Could the American Revolution have been Avoided?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



What's 'unfair' about his comment ?


Wasn't Jefferson a Virginian ? Didn't he own slaves ? Is he not famous for his defence of the 'natural' and 'essential' liberties of the colonies and the colonists ?

I seem to recall that Patrick Henry and Henry Laurens were from the south too...

In fact, Congress removed part of the original draft of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence which contained material laying the blame on George III (!) for the slave trade.

To Jefferson's recollection, the colonies of South Carolina and Georgia found the passage offensive, as did delegates from the northern colonies, because, in Jefferson's own words:



Well quite- since the Dutch landed slaves there in the early part of the 17th Century.

New York was one of the larger slaveholding areas, the largest north of the Chesapeake, and in Albany and New York City, slaves amounted to 15%- 20% of the population. In fact, New York saw a slave revolt in 1712...


It's calculated that one third of the white population owned at least one slave- the difference being the way that slaves were distributed throughout the more northerly colonies, being house servants, farmhands or working in smithies or at trades, rather than being concentrated in larger numbers as they were on southern plantations.

Ergo, slavery was an institution throughout the American colonies.

According to Gordon S. Wood, in 'The American Revolution- A History' in the chapter 'Republican Society' :




By the way- Johnson's pamphlet is dated 1775. Franklin became President of the Pennsylvanian Abolition Society in 1787.

And he still owned slaves in 1772...



And you're quite sure about this, are you ? Not confusing him with Anthony Benezet, by any chance ?

Jeffersons original draft complained of royal interference with attempts to limit the slave trade.

the highest concentrations of slave owners in NY, IIUC was among Dutch farmers, who were mainly loyalist. AFAIK there was no greater concentration of slaveownership among patriots than among loyalists in the middle and southern colonies.

New England and Pennsylvania abolished slavery shortly after independence.

The proportion of whites who owned slaves in the loyal colonies of the west indies was undoubtedly higher than 1/3

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom


By the way- Johnson's pamphlet is dated 1775. Franklin became President of the Pennsylvanian Abolition Society in 1787.

"The Society was originally formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, as The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage; it was reorganized in 1784 and again in 1787, and then incorporated by the state of Pennsylvania in 1789. The Society not only advocated the abolition of slavery, but made efforts to integrate freed slaves into American society."

I believe Franklin was a member when it was founded under its original name, but I dont have a cite.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I believe Franklin was a member when it was founded under its original name, but I dont have a cite.

I believe you said this:

...that Ben Franklin had founded the first anti-slavery society in North America.

I believe that isn't the case.

Jeffersons original draft complained of royal interference with attempts to limit the slave trade.

And ? He still owned slaves. He still 'yelped for liberty'....

the highest concentrations of slave owners in NY, IIUC was among Dutch farmers, who were mainly loyalist. AFAIK there was no greater concentration of slaveownership among patriots than among loyalists in the middle and southern colonies.

I'm sure we'd all love to see your analysis of who owned how many slaves, and who was most loyal to the Crown and where.

However, you seem again to be missing the point. As I've already mentioned, Johnsons' polemic was not intended as an exhaustive sociological survey, but rather as a way of pointing out the hypocrisy of those who call for liberty while still enslaving others, or who profit from the enslavement of others and cry out that they are being tyrannized.

Loyalty to the Crown was for different reasons across the colonies, depending on ethnicity (in the case of some non-English migrants) or religion, as in Anglicans in colonies where Congregationalism predominated.

In New York the tenants of some landholders were Loyalists, because their richer landlords supported the Revolution.

New England and Pennsylvania abolished slavery shortly after independence.

The proportion of whites who owned slaves in the loyal colonies of the west indies was undoubtedly higher than 1/3

And ? The number of slaves in North America increased after the Revolution. I don't recall Dr. Johnson bringing the West Indies into the quote I posted.

[Andemagne]

yes, revolution could have been avoided. the thing is, things went wrong allready in 1688. Glorious Revolution deposed James II, who was just about to reform 13 colonies into 3 dominions.

can't remember where did I read this but anyway.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom
As I've already mentioned, Johnsons' polemic was not intended as an exhaustive sociological survey, but rather as a way of pointing out the hypocrisy of those who call for liberty while still enslaving others, or who profit from the enslavement of others and cry out that they are being tyrannized.

By that logic, the original revolt for Magna Carta was hypocrisy as well. ANY abuse of Magna Carta, any violation of the law, as long as it was done to slave holders, was ok.

The fact was that slaveholding in the colonies, including the loyal west indies colonies, as well as the the 13 colonies, was legal, and there was nothing in British law that made it illegal in those places. The british govt had done NOTHING to interfere with slavery in those places, and had even interfered with attempts in some of those colonies to limit the slave trade. For a supporter of that British govt to call Thomas Jefferson, who wrestled with the question of slavery, wrote against it, etc of hypocrisy, was itself hypocrisy.

[lord of the mark]

BTW, MB quoted Johnson in response to Odins quoting Patrick Henry.


Here is Henry on Slavery, from 1773, well before the revolution

Patrick Henry on Slavery * January 18, 1773
It is not a little surprising that Christianity, whose chief excellence consists in softening the human heart, in cherishing & improving its finer Feelings, should encourage a Practice so totally repugnant to the first Impression of right & wrong. What adds to the wonder is that this Abominable Practice has been introduced in the most enlightened Ages, Times that seem to have pretensions to boast of high Improvements in the Arts, Sciences, & refined Morality, have brought into general use, & guarded by many Laws, a Species of Violence & Tyranny, which our more rude & barbarous, but more honest Ancestors detested. Is it not amazing, that at a time, when the Rights of Humanity are defined & understood with precision, in a Country above all others fond of Liberty, that in such an Age, & such a Country we find Men, professing a Religion the most humane, mild, meek, gentle & generous, adopting a Principle as repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with the Bible and destructive to Liberty. . . .

I cannot but wish well to a people whose System imitates the Example of him whose Life was perfect. And believe me, I shall honour the Quakers for their noble Effort to abolish Slavery. It is equally calculated to promote moral & political Good.

Would any one believe that I am Master of Slaves of my own purchase! I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. . . .

I believe a time will come when the oppo. will be offered to abolish this lamentable Evil. Every thing we can do is to improve it, if it happens in our day, if not, let us transmit to our descendants together with our Slaves, a pity for their unhappy Lot, & an abhorrence for Slavery. If we cannot reduce this wished for Reformation to practice, let us treat the unhappy victims with lenity, & it is the furthest advance we can make toward Justice.

[lord of the mark]

I suggest reading Johnsons entire piece "Taxation no Tyranny"

In there are 8 mentions of "Boston" and not a single one of Virginia. There is a defence of the absolute rights of the state, an attack on Montesque, and a defense of the unreformed British electoral system.


There is also an assertion that the colonies were unlikely to win their claims by force. Im glad Dr. Johnson lived just long enough to see the Revolution victorious.

[lord of the mark]

In his support for the exclusion of John Wilkes from parliament, Dr Johnson said

"All government supposes subjects; all authority implies obedience: to suppose in one the right to command what another has the right to refuse, is absurd and contradictory; a state, so constituted, must rest for ever in motionless equipoise, with equal attractions of contrary tendency, with equal weights of power balancing each other. "


This is not quoted so often.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I suggest reading Johnsons entire piece "Taxation no Tyranny"

In there are 8 mentions of "Boston" and not a single one of Virginia.

I have. He wasn't making a sociological examination of the American colonies.

It does seem to me that if there is a wrong end of the stick to grasp, you will seize it with a will, and never let go.

I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. . . .

Patrick Henry


It ain't my fault, honest! I jes' cain't git along without my smilin' happy owned humans...

The crisis is arrived when we must assert our rights or submit to every imposition, that can be heaped upon us, till custom and use shall make us as tame and abject slaves as the blacks we rule over with such arbitrary sway.

George Washington, 1774

The Writings of George Washington, ed. by J. C. Fitzpatrick

For a supporter of that British govt to call Thomas Jefferson, who wrestled with the question of slavery, wrote against it, etc of hypocrisy, was itself hypocrisy.

Only if he owned slaves himself, or supported the continuation of slavery. If you can show that Johnson owned slaves or actively approved of slavery, please do so.

[Zkribbler]

Don't forget that, in Jefferson's time, it was illegal (except in limited circumstances) to free slaves. The purpose of this law was to prevent slaveowners from "freeing" their sick and elderly slaves.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


George Washington, 1774

The Writings of George Washington, ed. by J. C. Fitzpatrick

And in 1774 Washington wasnt asking for independence, but for mere limitations on crown authority.

the reality is that in 1774 the colonies of EVERY european country had slaves, and that Britain was quite comfortable with that and encouraged it (afterall, how many West Indian sugar barons were in the House of Commons?) It wasnt a live issue. Samuel Johnson wasnt pressing for abolition (though from what i understand he gave it verbal support - no more support, or in fact less, than John Adams and Ben Franklin did) Johnsons statement was simply a way to change the subject. Its very clear reading his document that his serious objections to the American case were based on his general reactionay principle of government, not on his concern about slavery. Its also clear that the Bostononians were uppermost on his minds, not the Virginians.

Anyway, you quoted him in response to Odins exclamation "give me liberty, or give me death" I doubt very much that Odin owns any slaves, so your quote was profoundly irrelevant.

[lord of the mark]

quote:
"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes "

thats an empirically testable assertion. If the "yelps for liberty" are heard as loudly among non-slaveholders as among slaveholders, its a false assertion, and the question dissappears. If its not sociological, what exactly is it? A throw away piece of rhetoric?


Incidently as youve often pointed out, there was no slavery in England at this time. That didnt stop Dr Johnson from having as little respect for the yelps for liberty in England, as he did for those emanating from those nasty colonies.

[lord of the mark]

and yes, every time you attempt to besmirch Jefferson (who himself said "there is nothing more surely written in the book of life than that these people shall be free") and Washington and Henry with that offhand piece of rhetoric, I will dig deeper into what a reactionary Samuel Johnson actually was.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Anyway, you quoted him in response to Odins exclamation "give me liberty, or give me death" I doubt very much that Odin owns any slaves, so your quote was profoundly irrelevant.

I had thought Odin was quoting somebody else.

Are you suggesting Odin was around in 1776 or earlier ? This could prove of some scientific interest.

If its not sociological, what exactly is it? A throw away piece of rhetoric?

It isn't part of a sociological tract. It's part of a polemic.

and yes, every time you attempt to besmirch Jefferson (who himself said "there is nothing more surely written in the book of life than that these people shall be free") and Washington and Henry with that offhand piece of rhetoric,

I don't understand how I'm 'besmirching' Jefferson, Washington, Patrick Henry or Franklin by recounting what is undeniable historical fact- these gentlemen either owned slaves, sold slaves, used slaves on plantations, or made profits from slave labour.

I will dig deeper into what a reactionary Samuel Johnson actually was.

Are you under the mistaken impression that I think Johnson was some kind of libertarian ?

I already know his political stance, through Boswell's 'Journal' and Johnson's own writings.

Whatever you find will not affect what I quoted from his tract.

Samuel Johnson wasnt pressing for abolition

Irrelevant.

By that logic, the original revolt for Magna Carta was hypocrisy as well. ANY abuse of Magna Carta, any violation of the law, as long as it was done to slave holders, was ok.

I don't think you quite grasp what Magna Carta was about. I don't see its relevance to Johnson's opinion of colonists' hypocrisy.

The fact was that slaveholding in the colonies, including the loyal west indies colonies, as well as the the 13 colonies, was legal, and there was nothing in British law that made it illegal in those places. The british govt had done NOTHING to interfere with slavery in those places, and had even interfered with attempts in some of those colonies to limit the slave trade.

Johnson was not responsible for the British government, nor did he create the sugar plantations. This is all irrelevant.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom

I had thought Odin was quoting somebody else.

Are you suggesting Odin was around in 1776 or earlier ? This could prove of some scientific interest.

The words were not original to Odin, but he used them IIUC to express his own sentiment in response to KH.

It isn't part of a sociological tract. It's part of a polemic.

A rhetorical throwaway, not even germane to most of whats in the polemic. Certainly not worth quoting repeatedly.

I don't understand how I'm 'besmirching' Jefferson, Washington, Patrick Henry or Franklin by recounting what is undeniable historical fact- these gentlemen either owned slaves, sold slaves, used slaves on plantations, or made profits from slave labour.

Because, as you yourself said, the quote implies they were hypocrites, which, given the assumptions of their own time, and the struggles of some them (notably Jefferson and Franklin) had with slavery, they were not.

Are you under the mistaken impression that I think Johnson was some kind of libertarian ?

I dont know what you think, but some of your readers might get that impression.

Johnson was not responsible for the British government,

If he was attacking anyone who opposed that govt, not only the colonists but English radicals as well, then to some extent he WAS responsible for it.