I think it is wonderful that you are undertaking such an inquiry. I have been posting bits on these themes, but had not thought that you would take them up seriously.
The discussion in your post seems to me to be one between mainly two dueling Whig interpretations of the causes of the American Rebellion or Revolution, and the role of slavery within it, and as a cause.
My own view is that this debate, interesting as it sometimes is, nevertheless misses most of the actual ideological and theological underpinnings of the colonial rebellion.
It was not, for the colonists themselves, North or South, so much about either losing their slaves (one big element of their trade and commerce both north and south) on the one hand; or about taxes and representation on the other, although that was typically how Northern, mainly religious, publicists framed the issues for southern readers in a secular vernacular, whose religions were different from those of the north.
The slavery card was how Lord Dunmore proceeded, but no one seriously thought that Britain would try to abolish slavery in the colonies with desperate British factories all clamoring for American cotton.
I suggest answers to these questions are best found in The Language of Liberty 1660-1832 Political discourse and social dynamics in the Anglo-American world.
All the best
Rupert Chapman said...
Dear Professor Kaiser:
I really like your contribution to this debate because of the dispassionate tone and dedication to seeking the evidence. I particularly like the way in which you point out that taking Lord Dunmore's proclamation as causal in the American War of Independence is to place the effect before the cause. Time and sequence are crucial in all historical studies, including my own speciality, archaeology.
There is, however, one misconception which I would, respectfully, like to point out. You state that, 'As the late Pauline Maier documented at length in her book on the Declaration of Independence, Inventing America, the swing towards independence had much more to do with George III’s decision to send armed forces, including foreign mercenaries, to subdue the colonies, and his refusal to discuss a settlement with them, than anything else.' But while it is true that the colonists so perceived matters, and while George III definitely approved of the action, it was not HE who sent those armed forces, but his Prime Minister, Lord North. What the colonists, and many within Great Britain, failed to recognize is that there had been a major constitutional change within Great Britain, from an absolute monarchy, in which the monarch WAS the executive, to a constitutional monarchy, in which an elected minister of the monarch (not yet actually called the Prime Minister) governed in the name of the monarch. To say that George III took the actions mentioned is like saying that Elizabeth II sent the British military to the Falkland Islands, an action of which she doubtless approved.
Best wishes,
Rupert Chapman
I really like your contribution to this debate because of the dispassionate tone and dedication to seeking the evidence. I particularly like the way in which you point out that taking Lord Dunmore's proclamation as causal in the American War of Independence is to place the effect before the cause. Time and sequence are crucial in all historical studies, including my own speciality, archaeology.
There is, however, one misconception which I would, respectfully, like to point out. You state that, 'As the late Pauline Maier documented at length in her book on the Declaration of Independence, Inventing America, the swing towards independence had much more to do with George III’s decision to send armed forces, including foreign mercenaries, to subdue the colonies, and his refusal to discuss a settlement with them, than anything else.' But while it is true that the colonists so perceived matters, and while George III definitely approved of the action, it was not HE who sent those armed forces, but his Prime Minister, Lord North. What the colonists, and many within Great Britain, failed to recognize is that there had been a major constitutional change within Great Britain, from an absolute monarchy, in which the monarch WAS the executive, to a constitutional monarchy, in which an elected minister of the monarch (not yet actually called the Prime Minister) governed in the name of the monarch. To say that George III took the actions mentioned is like saying that Elizabeth II sent the British military to the Falkland Islands, an action of which she doubtless approved.
Best wishes,
Rupert Chapman
Professor
To place this debate into a wider more adequate context I suggest referring to Elliott's Empires of the Atlantic World. It is just a much better much more rounded, non negro race Whiggish, and more complete, if now slightly dated, discussion of the context surrounding negro slavery, as well as other forms of labor, in the New World, not just North America, than is presented in The 1619 Project, which leaves everything to be desired at every turn.
All the best
To place this debate into a wider more adequate context I suggest referring to Elliott's Empires of the Atlantic World. It is just a much better much more rounded, non negro race Whiggish, and more complete, if now slightly dated, discussion of the context surrounding negro slavery, as well as other forms of labor, in the New World, not just North America, than is presented in The 1619 Project, which leaves everything to be desired at every turn.
All the best
Professor
Revisiting this matter, I tend to think that fear of a slave revolts on a large scale would have been tantamount to emancipation had it occurred. Certainly the evidence is there for the British having tried to foment them.
Having read Parkinson's article, from several years before, fleshes out a better case than the 1619 Project account for the importance of this issue.
Friday, September 30, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/did-a-fear-of-slave-revolts-drive-american-independence.html
Jefferson's rough draft is also a good context source. It does not seem that the Crown forced slavery on the colonies.
Until after the Seven Years War, the Crown had had difficulty forcing anything on them, even when it had tried. The Dominion Of New England is just one isolated example.
All in all, the hypocrisy moniker seems to me to fit rather well with colonial motivations.
All the best
Revisiting this matter, I tend to think that fear of a slave revolts on a large scale would have been tantamount to emancipation had it occurred. Certainly the evidence is there for the British having tried to foment them.
Having read Parkinson's article, from several years before, fleshes out a better case than the 1619 Project account for the importance of this issue.
Friday, September 30, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/did-a-fear-of-slave-revolts-drive-american-independence.html
Jefferson's rough draft is also a good context source. It does not seem that the Crown forced slavery on the colonies.
Until after the Seven Years War, the Crown had had difficulty forcing anything on them, even when it had tried. The Dominion Of New England is just one isolated example.
All in all, the hypocrisy moniker seems to me to fit rather well with colonial motivations.
All the best
Professor
How about Shaun King? He wants to tear down monuments (presumably including churches) connected with Jesus, a white racist. Trump's new Executive Order specifically references King.
I had noted on my site that this would spread much farther than mere Southern token white racists, to Northern founding fathers and beyond to all of Western Civilization.That prediction has already come true.
Now it looks more and more like a full on August 24, 1572 St Bartholomew's Day kind of thing, coming soon to a theater near you.
All the best,
How about Shaun King? He wants to tear down monuments (presumably including churches) connected with Jesus, a white racist. Trump's new Executive Order specifically references King.
I had noted on my site that this would spread much farther than mere Southern token white racists, to Northern founding fathers and beyond to all of Western Civilization.That prediction has already come true.
Now it looks more and more like a full on August 24, 1572 St Bartholomew's Day kind of thing, coming soon to a theater near you.
All the best,
No comments:
Post a Comment