"1776 and abolition of slavery" Topic

link

"The abolition of slavery in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia followed rather than preceded the Declaration of Independence and it did so for a simple reason. The British, far from being a force for emancipation, were a force against it. In fact, they opposed any move toward emancipation for the same reason the American Revolution was necessary in the first place. London sought control of all trade and economic activities in the colonies for revenue raising purposes. The British Exchequer profited from the buying and selling of slaves in American ports, and British banks invested heavily in loans to slave trading firms. Any attack on the slave trade would have been as much an act of rebellion against Britain as the attack on the tea trade was."

In time, America was able to abolish slavery in the 1860s in the bloodiest war of its history, and a century later bring to about a civil rights movement which brought this final measure of equality. These events stand out as among the only times in human history when a society has drastically reformed itself, as opposed to being transformed by foreign invasion or a murderous dictator.

The historical fact is that the American project launched on July 4, 1776 was a work in progress which took time to reach its full potential. But if the American Declaration of Independence did not abolish slavery overnight, or bring about racial equality the following day, it set the nation on the path that made those things inevitable. In fact, it set the entire world on a path where they seemed only a matter of time.

Not sure this is going to be an open and informative discussion John.
Is it inadvertently going to get some arguments going?

martin

I watched 1776 yesterday and the scene dealing with this was quite intense. I saw this in 1976 and I am sure I didn't understand it, or not as much, since it was on a 6th grade field trip.

I agree, in part, that England would not have been in any great hurry to end American slavery, but it would have been abolished faster had America stayed a British colony (1834)

Well, Cersei trolled Tycho Nestoris of the Iron Bank about how much Danaerys was upsetting the slave trade out Yunkai and Meereen way. He was mildly distressed but not overwhelmed by it. You could sense that they always played the long game, but would get their due.
Part of the problem was that since the Starks were Northerners, they were abolitionists.

I watched (and recorded) 1776 last night too. You could see how much it grated on John Adams to throw that bone to Rutledge. And everyone knew that they were only kicking the can down the road.

BTW, I think Stannis made a better Jefferson.

As Franklin said in the play/musical, the issue was independence. Slavery, unfortunately, would have remained in either case.

And it should be remembered that in the first draft of the Declaration, slavery was abolished.

Herkybird, the problem is that a still-British American south would have made opposition to British emancipation far stronger; it is by no means certain that it would still have occurred in 1834. Or even peacefully. You can never change just one thing.

As for abolition and abolitionists, the idea of ending slavery came about in the colonies, specifically the norther colonies in the decade before the Revolution. It grew from there and became a significant opponent of chattel slavery from the 1830s on.

As to the opening quotation in this thread, it is from AMAC, a 'conservative' organization.

John Graves Simcoe helped to push through the first nominal anti-slavery act in North America, the Act Against Slavery in 1793.
link
Although this only affected Upper Canada, and was as restrictive in many cases as the Emancipation Proclamation, it was a good start. Good on you, Canada! It put a check on the Loyalists who fled to Canada taking their slaves with them. The same argument could be made that true abolition needed to be done incrementally as has been made above about the Declaration. First things first! So, 1793 is a good 40 years before 1834.
Was it a reaction to the American Revolution? Perhaps. But it was indeed a reaction to those freedom loving Loyalists who took their slaves with them to escape Patriot tyranny. Dr Johnson had an appropriate quote about that, as he usually did.

This is the same Simcoe that was portrayed as a homicidal loon in the enjoyable historical soap opera "Turn". He was actually quite a fine man. I made a figure for him using one of the "Hey Steve!" Queen's Rangers heads from Old Glory transplanted to a Perry mounted officer. He looks more like the "Turn" sociopath than the real Simcoe, but I'll be running games with a whiff of Horrywood anyway.

Oh, that Dr Johnson quote. "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?"
Hmmm, Mr Rutledge?

In today's climate, I can see calls to tear down statues of Dr Johnson, and Simcoe too. They've already gone after Wilberforce.

One thing I enjoyed about the movie last night (I hadn't seen it in years, which I'm glad I recorded it) was its willingness to call out hypocrisy. Rutledge had a fine song "Molasses, Rum and slaves…" which called out the New England culpability.
Good stuff. Fine singer.

With Richard Henry Lee as comic relief too.

Kevin, if I heard the play/movie correctly, the scratched out clause referred to the African slave trade, not slavery itself. It did make insulting remarks about slavery.
And Rutledge rightly challenged Jefferson's hypocrisy on that too. "Umm, well, yeah, I do own some slaves, but…"
I'm assuming that the movie is more or less accurate on that point.

When did the United States outlaw the African Slave Trade? 1808? That's amazing, considering.
But it could have been that the slave holders considered the slave population "sustainable". Ahem. They could and did profit from that sustainability, so could throw a bone to those annoying abolitionists as part of a political deal.
I cannot see such a bill passing Congress if it didn't benefit a whole bunch of politicians.

More important to the majority of the locals, independance meant the end of the indentured servants.

Not sure this is going to be an open and informative discussion John.
Is it inadvertently going to get some arguments going?

martin

I think any arguments will not be "inadvertent".

Jcfrog, if "independance meant the end of the indentured
servants" why was my GGG'mother brought here as an
indentured servant to a wealthy NY couple in 1849 ?

Not that she probably objected, since some of her
immediate family starved back in Ireland.

I agree, in part, that England would not have been in any great hurry to end American slavery, but it would have been abolished faster had America stayed a British colony (1834)

I am not certain that this is one of those situations where it is safe to assume an alternative outcome would still follow the original timeline.

From the original draft of the Declaration of Indepence:

…he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

link

The first third is definitely against the African slave trade. The final third is definitely referring to Lord Dunmore and his raids against Whigs in Virginia using runaway slaves recruited (pressed?) into "Lord Dunmore's Ethiopian Regiment". Rutledge should certainly have approved of that. Was that part excised? It certainly resembles the rant against Hessians, Highlanders and inciting Indians.
However, unless you are fluent in late 18th florid writing, I find it hard to follow the middle, whether it's against existing slavery or not. I'm not that fluent. But it reads to me as if he is merely elaborating on the African slave trade. I could be wrong.

The fate of Dunmore's Ethiopians is sad. Out of 800, 500 died from smallpox. Most of the rest were resold as slaves in the Caribbean Dugar Islands. That was much more brutal than the cotton fields, but that's really splitting hairs.

"London sought control of _all trade and economic activities_ in the colonies for revenue raising purposes"

Is that right?

Dunmore's Proclamation of November 7, 1775 which promised freedom for slaves of Rebels who left their owners and joined the royal forces. I doubt many of these were armed and only provided fatigue duties for the British Army. But even the hint of arming former slaves would be enough to drive the Southern Colonies into joining the revolution.

Slaves were an expensive commodity and the thought of freeing them would have been a serious blow to the economy and the idea that the slaves would free and therefore losing millions of dollars in property may have been an additional incentive for them to join the rebellion. Provided that slavery would be protected in any new government.

Purple helmet

July 4, 1776 was a work in progress

Really, I thought it was an example of the absolutism of natural rights?

This is not a TMP discussion, but why has no one mentioned that much of the US abolished slavery prior to 1830, and substantial portions prior to 1793? In Vermont it's the 1777 constitution. In Massachusetts, it was the Quock Walker case of 1783.

Vermont was still part of New York, so its 1777 Constitution is sort of irrelevant.
If Massachusetts still had slavery up to 1783, Rutledge sneering at Adams for the hypocrisy of Massachusetts was well deserved.
Let's face it. EVERY colony/state had slavery until long after the American Revolution ended. 1830 is how many years after 1776/1783? I will leave the solution as an exercise for the student.

Funny thing about the movie 1776. Adams, Franklin and Jefferson are intended to be the Good Guys, but it's Rutledge and Dickinson who have the best lines. Adams is obnoxious and unliked. Franklin is a dirty old drunk, and Jefferson thinks with his …
Rutledge, even though he represents the slave states (and has a fine voice) at least has principles and recognizes hypocrisy, while Dickinson is thoroughly misrepresented, even though he gets the good lines.
It certainly makes me uneasy to praise Rutledge, but that's how I saw the show present him. Go figure.

By 1776/6 New York's control over Vermont was largely theoretical.

There were probably as many anti-slavery organizations in the south, prior to 1831, as in the north. In the aftermath of Nat Turner's revolt the Virginia legislature debated a gradual emancipation. After 1831 the driving motive for planters was not greed; it was fear.

link

"And it should be remembered that in the first draft of the Declaration, slavery was abolished."

Slavery was not abolished in the initial draft of the Declaration. It was listed as one of the crimes George III had committed that made independence necessary. It was removed because the Continental Congress agreed that a Declaration of Independence must be unanimous. With the crime of slavery as one of the reasons for rebellion it was not guaranteed that all the southern colonies would vote for independence.

One thing that is often overlooked in discussions such as this is that many southerners recognized that they were riding a tiger when it came to slavery. It was evil, and detrimental to the country, but the economy was so dependent on it that they couldn't figure out how to end it. After all, Jefferson wrote the passage quoted above but never freed his own slaves because if he had it would have ruined him financially.

This is all from memory so I stand ready to be corrected.

In the movie, Adams and Franklin have the 'best lines' as far as I can see…

John,

Agree completely on your characterization of John Simcoe. He was a good man, an excellent soldier and combat leader. His memoir is interesting to read…

The slave trade and slavery itself in the colonies were undoubtedly seen as one and the same. The Founders who wanted to abolish it believed because of what the Declaration stated about equality, that the trade and 'insitution' had to go.

This is not a TMP discussion…

Sure it is. From the title Discussion of the American Revolution:

For discussion of anything related to the American Revolution/War of American Independence.

Collecting toy soldiers and military miniatures is based, usually anyways, in an interest in military history. It was and still is for me anyways…

Slavery was not abolished in the initial draft of the Declaration. It was listed as one of the crimes George III had committed that made independence necessary.

The document didn't have the force of law to abolish anything, it was a resolution and declaration of grievances and principles.

It was removed because the Continental Congress agreed that a Declaration of Independence must be unanimous. With the crime of slavery as one of the reasons for rebellion it was not guaranteed that all the southern colonies would vote for independence.

It was removed at the insistence of some of the southern colonies. It demonstrates how sensitive slave owners were to any form of criticism.

One thing that is often overlooked in discussions such as this is that many southerners recognized that they were riding a tiger when it came to slavery. It was evil, and detrimental to the country, but the economy was so dependent on it that they couldn't figure out how to end it. After all, Jefferson wrote the passage quoted above but never freed his own slaves because if he had it would have ruined him financially.

The takeaway here is that the slave owners knew slavery was evil and destructive but were going to indulge in it anyway because it was lucrative. They were in a sense, the Drug Lords of their era. And yes, they probably believed that because Jefferson didn't free his own slaves, they were free to keep theirs. It makes perfect sense, why should I give up my slaves, if no one else does first? What a brilliant observation of their self indulgent immaturity.

This is all from memory so I stand ready to be corrected.

Memory is often a sub-function of the material it soaks up? Don't you agree?

Kevin, no, slavery and the slave trade were seen as quite distinct. The upper south, with worn-out soil, produced horses and cattle and surplus slaves that could be sold to the lower south. It was very much in their economic interest to eliminate the competition for the African trade. But there was also the moral argument; the horrors of the Middle Passage were well understood.

The Constitution probibited interference with the overseas trade for 20 years, and it was enacted very promptly, without siginificant southern opposition, as soon as those 20 years were up.

"South Carolina's own legislative assembly had voluntarily banned the importation of Negro slaves in March 1787 in order to check a post-war economic depression. So, while the U.S. Constitution, which went into effect in the autumn of 1788, permitted the resumption of that business, South Carolina remained committed to abstaining from the trans-Atlantic slave trade. In fact, on 4 November 1788, the South Carolina legislature ratified a new law that repealed the 1787 prohibition and imposed a fresh one. The preamble to the new "Act to Regulate the Payment and Recovery of Debts; and to prohibit the importation of Negroes for the time therein limited," states that the earlier law was found to be "inadequate to the relief of the distresses of the people of this State." After restructuring the policies concerning debt collection, the 1788 law further specified that "no negro or other slave shall be imported or brought into this State, either by land or water, on or before the first day of January, 1793." Through a series of six bi-annual legislative continuations, this prohibitive law remained in effect in South Carolina for a further fifteen years, through December 1803.

During the 1790s, while South Carolina was not legally involved in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, there were two noteworthy national developments in this terrible business. First, our southern neighbors, North Carolina and Georgia, were actively taking advantage of their Constitutional right to import Africans (albeit in relatively low numbers). Second, the U.S. Congress passed a law on 22 March 1794 "to prohibit the carrying on the Slave Trade from the United States to any foreign place or country." Although this law was updated and strengthened by another Federal act ratified on 2 May 1800, it was of little consequence to the matter under consideration. This Federal law banned Americans from contributing to the growth of slavery in other places, but it was powerless to prevent the Carolinas and Georgia from exercising their Constitutional right to import slaves for their own use. In the end, however, it was a rather moot point. The North Carolina legislature voluntarily banned the importation of African captives in 1794, and Georgia followed suit in early 1798.

At the close of the eighteenth century, not one state in our Federal union was sanctioning the importation of African captives."

link

TJ is a puzzle, to be sure. His depiction of slavery as a great evil -- and as much or more to the masters as to the slaves -- in NOTES ON VIRGINIA is as stark as anything ever written on the subject. And he worked to oppose the spread of slavery, in the land ordimamces. But he never freed his own.

From TJ, NOTES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to the worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious pecularities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances.

And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting one half the citizens thus to trarnple on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor patriae of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labour for another; in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavours to the evanishment of the human race, or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With the morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour.

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.

Doc, I can't help but think that South Carolina was acting similar to the Northern states when they pushed tariffs to promote manufacturing. There are those who say that tariffs on English manufactured goods was "a" cause of the Civil War. Right. Sure.
As I said above, the slave population was, ahem, sustainable. So it makes economic sense to ban imports. And that is almost exactly what the South Carolina law said. Very frankly and openly.
It makes the internal slave trade even more repugnant, since they saw their slaves as breeding stock. "The horrors of the Middle Passage were well understood", but in the sense of Bad Things happening far away. Out of sight, out of mind. "Oh, those poor people!" But it's the money that really mattered.

John, yes, but after 1831 the fear mattered more.

"The takeaway here is that the slave owners knew slavery was evil and destructive but were going to indulge in it anyway because it was lucrative."

I don't think lucrative is the right word. It was necessary. The economy was so intertwined with slavery that the effects of emancipation were seen as potentially devastating.

"They were in a sense, the Drug Lords of their era."

A poor analogy, in my opinion. Prior to the 18th century slavery was an accept part of life the world over. Perfectly legal and moral. It was only with the Age of Enlightenment that western civilization decided it was wrong morally and should be ended. It was legal until 1865 here, and continued to be legal in other places through most of the 20th century. Drug dealers are selling an illegal product.

"And yes, they probably believed that because Jefferson didn't free his own slaves, they were free to keep theirs. It makes perfect sense, why should I give up my slaves, if no one else does first? What a brilliant observation of their self indulgent immaturity."

I've never heard an argument that Jefferson was held up as an example in favor of slavery. Others had already given up slavery in the northern colonies, but the difference in the economies of the northern colonies compared to the southern ones meant it was much easier to do there.

Red Tom was called all sorts of bad names during his life, some of them justified, with "hypocrite" being a favorite. The Sally Hemings relationship is a good measure of how complex it and he were; she was his dead wife's half-sister, very light-colored, and his dying wife had made him promise never to marry again. If her many children were his (which is likely but not definite), it likely was a long-term caring/loving relationship. But he never freed her, or them. (Which would have been an admission that he was the father.) So lots of people NOTICED TJ's behavior, but I agree that it was not to hold him up as an exemplar!

When my family and I visited Monticello in 1964, there was a protrait of Sally Hemmings in the foyer. I wonder if it is still there…?

I expect it is. You should look into the judicial investigation of whether her kids were descended from TJ. DNA proves they are descended from TJ's grandfather, but there were other Jefferson men around who might have been the father. EVERY contemporary mention of TJ and Hemings originated with his political opponents.

My own opinion is thta he fathered her children, but that is probably conditioned by the fact that I am more a Hamiltonian.

This updates the info on DNA. It is still inconclusive though strongly suggests TJ was the father.

link

slavery and the slave trade were seen as quite distinct.

If you follow both the slave trade and the southern institution of slavery, you'll find that they were intrerlinked, especially as far as the slaveholders in the south were concerned.

I posted material on the subject from McPherson which clearly demonstrates that.

That article is politically biased by the Conservative AMAC.

They oppose the affordable care act, warned of protests if anyone at the 2017 Academy Awards spoke out against Trump and consists of principally over 50 year olds with money to spare.

It denounces Critical Race theory.

I suggest taking what it says and balancing its opinion out against other view points for a more rounded look at the issue.

After doing this, if you believe the hypothesis this article puts forward, great. But it's a theory and not necessarily fact. It is opinion born of political bias.

Tread carefully.

Of course they were interlinked; importing new slaves harmed the interests of those who already owned some, as well as offending morality. Explain the southern states outlawing the international trade, as described in my post.

I've always wondered HOW the Congress could pass the bill outlaeing the African Slave Trade in 1808.
It only recently occurred to me that was analogous to the tariffs on manufactured goods. Both are examples of protecting American industries. In the case of the Northern states, it was manufactured goods. In the case of the Southern states, it was breeding slaves.

Some good discussion here, thanks for the Simcoe info!

You are right on the money, Billy Goat. Tread carefully.

The identity of the writer of this article is not revealed and it ends with a request for a donation. Whatever you think about critical race theory, in my opinion some of the media seem to have "re-imagined" it as a way to to rally their supporters. A ratings crowd pleaser, lots of views and donations, perhaps.

But there will always be at least two sides to these discussions and they are fascinating in their own right.