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

Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,615
Location
Denver, CO
#21
I think the overall point is to create a factless dialogue, in which the fact that the Republicans won the Presidency, the Northern Democrats did not rebel, the British used the blockade to empty the south of its cotton and its gold, are disregarded.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,615
Location
Denver, CO
#22
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,615
Location
Denver, CO
#28
Or we could dwell on the fact in the American Civil War, the British got their revenge. They used the blockade to shake down the south for all its gold and cotton, with merchant rates that were rapacious, while getting the Confederate raiders to scare the Yankee boat owners into selling their vessels to Brits. Lots of fun differences between the Revolution and the US Civil War.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,293
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#29
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.
Had the Brits won, slavery would have died in the 1830s, but the Americans would be a few maritime provinces huddled on the Atlantic shore.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,615
Location
Denver, CO
#31
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.
There is a high probability that Thomas Wolfe already addressed the psychological seductiveness of nostalgia. And it is tempting to think the Civil War is the boundary between an idealized past and the responsible present.
However the real boundary is probably 1880, when railroads and telegraphs restructured time.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,293
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#32
The Journal of the American Revolution.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/04/review-bunker-hill-by-nathaniel-philbrick/
The book provides outstanding coverage of the big picture of what was happening, who was doing it and why. However, the strong reliance upon 19th century secondary sources to add details and color to the narrative is disappointing. Much of what was written in the 19th century falls into the category of legend, hearsay, or simply entertaining stories that do not always stand up well to historical scrutiny.​
One minor example: during the fighting near Concord’s North Bridge (page 142) Reverend William Emerson “spent much of the morning” caring for residents of Concord who had gathered in the yard of his home. He stopped after “his wife had huffily tapped on the window pane and motioned for him to come inside and pay attention to her.” A look at the endnotes [page 327] reveals that this information came from Emerson’s great-granddaughter who stated that Emerson’s wife told her the story. This appears to be more likely a family legend than historical fact.​
 

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
29,538
Location
Long Island, NY
#33
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.
Good quote.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,293
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#35
IMHO.
Both the French and US revolutions started off as white men's endeavors in freedom, blacks excluded. However, in both cases, the question got asked if black men were men also entitled to freedom. In both cases, the asking of the question started the quest to end slavery. The result was slow, halting and backsliding, but in both cases the new governments eliminated slavery.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,615
Location
Denver, CO
#40
So regardless of whether the Revolution was a slave holders rebellion, or whether it was secession or revolution.
The future was coming. The cotton states had a limited number of choices in resisting that future. They could either be part of the United States or become increasingly in debt to France or Germany, or some other industrial power capable of supplying the railroad and steamboat equipment their economy needed.
To say nothing of refining, electrical equipment, and high explosives.
 



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