See
Fact Checking the 1619 Project and Its Critics by Phillip W. Magness. Excerpt:
"One of the most hotly contested claims of the 1619 Project appears in
its introductory essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones, who writes “one of the
primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from
Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.”
Hannah-Jones cites this claim to two historical events. The first is
the 1772 British legal case of Somerset v. Stewart, which reasoned from
English common law that a slave taken by his owner from the colonies to
Great Britain could not be legally held against his will. England had
never established slavery by positive law, therefore Somerset was free
to go.
The second event she enlists is a late 1775 proclamation
by Lord Dunmore, the colonial governor of Virginia, in which he offered
freedom to slaves who would take up arms for the loyalist cause against
the stirring rebellion. The measure specified that it was “appertaining
to Rebels” only, thereby exempting any slaves owned by loyalists.
Hannah-Jones argues that these two events revealed that British
colonial rule presented an emerging threat to the continuation of
slavery, thereby providing an impetus for slave-owning Americans to
support independence. The American Revolution, she contends, was
motivated in large part to “ensure slavery would continue.” The five
historians vigorously dispute this claimed causality, indicating that it
exaggerates the influence of these events vis-à-vis better known
objects of colonial ire, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
There is a kernel of truth in Hannah-Jones’s interpretation of these
events. Somerset’s case is traditionally seen as the starting point of
Britain’s own struggle for emancipation, and Dunmore’s proclamation
certainly provoked the ire of slaveowners in the southern colonies –
although they were more likely to interpret it as an attempt to foment
the threat of a slave revolt as a counterrevolutionary strategy than a
sign that Britain itself would impose emancipation in the near future.
Curiously unmentioned in the dispute is a much clearer case of how
the loyalist cause aligned itself with emancipation, albeit in a limited
sense. As part of his evacuation of New York City in 1783, British
commander Sir Guy Carleton secured the removal of over 3,000 slaves for
resettlement in Nova Scotia. This action liberated more than ten times
as many slaves as Dunmore’s proclamation, the earlier measure having
been offered as part of an increasingly desperate bid to retain power
long after colonial opinion turned against him. Carleton’s removal also
became a source of recurring tensions for U.S.-British relations after
the war’s settlement. Alexander Hamilton, representing New York, even
presented a resolution before the Confederation Congress demanding the return of this human “property” to their former owners.
That much noted, Hannah-Jones’s argument must be assessed against the
broader context of British emancipation. It is here that the five
historians gain the stronger case. First, despite both its high symbolic
importance and later use as a case precedent, the Somerset ruling was
only narrowly applied as a matter of law. It did not portend impending
emancipation across the empire, nor did its reach extend to either the
American colonies or their West Indian neighbors where a much larger
plantation economy still thrived.
It is also entirely unrealistic to speculate that Britain would have
imposed emancipation in the American colonies had the war for
independence gone the other way. We know this because Britain’s own
pathway to abolition in its remaining colonies entailed a half-century
battle against intense parliamentary resistance after Somerset.
Simply securing a prohibition on the slave trade became a lifetime
project of the abolitionist William Wilberforce, who proposed the notion
in 1787, and of liberal Whig leader Charles James Fox, who brought it
to a vote in 1791, only to see it go down in flames as merchant
interests and West Indian planters organized to preserve the slave
trade. Any student of the American Revolution will recognize the member
of Parliament from Liverpool who successfully led the slave traders in
opposition, for it was Banastre Tarleton, famed cavalry officer under General Cornwallis on the British side of the war.
Tarleton’s father and grandfather owned merchant firms in Liverpool,
and directly profiteered from the slave trade. When Fox and
Wilberforce’s slave trade ban came to a vote he led the opposition in
debate. The measure failed with 163 against and only 88 in favor.
After more than a decade of failed attempts Fox eventually
persevered, steering a bill that allowed the slave trade ban through the
House of Commons as one of his final acts before he died in 1806. It
would take another generation for Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson,
invested in a decades-long public campaign that highlighted the horrors
of the institution and assisted by a large slave uprising in Jamaica, before a full Slavery Abolition Act would clear Parliament in 1833.
Nor was Tarleton the only loyalist from the revolutionary war with a
stake in slavery as an institution. Lord Dunmore, whose 1775
proclamation forms the basis of the 1619 Project’s argument, comes
across as a desperate political opportunist rather than a principled
actor once he is examined in light of his later career. From 1787 to
1796 he served as colonial governor of the Bahamas, where he embarked on
a massive and controversial building project to fortify the city of
Nassau against irrational fears of foreign invasion. Dunmore used more
than 600 enslaved laborers to construct a network of fortifications,
including a famous 66-step staircase
that they hand carved from solid rock under the threat of whipping and
torture. Responding to a parliamentary inquiry on the condition of the
colony’s slaves in 1789, Dunmore absurdly depicted them as well cared for and content with their condition.
Curiously enough, a British victory in the American Revolution would
have almost certainly delayed the politics of this process even further.
With the American colonies still intact, planters from Virginia, the
Carolinas, and Georgia would have likely joined their West Indian
counterparts to obstruct any measure that weakened slavery from
advancing through Parliament. Subject to greater oversight from London,
the northern colonies would have had fewer direct options to eliminate
the institution on their own.
These state-initiated measures came about through both legislative
action and legal proceeding, including a handful of “freedom cases” that
successfully deployed reasoning similar to Somerset to strike against
the presence of slavery in New England. The most notable example
occurred in Massachusetts, where an escaped slave named Quock Walker
successfully used the state’s new post-independence constitution of
1780 to challenge the legality of enforcing slavery within its borders.
Although they had significantly smaller slave populations than the
southern states, several other northern states used the occasion of
independence to move against the institution. The newly constituted
state governments of Pennsylvania (1780), New Hampshire (1783),
Connecticut (1784), Rhode Island (1784), and New York (1799) adopted
measures for gradual but certain emancipation, usually phased in over a
specified period of time or taking effect as underage enslaved persons
reached legal majority. Vermont abolished slavery under its constitution
as an independent republic aligned with the revolutionaries in 1777,
and officially joined the United States as a free state in 1791.
Antislavery delegates to the Confederation Congress were similarly able
to secure a prohibition against the institution’s extension under the Northwest Ordinance
of 1787, ensuring that the modern day states of Ohio, Michigan,
Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana entered the Union as free states.
While these examples do not negate the pernicious effects of slavery
upon the political trajectory of the former southern colonies, they do
reveal clear instances where the cause of emancipation was aided –
rather than impeded – by the American revolution. Britain’s own plodding
course to emancipation similarly negates an underlying premise of
Hannah-Jones’ depiction of the crown as an existential threat to
American slavery itself in 1776. Indeed, the reluctance of the
slaveholding West Indian colonies to join those on the continent in
rebellion despite repeated overtures from the Americans reveals the
opposite. The planters of Jamaica, Barbados and other Caribbean islands
considered their institutions secure under the crown – and they would
remain so for another half-century.
The Verdict: The historians have a clear upper hand
in disputing the portrayal of the American Revolution as an attempt to
protect slavery from British-instigated abolitionism. Britain itself
remained several decades away from abolition at the time of the
revolution. Hannah-Jones’s argument nonetheless contains kernels of
truth that complicate the historians’ assessment, without overturning
it. Included among these are instances where Britain was involved in the
emancipation of slaves during the course of the war. These events must
also be balanced against the fact that American independence created new
opportunities for the northern states to abolish slavery within their
borders. In the end, slavery’s relationship with the American Revolution
was fraught with complexities that cut across the political dimensions
of both sides."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.