History HubΒ permalink
Benedict Arnold
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Monday, 21st March 2011
Sometimes, history is written in a way that there are heroes and villains, and nothing illustrates that more than the way Americans see 'heroes' such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and 'villains' such as Benedict Arnold. But should all Americans share that view? It seems to be me that those who hold certain views on the existence of slavery should take the reverse view, because while Washington and Jefferson fought to uphold the institution of slavery, Arnold was offering slaves their freedom if they fought for Britain:
"The battle between the rebelling colonies and the British over control of the slave population continued into the last days of the war. As portrayed in Colonial Williamsburg's Revolutionary City, even during the British occupation of Williamsburg in 1781 Benedict Arnold was promising freedom to blacks who joined the British side. Promises such as this continued to feed debates among slaves themselves as to wether or not to run away."
It just goes to show what we've always known - history is written by the victors.... -
Message 2
Posted by eristheapplethrower (U9524346) on Monday, 21st March 2011
Shivfan
It seems that this may be your fourth bite of the cherry as I found three other similar posts in a number of other online forums.
The first rule of decision making surely is 'do not make decisions which are not yours to make'.
Arnold Benedict (as those of us who remember Maynard G Krebs & Dobie gillis might still think of him) might have 'promised' freedom to slaves...but was it in his gift? I would have thought that the colonial governments would have made that decision on their own and at that point there were 13 to deal with ranging from Georgia in the south to the commonwealth of Massachusetts and New Hampshire in the north.
At the time of Arnold Benedict's kicking up dust few colonies had 'abolished' slavery. One was Rhode Island which at least on paper managed the action in the mid C17. RI restated abolition of slavery within its border just prior to the action at Lexington and Bunker Hill. Even the Quaker province of Pennsylvania did not get around to that action of abolition until 1780 and New Jersey (another colony with strong Quaker influence) did not abolish slavery until later. Indeed New York I think only abolished slavery in the 1830s. The short lived Vermont republic abolished slavery about 1780 at the close of the Revolutionary War and prior to its becoming the 14th state.
Even after Yorktown, the structure of what became the United States was one of Confederation. Certainly 13 'ares' and not 13 'is-es'. Imagine if you will a family of 13 only children. I suppose with counterfactual history sitting in my shoulder, that if things had gone ropier at Yorktown and the 'British' had won the war, then the Parliament at Westminster could have freed the slaves in all 13 colonies. But would that have been to Great Britain's benefit. You start with the 13 and then where do the dominoes start falling. Jamaica, Barbados, England? Wasn't the ownership of slaves not legal within the realm of England in the 1770s?
For my money, maybe because I have been jaded in my life owing to too many electoral promises which fall foul of the first rule of decision making, I would have thought it was an easy undertaking for Benedict Arnold to make even in print. You will be free, if. Trouble was could he have delivered on his promise?
Facts are chiels that willnae ding.
I don't think he could have delivered. Not his call.
'A thousand guilders! Come, take fifty' - you could just write the script. You promised them what?
Only make decisions which are yours to make. -
Message 3
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Monday, 21st March 2011
Very interesting, aneris, where else did you see it?
As a matter of fact, Lord Dunmore did offer any slave who fought on the side of the British their freedom if they did so, and Benedict Arnold was just repeating that promise. And as a result of that offer, hundreds - if not thousands - of blacks secured their freedom that way. So, for the black American, they generally preferred to fight on the side of the Loyalist than on the side of the Patriot. So, when Britain lost the war, they now had the problem of what to do with hundreds or thousands of free black soldiers. In the end, they found land for them first in Nova Scotia, and then in Sierra Leone.
So, the short answer is, yes, Benedict Arnold was right to offer slaves their freedom. And just because the offer didn't originate with him doesn't make him a worse person for doing so. In fact, some may argue that he was on the right side, offering freedom to black people at a time when Washington and Jefferson were slave owners and supporting the institution of slavery.
Yes, Britain was being hypocritical, and yes, they had slaves in the Caribbean. But that does not exactly remove the fact that Dunmore's delcaration gave hundreds or thousands of black people their freedom, and that alone is a fact to be acknowledged and possibly even commemorated, regardless of the motives behind them....
My issue is this: if Arnold was offering slaves their freedom, and Washington and Jefferson were not, then history is not exactly black and white - on this point, Arnold was on the right side of history.... -
Message 4
Posted by eristheapplethrower (U9524346) on Monday, 21st March 2011
Shivfan
Right side of history?
IMO Arnold was an opportunist. The British needed troops not only in the northern colonies but latterly in the southern colonies as well. The native population if and when pressed into service could easily retreat to their traditional tribal areas. Black slaves were a 'captured market'. Good thinking BA. They could not go home for spring ploughing as many continental soldiers could and did.
Arnold goes off to Britain in the early 1780s. At the same time we have the beginnings of the abolition movement in Great Britain. I would be more convinced of BA's good guy status if he became a convinced anti slaver. I don't think BA joined the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. He was too busy feathering his nest, fighting duels, underwriting privateers and generally wondering why the British establishment did not make him a hero. I think he died a disappointed man. And one who left his second wife with his debts.
Do correct me if I am wrong did he joined any Anti slavery society? Did he thump tables on behalf of British slaves after 1780? Did he write chapbooks?
Hmm.
If you want someone on the 'right side of history, then try the great Scottish jurist, Lord Hailes.
In 1778 Lord Hailes and other judges of the Court of Session in Edinburgh heard a landmark case. Boswell commented on it in his Life of Johnson.
Mr Wedderburn, a Scot a one time living in the West Indies, bought a young slave from a Captain Knight had brought his slave to Scotland. The slave Joseph who adopted the surname Knight lived in Scotland for some years, married, had a family and the day came when Joseph Knight took his case to the highest civil court in Scotland claimed his liberty and obtained it.
Said Hailes in his opening remarks" 'I had a preliminary doubt in this cause, which is not moved, viz, what evidence is there that Captain Knight acquired this unhappy negro by any modus acquired dominii known in African jurisprudence; and what evidence is there that Mr Wedderburn acquired him from Captain Knight. to say that is a slave, because he is a black and the property of Mr Wedderburn, because in the possession of Mr Wedderburn is too hasty logic.'
And his comments continue in the same fashion
IMO David Dalrymple, Lord Hailes was a man on the' right side of history'. -
Message 5
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 22nd March 2011
aneris, if you have some time, I recommend you read Simon Schama's 'Rough Crossings', which is an excellent chronicle of this little-known aspect of American history....
One chapter deals with the writings of a former black slave turned Loyalist soldier, with the wonderful name of British Freedom. He was one of thousands of blacks who gained their freedom courtesy of the declarations of Dunmore and Arnold, and interestingly, the writings of British Freedom and other ex-slaves show that they don't care what the motives of Dunmore and Arnold were. As far as they were concerned, they got their freedom, and that's all that mattered. As far as they were concerned, Dunmore and Arnold were heroes, and the slave-owning Washington and Jefferson were the villains.
For black people growing up in slavery in the young United States, the Loyalist cause was the 'right' one. And black people made up approximately one-fifth of the American population at the time. So, maybe it's fairer to say that Washington and Jefferson were the heroes of the Revolutionary War to the American Patriots, while Dunmore and Arnold were heroes of the Revolutionary War to the Loyalists and the black slaves seeking freedom....
Sure, Arnold was probably not a bone fide anti-slavery campaigned. But blacks in servitude didn't care about that! So long as they were getting their freedom, that's all that mattered to them. As Casseleon has pointed out many times on this messageboard, even the much-revered William Wilberforce had ulterior objectives for his involvement in the anti-slavery movement in England. Is there much difference, then, between Arnold's stance on slavery and Wilberforce's? Among the great campaigners of the past, only Granville Sharp seems to come across as an individual who wanted to abolish slavery solely thru personal revulsion against the system.
The only point I'm really making is this: Benedict Arnold is not the pure villain/traitor that he's made out to be in American history, because, after all, he and Dunmore offered and gave hundreds of slaves their freedom during the War, at a time when Washington and Jefferson were fighting to keep them in slavery. Blacks at the time revered Lord Dunmore and Arnold for doing that, and I feel this shows that in this respect, Arnold did more good than the so-called founding fathers....
PS, yes, that Joseph Knight/Wedderburn story is an interesting one. They came initially from Jamaica, I think. That was Scotland's version of the Mansfield ruling on the James Somerset case.... -
Message 6
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 22nd March 2011
shivfan,
The only point I'm really making is this: Benedict Arnold is not the pure villain/traitor that he's made out to be in American history, because, after all, he and Dunmore offered and gave hundreds of slaves their freedom during the War, at a time when Washington and Jefferson were fighting to keep them in slavery. Blacks at the time revered Lord Dunmore and Arnold for doing that, and I feel this shows that in this respect, Arnold did more good than the so-called founding fathers....Β
If BA made a difference for the good in the long run then I could agree with you. But he didn't so I can't.
I have to agree with aneris. That BA happened to be "on the right side" of your history book was pure luck. BA was an opportunist with a fragile, run-amok ego who changed sides because he felt he'd been slighted by the Continental Congress in not being made second-in-command behind GW. He wasn't altruistic; he was ambitious.
Which made no difference to the runaway slaves; any ticket out was better than none. But trying to puff BA up to something in books which he wasn't in real life is a traditional habit among historians like Simon Schama. -
Message 7
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 22nd March 2011
Don't put words into Simon Schama's mouth, Camry....He only makes a passing reference to Arnold. He deals a lot more with Lord Dunmore, who was Arnold's boss. I find it mildly amusing that you can dismiss Schama's 'Rough Crossings' before you actually read that excellent book!
Let me put it in a nutshell: Schama wrote about the thousands of black soldiers and their families who gained freedom from slavery as a result of fighting on behalf of the Loyalists in the Revolutionary War. It's an aspect of American history that's little discussed, and this book shed a lot of light on the subject.
I'm just highlighting Arnold's contribution, because he offered - and gave - black slaves their freedom for fighting on the side of the Loyalists. So what if he was ambitious and not altruistic? Some can argue - successfully - that Wilberforce was the same, and yet he's feted as a great hero of the abolition movement in the UK....
To say that Dunmore and Arnold made no difference is hardly true. Thousands of black slaves secured their freedom thru the actions of Dunmore and Arnold, and they would beg to differ. The colony of Sierra Leone was indirectly a result of the freedom of these slaves. It might not be what Arnold had in mind, but it did result from his actions....
Arnold may have been a traitor to the white American Patriot, but he was a hero - along with Dunmore - in the eyes of the thousands of black ex-slaves who gained their freedom. So, it's a matter of who's history it is.... -
Message 8
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
... -
Message 9
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Arnold went back to england and he was not like by the English much, either
his accomplice major john Andre was remembered well i think -he was hung by george Washington
i read the book "john Andre a gallant in spy's clothing"
the USA created the death penalty first for espionage before the British did i think -
Message 10
Posted by eristheapplethrower (U9524346) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Wasn't General Clinton BA's boss?
I still don't agree with the Benedict Arnold as the great hero of black liberation and now as a founding father of Sierra Leone. Surely, surely far more more was owed to the good offices of Thomas Peters (a former soldier in Lord Dunmore's army), a couple of English quakers among other people who were instrumental in securing Sierra Leone as a home for free slaves. Don't think the traitor BA was among the founders of Sierra Leone. Even indirectly as a vector. In the billiard table of life that is.
Lord Dunmore and Gwynn's Island? What a complicated story it all is.
How many of Dunmore's soldier slaves died there with smallpox?
And here and there were some hints that smallpox was a weapon of destruction. That is early attempted biological warfare by the British against colonial troops.. Who were the agents used in that exercise? Black slaves infected with smallpox - sent deliberately to try to infect the rebels. If true, that does seem to be a bit cynical. The story is alleged and I think Schama mentions this in his book. Perhaps not.. Good job George Washington insisted his colonial troops became inoculated against smallpox.
We know that no one likes a whistleblower and no one likes a traitor and BA did not flourish in England after the revolution. I'm with Maynard G Krebs. BA was a traitor.
But Lord Dunmore had a bit of a silver spoon at birth and he fared rather better. He had his title...and doors in London did not slam in his face, Even Governor Clinton fell out of favour. Dunmore didn't
So what of Lord Dunmore's later career/ That is after he was colonial governor of both New York and Virginia. Remind us again what happened to Lord Dunmore - ah yes. He became a governor in the West Indies. Bahamas wasn't it? And he built himself a fine residence and did he also not own slaves? Bizarre. And yet just the decade before he was promising freedom to slaves if only they would just.... Circumstances alter cases. Guess you could not have a colonial governor in the WI in the 1780s not owing slaves.
When you let slip the dogs of war things are seldom straightforward.
the British in the 13 colonies needed troops and supply lines from Dublin London and Glasgow were a bit slow in those days especially since the British Navy had the French to contend with. The British needed boots on the ground. the native population was not seen as always 'reliable'. So as I suggested earlier the promise of freedom was a necessity. The British needed the worker bees.
I am glad some slaves did become free and I hope many found a welcome in the snows and cold of Nova Scotia. I don't think in this post we have heard anything of Thomas Peters. He went to Halifax and then sailed on to London - He was obliged to do the same thing as the pied piper of Hamelin when the good burghers reneged on their promise of the payment of 1500 gilder. Thomas Peters reminded English administrators of their obligations to the slave soldiers of Clinton's and Dunmore's army. At least those who had survived the conflict and had made good their escape from the colonies.
I am not sure Sierra Leone was in the minds of BA, Clinton and Dunmore but it might have been. -
Message 11
Posted by Mr_Edwards (U3815709) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Thing is, Benedict Arnold is NOT universally villified by the victors. Although he is not mentioned by name, there are memorials to him at West Point and at Saratoga (the "boot monument"). The latter celebrates his skills in defeating the British in an essential conflict without which the war might well have been lost by the colonists.
Saratoga's not the only point where removing Benedict Arnold might have removed the United States from history. It was Arnold who built a navy from scratch on Lake Champlain early in the war and delayed a crucial British advance by months.
He changed sides out of spite because he was passed over for promotion in favour of someone he considered his inferior (but as has been said elsewhere, Arnold had an enormous ego, so the set of people he considered inferior was pretty large). Unfortunately for him, the British didn't have any idea how to use him. While the war was being fought state by state with Georgia returned to the Loyalist fold and the Carolinas on the way to following, Arnold was sent on pointless missions such as that in Connecticut, while Cornwallis was losing the war in Virginia. -
Message 12
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Sunday, 27th March 2011
i read he changed sides because he believed the usa and uk would both go downhill if usa won
i think its sick to change sides and not just be open about it ,in my opinion -
Message 13
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Sunday, 27th March 2011
aneris, once again, you're totally misreading my post....
I never said that Benedict Arnold was the founder of the colony in Sierra Leone, that he was a great humanitarian, and anti-slaveyr campaigner. I'm merely pointing out that he offered - and gave - hundreds of black ex-slaves their freedom for fighting on the side of the British. Given that about one-fifth of the population of the American colonies at the time were black, then he was more of a 'hero' than a 'villain' to black Americans than the likes of Washington and Jefferson. And yes, as I've said before, the policy didn't start with him. It started with Lord Dunmore, and it was repeated by Arnold. But just because it didn't start with Arnold didn't make him any less deserving of a commendation in that regard. The anti-slavery movement in England started with Granville Sharp, but William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson took over from Sharp, and received greater plaudits as a result.
Of course Sierra Leone wasn't in the minds of Arnold and Dunmore. It was a project of Sharp's. But the main point I was making is this - the writings of freed black ex-slaves, such as the wonderfully named British Freedom and Thomas Peters, praised the British officers who gave the black ex-slaves their freedom. Even when the British tried to forget about them by sending them to Nova Scotia, they still preferred the snowy wastes of Halifax to the brutal slavery of the Founding Fathers. You only have to read their writings to see that. Again, borrow a copy of 'Rough Crossings' from the library....
Basically, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were heroes to white Patriots. Let's not forget that about one in three white colonists at the time were Loyalists. But British officers like Dunmore and Arnold were heroes to black ex-slaves. And it wasn't just a few - the estimates are in the thousands.
Who cares how many times that Arnold switched sides? He wasn't the only one....
As Schama points out, a lot of southern landowners were suspicious of the Patriots of New England, and quite a few of them were Loyalists as a result. But then Dunmore had his 'brainwave' of offering blacks their freedom for fighting on the British side. Well, that drove a lot of the southern slaveowners right into the camp of the Patriots. So, these guys switched sides mainly because they wanted to keep blacks in slavery....
So, if you're going to compare these guys to Benedict Arnold, well then, I would take Arnold any day! One group of guys switched sides to keep blacks in slavery, and Arnold switched sides for personal agenda reasons, and in the process participated in a process that resulted in hundreds of black soldiers getting their freedom.
On that basis, Arnold comes out smelling a bit better and more pleasant than those guys.... -
Message 14
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Sunday, 27th March 2011
"Yes, Britain was being hypocritical, and yes, they had slaves in the Caribbean."
Remember when I said this in one of the posts above?
There is no doubt that Dunmore, Arnold and other British officers were being hypocritical when they offered slaves their freedom when they fought on the side of the British. After all, slavery was not abolished in the British colonies until 1833-38.
But I'm not discussing the purity of heart of Arnold and Dunmore. But at the same time, I think it's unfair to paint their hearts black, while the hearts of Washington and Jefferson are painted white. Then again, maybe my analogy of black and white is not the best to use here....
But I'm looking at it from the POV of the black ex-slaves, and that's what Schama's book attempts to do as well. And as far as the thousands of black ex-slaves were concerned, they knew who they preferred, and it wasn't Washington and Jefferson.
Yes, the British didn't know what to do with these ex-slaves after the War. Hence, shipping them to Nova Scotia, and then to Sierra Leone. But they preferred those destinations to the slavery of the new United States any day!
Is it so hard to contemplate that Arnold might actually have done something more commendable than Washington and Jefferson in this one instance?
-
Message 15
Posted by eristheapplethrower (U9524346) on Monday, 28th March 2011
I had a look at the index to Simon S's great book
I looked for a few names and was not at all surprised not to have found them.
Well one I did. I went looking for the name of Crispus Attucks. found one reference. Famous for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The battle of Monmouth? (2 reference) (It's estimated that 5% of Washington's forces were made up on African-American soldiers which included among other black regiments from Rhode Island and Massachusetts )
I went looking for the Bucks of America. Silence. (Interesting . At this point I gave up looking at the index. The Bucks of America was that Massachusetts based African-American regiment formed after the early early days of the Revolution. Ah again the Bucks were not fighting the patriots, they were the patriots) (Washington had given permission to Rhode Island to form its black regiment in January 1778, months before the battle of Monmouth, RI and later Massachusetts apparently bought the freedom of every slave)
But did Simon Schama mention
Prince Whipple?
Oliver Cromwell? (not the regicide)
George Middleton?
Seymour Burr?
Phillip Abbot?
George Latchom?
John Chavis?
Jordan Freeman & Lambert Latham (have a read about them at the Battle of Groton which of course involved your friend Benedict Arnold. Not perhaps one of Britain's finest hours although technically they won the battle.)
Shivfan all I want here is a little balance. Although you imply that only 'white' Americans fought for the patriot army. And that Washington and Jefferson conspired to keep the patriotic army all white. This was not so.
Jefferson served the commonwealth of Virginia and did not to my knowledge take part in military activity. He was a scholar.
But Washington is a different matter.
As early as the summer of 1775 which is fairly early in the conflict Washington agreed that black recruits be accepted into the Continental Army. The Continental Congress was a bit iffy, but Washington insisted and Congress backed down. I think this early order of Washington's was meant to include only freedmen. Good rule of decision making only make decisions that are yours to make. Washington three months into a struggle which at that stage was not even a war of independence could not have said send us your slaves.
(One of Washington's slaves William Lee served at his side throughout the war and was freed by a stipulation in the former's will).
Until 1976 when Carter balanced the ticket with the Northerner Mondale, is this constant theme in the US of fine tuning the desires of the north and the desires of the south. So many compromises. Even the siting of the new nation's capital Washington district of Columbia, was a compromise. Not too far south, not too far north and not New York, Boston, Philadelphia nor Charleston. All new. And your writer daughter of a southern father and a northern mother.
Regulations varied from colony to colony - some slave owners sent their slaves to fight in their place (eg New Jersey Militia act 1777). But many blacks did so of their own choosing. And although Massachusetts and RI had their black regiments in the Continental army it appeared that segregation was not widely practiced. Black soldiers froze in the snows of Valley Forge and as you will read suffered at Groton and many other scrapes and encounters as well. Monmouth if I recall was one of the last 'set piece' battles of the war. One of the great folk heroes of the southern campaign, Francis Marion (the Swamp Fox)had a band of soldiers of mixed ethnicity.
So in the American Revolution both sides had black soldiers (and as far as the young American navy went black sailors as well).
It is estimated that between three and five thousand blacks served the patriot cause.
Records are sketchy for the period. So doing an accurate nose count is only going be best guesstimate (even for Simon Schama his figures seem to be be estimate). But looking at the colonial records which do survive scholars have made educated guesses based on African-American naming patterns of the time. Freedman or Freeman is a bit of a clue, Juba , and classical names such as Caesar or Scipio.
We owe a lot to the work of a black American, one William Cooper Nell who in the mid 1850s wrote a book entitled The Colored patriots of the American Revolution. Neil might have been encouraged to do so by the great American Quaker John Greenleaf Whittier who was apparently one of the first to publicly state that the history of black support for the patriotic cause was not widely known nor recorded. You might care to goofle Nell's book. I wonder if Simon Schama did?.
Wars are messy affairs and there are always two sides to every story.
But this is the end of mine. Missa est. -
Message 16
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Balance is what I'm striving for too, but funnily, I find that Americans are dead-set against accepting that Benedict Arnold could do anything good, or that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson could do anything bad....
Before I go into some quotes, here's the essence of what I'm saying:
1) Washington and Jefferson were heroes to American Patriots, and Arnold and Dunmore were villains.
2) Washington and Jefferson were villains to American Loyalists, and Arnold and Dunmore were heroes.
3) Washington and Jefferson were villains to most black Americans, and Arnold and Dunmore were heroes.
It all boils down to whose history it is....
Okay, here's some more detail....
1) Hundreds of black men who fought on the side of the British were given acres of land in Nova Scotia, including British Freedom, Scipio Yearman, Jeremiah Piggie, Liberty Lagree and Smart Feller. Freedom himself had 40 acres (Schama pp12-14). Henry Washington, former slave of General George, was among those who found his way to Nova Scotia (Schama p17).
2) "Tens of thousands of African-Americans clung to the sentimental notion of a British freedom even when they knew that the English were far from being saints in respect to slavery" (Schama p14).
3) In 1829, African-American emancipationist David Walker wrote that the English were "the best friends the coloured people have upon Earth. Though they have oppressed us a little and have colonies now in the West Indies which oppress us sorely - yet notwithstanding they have done one hundred times more for the melioration of our condition, than all the other nations of the earth put together." (Schama p14) "When it came to the blacks caught up in their struggle, neither side, British nor American, behaved very well. But in the end, as British Freedom and multitudes like him appreciated, it was the royal, rather than the republican, roach that seemed to offer a surer chance of liberty" (Schama pp17-18).
4) "During the Revolutionary War there is no question that tens of thousands of Africans, enslaved in the American South, did look to Britain as their deliverer, to the point where they were ready to risk life and limb to reach the lines of the royal army" (Schama p15).
From the above excerpts, you can see that quite a few black Americans understood the hypocritical position of the British, but preferred them to the Patriot Americans, who kept them in slavery.
Yes, blacks served in the Patriot cause. But that was a small number, and those numbers declined, largely as a result of policy decisions taken by founding fathers such as Washington and Jefferson. In contrast, Dunmore took the opportunistic line of offering blacks their freedom if they fought on the side of the British, and as a result, by the time the War ended, black Americans saw the British cause as their cause.
5) "There were also many blacks who gave the Patriots the benefit of the doubt when they listened and read of their war as a war for liberty. If there was a British Freedom, there was also a Dick Freedom - and a Jeffrey Liberty - fighting in a Connecticut regiment on the American side. Blacks fought and died for the American cause at Concord, Bunker Hill, Rhode Island and finally at Yorktown. At the battle of Monmouth in New Jersey black troops on both sides fought each other. But until the British aggressively recruited slaves in 1775 and 1776, state assemblies, even in the North, as well as the multi-state Continental Congress, flinched from their enlistment. New Hampshire was typical in excluding lunatics, idiots and blacks from its militia. By the autumn of 1775 blacks who had already served in the Patriot militia were ordered to be discharged." (Schama p15) "Crispus Attucks has been canonised as one of the fallen in the Boston Massacre, when British troops shot down rioters in 1770. But the story of Newton Prince, the black barber who testified on behalf of the redcoats, is, unsurprisingly, much less well known. For his temerity, Prince was tarred and feathered by infuriated Patriots, so naturally in 1776 he opted for General Howe and was evacuated with the British" (Schama p18).
6) George Washington put the question to Congress. "There, the horror expressed by Southern representatives such as Edward Rutledge at the idea of arming slaves predictably overcame the lukewarm gratitude for black service. Even armed blacks were a worry. Could they be trusted not to spread the seeds of insurrection among the unfree? In February 1776 Congress instructed Washington that, whilst free blacks might be retained, no more should be enlisted. Slaves, of course, were altogether excluded from the Continental army set up by Congress" (Schama p15).
6) "The proclamation of John Murray, Lord Dunmore, the last colonial governor of Virginia, from HMS 'William' on the 7th of November unequivocally promised outright liberty to all slaves escaping from rebel plantations, reaching British lines and serving in some capacity with the army....Dunmore's words, sanctioned by the British government and reiterated by Generals Howe and Clinton, took wing in the world of the slaves, and they themselves took off, in their tens of thousands, shortly after" (Schama pp15-16).
7) George Washington reacted by calling Dunmore "that arch-traitor to the rights of humanity" for promising to free slaves and indentured servants, whilst those who kept them in bondage were heroes of liberty (Schama p16).
8) Pennsylvanian Lutheran pastor HM Muhlenberg wrote that the black population "secretly wished the British army might win for then all N***o slaves will gain their freedom. It is said that this sentiment is universal among all the N***oes in America" (Schama p16).
9) In December 1775, Lund Washington wrote to his cousin George of both blacks and indentured servants, who were departing from the Washington properties at speed, that "there is not a man of them but would leave us if they believ'd they could make there (sic) escape" (Schama p16).
10) Thomas Jefferson lost 30 of his own slaves, who fled to fight for the British. Jefferson himself believed that at least 30,000 had escaped from Virginia plantations to reach the British lines (Schama p16).
11) In 1858, historian David Ramsay estimated that two-thirds of the slaves in South Carolina had run away. In all, between 80,000-100,000 slaves left the plantations during the War. "The more sententious the noises coming from the Patriot leaders about American enslavement to the odious Hanoverian tyrant, the more their own slaves voted with their feet. Ralph Henry, for example, evidently took his master Patrick Henry's theatrical announcement of 'Give me Liberty or give me death' very much to heart, but not quite in the way its author intended, since he ran away at the earliest opportunity to the British lines" (Schama pp16-17).
12) Other founding fathers whose slaves found their way to British lines include James Madison, Benjamin Harrison (lost 20 slaves), South Carolina signatory Arthur Middleton (50 slaves), John Rutledge and Edward Rutledge. Even General Francis Marion, so inaccurately portrayed in Mel Gibson's fantasy movie 'The Patriot', had slaves who went over to the British, including Abraham Marrian, who fought against Marion, not alongside him, at Wadboo plantation in South Carolina. (Schama p17)
13) Also, a lot of slaves mistakenly believed that the Mansfield ruling in the Somerset case in 1772 meant that all a slave had to do to gain their freedom was to set foot in England. One Bacchus ran away from Augusta County in Georgia, leading his master to believe that he too might head for a port, there "to board a vessel for Great Britain from the knowledge that he has of the late determination of the Somerset case" (Schama p25).
All the quotes I've attributed to Simon Schama's 'Rough Crossings'. Of course, within the quotes themselves, there are sections attributed to primary sources at the time, but I didn't bother to put those in, because it would become tedious. But, if you question some of the statements made by Schama, those primary sources are easily attributable....
But, as you can see, the number of blacks fighting in the Patriot cause seems to have been merely a token, and declining number, while ever increasing numbers fought on the side of the British with the opportunistic offer of freedom from the British. And when you've been a slave all your life, you'll grab at that offer with open hands, regardless of its motives!
Of course, this is just a fraction of what Schama has written. I'm actually quite tired now, but I think this should give you a clearer picture of which side black Americans preferred....
And that leads me back to the OP, where Benedict Arnold opportunistically repeated the offers of Dunmore and Clinton, and was similarly - and understandably - embraced by black Americans seeking their freedom. -
Message 17
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Friday, 1st April 2011
i guess im descended from people that were in all those wars or ones in1776,1812 and civil war 1862
this is what i read
northern shipping companys outlawed slave imports or the government did rather , then the shipping companies still imported slaves
the juries wouldn't convict the slave importers
the Confederacy outlawed slave imports- to be enforced -if they were liars too i dont know but Jefferson Davis was part indian related to Pocahontas and i consider him pretty honest i think
if the war was war mongering well maybe so , but the north were more like invaders
so the north yes were hypocrites -
Message 18
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Friday, 1st April 2011
how many promises made by kings or czars etc come true?
many veterans are let down
people join armies i think because of peer pressure or partial truths and maybe its all a sham
the Napoleon wars would be fun and worthwhile -kidding -
Message 19
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Friday, 1st April 2011
there were American Indians and blacks on both sides of the American civil war
in revolution and war of 1812 i dont know but crispus Attucks was a black killed at the Boston massacre supposedly
England outlawed slavery in 1775 -maybe thats why some wanted war-maybe the northern USA shipping companies pushed for war -i wouldn't be surprised -
Message 20
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Friday, 1st April 2011
-
Message 21
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Friday, 1st April 2011
i doubt if Wikipedia is accurate -
Message 22
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Friday, 1st April 2011
the blacks in the south were used to build stuff or carry stuff
if they were captured they wouldn't be imprisoned probably so its actually more merciful not to arm the blacks as soldiers -
Message 23
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Friday, 1st April 2011
How many blacks fought for the South in the Civil war and why? -
Message 24
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
there were American Indians and blacks on both sides of the American civil war
in revolution and war of 1812 i dont know but crispus Attucks was a black killed at the Boston massacre supposedly
England outlawed slavery in 1775 -maybe thats why some wanted war-maybe the northern USA shipping companies pushed for war -i wouldn't be surprisedΒ This is the point I'm making, Norman....
American history texts tell us about the token black man who fought on the side of the Patriots, but is his case truly representative of black Americans in the War of Independence?
Let's look at it in the form of an analogy....
About 92% of black Americans support Obama. But that doesn't mean that all black people support Obama. There are a fraction of black Americans who are Republicans. But is it right to write about the fraction of black Americans who are Republicans, and ignore the vast majority of black Americans who support Obama? No, because the vast majority of black Americans support Obama....
Similarly, the case of Crispus Attucks is a minority. The vast majority of black Americans supported the Loyalist cause, simply because that was their route to freedom.
And a minor correction: Britain didn't outlaw slavery in 1775 throughout their colonies, or even in colonial America. They just offered freedom to slaves and their families, if they chose to fight for the Loyalist cause. There were a small fraction of slaveowners who also fought on the Loyalist side, and they were allowed to keep their slaves. It was a typically hypocritical British position....
The Mansfield ruling in Britain at the time gave a lot of people - including anti-slavery campaigners, the pro-slavery lobby, and black slaves in America - the impression that if a slave set foot in England, he would be free. That turned out to be a fiction, but public perception curiously turned it into reality....
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.