Slavery gave birth to America...

[bama46]

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.

damifiknow?..

 

[OpnCoronet]

The Union existed before the DoI, war and Articles of Confederation. IMO the South had more commonality of purpose with their sister colonies than with that of Great Britain. At the time of the war, slavery was not an issue as much as it was a growing concern. But the fact of banning slavery was firt, in the AoC, shows to me, at least, slavery was not the problem it became wigth the ratification of the Constitution.


P.S. not say that many thinking leaders in the United colonies, especially in the south, were unaware of the Sommerset Case in England and its implications for colonies under English Laqw. But it was more a worry than a fear.

 

[larry_cockerham]

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.

Bama, he be a southern boy. Once you're born in Dixie, there ain't much you can do about it except be proud.

 

[sf46]

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.

Maybe you find yourself coming over to the dark side?

 

[brass napoleon]

Maybe you find yourself coming over to the dark side?

:laugh1: Anakin Skywalker?

 

[Freddy]

The Union existed before the DoI, war and Articles of Confederation. IMO the South had more commonality of purpose with their sister colonies than with that of Great Britain. At the time of the war, slavery was not an issue as much as it was a growing concern. But the fact of banning slavery was firt, in the AoC, shows to me, at least, slavery was not the problem it became wigth the ratification of the Constitution.


P.S. not say that many thinking leaders in the United colonies, especially in the south, were unaware of the Sommerset Case in England and its implications for colonies under English Laqw. But it was more a worry than a fear.

Perhaps a loose "union" existed in 1774-1775 with formation of the First and Second Continental Congresses and with the Continental Association of 1774. However, both the colonies and Britain rejected a decade earlier at the Albany Congress Franklin's Albany Plan for Union. Galloway's Plan was rejected by the First Continental Congress by a six to five vote.

 

[jpeter]

P.S. not say that many thinking leaders in the United colonies, especially in the south, were unaware of the Sommerset Case in England and its implications for colonies under English Laqw. But it was more a worry than a fear.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I've seen mixed historical understandings of the Somersett case.

I have two books which imply that it was much more than a worry. I got the impression "extremely worried" was more like it.

 

[bama46]

Maybe you find yourself coming over to the dark side?

I was thinkin more the side of sweetness and light

 

[unionblue]

bama46,

The Articles of Confederation were first proposed by Congress on November 15, 1777. It was ratified and became effective on March 1, 1781.

A bit of background on the Articles.

"The ame Virginia resolution that proposed independence called on Congress to prepare a plan for a confederation of the states. On July 12, 1776, debate began on a draft written by John Dickinson; it continued whenever time could be spared from urgent military matters. Unfortunately, the concerns of the individual states outweighed considerations of national interests. States with claims to western lands refused to grant Congress power to settle boundary disputes. The small states insisted on amendments to ensure their sovereignty, while the large states tried (in vain) to apportion voting strength in Congress according to population or the amount that each state contributed to the common fund. The Southern states insisted on apportioning expenses of the Confederation according to the value of land in private hands rather than on the basis of total population including slaves. Not until November 1, 1777, did Congress submit the Articles to the states for ratification.

Most of the states ratified them fairly promptly, but Maryland, expressing fears for its future among powerful neighbors, held out until the other states agreed to cede their western lands to the United States. The Articles became effective on March 1, 1781."

(Source: The book, The Constitution Of The United States, Bicentennial Edition, edited by Edward Conrad Smith and Harold J. Spaeth, page 5.)

I point to the fact that the Revolutionary War ended in 1782.

I submit, bama46, that the Articles of Confederation, ratified by all the states but one prior to the ending of the Revolutionary War, along with the DOI, had a lot to do with the Constitution, which was adopted in 1787.

The States had lived with the ineffective Articles of Confederation, which in fact moved away from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and became a source of such dissatisfaction which in turn led to the Constitution. All of the documents are related and have impact from one to the other.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[5fish]

I argue that without slavery, the Southern colonies would not have supported the DoI. I do not see any noted firebrands in the south crying for freedom form England and if I remember right there were many more Troy's in the Southern colonies then in the Northern colonies.

At this time in the 1770's there was the Somerset decision(1772) form the King's Bench that freeing slaves within the British isles and the Royal Virginia governor(1775) calling for slaves to join the royal cause against the rebels.

See the Somerset case effects the colonies....

The Somersett case was reported in detail by the American press and in Massachusetts there were several attempts by slaves to obtain freedom in 1773–74, which were supported by the General Court but vetoed by successive Governors. As a result, paradoxically, both pro- and anti-slavery colonies, for opposite reasons, hoped for a rapid break with English law in order to achieve their goals with regard to slavery.[12]


Now, Look in 1776 comes along the the Continental Congress pushed by those firebrands form the Northern colonies to declare our independence form England...with the Declaration of Independence.

The Southern slave owners chose is way of live over their loyalty to the crown and their children one day in the future would chose their way of life over their loyalty to our Constitution, plunging our nation into war.

We are taught it was taxation without representation that cause us to break form England but like all victor's we conveniently forget slavery's roll in our cause to break with the crown.

Slavery helped give birth to our nation and soon for the same reasons slavery would cause the near death of our nation....

 

[jpeter]

I argue that without slavery, the Southern colonies would not have supported the DoI. I do not see any noted firebrands in the south crying for freedom form England and if I remember right there were many more Troy's in the Southern colonies then in the Northern colonies.

I would agree with you this way. The language of slavery was already taken out of the DoI by Georgia and South Carolina (re: the King of England being responsible for slavery in the colonies was part of the original draft). So I clearly think you're right.

But no one concerned themselves much with abolishing slavery in 1776. That was an easy compromise for the colonists then. Not so much in 1787.

England wasn't really completely full of abolition yet (the Somersett case notwithstanding). It would be another 10-20 years before it began to see popular traction in England.

I think the Somesett case was extremely disturbing for southerners in 1776, but it wasn't much of an obstacle in Philadelphia in the 1770s. Northerners were pretty happy making the compromise at that time. After all Virginians were needed to play a role in the army. Northerners wouldn't give that up. England was the common enemy.

 

[larry_cockerham]

Men in the colonies of Virginia, (future Tennessee), North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia were "firebrands" who had their hands full with the Cherokee. When the time came to go after the Tories Dec 1780, these men rode quietly to Cowpens and Kings Mountain and took care of business.

 

[Rob9641]

Getting back to your original post, I think you're right, that the Southern colonies would not have supported independence unless slavery was not attacked in the DoI. That's about as clear an example of political compromise as you get can.

But I do dispute that that compromise has any validity to what occurred in 1860. It seems what you're trying to say is that since slavery was not attacked in the DoI - as most colonies were willing to let happen - that 80 years later it was the seceding States that were being true to the founding of the nation, not the Northern States who were intent on holding the Union together.

Even assuming that's a logical progression of thought, it leaves out the consideration of 80 years going by and conditions changing and amounts to "it's right now because it was right 80 years ago."

If that's your logic, then the United States has been illegitimate since the CW and black slavery ought to be reinstituted to make it true to its founding - what's the difference between 80 years and 200 where this argument is concerned?

I don't think you're arguing for a return NOW to the days when blacks were enslaved and only white male property owners were entitled to vote, but I submit you're pretty much making the same argument if you are saying that the US in the 1860s should be acting as it did in the 1770s when it made the original political compromise.

 

[bama46]

bama46,

The Articles of Confederation were first proposed by Congress on November 15, 1777. It was ratified and became effective on March 1, 1781.

A bit of background on the Articles.

"The ame Virginia resolution that proposed independence called on Congress to prepare a plan for a confederation of the states. On July 12, 1776, debate began on a draft written by John Dickinson; it continued whenever time could be spared from urgent military matters. Unfortunately, the concerns of the individual states outweighed considerations of national interests. States with claims to western lands refused to grant Congress power to settle boundary disputes. The small states insisted on amendments to ensure their sovereignty, while the large states tried (in vain) to apportion voting strength in Congress according to population or the amount that each state contributed to the common fund. The Southern states insisted on apportioning expenses of the Confederation according to the value of land in private hands rather than on the basis of total population including slaves. Not until November 1, 1777, did Congress submit the Articles to the states for ratification.

Most of the states ratified them fairly promptly, but Maryland, expressing fears for its future among powerful neighbors, held out until the other states agreed to cede their western lands to the United States. The Articles became effective on March 1, 1781."

(Source: The book, The Constitution Of The United States, Bicentennial Edition, edited by Edward Conrad Smith and Harold J. Spaeth, page 5.)

I point to the fact that the Revolutionary War ended in 1782.

I submit, bama46, that the Articles of Confederation, ratified by all the states but one prior to the ending of the Revolutionary War, along with the DOI, had a lot to do with the Constitution, which was adopted in 1787.

The States had lived with the ineffective Articles of Confederation, which in fact moved away from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and became a source of such dissatisfaction which in turn led to the Constitution. All of the documents are related and have impact from one to the other.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

While I see your point, I do not see the constitution even being considered prior to the convention, which was originally convened to "fix' the AOC, amd morphed into a new document. I continue to stand by my oringinal statement.

 

[5fish]

I wish there was a transcript of John Adams rotatory before the Continental Congress persuading those last delegates to vote for the DoI and reassuring the others that Independence was the right course of action. He spoke for hours but no record of his oratory was made or saved. I have not even found any delegates recount of John Adams oratory even years later.

I know that if there was one. It would prove my point the the Southern delegates feared Slaved with guns and I bet John Adams would have played on that fear in his oratory. This fear will again force the south to break with her Northern brother.

I south feared the not just another John Brown type character will come south to ferment the slaves into revolting. the south fears not just one but hundreds of Northerners would come south to start Domestic Insurrection among the slave population.

 

[brass napoleon]

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.

There's more than meets the eye here. Jefferson apparently had a lot more to say about slavery in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, but Congress removed all of it except the clause about domestic insurrection:

In the Declaration he attempted to cast the king as the perpetuator of slavery in America as well as the instigator of racial violence. The first charge was absurd and the second true in only a limited sense - Governor Dunsmore of Virginia had called upon blacks to rise against their masters and promised them freedom in return. But as Congress knew, white Americans - not the king - had instituted slavery and had maintained it. Congress removed almost all of Jefferson's denunciation, retaining only the charge, whose meaning was not altogether clear, that the king had "excited domestic insurrections amongst us." - Source: Robert Middlekauf, The Glorious Cause, p. 332

 

[brass napoleon]

White Southern fear of Domestic Insurrection led them to revolt against the British crown

I'm inclined to think that this is backwards. British threats of encouraging domestic insurrection were a result of the rebellion against the British crown.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

There's more than meets the eye here. Jefferson apparently had a lot more to say about slavery in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, but Congress removed all of it except the clause about domestic insurrection:

John Adams presented his own declaration of independence to the Congress on May 15, 1776 which in turn prompted them to order the colonies to draft new constitutions. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee presented a resolution "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States," before the Congress based on Adams' declaration. Congress delayed the vote on Lee's resolution until July 1 so delegates could confer with the constituents of their respective colony. During the interim, the Congress assigned a committee with Adams as its chairman and Thomas Jefferson as a member, to draft a document based on Lee's resolution. Adams first approached Benjamin Franklin to author the document but was turned down. He then asked Jefferson to write it which he agreed to completing the draft of the "Declaration" in "a day or two."

On June 28, 1776 Jefferson's draft of the "Declaration" was presented to Congress and on July 1, Lee's resolution came back up for debate and a vote. Lee's resolution of independence was passed the following day, July 2, 1776 but debate continued on Jeffersons "Declaration." As you've already shown, the debate apparently centered around Jefferson's references to slavery in the document and approximately 20% of the tesxt was revised according to historian Joseph J. Ellis:

"After voting on the Lee resolution, the congress moved immediately to a consideration of Jefferson's draft. In committee-of-the-whole format the delegates spent two days making editorial changes that revised or deleted about 20 percent of the text. They found Jefferson a bit wordy for their taste, some of his language too florid or sentimental, and insisted on removing any reference to the slave trade or slavery itself, even when Jefferson blamed it all on George III. Mostly they focused on the latter two-thirds of the document, the lengthy list of grievances against the king. They cared most about that section because the whole point of the Declaration was to justify independence, which depended upon demonstrating in one conclusive indictment that George III had betrayed their trust."
American Creation, Joseph J. Ellis, pg. 55

 

[John S. Carter]

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.