Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


View Poll Results: British Army or the Continental Army?
British Army 21 72.41%
Continental Army 8 27.59%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 28th, 2012, 11:22 AM   #1

Ashiusx's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New York City
Posts: 638
Blog Entries: 2
What would be better for a slave to join the British Army or the Continental Army?


Which one had more benefits for the slave who joined its ranks?
Ashiusx is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 28th, 2012, 11:37 AM   #2

Mike Lynch's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Maryland
Posts: 1,254

The British eventually shipped them to Africa after Nova Scotia, so the US army.
Mike Lynch is offline  
Old October 28th, 2012, 11:51 AM   #3

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

Curious thought, but if an American bondsman ran to join
the British ranks, how would that effect those slaves of the Loyalists?
Lord North and King George were not at this time some great
emancipators, they were trying to put down a rebellion, not upset
society. I'm reminded of Dunmore's black troops being left behind, even
women and children, who had smallpox. While he took the healthy people
with him, he simply left behind the ones too sick to travel when he left Chesapeake
to die. But, obviously a slave running away, even Geo.Washington had
seventeen of his slaves run away to join the British, would chose one risk
over another for any sort of freedom.
tjadams is offline  
Old October 28th, 2012, 11:56 AM   #4

bartieboy's Avatar
.
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: The Netherlands
Posts: 6,565
Blog Entries: 5

Well the American revolution really is not my thing but isn't this a bit obvious?
The British abolished slavery in 1833 and abolished slave trade in 1807.
The Americans abolished slavery only in 1864.
It would be in the best interest of the slaves that the British would win.
bartieboy is offline  
Old October 28th, 2012, 12:11 PM   #5

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by bartieboy View Post
The British abolished slavery in 1833...It would be in the best interest of the slaves that the British would win.
But technically, if the British had been able to put down the
rebellion, there still would have been slavery in the colonies, i.e. England.
By winning, the crown would have been forced to deal with millions still in bondage,
and only a few thousand free, who had fought for them. What of
the bondsmen's families? Were they free as well?
tjadams is offline  
Old October 28th, 2012, 12:14 PM   #6

Ashiusx's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New York City
Posts: 638
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
The British eventually shipped them to Africa after Nova Scotia, so the US army.
There was never official rewards for the blacks who fought for the Continental Army. Just individuals who freed the slaves just out of pure virtue in their hearts.



''The African American Patriot who gave loyal service to the Continental Army found that the postwar military held no rewards for them. State legislatures like
Connecticut Connecticut
and Massachusetts in 1784 and 1785 banned all blacks, free or slave, from military service. Southern states banned all slaves but some states allowed free men to serve in their militias. In 1792, the
United_States_Congress United_States_Congress
formally excluded the African American from military service, allowing only "free able-bodied white male citizens" to serve.[19]''



African Americans served both the
Continental_Army Continental_Army
and the
British_Army British_Army
. It is estimated that 5,000 African Americans served as soldiers for the Continental army,[2] while more than 20,000 fought for the British cause.[3]

More than 4 times of African Americans served in the British Army than in the Continental Army. I think it is more likely the British Army was a better place for a slave.
Ashiusx is offline  
Old October 28th, 2012, 12:16 PM   #7

bartieboy's Avatar
.
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: The Netherlands
Posts: 6,565
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
But technically, if the British had been able to put down the
rebellion, there still would have been slavery in the colonies, i.e. England.
By winning, the crown would have been forced to deal with millions still in bondage,
and only a few thousand free, who had fought for them. What of
the bondsmen's families? Were they free as well?
We both know you are more capable of answering that question my dear TJ
I was just giving my first thoughts
bartieboy is offline  
Old October 28th, 2012, 02:16 PM   #8

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,728

I voted for the British, since they emancipated their slaves sooner.

But I'd guess it would probably depend on the loyalties of who owned the slave. A slave owned by a master with loyalist sympathies would probably be better off running to the rebels, whereas a slave owned by a master who supported the rebels would have been better off running to the British. In theory wouldn't that present the best chances for not being returned to your former master?
Scaeva is offline  
Old October 28th, 2012, 03:11 PM   #9

Mike Lynch's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Maryland
Posts: 1,254

Keep in mind that emancipating the slaves in Britain does not affect the society in Britain, doing so in the southern states of the US means that the society drastically changes. The black population of the south was roughly half of the population in total, in Britain, the black population was virtually nonexistent. For the British to emancipate their slaves creates an effect on their economy and the society of small distant colonies (Jamaica, Barbados, etc), for the white southerner it greatly affects his economy and daily life, and structure of his society.

It would make more sense to compare Britain emancipating the slaves to a virtually all-white northern state of New England.
Mike Lynch is offline  
Old October 28th, 2012, 03:12 PM   #10

Salah's Avatar
Last of the Mohicans
Blog of the Year
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Baltimorean-in-exile
Posts: 21,177
Blog Entries: 178

British, I would say.
Salah is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
army, british, continental, join, slave


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Macedonian Army vs Assyrian Army(late 8th/early 7th century BC) Alcibiades War and Military History 3 June 1st, 2012 12:44 PM
The Continental Army Salah American History 3 February 4th, 2012 07:55 PM
US Continental Army: A Mercenary army? Mohammed the Persian American History 14 July 1st, 2011 11:07 AM
British Army Vs UK Politicians Chookie Speculative History 2 July 25th, 2009 12:05 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.