Slavery gave birth to America...

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Location
Central Florida
Our nation was given birth because of slavery. Our Southern partners join the revolution because they fear Domestic insurrection. Domestic insurrection is code for "slave revolt" which was threaten by the British leadership here in the colonies....

Read the last grievance in our Declaration of independence.....read below


He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.


If the British leadership had not threaten to use slaves if war broke out with the colonies there is a better then good chance our Southern partners in the Revolution would have stayed loyal to the British crown.

The White Southern's fear of armed slaves was so great that it forced them to join forces with their Northern neighbors in war against the British crown...

Here is a link where the Royal Governor was threatening the use of slave if war broke out....

http://www.americanrevolution.org/blk.html

I want to point out that in the states that listed their grievances for seceding form the union in every case Domestic Insurrection was listed as one of the reason for the state to secede for the union. White Southerns' truly believe that Northerns' would ferment slave revolts if Lincoln as president...

White Southern fear of Domestic Insurrection led them to revolt against the British crown and a later this fear would cause them to break away form the union.
 

Savez

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Location
Alabama
Our nation was given birth because of slavery. Our Southern partners join the revolution because they fear Domestic insurrection. Domestic insurrection is code for "slave revolt" which was threaten by the British leadership here in the colonies....

Read the last grievance in our Declaration of independence.....read below


He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.


If the British leadership had not threaten to use slaves if war broke out with the colonies there is a better then good chance our Southern partners in the Revolution would have stayed loyal to the British crown.

The White Southern's fear of armed slaves was so great that it forced them to join forces with their Northern neighbors in war against the British crown...

Here is a link where the Royal Governor was threatening the use of slave if war broke out....

http://www.americanrevolution.org/blk.html

I want to point out that in the states that listed their grievances for seceding form the union in every case Domestic Insurrection was listed as one of the reason for the state to secede for the union. White Southerns' truly believe that Northerns' would ferment slave revolts if Lincoln as president...

White Southern fear of Domestic Insurrection led them to revolt against the British crown and a later this fear would cause them to break away form the union.

You make some good points but just as you said that doemstic insurrection was "one" of the reasons to secede from the Union, the same holds true for the revolt against the British crown.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Except protection of slavery, was the price demanded by the south, to sign the Constitution and join the Union. Without their slaves, the South wanted no part of any United States of America.


P.S. later, 1820 to be exact, the south's defense of their 'peculiar Institution' resulted in an imaginary line drawn on a map, to delineate slave from Free states, thus codifying sectionalism.
 

cw1865

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Location
Riverdale, NJ (Morris County)
The reference in the DOI refers to practices after the shooting had already started. Basically once the shooting started, they didn't like how the British were prosecuting the war. What I believe the final straw to be is the fact that the King had declared the colonies to be in rebellion and as the Virginia Convention put it: "Forasmuch as all the endeavours of the United Colonies, by the most decent representations and petitions to the King and Parliament of Great Britain, to restore peace and security to America under the British Government, and a reunion with that people upon just and liberal terms, instead of a redress of grievances, have produced, from an imperious and vindictive Administration, increased insult, oppression, and a vigorous attempt to effect our total destruction:-By a late act all these Colonies are declared to be in rebellion, and out of the protection of the British Crown, our properties subjected to confiscation, our people, when captivated, compelled to join in the murder and plunder of their relations and countermen, and all former rapine and oppression of Americans declared legal and just; fleets and armies are raised, and the aid of foreign troops engaged to assist these destructive purposes; the King's representative in this Colony bath not only withheld all the powers of Government from operating for our safety, but, having retired on board an armed ship, is carrying on a piratical and savage war against us, tempting our slaves by every artifice to resort to him, and training and employing them against their masters. In this state of extreme danger, we have no alternative left but an abject submission to the will of those overbearing tyrants, or a total separation from the Crown and Government of Great Britain, uniting and exerting the strength of all America for defence, and forming alliances with foreign Powers for commerce and aid in war:-Wherefore, appealing to the Searcher of hearts for the sincerity of former declarations expressing our desire to preserve the connection with that nation, and that we are driven from that inclination by their wicked councils, and the eternal law of self-preservation"

Of course, taking the slaves and inciting them to join the British is part of this...
 

Freddy

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Location
Worcester, MA
I can agree that the Southern States fought in the American Revolution partially to preserve slavery. However, I have never seen any Massachusetts men nor New England men espouse preserving slavery as a reason for fighting at Concord and Lexington, Bunker (Breed's) Hill, and the Invasion of Canada in 1775. Almost 400 Northern Patriots were killed before the DOI.
 

bama46

Captain
Except protection of slavery, was the price demanded by the south, to sign the Constitution and join the Union. Without their slaves, the South wanted no part of any United States of America.


P.S. later, 1820 to be exact, the south's defense of their 'peculiar Institution' resulted in an imaginary line drawn on a map, to delineate slave from Free states, thus codifying sectionalism.

what does the constitution have to do with the Revolutionary war?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
what does the constitution have to do with the Revolutionary war?

bama46,

My opinion? Just about everything.

During the Revolutionary War, we have the Articles of Confederation which nearly drive the fight into the ground, and then just about squabble it away after that war.

Without the Constitution, you have no true birth of America.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

jpeter

1st Lieutenant
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Location
Dallas, TX
I'm not sure 'bama meant it that way, but I'll let him speak for himself.

I could imagine saying that same thing and meaning that the Constitution was written long after the War. The War itself was not predicated on an imagined Constitution. His sentence could easily mean several things.
 

K Hale

Colonel
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Location
Texas
I'm not sure 'bama meant it that way, but I'll let him speak for himself.

I could imagine saying that same thing and meaning that the Constitution was written long after the War. The War itself was not predicated on an imagined Constitution. His sentence could easily mean several things.
That's what I thought he meant.
 

K Hale

Colonel
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Location
Texas
Well, he was replying to Opn's statement that the south demanded protection for slavery in the Constitution, otherwise they would not have ratified it. And without that protection, they "wanted no part of the United States of America." I took this to mean that the southern states wouldn't have fought in the revolution (the subject of this thread) unless the Constitution guaranteed protection for slavery.

I think Opn's statement is the one that needs clarification.
 

Nathanb1

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Smack dab in the heart of Texas
Except protection of slavery, was the price demanded by the south, to sign the Constitution and join the Union. Without their slaves, the South wanted no part of any United States of America.

Sounds to me like we're post-war right here. And forgive me if I'm incorrectly associating the 3/5 compromise with this argument.
 

K Hale

Colonel
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Location
Texas
Now that I reread it, it does sound post-war, but I took it as pre-war when I first saw it. Maybe because of what Freddy said in post #5.
 

bama46

Captain
bama46,

My opinion? Just about everything.

During the Revolutionary War, we have the Articles of Confederation which nearly drive the fight into the ground, and then just about squabble it away after that war.

Without the Constitution, you have no true birth of America.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

The issue is the timeline..

AFTER the Revolutionary war, the Articles were adopted... then later on in 1789 or so comes the constitution, a document that existed not even as a gleam in someone's eye during the revolution... so my question stands...

What does the Constitution have to do with the revolutionary war?
 

jharold587

Private
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Location
Wilmington, Ohio
I understood that you were referring to the timeline Bama. I am starting to think you and I are drinking from the same cup! How cam I keep my reputation as a die hard yankee, if we continue to agree.
 

CharacterGroove

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Location
Minneapolis, MN
The issue is the timeline..

AFTER the Revolutionary war, the Articles were adopted... then later on in 1789 or so comes the constitution, a document that existed not even as a gleam in someone's eye during the revolution... so my question stands...

What does the Constitution have to do with the revolutionary war?

It was the solution to the inadequate peace won in the Revolutionary War.

That's my best once-sentence answer.
 
Top