were opposed to the practice and persistently sought to put it under the ban of the law. But the British Parliament abrogated all measures aimed at legal interference with the traffic, and British merchants insisted upon its continuance.

In 1761, for instance, it was proposed in the legislature of Virginia to suppress the importation of Africans by levying a prohibitory duty. The act was passed; but in Great Britain it met the fate of all similar bills, and was sent back with a veto. in council issued an instruction under his own hand on December 10, 1770, commanding the Governor of Virginia, “upon pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.”

The History of North America, Volume 6

https://books.google.com/books?id=yGIsAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA18

With these vetos, Britain forced slavery on America.

[PIF]

I am also sure the weren’t the only tribes who did this.

—
The only question to ask is: Which tribes did NOT take slaves?

[Reily]

Truly !

[Jan_Sobieski]

Today’s Democrats believe in what’s called “the great switch”. This says that some time in the mid 60s the Democrats and Republicans switched with Democrats becoming the Minority Rights party, and Republicans carrying the mantle of resident racist party.

DEMOCRATS ALL BELIEVE THIS!?!

[Bull Snipe]

“The British forced slavery on America”

Did the British force the colonists to buy slaves?

[ProgressingAmerica]

I didn’t say anything about colonists, I said America. You’re moving goal posts. What is your angle here?

[Bull Snipe]

Alright then, did the British force British Subjects living in North America, prior to the revolution, to buy slaves?

[ProgressingAmerica]

This line of loaded questions doesn’t achieve what you think it does.

[Bull Snipe]

No buyers, no sellers. It didn’t matter who sold them or how they got here. We, the Americans, bought all the slaves that we could get our hands on. It is our problem. Blaming the British Monarch, or the Muslim Emir or the African chief does not in any way mitigate or extenuate the fact that we were the ones that bought the slaves.

[ProgressingAmerica]

When the patriots decided consciously to abolish slavery, when the patriots consciously decided to write the laws and put them on the governor’s desks, and when the king(parliament, etc) consciously decided to veto the laws and prevent them from becoming colonial law, in that singular moment everything changed. What you are saying is completely false.

[Bull Snipe]

No, not saying that the patriots didn’t do those things. What I am saying is that other “patriots” were buying slaves as fast as they could be brought in from Africa. When the last red coated soldier left the 13 colonies, the colonies became able to abolish slavery. they chose not to do so. When they drafted the Articles of Confederation, they chose not to end slavery. When they drafted the Constitution of the United States, they chose not to end slavery. From the day the last of the King’s soldiers left the 13 colonies, we, and we alone are responsible for the existence of slavery in what would become the United States of America.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"When the last red coated soldier left the 13 colonies, the colonies became able to abolish slavery. they chose not to do so."

This is all false. After Independence was declared, the shooting started. Pennsylvania didn't wait when it came to abolition. They abolished slavery in 1780, before the last of the red coated soldiers left. They couldn't wait to do it and didn't wait so that's falsehood number 1.

So yes, they did choose so. That's falsehood number 2. Several other states abolished slavery as well in subsequent years. Because of the resolve that the Founding generation had to abolish slavery beforehand, when the King wouldn't let them, abolition continued afterwards and that's exactly how we ended up with free states and slave states. These are direct results of the King. America did NOT choose that. Vetos have consequences.

"When they drafted the Articles of Confederation, they chose not to end slavery."

This is where the "by force" comes in. By vetoing abolitionist laws, the Empire inadvertently created this mess by ensuring that the only way 13 colonies could survive a fight with a superpower was to overlook everything and embrace Union first. Which is exactly what the Founders did. 1776 is always off the table as a date for abolition because with only 12 or 11 colonies(or even less) what you're left with is mass graves. Apparently you think mass graves might've been a more optimal result?

The struggle for freedom is usually never complete in one move. The Maroons in Jamaica did exactly the same thing that the Founders did. Cudjoe and his allies "freed themselves" and then they "came back for the slaves later". You do what you have to do when you're facing a superpower. You can't get everybody. That's impossible. That's reality.

The story of why 1776 could never be abolition year is contained in the cartoon "Join or Die" by Benjamin Franklin. 11 or 12 states couldn't overcome the Empire. The Empire's simple existence made it impossible. Furthermore, the Founders were so terrified of a tyrant having actually lived under one for so many decades, that the Articles of Confederation were expressly written to prevent that kind of national action from being truly pursued. If you would prefer to cast it in a cynical light, the Founders boxed themselves out. Living under a tyrant has that effect.

"When they drafted the Constitution of the United States, they chose not to end slavery."

I think you have a misconception of what the Convention actually was. This wasn't the U.N. This wasn't a meeting of all the dictators where they were going to get together and discuss the best ways to centrally plan society and plot and scheme against any who oppose them and should there be any opposition those with concerns will be shot or otherwise thrown into Bastilles and forgotten. You can't think the same way about the Founders as you would a progressive.

The convention was simply a discussion on how to frame government separately of society and nothing more. They did NOT come up with regulations to coerce people to live this way, they did NOT come up with taxes to force people to live that way, etc etc. What the Founders saw happening in society gave them much hope and it was exactly that: slavery was being rejected and abolished. Here's what was said on August 22nd 1787 about it:

Mr. SHERMAN was for leaving the clause as it stands. He disapproved of the slave trade; yet as the States were now possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public good did not require it to be taken from them, & as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of Government, he thought it best to leave the matter as we find it. He observed that the abolition of Slavery seemed to be going on in the U. S. & that the good sense of the several States would probably by degrees compleat it. He urged on the Convention the necessity of despatching its business.

"From the day the last of the King’s soldiers left the 13 colonies, we, and we alone are responsible for the existence of slavery in what would become the United States of America."

Only with honest stipulations. I'm not seeing much of that so the statement does not stand alone as a simple statement of fact. It's false. Now maybe you didn't know any of this and that's ok, it took me a long time to pick it up. But your line of questioning so far has been nothing but ahah-gotcha.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"What I am saying is that other “patriots” were buying slaves as fast as they could be brought in from Africa.

I'm going to throw this in as a bonus. The Empire had its chance to abolish slavery here in the colonies, knowing full well that abolition was what we desired. We were putting the bills on their desks. They knew. They chose to do the opposite. Britain willingly chose to veto our abolitionist bills after giving themselves abolition.

Benjamin Franklin called out the Empire for its blatant hypocrisy, and we have this letter from Franklin as a reminder forever that on slavery America was correct and the Empire was wrong.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3940983/posts

The Sommersett Case and the Slave Trade1 - Printed in The London Chronicle, June 18–20, 1772

It is said that some generous humane persons subscribed to the expence of obtaining liberty by law for Somerset the Negro.2 It is to be wished that the same humanity may extend itself among numbers; if not to the procuring liberty for those that remain in our Colonies, at least to obtain a law for abolishing the African commerce in Slaves, and declaring the children of present Slaves free after they become of age.

By a late computation made in America, it appears that there are now eight hundred and fifty thousand Negroes in the English Islands and Colonies; and that the yearly importation is about one hundred thousand, of which number about one third perish by the gaol distemper on the passage, and in the sickness called the seasoning before they are set to labour. The remnant makes up the deficiencies continually occurring among the main body of those unhappy people, through the distempers occasioned by excessive labour, bad nourishment, uncomfortable accommodation, and broken spirits.3 Can sweetening our tea, &c. with sugar, be a circumstance of such absolute necessity? Can the petty pleasure thence arising to the taste, compensate for so much misery produced among our fellow creatures, and such a constant butchery of the human species by this pestilential detestable traffic in the bodies and souls of men? Pharisaical Britain! to pride thyself in setting free a single Slave that happens to land on thy coasts, while thy Merchants in all thy ports are encouraged by thy laws to continue a commerce whereby so many hundreds of thousands are dragged into a slavery that can scarce be said to end with their lives, since it is entailed on their posterity!

Our guys, Americans, were the good guys. The Empire screwed up. Benjamin Franklin is correct here as he usually was. This case was blatant and utter hypocrisy. They knew what we wanted and what we wanted was what they gave to themselves while they kept it all to themselves.

Britain could have abolished slavery totally in 1772 instead of only at home. Why did they choose not to?

[Bull Snipe]

“knowing full well that abolition was what we desired”

Only true to a certain point. If they really wanted abolition, then they could have written it into the Articles of Confederation. They did not. Though the Congress under those articles did forbid slavery in the North West Territory.
They could have abolished slavery in the Constitution of the United States, but had to compromise with those states that wanted the institution made legal in the new Constitution.
They even refused to use the term slave in the new Constitution, referring to them as 3/5s of all other persons, or persons held to service or labor. At least the Confederate Constitution called a spade a spade, they were not ashamed to call it negro slavery.
As a Nation, we passed on the opportunity to outlaw slavery after our Independence from the British Crown.

Several states took that action, by 1808 slavery was illegal in the States north of the Mason Dixon line except Delaware. But these laws used gradual emancipation rather than grant out right freedom.
The last of New York slaves were not freed by legislation until 1827.
In Pennsylvania the last slaves were not freed until 1843.
In New Jersey, there were still two “apprentices for life” in 1860 slave census
Delaware, never freed their slave population. They didn’t even ratify the XIII Amendment. Slavery ended there with the adoption of the XIII Amendment.

[ProgressingAmerica]

You’ve decided to throw in with the blame-America first crowd and the 1619 Project. I have not and on that note we’ll have to agree to disagree.

[Bull Snipe]

not really. What you say about the Crown’s involvement in slavery in the colonies is true. But the institution lasted another 75 years after we became independent from Great Britain. That is our responsibility, nothing more, nothing less.