Assuming the American Revolution was Secession and a Slaveholders' Rebellion What Next?

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#1
Ok the American Revolution was a secession in a time of Slaveholding, what is the next argument to be made.

Is if nostalgia for a time where the marching masters of the South were undisturbed in the enjoyment of their property? Is it a modern salve on the revolting secessionists? Anger that the Union won?

Discuss.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,941
Location
los angeles ca
#2
Ok the American Revolution was a secession in a time of Slaveholding, what is the next argument to be made.

Is if nostalgia for a time where the marching masters of the South were undisturbed in the enjoyment of their property? Is it a modern salve on the revolting secessionists? Anger that the Union won?

Discuss.
As so many of our friends have pointed out before the Colonial Rebels were not part of the United Kingdom. They could not elect members to Parliament.
The exact opposite is true in the case of Southern Secession.
Many of our pro Confederate friends dearly would of wished the Confederacy won. I can't speak on their behalf but there seems to be some anxiety that per US Census data the South's demographics are changing and changing fast.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
145
#3
What's next? It's nostalgia for a time when the Rhode Island slave-traffickers shoved their human cargo into the bowels of their filthy slave-ships, or when the marching slave-Masters of New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Missouri were left undisturbed in the enjoyment of their human property.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
9,194
Location
on the long winding road
#9
Ask and yes shall receive. This from my post in 2014 re: the Civil War v. the American Revolution:


And then there's that little problem with slavery and the fear that the British would emancipate them. "For the citizens of Boston, whose love of liberty did not prevent one in five families from owning slaves" (p. 23), "one of Boston's great collective fears during the recent occupation by British reguars in the year and a half leading up the the Boston Massacre was that soldiers might foment the city's slaves into a rebellion against their patriot owners. A 1768 petion signed by the merchants John Hancock and John Rowe accused a captain of His Majesty Fifty-Ninth Regiment of having encouraged 'certain Negro slaves in Boston . . . to cut their master's throats, and to beat, insult, and otherwise ill treat their said masters, asserting that now the soldiers are come, the Negroes shall be free, and the Liberty Boys slaves -- to the great terror and danger of the peaceable inhabitants of said town.' " (p. 24)

Further, as Gen. Percy marched his command back to Charlestown after Concord on 4/19/1775, citizens of smaller towns were panicked. "In Menotomy, where the women and children had gathered in houses safely removed from the firing, the rumor began to circulate that the town's slaves were about to launch a revolt of their own and 'finish what the British had begun by murdering the of defenseless women and children.' " "A similar fear overtook the women of Framingham, who armed themselves with 'axes and pitchforks and clubs' and assembled in the Edgell house, convinced that 'the Negroes were coming to massacre them all.' One resident later attributed this 'strange panic' to 'a lingering memory of the earlier Indian alarms.' " (p. 159)

All sound familiar? It should.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#10
What's next? It's nostalgia for a time when the Rhode Island slave-traffickers shoved their human cargo into the bowels of their filthy slave-ships, or when the marching slave-Masters of New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Missouri were left undisturbed in the enjoyment of their human property.
So what. That knowledge has been around decades. Years ago we had threads describing the centraliy and critical need for slavery in the colonies. It is old hat for us. Is your post evidence of a desire to shock us?
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#11
Ask and yes shall receive. This from my post in 2014 re: the Civil War v. the American Revolution:


And then there's that little problem with slavery and the fear that the British would emancipate them. "For the citizens of Boston, whose love of liberty did not prevent one in five families from owning slaves" (p. 23), "one of Boston's great collective fears during the recent occupation by British reguars in the year and a half leading up the the Boston Massacre was that soldiers might foment the city's slaves into a rebellion against their patriot owners. A 1768 petion signed by the merchants John Hancock and John Rowe accused a captain of His Majesty Fifty-Ninth Regiment of having encouraged 'certain Negro slaves in Boston . . . to cut their master's throats, and to beat, insult, and otherwise ill treat their said masters, asserting that now the soldiers are come, the Negroes shall be free, and the Liberty Boys slaves -- to the great terror and danger of the peaceable inhabitants of said town.' " (p. 24)

Further, as Gen. Percy marched his command back to Charlestown after Concord on 4/19/1775, citizens of smaller towns were panicked. "In Menotomy, where the women and children had gathered in houses safely removed from the firing, the rumor began to circulate that the town's slaves were about to launch a revolt of their own and 'finish what the British had begun by murdering the of defenseless women and children.' " "A similar fear overtook the women of Framingham, who armed themselves with 'axes and pitchforks and clubs' and assembled in the Edgell house, convinced that 'the Negroes were coming to massacre them all.' One resident later attributed this 'strange panic' to 'a lingering memory of the earlier Indian alarms.' " (p. 159)

All sound familiar? It should.
So passes the notion of a pure revolution.
 
#13
So what. That knowledge has been around decades. Years ago we had threads describing the centraliy and critical need for slavery in the colonies. It is old hat for us. Is your post evidence of a desire to shock us?
Seems like deep anger issues with anyone who does not worship the Confederate States of America and her Founders.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
145
#14
So what. That knowledge has been around decades. Years ago we had threads describing the centraliy and critical need for slavery in the colonies. It is old hat for us. Is your post evidence of a desire to shock us?

"Is if nostalgia for a time where the marching masters of the South were undisturbed in the enjoyment of their property?"

So what. That knowledge has been around for decades. And there have been numerous threads describing the existence of slavery in the Confederacy. It is old hat for everyone. Is your post a desire to shock everyone? But then again, maybe it's just a manifestation of deep anger issues with anyone who does not worship the Union Cause and its leaders.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#15
"Is if nostalgia for a time where the marching masters of the South were undisturbed in the enjoyment of their property?"

So what. That knowledge has been around for decades. And there have been numerous threads describing the existence of slavery in the Confederacy. It is old hat for everyone. Is your post a desire to shock everyone? But then again, maybe it's just a manifestation of deep anger issues with anyone who does not worship the Union Cause and its leaders.
Thanks for your comments.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,541
Location
Corona, California
#16
Ask and yes shall receive. This from my post in 2014 re: the Civil War v. the American Revolution:


And then there's that little problem with slavery and the fear that the British would emancipate them. "For the citizens of Boston, whose love of liberty did not prevent one in five families from owning slaves" (p. 23), "one of Boston's great collective fears during the recent occupation by British reguars in the year and a half leading up the the Boston Massacre was that soldiers might foment the city's slaves into a rebellion against their patriot owners. A 1768 petion signed by the merchants John Hancock and John Rowe accused a captain of His Majesty Fifty-Ninth Regiment of having encouraged 'certain Negro slaves in Boston . . . to cut their master's throats, and to beat, insult, and otherwise ill treat their said masters, asserting that now the soldiers are come, the Negroes shall be free, and the Liberty Boys slaves -- to the great terror and danger of the peaceable inhabitants of said town.' " (p. 24)

Further, as Gen. Percy marched his command back to Charlestown after Concord on 4/19/1775, citizens of smaller towns were panicked. "In Menotomy, where the women and children had gathered in houses safely removed from the firing, the rumor began to circulate that the town's slaves were about to launch a revolt of their own and 'finish what the British had begun by murdering the of defenseless women and children.' " "A similar fear overtook the women of Framingham, who armed themselves with 'axes and pitchforks and clubs' and assembled in the Edgell house, convinced that 'the Negroes were coming to massacre them all.' One resident later attributed this 'strange panic' to 'a lingering memory of the earlier Indian alarms.' " (p. 159)

All sound familiar? It should.
Thanks.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,634
Location
Denver, CO
#18
Ok the American Revolution was a secession in a time of Slaveholding, what is the next argument to be made.

Is if nostalgia for a time where the marching masters of the South were undisturbed in the enjoyment of their property? Is it a modern salve on the revolting secessionists? Anger that the Union won?

Discuss.
I guess we are supposed to be persuaded to undo the result of the Civil War, re-instate slavery and let the secessionist states reform an independent country. But I am not sure. Maybe we are also supposed to undo the Revolutionary War also, for the sake of symmetry.
If the unified nation won the Civil War, then the unified empire should have won the Revolutionary War. Or maybe the slave traders should have won both wars, but that creates an indefinite result in the Revolutionary War, because in that conflict both sides were into slavery.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,634
Location
Denver, CO
#19
The discussion is abstract, in the 21st century. In 1861 it was a highly relevant attempt to make the people in the middle eight states accept secession as OK. It was weird to use the constitution to justify a rebellion against the constitutional government. If the Constitution is OK, then the fellow who gets the electoral majority has the right to rule.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,634
Location
Denver, CO
#20
The real import is that once the similarities are conceded, the dissimilarities come into view, and that seems to have been historically significant.
It seems to have made an impact that the capital of the United States was just a short train ride away for many border state people. It also seems to have made a difference that the United States did not expel legislators who remained loyal to the Constitution. Some who expressed disloyalty were expelled.
At the time of the secession crisis people in California and Oregon made demands that were easy to meet: railroad subsidies = no secession. Congress was cool with that.
People in Missouri wanted a piece of the transcontinental railroad pork too. Lincoln cooked a scheme to ship the railroad stuff up to Omaha by steamboat from St. Louis.
Maryland politicians wanted pat-ro-nage. They got it.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top