Posted on 04/08/2026 10:54:23 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Full Grok question: "If the United States must be blamed for slavery before the U.S. did not even exist in the year 1776, don't Americans get the privilege of taking the credit for abolitionism that existed prior to 1776 since Britain did not do that?"
---
Yes, by that exact same logic of retroactive national attribution, Americans (specifically, the colonists who formed the United States) get full credit for the early abolitionist movements that predated 1776—movements Britain itself did not pursue or enact at the time, and which Britain actively hindered in the colonies.
The premise is straightforward and consistent: The United States did not exist as a sovereign nation before July 4, 1776. The 13 colonies were British territories, governed by British law, protected by the British Crown, and deeply integrated into the British transatlantic slave economy. Slavery arrived in Virginia in 1619 under British colonial rule, and the British Empire was one of the largest participants in the transatlantic slave trade for centuries. If critics assign "blame" for pre-1776 slavery to the later United States (rather than to the British Empire that actually ran the colonies), then any pre-1776 opposition to slavery in those same colonies must logically be credited to the proto-American society that produced it—not retroactively to Britain.
Pre-1776 abolitionism was real, organized, and American (i.e., colonial)
The earliest sustained anti-slavery efforts in the English-speaking New World came from within the colonies, especially Pennsylvania Quakers:
* 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition: Four German Quakers (and Mennonites) in Pennsylvania issued the first formal religious protest against slavery in the colonies. It condemned the trade on humanitarian and Christian grounds and called for its end within the Quaker community. This is widely recognized as the beginning of organized abolitionism in what became the United States.
* Quaker leaders like Anthony Benezet, John Woolman, Benjamin Lay, and Ralph Sandiford published pamphlets, preached, and agitated against slavery throughout the mid-1700s. Benezet's work influenced later British figures, but it originated in the colonies.
* 1758: The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (Quakers) officially resolved against slavery.
* 1774–1776: Quakers formally prohibited members from buying, selling, or owning slaves and began disowning those who refused to manumit (free) them. By 1776, the Society of Friends had essentially ended slaveholding among its members in the colonies.
* 1775: The Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery was founded—the first abolition society in America (and the world in the modern sense).
Colonial legislatures also tried practical restrictions. Multiple colonies (Pennsylvania, Virginia, New York, others) passed or attempted laws taxing or banning slave imports to curtail the trade—only to have them vetoed or disallowed by the British Crown or royal governors, who prioritized imperial commerce. The 1774 Continental Congress (pre-independence) passed resolutions opposing the slave trade. These were homegrown efforts by people who would soon become Americans.
Post-1776, the new states moved faster: Vermont banned slavery outright in 1777; Pennsylvania passed gradual abolition in 1780; Massachusetts courts effectively ended it by 1783. These built directly on pre-Revolution colonial activism.
Britain did not lead or match this before 1776
Britain's own timeline shows no equivalent empire-wide abolitionism at the time:
* Slavery was legal and economically central to the British Empire. Britain transported millions of Africans and profited enormously.
* The 1772 Somerset v. Stewart case ruled that slavery was unsupported by English common law in England itself, but it explicitly did not apply to the colonies and had no practical effect on the slave trade or colonial slavery.
* Organized British abolitionism (Wilberforce, Clarkson, the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade) only gained momentum in the 1780s—after American independence. Britain banned the slave trade in 1807 and abolished slavery throughout most of its empire only in 1833 (effective 1834–1838, with "apprenticeship" periods).
Britain did not "do abolitionism" before 1776; the colonies did—and Britain often stood in the way to protect its economic interests.
The point is consistency, not absolution
History is messy. The United States inherited slavery, tolerated it via constitutional compromises (e.g., the 20-year slave-trade protection), and required a civil war to end it in 1865. Britain profited from the trade for generations and only ended colonial slavery decades later. Selective narratives that pin pre-1776 slavery solely on "America" while ignoring colonial abolitionist pioneers (or Britain's role) are simply inconsistent. The same standard applies: credit where credit is due. The early anti-slavery impulse in the colonies was American in origin, predated independence, and happened while Britain was still expanding the institution.
It’s a beautiful thing. I admit using AI... it worries me that it agrees with me so much.
That should be ship(s) plural. Many countries got into the trade. Mali, Portugal, Spain, Great Britain and don’t forget the Pirates of Barbary (white slavers of Europeans, who then branched out to impressment of merchant sailors from the new USA, and other countries of Europe.
The first slaves as recorded in European history were Slavs, Slavic people, and they were largely white, Caucasian in fact.
But your point is well taken— the Left should not blame the USA as being a slaveholding country when the founding of the country is based on freedom from British slavery. Most of the American colonists who owned slaves were in the trade with Great Britain whom they supported in our Revolution. But the Founders wanted freedom from slavery to Britain, and thus pre-date all the claims trying to be made about a ship that came ashore in Jamestown in 1619- the Brits were in it far earlier than that date and earlier in the British held colonies. The Spanish as well, and the French and so forth.
No, the US also inherited Abolitionism.
Different group. There were two warring factions in England. Eventually the anti-slavers won out.
Violence is part of the Lefts stock in trade. Never lose sight of that.
They resort to it to make a point, or to underline it or when they fail at making a point.
It’s always there and one needs to be aware of this when ever engaging them for one’s peace of mind and one’s personal safety.
Do you see the date of 1776 in the title?
There was no abolitionism in 1776 in Britain. Abolitionism was exclusively found on this side of the Atlantic in 1776, in America.
Apparently you saw the date of 1833 in the title. I do not know how you got there.
You’ll be paying it.
The progressives are winning this debate right now, I am very sad to say.
“and they brought no legal cases to the American judiciary system”
The king vetoed American abolitionist laws, preventing them from going into effect. This is something the AI at least eluded to.
The pre-US abolitionists were much more numerous than you seem to believe. They were also comprised of more of the colonial leadership especially on the patriot side.
Loyalist abolitionists were nearly universally unheard of.
Britain inherited Abolitionism from the Americans.
The loyalist forces actually freed slaves... Learn your history.
Other than them ending slavery before America did.
England abolished slavery in 1833
Abolitionism in 1776? All of the colonies had slavery at that time.
I believe the first 80 years or so of American history largely involved limiting slavery. Slavery was outlawed in the North West territories etc.
The Philipsburg Proclamation exempted loyalist slave owners from emancipation. Try again.
The Philipsburg Proclamation was written at the home of a loyalist slave owner, Frederick Philipse III of the Phillipe Clan; at the Philipsburg Manor. So try again.
Loyalist slave owners were generally expelled once the American Revolution concluded. They either took their slaves with them to British Canada or back to the British Caribbean. This is because American patriots generally harassed loyalists (perhaps not necessarily our finest moment, sure) and even seized their property and Britain was more than happy to keep promoting slavery in those days.
Stop on that. Seized their property. Seized their property. Seized their property. Yeah. "That" property. You know the one. Loyalist slave property. That's the property they owned that's at question here. The loyalists who owned slaves didn't want to give that up.
So they fled to where they could keep on slaving. In other British territories.
The loyalists did no such thing as you suggest. You have it entirely backward.
The only abolitionists in 1776 were the patriots. ; the Americans. ; the anti-monarchists. However you prefer most to word it. It most certainly was NOT the loyalists. The loyalists and royalists had no intention of giving up slaving in those days.
Just 3 years after Independence was declared(it was still ongoing), in 1779 King George III wrote the following to Lord Sandwich:
Our islands must be defended even at the risk of an invasion of this island. If we lose our sugar islands, it will be impossible to raise money to continue the war and then no peace can be obtained but such a one as He that gave one to Europe in 1763 never can subscribe to
King George is talking about slave money. Caribbean sugar slave profits. In 1776 the Empire simply could not afford economically to be abolitionist anywhere in their empire. That's why abolitionism started in America first.
Just follow the money.
That’s fine.
We still started it. And all Americans who put America First have a birthright to be proud of that.
Perhaps you’re an American who puts England first instead of America - or perhaps you’re not an American at all. Well then if either of those is true then no wonder you don’t contain any interest within yourself to be proud of what America did in the 1770s.
---
I've made this easier for you guys to get ahead considering all of yours' busy schedules.
New audiobook release: Memoirs of the Life of Anthony Benezet, by Roberts Vaux
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4316219/posts
New audiobook release: Anti-slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the Prohibition of the Slave Trade (1619-1808)
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4120385/posts
New audiobook release: An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4172958/posts
---
"All of the colonies had slavery at that time."
All of the colonies would not have had slavery at that time if not for royal veto actions of colonial abolitionist laws.
It is for this reason that I say the Empire forced slavery on the United States. We didn't ask for it, we didn't want it. They forced it with their rotten veto pen.
Over 3,000 black loyalist who fought for and assisted the British Empire forces were freed and fled along with the other loyalist to Canada and England after the American Revolution... In the meanwhile, their friends and relatives left behind continued to be held in bondage until 1865.
If you want to discuss history... Please stick to the factual record and drop these nonsensical and unsupported assertions.
LOL! What colonial abolitionist laws??? Don't mistake the slave trade for slavery. They are two different things.
All that ever happens is Anti-American anti-American pro-Britain pro-Britain.
Can you even say anything nice about the original American abolitionists? Just one nice thing?
Just one?
Several colonies were passing them, enough to get the crown's attention leading to negativing of the laws.(a royal veto in modern lingo)
The veto is referenced in both the Virginia Constitution of 1776 as well as the original Declaration of Independence.
"Don't mistake the slave trade for slavery."
The mistake is yours. The abolitionists themselves believed the slave trade and slavery to be the same thing; one would stop the other they thought. On both sides of the Atlantic.
How did you arrive at such a corrupted belief? Here is what they actually wrote in their own words.
The first step to be taken to put a stop to slavery in this country, is to leave off importing slaves. For this purpose let our assemblies unite in petitioning the king and parliament to dissolve the African company. - "An address to the inhabitants of the British settlements in America, upon slave-keeping" p. 21, Founding Father Benjamin Rush
By aiming at the abolition of the slave-trade, they were laying the axe at the very root. - "The History of the Rise, Progress, and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave-trade by the British Parliament", p. 217, Thomas Clarkson
While it would destroy the slave trade, would also strike at the root of the shocking abomination of slavery. - "The Works of the Reverend John Wesley", p. 238
Men, at that time, both in England and in America, looked upon the slave trade as the life of slavery. The abolition of the slave trade was supposed to be the certain death of slavery. Cut off the stream, and the pond will dry up, was the common notion at the time. Wilberforce and Clarkson, clear-sighted as they were, took this view; and the American statesmen, in providing for the abolition of the slave trade, thought they were providing for the abolition of the slavery. This view is quite consistent with the history of the times. - "The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?"
God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners. - "The Life of William Wilberforce: 1759-1752", p. 149
And why not, I'll throw in an actual historian. Not that you would actually read one - saying things as foolish as "Don't mistake the slave trade for slavery". SMH
Nothing is proved by the expectation of some Northerners that the clause would eventually put an end to slavery, for there was widespread confusion of "slavery" with the "slave trade." Both American and British abolitionists assumed that an end to slave imports would lead automatically to the amelioration and gradual abolition of slavery. - "The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823", page 129, David Brion Davis
In their minds as abolitionists, ending the slave trade was ending slavery. That makes slave trade laws abolitionist laws, even if later on it proved to be an incorrect assumption a few decades later. It does not change the fact.
"Don't mistake the slave trade for slavery."
One of our own Founding Fathers said it plainly, the way to stop slavery is to stop the slave trade. Absolutely foolish.
There were no abolitionist laws passed in the colonies prior to the revolutionary war. There were a few abolitionists. They were decidedly in the minority.
The mistake is yours. The abolitionists themselves believed the slave trade and slavery to be the same thing; one would stop the other they thought. On both sides of the Atlantic.
The tiny handful of abolitionists might have believed it. Others ie the vast majority did not. They did eventually agree to put a 20 year grandfather clause in the constitution for the importation of slaves but slavery persisted for generations after that. The mistake is yours.
How did you arrive at such a corrupted belief? Here is what they actually wrote in their own words. blah blah blah By aiming at the abolition of the slave-trade, they were laying the axe at the very root. - "The History of the Rise, Progress, and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave-trade by the British Parliament", p. 217, Thomas Clarkson
Clearly not considering slavery persisted for generations after it was no longer legal to import slaves.
While it would destroy the slave trade, would also strike at the root of the shocking abomination of slavery. - "The Works of the Reverend John Wesley", p. 238 Men, at that time, both in England and in America, looked upon the slave trade as the life of slavery. The abolition of the slave trade was supposed to be the certain death of slavery. Cut off the stream, and the pond will dry up, was the common notion at the time. Wilberforce and Clarkson, clear-sighted as they were, took this view; and the American statesmen, in providing for the abolition of the slave trade, thought they were providing for the abolition of the slavery. This view is quite consistent with the history of the times. - "The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?" God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners. - "The Life of William Wilberforce: 1759-1752", p. 149 And why not, I'll throw in an actual historian. Not that you would actually read one - saying things as foolish as "Don't mistake the slave trade for slavery". SMH Nothing is proved by the expectation of some Northerners that the clause would eventually put an end to slavery, for there was widespread confusion of "slavery" with the "slave trade." Both American and British abolitionists assumed that an end to slave imports would lead automatically to the amelioration and gradual abolition of slavery. - "The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823", page 129, David Brion Davis In their minds as abolitionists, ending the slave trade was ending slavery. That makes slave trade laws abolitionist laws, even if later on it proved to be an incorrect assumption a few decades later. It does not change the fact. "Don't mistake the slave trade for slavery." One of our own Founding Fathers said it plainly, the way to stop slavery is to stop the slave trade. Absolutely foolish.
Obviously many well understood that with a growing slave population as it was, ending the importation of slaves would not end slavery. The abolitionists may have believed it would but they were a miniscule handful of people. Abolitionists could not win more than single digit percentages of the vote anywhere in the entire country prior to 1863. They were routinely derided by almost everyone.
“Any reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro and until it was convenient to make a pretence that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them up and down dale....... Charles Dickens.
"Evil and nothing but evil has ever followed in the track of this hideous monster, abolition. Let the slave alone and send him back to his master where he belongs." The Daily Chicago Times Dec 7 1860
opposed abolition of slavery….. proposed slaves should be allowed to marry and taught to read and invest their money in savings accounts...which would "ameliorate rather than to abolish the slavery of the Southern States."...and would thus permit slavery to be "a very tolerable system." New York Times Jan 22 1861
"We have no more right to meddle with slavery in Georgia, than we have to meddle with monarchy in Europe." Providence Daily Post Feb 2 1861
"the immense increase in the numbers of slaves within so short a time speaks for the good treatment and happy, contented lot of the slaves. They are comfortably fed, housed and clothed, and seldom or never overworked." New York Herald (the largest newspaper in the country at the time) March 7, 1861
Of course, if you had actually studied real history instead of just regurgitating propaganda, you would have understood that abolitionism was a tiny fringe movement in America well into the mid 19th century.
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.