4 ms·
To be fair it went both ways. Also they were mad at the British for not allowing them to steal Native American land in a disorganized way. You had to go the Cr
by ffhhttt 3y ago
To be fair it went both ways.
Also they were mad at the British for not allowing them to steal Native American land in a disorganized way. You had to go the Crown which would negotiate with the tribe on your behalf etc. Washington (especially) of course had other ideas..
- junofan 3y agoYeah it’s one of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence. They were pretty explicit about what they wanted.
- hef19898 3y agoSo not just keeping slaves and getting tax excemptions but also being allowe to steal native american's land every way they want?
- chrisco255 3y agoThe Crown had no plans to end slavery in 1775. That had nothing to do with the cause of the war. The northern colonies in fact wanted to end slavery at the onset of the revolution. The colonists were upset about having to fight wars for an increasingly distant monarch while they were largely self sufficient, and yet not given power at Parliament. In particular, the French and Indian War fought just a decade prior to the onset of the revolution, was a major precursor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
- hef19898 3y agoHistory disagrees: - 1706: Slaves entering England are freed - 1772: no slaves can be removed from England,remaining slaves emanzipated - 1779: all slaves fleeing from tha US are freed, regardless of their willingness to fight for the crown So, yes, the crown had legal precendent and plans to abolish slavery as far back as the early 18th century. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_sla...
- mtreis86 3y agoEnglish ships hauled slaves around a lot later than that. https://www.slavevoyages.org/voyages/Elnd5Nzy https://www.slavevoyages.org/voyages/Elnd5Nzy
- ffhhttt 3y agoThose were just the decisions of local of judges which declared that slavery can’t exist in Britain because without additional legislation. The British Crown and the upper classes had no issue at all with African Anerican and Indian slavery in the colonies and were happy to profit from it. Abolitionism was a fringe view at the time.
- jcranmer 3y ago- 1833: Britain forbids slaves in its colonies Sure, England had a ruling that slavery was illegal in England... but there was no push to interdict slavery elsewhere in the empire (not even Scotland and Ireland, IIRC), especially the colonies. And do recall that some individual Caribbean islands had more slaves than all of British North America. That's in fact why the British Caribbean didn't revolt during the American Revolution: they were like "what, revolt and risk dealing with a slave revolt without backup from the British Army?"
- chrisco255 3y agoThey were mad over the French and Indian War which the Crown had gleefully dragged the colonists into, under which some tribes allied with the French and others with the Brits, to fight over territory, a story as old as time. Inter tribal and international warfare was, of course, an ancient pasttime among both native Europeans and native Americans.
- avgcorrection 3y agoThe Colonists Genocided The Natives But It Could Have Gone Either Way The comment.
- ffhhttt 3y agoTo be fair they didn’t quite manage to complete it since at the end the British decide the Indian to keep most of the land the colonists expected to get. e.g. Washington and his soldiers were promised quite a bit of land in Ohio(?) as a reward for helping fight the french. All of that land ended up being an Indian reserve the Crown decided to establish instead.
- avgcorrection 3y agoAnd the Armenians still exist.
- ffhhttt 3y agoI’m not sure what you’re implying?
- avgcorrection 3y agoI’m replying, not implying. > > To be fair they didn’t quite manage to complete it
- ffhhttt 3y ago