Idea: Gerald Horne's "The Counter-Revolution of 1776" as an ATL(or part of one!).

This was inspired by an earlier thread of mine.

For those of you who may not know, just last year, Dr. Gerald Horne of the University of Houston published a book detailing an alternative view of the American Revolution, titled, "The Counter-Revolution of 1776".

Unfortunately, the real-life book was, sadly, little more than a badly biased piece of pseudo-history (with a sparse few actual facts thrown in) that essentially unfairly demonized the Patriots, and made the claim that they seceded because Britain was about to abolish slavery in the Americans; a claim which had no real basis in any historical truth whatsoever.

But what if, in some other universe, that it hadn't been pseudo-history? What if the American rebellion *had* been primarily touched off by the imminent abolition of North American slavery, or even the fear of such?

So, let's plot this out. What PODs might be required to make this scenario happen, or even something close to it?
 
This was inspired by an earlier thread of mine.

For those of you who may not know, just last year, Dr. Gerald Horne of the University of Houston published a book detailing an alternative view of the American Revolution, titled, "The Counter-Revolution of 1776".

Unfortunately, the real-life book was, sadly, little more than a badly biased piece of pseudo-history (with a sparse few actual facts thrown in) that essentially unfairly demonized the Patriots, and made the claim that they seceded because Britain was about to abolish slavery in the Americans; a claim which had no real basis in any historical truth whatsoever.

But what if, in some other universe, that it hadn't been pseudo-history? What if the American rebellion *had* been primarily touched off by the imminent abolition of North American slavery, or even the fear of such?

So, let's plot this out. What PODs might be required to make this scenario happen, or even something close to it?

Nothing more than OTL?

You don't need to demonize the Patriots, they do it well enough by themselves. There was, at the heart of the revolution, a nexus of fears, real and imagined, that included the demise of slavery as an institution among others.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Considering that slavery lasted until 1843 in India and Ceylon

Considering that legal slavery lasted until 1843 in India and Ceylon because of the money involved, seems like rather a stretch to suggest emancipation throughout British North America 67 years before it was prohibited across the Empire.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it is rather like suggesting women's suffrage in the U.S. in 1853...

Best,
 
Nothing more than OTL?

You don't need to demonize the Patriots, they do it well enough by themselves. There was, at the heart of the revolution, a nexus of fears, real and imagined, that included the demise of slavery as an institution among others.

Not really, to be accurate. In fact, the Somerset case was barely even mentioned in the Americas IOTL, outside of a select few circles(probably because just about everybody knew that it only applied to Britain proper, apart from maybe a few paranoids who *might* have actually believed in a conspiracy.). Hell, the fact that Thomas Jefferson himself attempted to introduce a few openly anti-slavery statements into the Declaration of Independence should tell you something right there(as well as the fact that many Northern states had abolished slavery by the time of the War of 1812).

But the fact that Gerald Horne is so utterly wrong about the real world history is besides the point. What I'm asking about is, what kind of PODs we might need in order to make the scenario play out in an ATL.

Considering that legal slavery lasted until 1843 in India and Ceylon because of the money involved, seems like rather a stretch to suggest emancipation throughout British North America 67 years before it was prohibited across the Empire.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it is rather like suggesting women's suffrage in the U.S. in 1853...

Best,

My point exactly. The truth is, the abolitionist movement just wasn't all that fully developed then, and abolitionism itself remained somewhat of an outsider position in Britain until *after* the Revolutionary War ended.
 
Not really, to be accurate. In fact, the Somerset case was barely even mentioned in the Americas IOTL, outside of a select few circles (probably because just about everybody knew that it only applied to Britain proper, apart from maybe a few paranoids who *might* have actually believed in a conspiracy.).

Well, that's not true.

"AUGUSTA, June 18, 1774. RUN away the 16th Instant, from the Subscriber, a Negro Man named BACCHUS, about 30 Years of Age, five Feet six or seven Inches high, strong and well made; had on, and took with him, two white Russia Drill Coats, one turned up with blue, the other quite plain and new, with white figured Metal Buttons, blue Plush Breeches, a fine Cloth Pompadour Waistcoat, two or three thin or Summer Jackets, sundry Pairs of white Thread Stockings, five or six white Shirts, two of them pretty fine, neat Shoes, Silver Buckles, a fine Hat cut and cocked in the Macaroni Figure, a double-milled Drab Great Coat, and sundry other Wearing Apparel. He formerly belonged to Doctor George Pitt, of Williamsburg, and I imagine is gone there under Pretence of my sending him upon Business, as I have frequently heretofore done; he is a cunning, artful, sensible Fellow, and very capable of forging a Tale to impose on the Unwary, is well acquainted with the lower Parts of the Country, having constantly rode with me for some Years past, and has been used to waiting from his Infancy. He was seen a few Days before he went off with a Purse of Dollars, and had just before changed a five Pound Bill; most, or all of which, I suppose he must have robbed me off [sic], which he might easily have done, I having trusted him much after what I thought had proved his Fidelity. He will probably endeavour to pass for a Freeman by the Name of John Christian, and attempt to get on Board some Vessel bound for Great Britain, from the Knowledge he has of the late Determination of Somerset's Case. Whoever takes up the said Slave shall have 5 l. Reward, on his Delivery to GABRIEL JONES."

That's a notice that was published in the Virginia Gazette of June 30 1774. Far from "a select few circles", Somersett was sufficiently well known that it was being blamed for slaves running away - which means that not only had masters heard of it, but slaves too.

And the real significance of Somersett in the colonies was down to the fact most colonial charters included wording to the effect that colonial law had to be consistent with English law, and the verdict in Somersett stated in the most forceful terms possible that slavery was not - it was a perfectly respectable opinion at the time that it was only a matter of time before the reach of Somersett extended to the colonies, not a wild conspiracy theory.

Hell, the fact that Thomas Jefferson himself attempted to introduce a few openly anti-slavery statements into the Declaration of Independence should tell you something right there

And the fact that he failed should tell you rather more. What the declaration eventually ended up doing was condemning the British for inciting "domestic insurrections amongst us," which, stripped of euphemism, is a condemnation of the practice of promising slaves their freedom if they enlist in the British army.

But the fact that Gerald Horne is so utterly wrong about the real world history is besides the point. What I'm asking about is, what kind of PODs we might need in order to make the scenario play out in an ATL.

It is basically OTL, all you really need more to fit the scenario in full is a bit more honesty and a bit less hypocrisy on the part of the rebels -

"If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves." Abolitionist Thomas Day, 1776.
 
One wonders why the same states that were the strongest on abolition, the so-called roundheads of New England, were also the biggest proponents of independence.
 
Anyway, it would probably help if the British, instead of selling escaped slaves to the Caribbean, and using them to spread smallpox in the southern colonies, also were willing to arm them to fight for them as light infantry.
 
Well, that's not true.

"AUGUSTA, June 18, 1774. RUN away the 16th Instant, from the Subscriber, a Negro Man named BACCHUS, about 30 Years of Age, five Feet six or seven Inches high, strong and well made; had on, and took with him, two white Russia Drill Coats, one turned up with blue, the other quite plain and new, with white figured Metal Buttons, blue Plush Breeches, a fine Cloth Pompadour Waistcoat, two or three thin or Summer Jackets, sundry Pairs of white Thread Stockings, five or six white Shirts, two of them pretty fine, neat Shoes, Silver Buckles, a fine Hat cut and cocked in the Macaroni Figure, a double-milled Drab Great Coat, and sundry other Wearing Apparel. He formerly belonged to Doctor George Pitt, of Williamsburg, and I imagine is gone there under Pretence of my sending him upon Business, as I have frequently heretofore done; he is a cunning, artful, sensible Fellow, and very capable of forging a Tale to impose on the Unwary, is well acquainted with the lower Parts of the Country, having constantly rode with me for some Years past, and has been used to waiting from his Infancy. He was seen a few Days before he went off with a Purse of Dollars, and had just before changed a five Pound Bill; most, or all of which, I suppose he must have robbed me off [sic], which he might easily have done, I having trusted him much after what I thought had proved his Fidelity. He will probably endeavour to pass for a Freeman by the Name of John Christian, and attempt to get on Board some Vessel bound for Great Britain, from the Knowledge he has of the late Determination of Somerset's Case. Whoever takes up the said Slave shall have 5 l. Reward, on his Delivery to GABRIEL JONES."

That's a notice that was published in the Virginia Gazette of June 30 1774. Far from "a select few circles", Somersett was sufficiently well known that it was being blamed for slaves running away - which means that not only had masters heard of it, but slaves too.

One isolated example of *one* slaveowner blaming the Somersett case(without any proof other than his own hearsay, I might add) does not at all prove Horne's far-fetched contentions, however; he claims that such was a widespread phenomenon and was a primary motivation for the Revolution in the first place, when neither is backed up by the actual historical evidence of the period.

And the real significance of Somersett in the colonies was down to the fact most colonial charters included wording to the effect that colonial law had to be consistent with English law, and the verdict in Somersett stated in the most forceful terms possible that slavery was not -
There was no real significance to the colonies, apart from opinions a few circles(both particularly paranoid slaveowners and, perhaps, the more hopeful & optimistic abolitionists), and that's the problem. It may perhaps have been discussed in some papers from time to time, that might be true.

it was a perfectly respectable opinion at the time that it was only a matter of time before the reach of Somersett extended to the colonies, not a wild conspiracy theory.
It was an opinion that was actually not all that common.

And the fact that he failed should tell you rather more.
It does tell us that, sadly, many of the Southern leaders(not all, though! Henry Laurens and Robert Carter III were amongst the exceptions) weren't exactly willing to give up entirely on slavery then. It does not, however, necessarily support particular Horne's theory to any degree.

What the declaration eventually ended up doing was condemning the British for inciting "domestic insurrections amongst us," which, stripped of euphemism, is a condemnation of the practice of promising slaves their freedom if they enlist in the British army.
Playing devil's advocate here, even if that *was* even partly true, that again, would not necessarily trace back to Somerset, and fears of imminent abolition. However, though, this rather better fits the idea that it was largely, more than anything, a condemnation of what many did see as Britain's continued provocations against the colonists.

It is basically OTL, all you really need more to fit the scenario in full is a bit more honesty and a bit less hypocrisy on the part of the rebels -
*Sigh*. But anyway, some are missing the point. The idea isn't to debate the merits of Horne's work as a history piece(it has very little, if any at all), but to try to come up with a scenario that puts at least some of his ideas into a timeline.

One wonders why the same states that were the strongest on abolition, the so-called roundheads of New England, were also the biggest proponents of independence.

This is quite true. And, on the other hand, the Southerners(the Scots-Irish being the only major exception to this) were largely either apathetic about the Brits, or even supported them. In fact, outside of Virginia, only later on did many jump ship to the Patriots, mainly when it was clear that the Brits weren't winning.

Anyway, it would probably help if the British, instead of selling escaped slaves to the Caribbean, and using them to spread smallpox in the southern colonies, also were willing to arm them to fight for them as light infantry.

There were efforts to get slaves to fight for the British IOTL, but many of these were a bit half-hearted, and there was certainly not all that much in the way of genuine abolitionist sentiment to go along with it, at that(as unfortunate as that is!).

Here's an idea: perhaps James Oglethorpe's original anti-slavery colony in Georgia survives in some form? Or, perhaps he instead goes north and becomes prominent in politics there? Either might be a good start, IMHO.
 
One wonders why the same states that were the strongest on abolition, the so-called roundheads of New England, were also the biggest proponents of independence.

Because crime was no longer paying? The Boston tea party didn't happen because tea was being taxed after all - it happened because the tax on legal tea had dropped so low that smugglers could no longer undercut it and still make a profit and were being driven out of business.

(Snark free response - of course the AWI wasn't wholly about slavery. There were plenty of other causes, especially in the north. Claiming that slavery had nothing to do with it however is almost as blatant an abuse of history as claiming slavery had nothing to do with the ACW is.)
 
One isolated example of *one* slaveowner blaming the Somersett case(without any proof other than his own hearsay, I might add) does not at all prove Horne's far-fetched contentions, however; he claims that such was a widespread phenomenon and was a primary motivation for the Revolution in the first place, when neither is backed up by the actual historical evidence of the period.

Oh for crying out loud - I suspect if I produced two, or five, or a hundred such links you'd still say it was a tiny number compared to the hundreds of thousands of slaves in Virginia at the time. In any case, Colonial Williamsburg's website disagrees with you -

"The case was much debated in Virginia—both in the press and face to face; for example, "the affair of yr. Damed Villian Somerseat came on the Carpet" during dinner at the Palace for members of the Council and other distinguished visitors . . . Steuart seemed to be resigned to losing Somerset and concluded "upon the whole, every body seems to think it will go in favouor of the negroe . . .""

From The Newsworthy Somerset Case.

There was no real significance to the colonies, apart from opinions a few circles(both particularly paranoid slaveowners and, perhaps, the more hopeful & optimistic abolitionists), and that's the problem. It may perhaps have been discussed in some papers from time to time, that might be true.

It was an opinion that was actually not all that common.

From the very next paragraph in the Williamsburg link already cited -

"And indeed it did. Newsmongers immediately spread that that decision meant the end of slavery in England and threatened the continuance of the institution in the English colonies . . ."

Frankly, I think I'll side with Williamsburg's academics on this one.
 
Because crime was no longer paying? The Boston tea party didn't happen because tea was being taxed after all - it happened because the tax on legal tea had dropped so low that smugglers could no longer undercut it and still make a profit and were being driven out of business.

(Snark free response - of course the AWI wasn't wholly about slavery. There were plenty of other causes, especially in the north. Claiming that slavery had nothing to do with it however is almost as blatant an abuse of history as claiming slavery had nothing to do with the ACW is.)

Perhaps, but not in the way you think: there weren't many, if any people in the revolutionary leadership who supported secession from the Crown in support of slavery as a primary(or even secondary) cause; there were actually more people for which the opposition to the continuation of slavery was at least a secondary motivation for secession.

Oh for crying out loud - I suspect if I produced two, or five, or a hundred such links you'd still say it was a tiny number compared to the hundreds of thousands of slaves in Virginia at the time.

Unfortunately, there were not a terribly significant number indeed(perhaps a few thousand). As sad as that is.

In any case, Colonial Williamsburg's website disagrees with you -

"The case was much debated in Virginia—both in the press and face to face; for example, "the affair of yr. Damed Villian Somerseat came on the Carpet" during dinner at the Palace for members of the Council and other distinguished visitors . . . Steuart seemed to be resigned to losing Somerset and concluded "upon the whole, every body seems to think it will go in favouor of the negroe . . .""
Amongst *some* sections of society, yes. But again, there's no proof that backs up Horne's particular assertion.

From The Newsworthy Somerset Case.

From the very next paragraph in the Williamsburg link already cited -

"And indeed it did. Newsmongers immediately spread that that decision meant the end of slavery in England and threatened the continuance of the institution in the English colonies . . ."

Frankly, I think I'll side with Williamsburg's academics on this one.
Having looked at the link.....I'm afraid there is still nothing that really supports the idea that the American Revolution was somehow secretly a reaction in favor of slavery, as Horne (completely wrongly!) insinuates throughout his book, even if a few circles did continue to discuss Somerset in the long term.

And, by the way, if nothing else, at least look at the Land Ordinance of 1784 from IOTL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1784

This ordinance, if it had passed, would've ended slavery by 1800.....and it only failed by one vote; a New Jerseyan who happened to be absent on the day of the vote. And it was written by Thomas Jefferson, too. *That* tells me something.

With all that said, though, I don't doubt that the Somerset case *did* have a few longer-term impacts on the discourse regarding slavery, on either side. Only that, when it comes to the Revolutionary War itself, it was very much a background issue.
 
Last edited:
One isolated example of *one* slaveowner blaming the Somersett case(without any proof other than his own hearsay, I might add) does not at all prove Horne's far-fetched contentions, however;

There is a fair bit of evidence on this point, and on the idea that the southerners were worried about slavery. This comes up a bit in Rough Crossings, which is way too soft on the Brits, as well as in The Unruly American Revolution.

Of course, this still ignores that in the northern states, abolition was directly tied to the Revolution.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep ... Wilberforce et al deserve respect, but

My point exactly. The truth is, the abolitionist movement just wasn't all that fully developed then, and abolitionism itself remained somewhat of an outsider position in Britain until *after* the Revolutionary War ended.

Yep ... Wilberforce et al deserve respect, but expecting the Empire to take action against the labor system that generated massive profits seems rather utopian.

Cripes, there was quasi-slavery across parts of the Empire until well past the middle of the Nineteenth Century; not all that unlike the US south.

Ask the dead of Morant Bay. Or those enslaved by blackbirding.

Best,
 
There is a fair bit of evidence on this point, and on the idea that the southerners were worried about slavery. This comes up a bit in Rough Crossings, which is way too soft on the Brits, as well as in The Unruly American Revolution.

As I've said, I don't doubt that the Somerset case did generate a good bit of discussion from time to time back when it was first a thing, including amongst a few Southern planters who may have genuinely believed that slavery's abolition at the hands of the British was imminent, and actually feared such. But, having done much research on the subject, none of it really fits with Horne's contention that protecting slavery was the primary goal of the Revolutionaries as a whole, and that's the thing.

Regardless, though, I still do think that it might make an interesting alternate history(TL-191 with a Drakan twist, one could say), which is why I posited the question in the first place.

Of course, this still ignores that in the northern states, abolition was directly tied to the Revolution.

No doubt about that.

Yep ... Wilberforce et al deserve respect, but expecting the Empire to take action against the labor system that generated massive profits seems rather utopian.

Cripes, there was quasi-slavery across parts of the Empire until well past the middle of the Nineteenth Century; not all that unlike the US south.

Ask the dead of Morant Bay. Or those enslaved by blackbirding.

Best,

Sad but true. :(

Anyway, let's try to move on, shall we?

I do believe I've already mentioned the survival of Oglethorpe's original free colony in the South East, or his moving north to become prominent in politics there, as a couple of possibilities that might help make this scenario work. Are there any other PODs you all might want to suggest?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, except what's the payoff for abolitionism six decades

Sad but true. :(

Anyway, let's try to move on, shall we?

I do believe I've already mentioned the survival of Oglethorpe's original free colony in the South East, or his moving north to become prominent in politics there, as a couple of possibilities that might help make this scenario work. Are there any other PODs you all might want to suggest?

Well, except what's the payoff for abolitionism six decades (roughly) ahead of history? There has to be some sort of economic or political or demographic pressure that leads to the overarching delta, before you even get to the 1770s...

Best,
 
I do believe I've already mentioned the survival of Oglethorpe's original free colony in the South East, or his moving north to become prominent in politics there, as a couple of possibilities that might help make this scenario work. Are there any other PODs you all might want to suggest?

A southern campaign where the British are actively arming freed slaves, and promising them forty acres and a mule if they win, seems to be similar to what you want.
 
Well, except what's the payoff for abolitionism six decades (roughly) ahead of history? There has to be some sort of economic or political or demographic pressure that leads to the overarching delta, before you even get to the 1770s...

Best,

Maybe so, but it's also true that, IOTL, significant amounts of social and demographic pressure were also involved.

A southern campaign where the British are actively arming freed slaves, and promising them forty acres and a mule if they win, seems to be similar to what you want.

That probably would help later on, but would that necessarily be enough? It might turn some of the more reactionary Southerners for sure, but I doubt that this alone would, cause very many Northerners to consider sitting out or even becoming loyalists; the latter would, I think, be a key requirement for that to actually work.(hence, why I suggested an initial POD revolving around Mr. Oglethorpe.)
 
Because crime was no longer paying? The Boston tea party didn't happen because tea was being taxed after all - it happened because the tax on legal tea had dropped so low that smugglers could no longer undercut it and still make a profit and were being driven out of business.

This is where you know it's not worth arguing. RPW is trapped in a fantasy. A cynical, self-absorbed fantasy. Just like Gerald Horne.
 
Top