A Liberty or Death Manumission in Early US

On a wikiwalk related to a TL idea that's been bothering me, I discovered this:

During the Revolutionary War, there was a series of proposals to arm slaves, free them, and compensate their masters. In 1779, Hamilton's friend John Laurens suggested such a unit be formed under his command, to relieve besieged Charleston, South Carolina; Hamilton proposed to the Continental Congress to create up to four battalions of slaves for combat duty, and free them. Congress recommended that South Carolina (and Georgia) acquire up to three thousand slaves, if they saw fit; they did not, even though the South Carolina governor and Congressional delegation had supported the plan in Philadelphia.[91]
...
(91)^ Mitchell, pp. I:175–7, I:550 n. 92, citing the Journals of the Continental Congress, March 29, 1779; Wallace, p. 455. Congress offered to compensate the masters after the war.
What if that plan went through? Would it set a long-term precedent for American recruitment? If it occurs at such scale, it'd certainly have a cultural impact on how black freedmen were viewed, and on attitudes toward slavery in general.

If said three thousand former slaves participated in some major victories, could this become a "standard" means of manumission? Slaves serving on the frontier, at various forts, or at sea for a number of years perhaps getting freed and their former master compensated in lieu of a soldier's pension perhaps?

I suppose viewing this as the beginning of an American janissary/mamluk class of renowned soldiers would be going way too far, even if the narrative is somewhat appealing. I also don't doubt that even if this experiment is successful that there would be very serious opposition from beginning to end.

Thoughts?
 
Hard to say...Freemen artillerymen famously served with Jackson at New Orleans, but that never translated to more respect. Neither did Crispus Atticus' "martyrdom" in Boston.

Conceivably with good press and setting these "noble 3000" up as a model for slaves this might lead to future efforts in that area, though before 1812 there just isn't much of a "market" for slave soldiers, and arming and training men who might still have enslaved families will scare the crap out of owners.

Possible, but unlikely IMO.
 
Conceivably with good press and setting these "noble 3000" up as a model for slaves this might lead to future efforts in that area, though before 1812 there just isn't much of a "market" for slave soldiers, and arming and training men who might still have enslaved families will scare the crap out of owners.

Possible, but unlikely IMO.

Hmm.

Let's presume--for the sake of discussion--that the "Noble 3000" are raised and fight well with good press. This is even seen as "useful" in the southern colonies during the revolution as a counter to British efforts to recruit slaves. At least this way they can be compensated for the manumission.

American history then goes on mostly similarly to OTL, with perhaps some... interesting Constitutional changes in relation to slavery.

The French Revolution and the Haitian Revolution show where things get weird. There's (marginally) less hostility toward Haiti, and there is a current of thinking that US slavery ought to be more Roman in character, caused by some of the manumitted freedmen becoming frontier planters and slaveholders of their own. There are arguments that holding slaves is "war insurance". Exports of cash crops might fail, but you'll be able to provide slaves for recruitment.

This is all tested when Franco-American relations rapidly deteriorate, faster than OTL. The Quasi-War breaks out into an actual war, with Spain in alliance with France.

The US Navy has been neglected, and the army isn't much better. The best that can be done is to ensure ports are defended, and to cobble together forces to take New Orleans and the Floridas before the French and Spanish use them to invade the US proper.

The war goes pear-shaped initially, and in desperation Congress pushes forward a mass recruitment of slaves similar to the Revolution. In a series of battles, Hamilton commands a very motley army to victory in the battle of Mississippi, following up with a triumphant capture of New Orleans. Hamilton extols the bravery and valor of the black freedmen under his command.

During the war, the US also aids the Haitians, endorsing their independence as a republic, though fortunately disease greatly hobbles the French army in the West Indies.

France and Spain, now facing likely renewed war with Britain, cut their losses and cede Florida and Louisiana to the US for a token payment, agreeing not to harass American ships and merchants.

Victory has been achieved, and the course of American slavery irrevocably altered, thanks in large part to former slaves.

Too much, too quick? I took a few liberties with the basic narrative, obviously, and opposition to these changes probably understated.

I suppose the Jeffersonians' reaction to this course of events would be fierce, and suspicion of Hamilton's potential to pull a Caesar very high. If Jefferson is elected President later (Adams may well serve two terms), it's possible that another war could erupt with the British over similar issues. Though at that point it's likely that the Federalist military build-up has had time to sink in a bit more.
 
Such a constant state of war would certainly give more creedance to the "Black Janissary" concept, though how well the US could survive under such a constant early great power siege is debatable. Might just work, though. Make a cool TL.

I'd be curious how the Jeffersonians react in general to the idea. Early on Jefferson was nominally against slavery, but deep within the planter class that had the most to lose from manumission.

Anyone else?
 
The problem is that the state of South Carolina (or any other state) does not own any slaves. Private individuals own slaves. For the state to be able to emancipate them in any capacity, they need to compensate their owners. Basically the state forces the owner to give up their slave in return for payment in a similar way an army recquisitions supplies.

During the War of Independence, one can see the immediate need to do so. After the war, I don't see any state would want to spend such money. The US didn't have much of a standing army anyway. Why pay full value for a slave if you are not going to get much use for it? Far cheaper for a free white man to enlist for a while and leave when it's over. The federal government might spend money, but the state won't. It is simply not cost effective.

So even if it is done during the War of Independence, it will not be done afterwards. The earliest possible time a repeat might happen is during the War of 1812, and the war would need to go much worse for the US before it would be seriously considered.

I don't think there would be any effect after the war except that there are now 3000 more black freedmen. It would have no impact on the future Constitution. Likely, most of the 3000 freedman leave the south to live in the frontier or move to the north. It would be an interesting historical curiousity, but nothing more.
 
During the War of Independence, one can see the immediate need to do so. After the war, I don't see any state would want to spend such money. The US didn't have much of a standing army anyway. Why pay full value for a slave if you are not going to get much use for it? Far cheaper for a free white man to enlist for a while and leave when it's over. The federal government might spend money, but the state won't. It is simply not cost effective.

So even if it is done during the War of Independence, it will not be done afterwards. The earliest possible time a repeat might happen is during the War of 1812, and the war would need to go much worse for the US before it would be seriously considered.

Given that the Continental Congress was suggesting that the slave owners be compensated, and that the southern states had a rather direct interest in the British not indefinitely sitting on their ports and stirring up loyalist/slave revolts, I can see this being done at first purely as an emergency measure to get warm bodies and muskets in the field. Slave owners would certainly have an incentive to do this if only because they're more apt to get something back from their slaves if they provide them as soldiers than if the British free them.

Aside from that, the later Congress eventually simply assumed state debts relating to the war, which likely in this case would involve manumission payments. At the very least, the idea being put into practice leaves the precedent to be picked up again if the need arises.

It could even be worthwhile for the Federal government to encourage as a matter of ensuring a small regular army for frontier service that would be willing to serve for a long period of time. As a matter of state militia, I can't say whether it would be anything more than a theoretical option held by statute to be exercisable in event of war or invasion.

I do agree that this practice would probably become not much more than a footnote if it does not extend beyond the Revolution, and if the 3000 raised are not viewed as being a decisive or important factor in some victories. As such I suggested that a quickly-deteriorating Quasi-War analogue might be the most likely option possible.
 
Top