Posted on 10/26/2023 10:01:58 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
§ 11. Can the Americans with a good grace complain of tyranny in the mother country for imposing an easy and inconsiderable tax, whilst they themselves are rioting on the labour of thousand of their species, torn from their dearest relations and doomed to abject and perpetual slavery?In answer to this objection, it may be asked, where did this infamous commerce orginate? Where is it still carried on with all the eagerness which avarice can inspire? Where, but in England? By what means can it be abolished? Surely by that power alone, which America acknowledges the parent state, may juftly exercise over all her dominions, viz. the power of regulating their trade. The legislatures of some of the colonics have done what they could to put a stop to the importation of African slaves, by loading it with the heaviest duties: And others have attempted the total abolition of it, by acts of assembly which their governors refused to pass. And though they then petitioned for new instructions to their governors on this head, after all they failed of success. - Page ( 28 )
A fun thing happens when you crack open old books and start reading them. You start to see, hey wait a second, progressives are liars!
Just released into audio is the book Reflections on the rise, progress, and probable consequences, of the present contentions with the colonies. By a freeholder., which was originally published just three months after the United States declared Independence. October 18th, 1776.
It's not all that difficult to look to American Patriots living on North American soil in the 1770s and find voices proclaiming grief that they could not get their laws passed beyond the Empire's prying eyes which would put an end to slaving. But what would those voices today who are proponents of The 1619 Project say to a British voice, living in England and who had never set foot anywhere in America, who also acknowledges the prime role the Empire played in introducing and carrying on slavery on North American shores? Erskine isn't the only one.
This is the impossible position the progressives have put themselves in. Even early British citizens who were becoming anti-slavery could see the obvious. America wanted to get rid of slavery but the Empire kept stopping them from doing it.
Any progressive who wants to blame the U.S. for slavery and the U.S. did not even exist cannot answer. Any progressive who wants to blame the U.S. for slavery and the colonies were the first anti-transatlantic-slavery in the western hemisphere cannot answer. What was being said on both sides of the Atlantic - American patriots who wanted it gone and the later British abolitionists who would follow their lead - this is our golden ticket.
Ping.....
Britain FORCED slavery on America.
"The legislatures of some of the colonies have done what they could to put a stop to the importation of African slaves, by loading it with the heaviest duties: And others have attempted the total abolition of it, by acts of assembly which their (Royal) governors refused to pass." - (October 18th, 1776)
.
It took the United States over 80 years to be rid of the horrid British institution of slavery.
Oh, and white Republicans passed the 13th to 15th Amendments without a single Democrat vote.
The British abolished the slave trade throughout the vast majority of their empire in 1807.
They would go on to make slavery itself illegal in 1833, with gradual abolition mandated by 1840.
It would take us another few decades (and a civil war) to do likewise.
And as has been pointed out to you before on at least one other thread: they were British colonies, chartered as such with the King as sovereign. In the realm of legality and government, the British sovereign's authority (as exercised by the King and/or Parliament) overruled the colonial legislatures de jure. That difference in opinion regarding governance was one of the factors leading to the American Revolution.
Alas, when the colonies revolted and declared independence, clearly not every colony was so keen on ending slavery as John Erskine alleges, since history dictates otherwise. Some wanted to end it; others didn't. Hence the numerous compromises.
And so, as has also been pointed out to you before, blaming the British at some point loses its sting when the Empire goes and abolishes both the slave trade and then slavery itself decades before the United States does.
No.
1619 gets completely 100% gutted. It no longer stings at all and is utterly disarmed and destroyed. Even you avoided 1619.
You should have the common decency to point out that the sting is not lost at all in regard to 1619, and do it in one single, short sentence.
I'm happy to talk with you about the rest next and I hope we can keep this going. I'm just only keeping it simple and starting at the beginning. Just one thing. 1619. It's destroyed, it's dead Jim.
At this early time in the morning, I incorrectly used the context of “sting”. Doesn’t matter, I was clear in my intent. Pointing out early American abolitionists and the multiple vetos from the crown does not lose its sting nearly as badly as the legends foretell.
I’ve never even talked about or defended the ludicrous claims of the 1619 Project, so I don’t know even know why you’re bringing it up to me as a point of criticism.
But you pinged me to this thread (and I certainly don’t recall ever requesting that I be added to any American history ping list of yours), when our only prior interaction had been on another thread related to the history of slavery and abolition in America.
Nonetheless, claims about slavery in America being a British institution (as compared to a global one that had existed for time immemorial) are as ridiculous as those who claim that slavery is America’s original sin.
There existed abolition movements in both the colonies and in Great Britain. It just so happens that the British succeeded in abolishing it before America did.
There also existed Americans who, after independence was declared, were unwilling to manumit their slaves, and would not do so until forced to as a result of the Civil War.
So blaming the British for the obstinacy of American slaveholders, decades after independence was declared, rings hollow.
But that’s just me.
"I’ve never even talked about or defended the ludicrous claims of the 1619 Project, so I don’t know even know why you’re bringing it up to me as a point of criticism."
See post 1. - ("original post", if you prefer this phrase. IOW, scroll to the top. It's there.)
"you pinged me to this thread (and I certainly don’t recall ever requesting that I be added to any American history ping list of yours), when our only prior interaction had been on another thread related to the history of slavery and abolition in America."
I did which makes it on topic. You're not on the big ping list, it was a separate ping. Our prior conversation was unresolved by continued CW muck. The callous minimization of American abolitionism and the deeds of our Founding Fathers is a dark deception cooked up by progressive academics. I'm showing what they have omitted and one way how to get information out efficiently - this is how progressives fool people is that they hide inconvenient things. Now it's on YouTube.
"claims about slavery in America being a British institution (as compared to a global one that had existed for time immemorial) are as ridiculous"
They are not any more ridiculous than claims of slavery in the Caribbean. Somehow hard left wing historians have found success in convincing people that "American slavery" is somehow deeply unique and distinct, when every aspect appeared elsewhere in the Americas - all of which under European control prior to 1776. One of the most famous of these claims - the so called "Black Codes" - first appeared in Barbados! They were imported from the islands. Do you have the willingness to admit that? Somehow that too gets blamed on the U.S. Am I too zealous in favor of the U.S.? Absolutely. That's a feature, it's not a bug in the program.
At the end of the day, it wasn't the globe who controlled the Caribbean. It wasn't the globe who controlled the 13 colonies. This should not be difficult for you to grasp. It was controlled by the British Empire. Ergo, they are the topic. Simple! Yes.
"There existed abolition movements in both the colonies and in Great Britain."
No. Absolutely not. The timeline could not be more clear as to whom was first and whom was second. This is absolutely non-negotiable. I have a feeling you'll insist on ignoring The Timeline. So, The Timeline. America was first and deserves credit for it. The empire tried to stop us, which is the whole point, and they likewise deserve (dis)credit all the same for their recorded and provable misdeeds.
Oh, and in case you forgot, I didn't. The Timeline.
You are actively minimizing American abolitionism. That is why I pinged you and the rest here. By purposefully distorting the timeline and the historical record, you are, yes, you are, minimizing American abolitionism. It was in fact the first of its kind during the transatlantic period. The entire world would look different had the empire allowed American abolitionists to do their jobs unfettered.
"There also existed Americans who, after independence was declared, were unwilling to manumit their slaves, and would not do so until forced to as a result of the Civil War."
That's fine. What happened afterward is irrelevant. I don't care about you and your little group's Civil War navel gazing.
It was the progressives who so eagerly brought up 1619, and we could be and should be aggressively ramming it down their throats as thoroughly as we can. Fully exposed, they won't like the taste of it. But we keep letting them get away with it, as you're doing right now in this instant.
Perhaps you are a British citizen and not an American one - I never thought to ask. That would explain a lot. If that is so, well then to that point from here forward I apologize because that is my error to own, it is my failed assumption and that is my fault.
"So blaming the British for the obstinacy of American slaveholders, decades after independence was declared, rings hollow."
That's your own argument, not mine. So yes, it is just you. Absolutely just you all alone. First and foremost, I have no need to blame.... Isn't that beautiful! Real guilt is real and thorough guilt. It sounds crazy to say it, but I guess that's where you've pushed us to. We have the evidence.
My argument is: blaming pointing out the British for the obstinacy of American slaveholders, of the crown which you so desperately want to keep avoiding, decades after prior to independence was being declared, rings hollow loud and clear, my friend.
Easier to read - My argument is: pointing out the obstinacy of the crown which you so desperately want to keep avoiding, prior to independence being declared, rings loud and clear, my friend.
Not all colonies were equal; treating the American colonists as one mass of abolitionists is as much a distortion of history as those who claim the colonists were rampant slavers. Consider the case of James Oglethorpe, the proprietor of the colony of Georgia: at his behest (partially due to concerns with runaway slaves potentially aiding the Spanish who controlled Florida, but also because of his motivation regarding the moral character of the colonists), he actually got the House of Commons in Parliament to codify a ban in 1735.
Slavery was only made legal in the colony of Georgia at the behest of its own colonists in 1751, after a petition to Parliament was filed in 1749 to reverse the ban.
Somehow hard left wing historians have found success in convincing people that "American slavery" is somehow deeply unique and distinct, when every aspect appeared elsewhere in the Americas - all of which under European control prior to 1776.
And they are wrong to characterize America so; you'll get no argument from me on that front.
At the end of the day, it wasn't the globe who controlled the Caribbean. It wasn't the globe who controlled the 13 colonies. This should not be difficult for you to grasp. It was controlled by the British Empire.
Throughout the 18th century, control of the Caribbean vacillated between the Spanish and the British to varying degrees (with smatterings of French, Dutch, and Danish possessions; the Swedes only showed up in the 1780s). All of them practiced and participated in the slave trade. To render the Caribbean as though it were solely British is inaccurate.
The empire tried to stop us, which is the whole point, and they likewise deserve (dis)credit all the same for their recorded and provable misdeeds.
The British could do nothing to stop the new American states from manumitting their slaves and fully abolishing slavery after the conclusion of the American Revolution. But by that point, fully abolishing slavery ran into the brick wall called...their fellow Americans. Sad, but true.
Perhaps you are a British citizen and not an American one - I never thought to ask.
I am a natural-born citizen of the USA. As such, I have no interest in making out American historical figures to be anything other than what they were; turning them all into angels is just as deceitful and wrong as turning them into devils wholesale.
When do you begin doing that?
"The British could do nothing to stop the new American states from manumitting their slaves and fully abolishing slavery after the conclusion of the American Revolution. But by that point, fully abolishing slavery ran into the brick wall called...their fellow Americans. Sad, but true."
No but by that time, the veto damage had already been done and an additional decade's worth of British slaving had increased numbers even higher. Much of that is due to the revwar moreso than the crown veto measures, but it still remains the same. The veto measures necessitated also halting for the war, so they do not have full mutual exclusivity. It's like dominoes. The whole thing got pushed back and the next domino falls, then falls the next.
The entire world would look different had the empire allowed the original American abolitionists to do their jobs unfettered.
I know you seem to deeply dislike it when someone uses the phrase British slaving, but they vetoed it and because they vetoed it, the empire owns it. It's not meant as a personal jab, FWIW, and it should not be received that way either. Besides. The empire doesn't actually even exist anymore. So who cares? It may be fun for you or I to poke some BLM activist in the ear and frustrate them by proclaiming that Britain should pay reparations, but today's Britain is a different place. The empire is gone, just as gone as U.S. slavery. Both are academic discussions and nobody should be paying anything $$ here.
What there does though, there seems no question in my mind that the original 13 colonies would have at a minimum began their lives in 1776 as 3, maybe even 4 free soil states and 10(9?) slave instead of the full 13 slave they were forced into becoming. Starting ahead that early would no doubt have serious ramifications to our detriment this very day.
A little veto goes a long way. And along with that veto goes very real and very undeniable guilt.
Oh, and white Republicans passed the 13th to 15th Amendments without a single Democrat vote.
This is historically inaccurate. The proposed 13th Amendment had 8 Democrat votes in the Senate, 16 Democrat votes in the House.
On April 8, 1864, the Senate took the first crucial step toward the constitutional abolition of slavery. Before a packed gallery, a strong coalition of 30 Republicans, four border-state Democrats, and four Union Democrats joined forces to pass the amendment 38 to 6.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=065/llcg065.db&recNum=515
Congressional Globe, Senate, April 8, 1864, 13th Amendment vote, passed 38 to 6.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=068/llcg068.db&recNum=532
Congressional Globe, House, January 31, 1865, 119-56-8
https://www.history.com/news/congress-passes-13th-amendment-150-years-ago
House of Representatives Speaker Schuyler Colfax declared the results with a quiver in his voice: “On the passage of the joint resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States, the ayes have 119, the noes 56.” The measure passed by the narrowest of margins, with eight members abstaining. Sixteen Democrats, all but two lame ducks, joined the full slate of Republicans in approving the measure.
The introduction of African slaves to what became the United States was not begun by the English in Virginia, but rather by the Spanish in Florida in 1526, in San Miguel de Guadalpe. Those hundred or so slaves took umbrage at their treatment, rebelled, killed their master, burned his house to the ground, and fled. What became of those slaves who self-manumitted is unknown; they may have simply perished, or taken up with Indians. The colony failed and it is uncertain if it may have been in what is now Georgia, near Sapelo Island.
- - - - -
Ending slavery in the British empire is not comparable to ending slavery in the colonies or the United States. The slaves freed by the British empire were not in Great Britain. The day after emancipation they were not saying "Welcome, neighbor. Don't forget to register to vote."
The pressure cooker in America was what to do with the slaves if they were freed. The plan to send them back to Africa was logistically impossible. In Lincoln's defense of the Emancipation Proclamation, he sought to assuage the Northern states, telling them that they could refuse to accept them.
CW 5:534-35, President Lincoln, December 1, 1862, Annual Message to Congress
Heretofore colored people, to some extent, have fled north from bondage; and now, perhaps, from both bondage and destitution. But if gradual emancipation and deportation be adopted, they will have neither to flee from. Their old masters will give them wages at least until new laborers can be procured; and the freed men, in turn, will gladly give their labor for the wages, till new homes can be found for them, in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race. This proposition can be trusted on the mutual interests involved. And, in any event, cannot the north decide for itself, whether to receive them?
The Northern states had had largely been ethnically cleansed by gradual emancipation which freed few, but created an overwhelming incentive to sell slaves South.
One can only imagine what would have happened to the abolition movement had it been approached like current illegal immigration. Enterprising Southern states could have engaged in compensated emancipation of, say, 5,000 slaves a day, and then delivered them to freedom in New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, and such. How much abolition would they have taken under those circumstances?
They might have sounded like the Democrat politicians of today in NYC, Chicago, or one memorable emergency in Martha's Vineyard.
“Britain FORCED slavery on America.”
It is worse than that. Much worse.
After the Americans won the Revolution, Britain forced thirteen of the thirteen states to vote to include slavery in the U.S. Constitution.
Later the British forced U.S. Grant to own a slave or two.
Eventually Grant broke free of British control and freed his slave but Mrs. Grant was still under their spell.
That still rankles me (what the Brits did). Bad, bad Englishmen.
We were robbed.
“Americans wanted to create a country in 1776 that consisted of 3 (likely 4) free-soil states, and only 9 slave states.”
The Bee has stung again.
"The legislatures of some of the colonies have done what they could to put a stop to the importation of African slaves, by loading it with the heaviest duties: And others have attempted the total abolition of it, by acts of assembly which their (Royal) governors refused to pass." - (October 18th, 1776)
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.
