"Colonel Tye" and the Black Brigade: Loyalist assassins in New Jersey

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,688
Not discussed must in traditional US History or Black History. Runaway slaves killed Patriot leaders for the British.


 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,135
Navan, Ireland
Patriot speeches about liberty didn't seem to appeal to contemporary blacks. No one is sure why.
That is indeed a mystery.

Let's think why might they take that message with just a little pinch of salt.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,688
I guess I provided material for alll the British and Canadian posters.

The Declaration of Independence was mainly aimed at France, Spain, and other foreign monarchies. It was designed to look like a list of complaints and not to seem to radical.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,514
Caribbean
I guess I provided material for alll the British and Canadian posters.

The Declaration of Independence was mainly aimed at France, Spain, and other foreign monarchies. It was designed to look like a list of complaints and not to seem to radical.
IMO, it was indeed "radical." The idea that just government is not of the divine right of king's to rule, but the divine right of man to govern himself? Constrasted with the former, the latter could hardly be more "radical."
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,688
Yes, but complaining about the British encouraging slave rebellions made them seem less radical abroad, and like aristocrats defending their privileges. It also appealed to people with moderate views in the south, where there was lukewarm support for the larger rebellion.

The Declaration of Independence was intended to be as non threatening to European monarchs as possible. The emphasis was on complaints rather than political rights. There also wasn't much about British limits on territorial expansion, which might be threatening to Spain. Issues with the established Anglican Church, which might offend Roman Catholic monarchies, were down played.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,514
Caribbean
Yes, but complaining about the British encouraging slave rebellions made them seem less radical abroad, and like aristocrats defending their privileges.
To whom?​

Who would not understand the idea that the King was using divide-and-conquer tactics as old as the Old Testament, force disparate populations onto the same land and agitate conflict between them to make it easier to rule than a single popularion that can unit against a king?
First, he forces the African population into the colonial space by vetoing anti-slave trade legislation "prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce")
Then, incites them to insurrection, keeping the colonists too busy to resist his rule ("He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us") andand ("he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them ").

That smacks more of complaining about aristocracy than trying to become one.

The emphasis was on complaints rather than political rights"
Really?
One of the most unqualified assertions of political rights ever crafted:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"​
without which, there is no basis to make "complaints."


There also wasn't much about British limits on territorial expansion, which might be threatening to Spain. Issues with the established Anglican Church, which might offend Roman Catholic monarchies, were down played.
By downplayed, do you mean the objection to the Quebec Act of 1774 as a vehicle to spread Catholicism into English territory?

From the Suffolk Resolves of 1774
“10. That the late act of parliament for establishing the Roman Catholic religion and the French laws in that extensive country, now called Canada, is dangerous in an extreme degree to the Protestant religion and to the civil rights and liberties of all America; and, therefore, as men and Protestant Christians, we are indispensubly obliged to take all proper measures for our security…”​

Petition to the King 175
"...for extending the limits of Quebec, abolishing the English and restoring the French laws, whereby great numbers of British freemen are subject to the latter, and establishing an absolute government and the Roman Catholic religion throughout those vast regions that border on the westerly and northerly boundaries of the free Protestant English settlements...”​

Referenced in the Declaration of Independence
"For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies"​

And again in the Constitution of South Carolina
"...the English laws and a free government, to which the inhabitants of Quebec were entitled by the King's royal proclamation, are abolished and French laws are restored; the Roman Catholic religion (although before tolerated and freely exercised there) and an absolute government are established in that province, and its limits extended through a vast tract of country so as to border on the free Protestant English settlements,"​