shivfan

The point about that quote is that 1,198 is far more than 349, and adds more credibility that the number of blacks in Nova Scotia is closer to 3000-3500 than 349.

You're mixing up the sources....

The 351 refers to the Black Britons who joined the original expedition to Sierra Leone, which failed. Those Black Britons are not necessarily Black Pioneers. Britain already had an estimated 10,000-25,000 black people in the country before the black soldiers came to the country, and were discharged. Those initial Black Britons who joined the first expedition may or may not have been Black Pioneers.

According to British Navy records, 1,198 black people from Nova Scotia made their way to Sierra Leone. Do you have any particular reason why you doubt that primary source?

The 3000-3500 refers to the numbers estimated to have made their way to Nova Scotia. Remember, not all of the black soldiers came from New York. The Book of Negroes referred solely to blacks in New York. There were evacuations from Boston and Charleston as well.

The number of Black Pioneers and their families, plus escaped slaves, is estimated at 10,000. Thousands made their way to England. And the primary sources at the time said they came from America.

There were hardly any black or mulatto soldiers from the Caribbean in the army at that time. That came later....

shivfan

If you need more references to the numbers of black soldiers returning to Britain after the American War of Independence, I offer you:

1) Folarin Shyllon, Black People in Britain, p120

2) Hecht, Continental and Colonial Servants in Eighteenth Century England, p45

3) Prince Hoare, Memoirs of Granville Sharp (1828), Vol II, p9

William Pitt the Younger's secretary of state, Sidney, wrote on 7 December 1786, that the ranks of the Black Poor in London had been significantly swelled by those who have "been employed with the Army in North America, who have since their Arrival in England been reduced to the greatest Distress."

Now, we know that Dunmore offered black slaves their freedom if they fought on the side of the Loyalists, and we know that thousands of black slaves fled the plantations for Loyalist lines, and we know that black ex-slaves fought on the side of the British. So, why is it hard to accept that these black soldiers are former American slaves?

Parliament set up a commission to which black and white soldiers could seek financial aid. Here's something you may find interesting....

"Most of the blacks, the commissioners declared on another occasion, had 'gained their Liberty' in the war 'instead of being sufferers' and consequently, they came 'with a very ill grace to ask for the bounty of Government'. Such men, the commissioners observed with staggering callousness, had 'no right to ask or expect any thing from the Government'. Shyllon, p121

Basically, the commissioners are saying since these Black Pioneers achieved freedom by fighting for the British, they should be grateful with their lot, and shouldn't be asking for anything more.

"For example, Peter Anderson, a sawyer from Norfolk, Virginia, was at first denied relief by the pension commissioners. But then he obtained a written statement from Lord Dunmore attesting to the truth of his assertions, and the commission thereupon reversed itself, awarding him £10." Shyllon, pp121-2

For more on black Loyalists in Canada, you can read Robin Winks, The Blacks in Canada.

For more on the black contribution in the American Revolution, you can read Benjamin Quarles, The Negro in the American Revolution.

Baltis

Anyway, lest we renew the conflict, good morning kind sir. well done and a tip of the hat to you.

Baltis

sorry, didn't see the second post. One item to add. Being 'employed with the army in North America' does not correspond to having served in the British army. Recruiting records and unit rosters exist for the British and Provincial records in the AR.

shivfan

Regardless of the existence of Caribbean troops, they were still very small in number, until later years....

I still don't understand how you come to that small figure in the Book of Negroes, when other historians have much larger numbers. This is just one example:

Africans in America/Part 2/The Book of Negroes

"Within a year, the British had compiled a register of 3,000 former slaves who had joined them prior to the signing of the 1782 provisional treaty; all others were to be returned. Among the 3,000 who departed New York in November, 1783 were 1119 men, 914 women, 339 boys, 335 girls and 76 children whose gender was unidentified. Of these, the largest group comprised those who had joined the British military and therefore claimed freedom by proclamation; the second largest was those who claimed to have abandoned their master during the war; and the third largest group was those who claimed to have been born free or to have been emancipated."

I accept that a lot of blacks seeking refuge in the three British enclaves were not actual combatants. It is probably accurate to say that the actual combatants may have been hundreds, and not thousands...I'll give you that. But, as I've said in previous posts, many more helped with the support services for the Loyalists, and they had wives and children, thus increasing the numbers.

Okay, we have 3000-4000 making their way to Nova Scotia (William Hague counts it as 4000 in his biography of William Wilberforce). But we also need to bear in mind that thousands of blacks were evacuated from Savannah in July 1782. Simon Schama counts it as four thousand. And he's not alone:

Africans in America/Part 2/The Book of Negroes

"When the British evacuated Savannah in July, 1782 and Charleston five months later, they transported thousands of black men and women, many of whom had escaped from enslavement to Patriot masters. This emerged as an issue of protest for the Continental government, affecting the terms of the peace treaty."

Also, in the months leading up to December 1782, it is estimated by Schama that between 6000-10,000 blacks were evacuated from Charleston on British ships. And he's not alone, as you can see from the above quote.

I hardly think a single shipload of black people landed in England, because that would cause widespread panic. But over the years, I wouldn't have been surprised if large numbers of blacks found their way to England, because a lot of them were under the misconception that the 1772 Mansfield ruling made them free in England. A lot of blacks in England gave their occupations as sailors and soldiers, so that could give a clue as to their professions after the conclusion of the War itself.

When you look at the 351 Black Britons who made the first expedition to Sierra Leone, a sizeable percentage of them listed their place of birth. And half of them listed their place of birth as America. So, it's not unreasonable to surmise that among the 10,000-25,000 black Britons who resided in England that a large percentage of them came from America....

And don't worry - I don't consider this debate a revival of hostilities. I have been under no illusion that Lord Dunmore was an opportunist, so I see no reason to hail him as any kind of saviour.

My arguments are simple....

1) That a large number of blacks fled slavery to British lines to take advantage of Dunmore's offer, either to fight for the Loyalists, or to provide support services, or just as family of the above.

2) That to those black ex-slaves, they would think less of slaveowners such as Jefferson and Washington, and more of generals who repeated Dunmore's offer - including Benedict Arnold.

dafiske

Other officers were passed over for promotion but didn't "defect." General Stark resigned and went home to New Hampshire. He obtained an independent command of New Hampshire soldiers, was somewhat successful at Bennington, and came back into the Continental Army fold.

MinoanGoddess

I think it fizzled out back in the 70s

The Amyclae

Of course not! I love all breakfeast types.

USMC

Yeah. I don't think his name will mean anything else here until this country is gone into the pages of history.