Changes

Military service has been traditionally offered as a demonstration of both patriotism and the obligation to return such favors with the benefits of citizenship. Although the abolitionists were right to affirm the sacrifices of a veritable segment of the African American community, more people of African descent actually fought on the side of the British army. It is likely for this reason that many of the subsequent episodes of enslaved people’s repression came to fruition. Unlike other “Loyalists,” a sizable segment of those who fought for the British, and most importantly their descendants, remained to incur the wrath of the victorious American rebels.

It is useful to begin to understand the context by briefly reviewing the history of British abolitionism. The moral fervor around the brutality and horrors of the Middle Passage led to a movement by abolitionists in the eighteenth century to outlaw the Atlantic Slave Trade. These exposés were based upon both religious and economic arguments, but perhaps most of all they were part of a liberal natural rights logic that asserted humans were born with certain inalienable rights. Enslavement, inasmuch as it was crystallized by the treatment of human beings as property, was a negation of this very logic. As the contradictions sharpened, those who had invested much political and economic capital into the system began to withdraw their support at varying levels.

This was the context that gave rise to ''Somerset v. Stewart'', where an enslaved African that had been transported to the English mainland had sued for his freedom based on English common law. Lord Mansfield, the judge who decided the case, had been influenced by the arguments of the abolitionists, and eventually awarded freedom to the plaintiff, James Somerset. This decision sent shockwaves throughout the British Empire—especially the American colonies. But it signaled to the enslaved that the British could serve as a vehicle to remove the thumb of their enslavers, much like the Spanish had done during the eighteenth century. <ref> Cedric Robinson, ''Black Movements in America'' (New York: Routledge, 1997), 14-29; Gerald Horne, ''The Counterrevolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States'' (New York: New York University Press, 2014), 209-19. </ref>

[[File:Mansfield.jpg|left|thumbnail|200px|Lord Mansfield]]

According to historian Gerald Horne who has continued the arduous process of rewriting this history, Somerset signaled to the colonists that the British may not provide the same level of support to the institution of enslavement and westward territorial expansion. The Seven Years War was the opening salvo in the conflict that dealt prominently with these two concerns. Not only was it ominous that it appeared that the British would push a proto-abolitionist policy where the enslaved were concerned, there were also concerns that they might be eventually be armed as had been done in other parts of the empire. These rumblings would impact the ways that the colonists articulated their grievances with Great Britain. As Horne points out, they had been increasingly attracted to the North American mainland because of its relative security from kinds of revolts that had been taking place in the Caribbean throughout the eighteenth century. The rumors from Britain were thus a step too far. <ref> Horne, ''The Counterrevolution of 1776'', 161-208. </ref>

Virginia was ground zero for much of the political debates and decisions regarding the colonies. It was here where much of the political systems that would define America would be created. By 1775, as the colonists began to fear the incursions of the British, revolutionary sensibilities had already emerged there. It seemed imminent that a more thoroughgoing conflict was on the horizon as militias began to form. It is important to note that this revolutionary fervor was not universal. There was a large swath of colonists who remained loyal to the union. These Loyalists sought to ensure the continuity of British rule, as many of them were direct beneficiaries of their control.

The “Ethiopian Regiment” was then mustered, having ramifications far beyond this proclamation. Many Black loyalist regimes were created following the 1779 Phillipsburg Proclamation, issued by Sir Henry Clinton, which was more wide-ranging than Dunmore’s edict as it covered all of the colonies. <ref> Horne, The Counterrevolution of 1776, 219-52. </ref>

[[File:Proclamation.jpg|left| thumbnail|Lord Dunmore's Proclamation (1775)]]

It is believed that some 6,500 enslaved Africans decided that it was in their best interest to fight on behalf of the British. Dunmore’s proclamation had reverberations throughout the colonies. It made freedom almost immediately accessible to enslaved Africans that had resisted in many ways prior to the Revolutionary War, but now found the road somewhat easier as a result of the new British policy. Many of those that fought directly undermined the slave economies of the south by leaving and joining the Redcoats. Others decided it was expedient to choose neither side. Some estimated that the Revolutionary War led to over 30,000 runaways in Virginia alone. Overall, about 100,000 enslaved Africans emancipated themselves during this period. <ref> Robinson, ''Black Movements in America'', 23-24; Gerald Horne, ''Negro Comrades of the Crown: African Americans and the British Empire Fight the U.S. before Emancipation'' (New York: New York University Press, 2012), 17; Alan Gilbert, ''Black Patriots and Loyalists: Fighting for Emancipation in the War for Independence'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012), 121-28. </ref>

<dh-ad/>

The impact even found it’s way into the founding document of the Revolution, Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. The history of this document demonstrates, of course, that Jefferson was one of a few authors. However, Jefferson as a Virginian slaveholder, had a specific axe to grind. In a much-heralded statement, Jefferson wrote,

Almost none of this passage, however, made it into the final document. The problem was that it could be construed as pro-abolitionist which would have rankled those who saw the war as through pro-slavery lenses. Even if we consider it to be pro-abolitionist, the irony is that it came from the pen of a slaveholder who emphasized both the question of natural rights and the idea that the greatest grievance was the impact that arming the enslaved would have. In fact, this animosity toward King George over the “excitement” of enslaved Africans is the portion of this passage that remained in the final document: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us.” <ref> http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ </ref>

The patriots famously demanded the return of their enslaved property in the Treaty of Paris. However, Sir Guy Carleton loosely interpreted the terms of surrender and was able to help aid in the evacuation of over 3,000 loyalists to Nova Scotia. There are estimates that many more enslaved Africans from America ended up in the West Indies, Spanish Florida, and Sierra Leone. <ref> Gilbert, ''Black Patriots and Loyalists'', 196-206. </ref>

Carleton’s now famous “Book of Negroes”—which was made into a historical novel and television miniseries—recorded the names of those who he, working on behalf of the crown, would endeavor to fulfill promises embedded in the Dunmore and Phillipsburg proclamations. In Nova Scotia, emancipated Africans lived a relatively harsh life as Canada provided an unforgiving climate. Others would later find their way to Africa and help settle Sierra Leone, thought to be a haven for Africans who were seized by the British patrols that were intending to enforce the ban of Atlantic Slave Trade.

Their lives under the Crown were only an improvement for the simple reason that they were not enslaved. It is however, folly, to believe that things were easy. One of the complicated realities of this and subsequent periods is that emancipation, while lessening the pain of chattel enslavement, did not eradicate the larger problems at the heart of Black existence in the modern world. <ref> Gilbert, ''Black Patriots and Loyalists'', 207-42.</ref>

Others stayed in the new country and found themselves subject to a deepening and more vicious enslavement than that which had existed before. Among those that were re-enslaved (though many were not), an important group became maroons utilizing their military skills to wage war against the new country in South Carolina and Georgia in the years leading up to the nineteenth century. This group called themselves, the “King of England’s Soldiers.” <ref> Sylviane Diouf, ''Slavery’s Exiles: The Story of the American Maroons'' (New York: New York University Press, 2014), 165.</ref>

In conclusion, let us briefly note the inspirations of the enslaved. While the freed Africans discussed above were inspired to demonstrate their fitness for citizenship, it is critical to emphasize that the enslaved Africans who fought for the British were not similarly concerned with demonstrating loyalty. As such, the term “Black Loyalist,” which has come to define these soldiers is somewhat of a misnomer. As historian, James W. St. G. Walker indicates, it is likely that these soldiers “were less Pro-British than they were Pro-Black.” <ref> James W. St. G. Walker, “Blacks as American Loyalists: The Slaves' War for Independence,” Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques 2 (Summer/été 1975): 53. </ref> This framing helps to explain why Black soldiers would again fight on the side of the Redcoats, and perhaps may be used to help frame Black participation in American military conflict up to the Vietnam conflict.

===References===

<references/>