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

Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,919
Location
Denver, CO
#41
Brazil could survive for awhile as a slave state, surrounded by jungle, and Cuba was an island province.
The attempted Confederacy was next to an emerging industrial power, like Germany/Prussia, or Russia.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
292
Location
Point Lookout
#42
I would say that argument/view point is usually used to counter the view point that the 1860 seccessist where all the worst human beings ever and traitors to everything American. Our Founding Fathers are or course seen as heroes (at least to most of us), therefore the argument puts the evil 'villains' of 1860 in reference to the 'heros' of of 1776. The argument isn't one of nostalgia for slavery but instead one illustrating that the people/events of 1860 aren't black and white by pointing out that the heroic people/events of 1776 aren't black and white either.

Honestly the idea that anyone today would be nostalgic for a time of slavery is either just silly or reading the absolute worst into someone's words/meaning.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,919
Location
Denver, CO
#43
A person may not be explicitly nostalgic for slavery, they are just nostalgic for a social order in which white men had privileged positions, the economy was simpler and traditional. Nostalgia leaves out the typhus, malaria, hook worm, and infant mortality that characterized the pre war southern states.
A few people involved in cotton did well. Many people who tried cotton failed, or did not like the risks, or did not like slavery.
Compared to the fast paced modern world, in which learning to read and having some math ability is essential, the agricultural world of the north and south, abstracted from the boring, gruelling work required from most farmers, their wives and children, seems attractive.
Moreover, the south by 1860 was one of three surviving slave economies in the western hemisphere. The British were definitely ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade. In the US, both the northern Democrats and the Republicans were going to end the use of the US flag as cover for the slave trade.
When the Revolutionaries rebelled from Britain, slavery was very widely accepted. By 1860 railroads were creating large cities and slavery and serfdom were disappearing.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#44
I would say that argument/view point is usually used to counter the view point that the 1860 seccessist where all the worst human beings ever and traitors to everything American.
Could be losing made the secessionists merely revolting instead of revolutionaries.
Our Founding Fathers are or course seen as heroes (at least to most of us), therefore the argument puts the evil 'villains' of 1860 in reference to the 'heros' of of 1776.
Or simply a
Tu quoque-they did it too argument. Every nation makes heroes of its revolutionary fathers, but only if they win. To argue the 1860 rebels were not traitors because the 1776 rebels were traitors is disingenuous because one set gave us our country and one was traitors against our country. It is of the same notion as the SCV signs that blare Grant owned slaves. No one really cares because Grant won and in winning facilitated the freeing of slaves.
The argument isn't one of nostalgia for slavery but instead one illustrating that the people/events of 1860 aren't black and white by pointing out that the heroic people/events of 1776 aren't black and white either.
Part of historians' job is disabusing simplicity. Filling out the people/events of 1860-65 is ill served by the Tu quoque-they did it too argument. There is a vast complexity of how some section abolished slavery and developed a free labor civilization while the other pushed the concept of slave labor to its limits. The details would fill books. Part of debate is convincing folks your story is better than the other guys. Which story is better "they did it too' or the pathos of a civilization clashing with another fated to fail and how that came to be.
Honestly the idea that anyone today would be nostalgic for a time of slavery is either just silly or reading the absolute worst into someone's words/meaning.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Messages
86
Location
Texas
#45
Good book on the topic of slavery during the American Revolution: The Counter Revolution of 1776 by Gerald Horne ISBN 978-1-60671-424-9 copyright 2014 by New York University.

In it, the author identifies a judge (in England) who was moving case by case to free slaves and that an abolition movement was being made and gathering steam.

However, there are mentions of Free blacks - read Joseph Plumb Martin's book where he mentions a large black man married to a young (white) maiden.

Now, to be fair, I have yet to finish reading the above book. Another book tells of (white) colonists who were of the opinion that blacks should also be free. This book I can not find at the moment but it portrays the American Revolution from the "average" colonial's point of view. Another book I have read - not found that just yet, but deals with the wrongs dealt with the Colonies by Britain. The colonies were populated by any number of (white) groups who had an axe to grind with the mother country. Britain on the other hand continually allowed slaves to be imported to the colonies (revenue for the Crown) but the Spanish and even the French assisted slaves offering freedom. As far as Louisiana, one of the largest slave revolts occurred as also happened elsewhere in colonial America. With a stated upwards of up to 60% of the population of Georgia being slaves in bondage and slave revolts on the rise as slaves were continually imported to the colonies: New York, Boston and even Rhode Island.

My personal perspective is: No colonies' hands were clean of the slavery issue. On the other hand, many people in what would be the American South, had little to do with the actual buying, selling or owning slave only that there was obscene amounts of money to be made in this business.

So there you have it, we have a small white population which "Free Zones" at the North and South of it, with black slaves who will kill every living white person within range, fight the world's super power of the day and we have major slave holders on the plantations of the tidewater area, who "ruled" their local districts and ensured that they did not lose their capital invested in slaves or their ability to profit from the trade in slaves. And gentlemen, by and large they wrote the local laws and accepted a Constitution that recognized no color line! The other books, I will sort out and let you know what they are.
 

Andy Cardinal

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
1,686
Location
Ohio
#46
Philbreck in his wonderful book Bunker Hill makes the case that for slave-owning Bostonians the rebellion was very much about fear of the King emancipating their slaves.
I read this book many years ago. The argument is that many became revolutionaries in response to fear that the British would emancipate slaves via parliamentary supremacy.

Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies and Sparked the American Revolution
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1402206976/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_GoMxCbYF01PD
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#47
I read this book many years ago. The argument is that many became revolutionaries in response to fear that the British would emancipate slaves via parliamentary supremacy.

Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies and Sparked the American Revolution
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1402206976/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_GoMxCbYF01PD
One reason slaveholders preferred local government they could control it. IMHO while I accept the premise that slaveowning drove some to rebel against the British, the evidence seems circumstantial.
 

Andy Cardinal

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
1,686
Location
Ohio
#48
One reason slaveholders preferred local government they could control it. IMHO while I accept the premise that slaveowning drove some to rebel against the British, the evidence seems circumstantial.
Yes, I was not/am not convinced. Still it is an interesting argument and I'm sure the premise was true for some individuals.
 

CW Buff

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
1,504
Location
Connecticut
#49
Britain on the other hand continually allowed slaves to be imported to the colonies (revenue for the Crown)
How do SeaSoldier

My understanding is that this was not so passive. When colonies tried to limit importation, the Crown used its veto power to overrule that. IOW, the Crown actively supported the slave trade. Of course, at that time, most of these colonial efforts were motivated more by self interest, implemented when the slave population became uncomfortably large. And overall, the slave states continued importation after the Crown was removed from the equation, right up until the Fed banned importation. Britain's emancipation efforts in the Revolution would also seem to be a matter of self-interest. I believe there was no real effort to free slaves in the empire until abolition in 1833. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me can tell us if there were attempts to limit slavery in their Caribbean colonies before that. I can't recall the name of it (it was a library find), but WEB DuBois covers the history of the regulation of the trade in the colonies.
My personal perspective is: No colonies' hands were clean of the slavery issue. On the other hand, many people in what would be the American South, had little to do with the actual buying, selling or owning slave only that there was obscene amounts of money to be made in this business.
Can't have large numbers of slaves without large number of slave masters, can you? But certainly, no colony, no one, was clean, and everyone eventually paid a price for that, and the slaves were finally free, though still heavily marginalized for another 100 years.
 
Last edited:

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,316
#50
In his Inaugural Address, Jefferson Davis, draws the parallel of the South's secession and the American Revolution quite closely. It seems to me, that to his mind, there was no real difference between the two.

However, I would think in the context of the OP, 'what next', would require a close study of the paralells of the AOC and the confederate constitution, IMO, what next would be growing anarchy and, in the absence radical measures(a new constitution)eventual dissolution of the csa.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Messages
86
Location
Texas
#51
The Main American Slaving ports were New York and Boston. Slaves were barred from importation into the US in 1807. The Josua Humphrey's frigates did blockade duty on the west coast of Africa. Smuggling still went on due to the monies involved. But it was illegal. More later.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
256
#52
The Main American Slaving ports were New York and Boston. Slaves were barred from importation into the US in 1807. The Josua Humphrey's frigates did blockade duty on the west coast of Africa. Smuggling still went on due to the monies involved. But it was illegal. More later.
According to this source, over the course of the slave trade, by far the greatest number of slaves arrived in Border or Southern ports, not New York or Boston:
  • 32.8% of slaves arrived in Chesapeake Bay ports;
  • 54.2% arrived in the Carolinas or Georgia ports;
  • 5.6% in Gulf region ports;
  • 7% in Northern ports;
  • 0.5% in unspecified ports.
So it would seem that approximately 93% of imported slaves were received in Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Gulf region ports.

http://abolition.nypl.org/essays/us_slave_trade/3/
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#53
According to this source, over the course of the slave trade, by far the greatest number of slaves arrived in Border or Southern ports, not New York or Boston:
  • 32.8% of slaves arrived in Chesapeake Bay ports;
  • 54.2% arrived in the Carolinas or Georgia ports;
  • 5.6% in Gulf region ports;
  • 7% in Northern ports;
  • 0.5% in unspecified ports.
So it would seem that approximately 93% of imported slaves were received in Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Gulf region ports.

http://abolition.nypl.org/essays/us_slave_trade/3/
An image of the detail from the article.
Slave imports by year.jpg
 



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