Ashiusx

Which one had more benefits for the slave who joined its ranks?

Mike Lynch

The British eventually shipped them to Africa after Nova Scotia, so the US army.

tjadams

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.

bartieboy

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.

tjadams

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?

Ashiusx

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 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 formally excluded the African American from military service, allowing only "free able-bodied white male citizens" to serve.[19]''



African Americans served both the and the . 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.

bartieboy

We both know you are more capable of answering that question my dear TJ
I was just giving my first thoughts

Scaeva

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?

Mike Lynch

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.

Salah

British, I would say.