Was The American Revolution Really About Slavery?

I was wondering. You know there is a lot they still don't cover in US history books. They call that favoritism. And as I get older I find myself questioning things I once believed in. I'm sure we all do.

But was the real reason we broke away from England in 1776 because of slavery? Specifically because we wanted to keep it? England did outlaw slavery long before us. On August 1, 1834, Britain passed the Slavery Abolition Act which outlawed the owning, buying, and selling of humans as property throughout its colonies around the world.

Thoughts?

 

Taxation without representation is my understanding of it.

 

No

 

I think they just didn't like being taxed at all. The same attitude still prevails. Same as it ever was.

 

All of the historians of the period must have missed it.

 

American historians don't miss stuff. They just lie. Like that Washington was a womanizer, Jefferson's nephew was raping his slaves, and we were originally a penal colony like Australia. Oh, and BTW
Nathan Hale's last words were never “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country". What he really said was “It is the duty of every good officer to obey any orders given him by his commander-in-chief" (according to a British soldier who witnessed what happened).

 

So you're saying that even though the anti-slavery movement seemingly got underway in England too late to have influenced British policy, the American Revolution was really a response to said non-policy, and that the absence of such a factor in our history books was the result of lying historians. Mebbe so, but you need to provide evidence. I don't see how a British law passed in 1834 influenced our founding fathers. And your charge of lying historians is a slander on the profession.

 

Who are some historians who blatantly lied and distorted the truth when discussing/writing about history? - Quora

Lying Historians: Seven Types of Mendacity

Arming America - Wikipedia

 

Of course some historians lie or shade the truth. They're human, as are natural and social scientists, journalists, and everybody else engaged in the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge. The real question is: Is lying the norm or the exception? Although history is, by its nature, interpretative, I think most historians do their best to live up to professional norms, and there are risks for doing otherwise, as your links bear out.

Your first link is to a discussion on Quora. It mentions a few historians who were exposed by fellow historians as liars. One discussant comments: "So yes, some historians lie, just like some doctors lie or anyone else, but this isn't all or even most...I cannot think that anyone in our position can afford to lie. One lie is enough to question all truths, as they say, which means you kill your career and for what? A short-lived spike in sales? A newspaper article? Lies catch up with you. It would be suicide in this industry, but a few still chance it." Another of the Quora discussants thinks that many historians lie. He's not an historian. He's a lawyer, (and we know they never lie).

The second link deals with abuses by ancient historians--before there really was such a thing as a discipline or profession of historical scholarship. Seems unlikely they would have known about the American revolutionaries or have had much influence on the American colonists or the British in the 1700s, but if they did, it would probably have been in a pro-slavery direction, since that was the norm in their time. The third link is about a single lying historian, who was exposed by his colleagues in the discipline--a sign that they were doing their job despite their ideological convictions.

And your point is...? All historians are liars? Most historians are liars? Epmenides of Crete says all Cretans are liars, and so are historians? Epimenides, the lying Cretan, says all of Jimbee68's hunches are trustworthy?

Getting back to your OP, you were "wondering" and "questioning", which is fine. But then you more than suggest that any scholar taking a position contrary to your suspicions is dishonest. Funny that all of them, even the British ones, would be joined in this conspiracy of silence to protect the U.S. of A. Sorry, but until you can come up with something better than that,--i.e., unless you can come up with a single scholarly source (preferably non-lying) that supports your dubious hunch--I'll go with the professional historians. Otherwise, we can store it in the X-files for future consideration.

 

This is the line promoted by Nikole Hanna Jones in her recent book, The 1619 Project. The idea is tossed around in academia.

 

You're right. But Hanna-Jones is an investigative journalist, not an historian. I agree with her critics that she prioritizes ideology (specifically Critical Race Therory) over historical accuracy--especially on the role of slavery in the American Revolution! The book is actually a collection of essays by 34 contributors, with hers as the lead contribution. Only four of the thirty-four was an historian--none recognized as a leading expert on the subject. Her claim that slavery played a major role in the American Revolution rests on slender evidence: the case of Somerset v. Moore (1772), in which a British court decided that slavery was outlawed in England; and a 1775 proclamation by Lord Dunmore, the pro-British governor of Virginia, as the rebellion was getting started, offering to free slaves who would fight for the Crown against their rebel masters. Not much there there. Most historians think that any role, if any, of those events was far outweighed by the factors listed by Meagain in Post 5 (supra).

Her theory about the Revolution was criticized by respected historians of both liberal and conservative perspectives: Victoria Bynum, J.M., McPherson, James Oakes, Simon Wilentz, etc. In the face of such criticism, the phrase "understanding 1619 as our true founding..." disappeared from the book. Gordon Wood, a professor at Brown University who specializes in the history of the American Revolution, said: "I don't know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves ... No colonist expressed alarm that the mother country was out to abolish slavery in 1776." 1776 Honors America’s Diversity in a Way 1619 Does Not Professor Willentz, Princeton history prof., pointed out that the abolitionist movement in England was practically non-existent when the Revolution broke out. A Matter of Facts Another group of a dozen historians and political scientists signed a letter to the New York Times complaining that: "The 1619 Project asserts that every aspect of American life has only one lens for viewing, that of slavery and its fall-out. “Twelve Scholars Critique the 1619 Project and the New York Times Magazine Editor Responds | History News Network

Historian Leslie Harris, who was consulted by the publisher before the book was released to the public, warned in vain that it was inaccurate to portray the Revolution as an effort to protect slavery, and the publisher later modified the initial claim that protection of slavery was a main cause of the war for most of the colonists in the face of threats by Harvard professor Danielle Allen to go public if it weren't corrected. https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...537092-00df-11eb-897d-3a6201d6643f_story.html The controversy spilled over into the ranks of the New York Times, the publisher, when one of its opinion columnists, voiced similar criticisms. Opinion | The 1619 Chronicles (Published 2020) Unfortunately, the book has become a politicized symbol in the culture wars over "wokeness" between progressives and conservatives, obscuring justified criticism of its shabby scholarship on the issue of what caused the American Revolution (which really wasn't the main focus of the book).
1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project
I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me.
https://philosophy.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/122/2013/10/oph_oph-202101-0005.pdf
The Revolutionary Dishonesty of the "1619 Project" - The American Revolution Institute
Slavery, Rights and the Meaning of the American Revolution - The American Revolution Institute
The 1619 Project: An Epitaph
The 1619 Project Unrepentantly Pushes Junk History
The 1619 Project and the falsification of history: An analysis of the New York Times’ reply to five historians
The 1619 Project Forum

 

Not everything is always as it seems on the surface.

During an assessment to check that an elderly lady was capable of managing her affairs, she was asked in what year WW2, started. Without hesitation, she replied 1918. She then qualified her answer, by stating that by the treaty of Versailles dooming the everyday German people to a generation without hope, it led to the rise of the Nazi party and future war was inevitable.
Needless to say, the application for power of attorney to manage her financial affairs was immediately rejected.

 

Since the

Ah, yes. She did what she needed to do: back up her claim with reasoned argument and checkable facts.

 

It is always sad, when the everyday citizens of a country have to pay the price for the actions of their deluded Leaders.
In the final months of the war, knowing that invasion was imminent, German bomber pilots were dumping their load in the English channel, hoping to survive another day. The English fighter pilots did not shoot them down, since they too had families at home.

If you want to watch a real film about the war, "The Pianist" wins my vote.

 

For insights into the British Empire's relationship with slavery, we can look to the sugar colony of Jamicia. Slavery was not outlawed untill the conclusion of the Napoleanic Wars.

 

I don't know if it was about slavery. But it was definitely economical in any event. After that Stamp Act, our tea was actually cheaper. Did you know that? The Boston Tea Party was just for show. Also, you know what if we just stayed on? Would conditions have improved. That's what Canada did.

Plus you know Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." In other words, revolutions and other violence is rarely justified. And should only be used as a last resort. Not just when you don't like the outcome of an election, like on January 6th. Gore tried to recount. He had the legal right. But you know, it was still wrong to question the legitimacy of an election. Holding up judicial nominees is wrong. The president, whoever he is, can nominate who he wants. Democrats have done it too. But the Republican are the first to never even give Neil Gorsuch his day in committee. The Democrats have been notorious for gerrymandering in the past. Gerrymandering is a little different though. You are not depriving anyone of their vote. You're just redrawing the districts. They gerrymander in the UK too BTW.

 

The Pres. Obama SCOUS nominee who was rejected is Merrick Garland, he is now US Attorney General.