Primary Source Analysis Paper

Excerpts from Parliamentary Debates Over Military Emancipation, 1775-1781

Edmund Burke in House of Commons on military emancipation – 22 March 1775

· “With regard to the high aristocratic spirit of Virginia and the southern colonies, it has been proposed, I know, to reduce it, by declaring a general enfranchisement of their slaves. This project has had its advocates and panegyrists; yet I never could argue myself into any opinion of it. Slaves are often much attached to their masters. A general wild offer of liberty would not always be accepted. History furnishes few instances of it. It is sometimes as hard to persuade slaves to be free, as it is to compel freemen to be slaves, and in this auspicious scheme, we should have both these pleasing tasks on our hands at once. But when we talk of enfranchisement, do we not perceve that the American master may enfranchise too; and arm servile hands in defence of freedom? A measure to which other people have had recourse more than once, and not without success, in a desperate situation of their affairs. Slaves as these unfortunate black people are, and dull as all men are from slavery, must they not a little suspect the offer of freedom from that very nation which has sold them to their present masters? From that nation, one of whose causes of quarrel with those masters, is their refusal to deal any more in that inhuman traffic? An offer of freedom from England, would come rather oddly, shipped to them in an African vessel, which is refused an entry into the ports of Virginia or Carolina, with a cargo of three hundred Angola negroes. It would be curious to see the Guinea captain attempting at the same instant to publish his proclamation of liberty, and to advertise his sale of slaves.” (501-502)

Commons Debate on the King’s Address to Parliament – October 1775:

· William Henry Lyttelton, Governor of South Carolina, 1755-60, Governor of Jamaica 1760- : “He expiated on the necessity of strengthening the hands of government, if coercive measures were intended to be pursued. He compared America to a chain, the upper part of which was strong, and the lower weak; he explained this, by saying, the northern colonies, or upper part of the chain, were strong, populous, and of course able to make resistance; the southern colonies, or lower part, were weak, on account of the number of negroes in them. He intimated, if a few regiments were sent there, the negroes would rise, and embrue their hands in the blood of their masters. He was against any conciliatory offers being made; said this was the most proper time to speak out; and thought, at all events, the honour of the nation required coercive measures; that the colonies ought to be conquered, and then to have mercy shewn them;” (733)

· Governor [of West Florida] Johnstone, Responding to Lyttelton’s suggestions: “The hon. gentleman has given us some account of the debilitated state of men in the other provinces he had the honour to command, and hinted at means for subduing their spirit, in a manner which inclines me to believe he has not left many more friends behind in that colony than in Jamaica. Administration has been so much misled by those partial and illiberal accounts of men in the gross, that I dare say they will be cautious how they trust to such intelligence again. Neither my reading or observation give me leave to think the people in Carolina will be behind any of the colonies, in supporting and defending rights which are so essential to securing every thing that is dear to them as British subjects. The hon. gentleman had occasion to lead them to war on a certain occasion; I wish he would tell the House how they behaved. If southern climate has such strange effects in enervating the human frame, give me leave to hope at least that the hon. gentleman has escaped this contagion. The other scheme he alludes to, of calling forth the slaves, is too black and horrid to be adopted; neither would it answer, if administration were wicked enough to make the attempt: the state of slavery cuts off all the great magnanimous inventive powers of the human mind, but it rather strengthens fidelity and attachment; the Roman history fully confirms this: amidst the multiplied treachery of friends and relations, amidst the greatest temptations, during the corruptions of that government, the slave was seldom or ever unfaithful to his master. The principle lies in human nature. Where mankind are deprived of the means of getting subsistence, where they are accustomed to look up to another for food, raiment and protection, they insensibly forget the original injury they sustained, and become attached to their master. In general, I must also observe, that masters are kind to their slaves. It is not he who uses the scourge and the whip, which the hon. gentleman has mentioned, that is the first to put the musket on his shoulders in such glorious contests as these. It is not he who tortures and frets his fellow creatures; but he who feels that universal benevolence which extends his affections to all men in their several stations; who feels the spirit of equality, who knows the principles of liberty, who understands the consequence of those rights, without which we are always worse men and worse subjects, and who is willing, for the benefit of children yet unborn, to seal the truth of his doctrine with his blood. It is not to men of this temper that slaves will prove unfaithful. I shall rather expect to see them flock round his standard, though I admit the experiment is too dangerous on either side.” (746-747)

Lord North on the Conduct of the War in House of Commons – 20 November 1775

· North: “As to the means of conducting the war, he declared there never was any idea of employing the negroes or the Indians, until the Americans themselves had first applied to them: that general Carleton did then apply to them; and even then, it was only for the defence of his own province.” (994)

Debate on a Motion in House of Commons by David Hartley, MP on Jury Trial for Slaves – November 1775

· David Hartley, MP: “Let us throw a veil over all the theoretical disputes of the rights of subjects, either as colonists, or as men at large; let us not discuss the rights reserved, or supposed to be reserved, at their emigration, whether tacitly or explicitly; let mutual concessions on both sides bring the two parties together; let the Americans be replaces where they were in 1763, if they will admit and register in their assemblies, such an act of parliament as they themselves shall confess that they would have admitted in 1763. It is not an unreasonable request to make to America, that they should treat an act of parliament, flowing from principles of general humanity and justice, with a different reception to what has been given to acts of grievance.

“...Something must be given up for peace. A civil war never comes too late. Let the Americans take their situation as it was in 1763, for better and worse. In the present miserable prospect of things, that is a fair and equitable bargain. The object of the act of parliament to be proposed to America, may be perhaps in the event the abolition, but at present can only be considered as the first step to correct a vice, which has spread through the continent of North America, contrary to the laws of God and man, and to the fundamental principles of the British constitution. That vice is slavery. It would be infinitely absurd to send over to America an act to abolish slavery at one word, because however repugnant the practice may be to law the laws of morality or policy, yet to expel an evil which has spread so far, and which has been suffered for such a length of time, requires information of facts and circumstances, and the greatest discretion to root it out; and moreover the necessary length of settling such a point, would defeat the end of its being proposed as a act of compromise to settle the present troubles; therefore the act to be proposed to America, as an auspicious beginning to lay the first stone of universal liberty to mankind, should be what no American could hesitate an instant to comply with; viz. That every slave in North America should be entitled to his trial by jury in all criminal cases. America cannot refuse to accept and to enroll such an act as this, and thereby to reestablish peace and harmony with the parent state. Let us all be re-united in this, as a foundation to extirpate slavery from the face of the earth. Let those who seek justice and liberty for themselves, give that justice and liberty to their fellow-creatures. With respect to the idea of putting a final period to slavery in North America, it should seem best, that when this country had led the way by the act for jury, that each colony, knowing their own peculiar circumstances, should undertake the work in the most practicable way, and that they should endeavour to establish some system, by which slavery should be in a certain term of years abolished. Let the only contention henceforward between Great Britain and America be, which shall exceed the other in zeal for establishing the fundamental rights of liberty to all mankind.” (XIII: 1047-1050)

· Sir George Saville: “...if I should touch on the topic of lightning the chains of slavery in America, recommended by my hon. Friend, a learned gentleman will perhaps tell me that I am not a Whig, for that Whigs were ever fond of despotism.” – “He looks for an actual, fresh test of living obedience; an enrolling a British act of parliament; to which I hope it will not be a capital objection that it is not oppressive, that it is not unreasonable; and has morality, humanity, and the rights of a part of mankind, for its object and foundation. I second the motion of my hon. friend.” (1053-1054).

· “Lord North said a few words relative to the unseasonableness of the motion, till a Bill of such vast extent as the Prohibitory Bill going through the House, was first tried.” (1054)

· VOTE: 21 Yeas (Mr. Fox, Mr. Dempster); 123 Noes (Lord Stanley, Sir Grey Cooper)

House of Lords Debate on the Duke of Richmond’s Motion to Suspend Hostilities – 5 March 1776

· Lord Richmond: “He observed, that the war, if carried on, would not only be a war of heavy expence and long continuance, but would be attended with circumstances of cruelty, civil rage, and devastation hitherto unprecedented in the annals of mankind. We were not only to rob the Americans of their property, and make them slaves to fight our battles, but we made war on them in a manner which would shock the most barbarous nations, by firing their towns, and turning out the wretched inhabitants to perish in cold, want, and nakedness. Even still more, this barbaric rage was not only directed against our enemies, but our most zealous friends. This he instanced in the late conflagration of the loyal town of Norfolk, in Virginia, as administration had so frequently called it, which was reduced to ashes by the wanton act of one of our naval commanders. Such an act was no less inconsistent with every sentiment of humanity, than contrary to every rule of good policy.” (1196)

· Duke of Manchester: “It does seem, as if in punishment for their offences, they were condemned to go and war against their brethren in America, and to fall there. I wish the application may not prove just, and yet, my lords, every thing gives it the appearance of truth. No measures taken to bring the war to a conclusion; no plan effective to force the Americans to accept the terms we are pleased to prescribe; a war of detail, of partizans, that can lead to nothing but to perpetuate rancour and animosity. I am informed, by the late dispatches from Virginia, that the governor, who has long quitted the residence of his government, to hold his state aboard a cruizing ship, has had the notable success of firing the town of Norfolk, the largest in Virginia. I make no doubt he has a commission for what he does; I do not mean his commission of governor, for hat is a commission to protect those over whom he is appointed to preside; but a commission to destroy, to burn the towns, to ravage the plantations, drive off the slaves, to kill those that resist. These are the warlike achievements of the governor of Virginia! But as I do not doubt he has orders for what he does, far be it from me to condemn an absent man. But I cannot think well of those who from hence command this wanton ruin, this unnecessary ravage, this useless desolation. My lords, I must farther take notice of one extraordinary particular, that this town was supposed to contain many friends of government; and yet such is the determined vengeance, that even friends are fired upon, in hopes of hurting the enemies intermixed, and all are involved in one complicated destruction.” (1205)

Commons Debate on Third Reading of Bill suspending Habeas Corpus – 17 February 1777

· Charles James Fox, MP: “...another gentleman, still, if possible, more zealous and loyal, (Mr. Adam) might feast himself with contemplating the glorious deed daily and hourly achieved in our southern colonies and back settlements, where the savages came down in great numbers (if the [49] accounts received by administration themselves from that country were to be depended on) and massacred the innocent settlers in cold blood; and the slaves were meritoriously employed in the murder of their unprepared, unsuspicious masters, through the encouragement of an administration which had been this day so unjustly arraigned, as sluggish and inert, as wanting spirit and alacrity, in the glorious work of blood and carnage” (48-49)

Lords Debate – 18 November 1777

· Lord Richmond: “I mean the dreadful inhumanity with which this war is carried on; shocking beyond description to every feeling of a Christian, or of a man! When we have heard of the cruelties of other civil wars, we used to rejoice not to have the age, or the country we lived in, the scene of such misery; but to see Engliand, formerly famous for humanity, coolly suffering the worst of barbarities to be exercised on her fellow-subjects, and appearing untouched by the woes she causes, because they are at a distance, and she does not experience any of them herself, must be truly mortifying to any man who is in the smallest degree possessed of national pride. If ever any nation shall deserve to draw down on her the Divine vengeance for her sins, it will be this, if she suffers such horrid war to continue. ... The best rights may be bought too dear, nor are all means justifiable in attaining them. To arm negro slaves against their masters, to arm savages, who we know will put their prisoners to death in the most cruel tortures, and literally eat them, is not, in my opinion, a fair war against fellow subjects.” (403)

Commons Debate on Burke Motion on Employment of Indians as Soldiers – 6 February 1778

· Burke: “He also passed some severe strictures on the endeavours in two of the southern colonies to excite an insurrection of the negro-slaves against their masters. He insisted that the proclamation for that purpose was directly contrary to the common and statute law of this country, as well as the general law of nations. He stated, in strong colours, the nature of an insurrection of negroes; the horrible consequences that might ensue from constituting 100,000 fierce barbarian slaves, to be both the judges and executioners of their masters; and appealed to all those who were acquainted either with the West India islands or the southern colonies, as to the murders, rapes, and horrid enormities of every kind, which had ever been acknowledged to be the principal objects in the contemplation of all negroes who had meditated an insurrection. The vigour and care of the white inhabitants in Virginia and Maryland had providentially kept down the insurrection of the negroes. But if they had succeeded, he asked what means were proposed for governing those negroes, when they had reduced the province to their obedience, and made themselves masters of the houses, goods, wives, and daughters of their murdered lords? Another war must be made with them, and another massacre ensue; adding confusion to confusion, and destruction to destruction. The result was, that our national honour had been deeply wounded, and our character as a people debased in the estimation of foreigners, by those shameful, savage, and servile alliances, and their barbarous consequences. That instead of any military effect of value, they had only led to defeat, ruin, and disgrace; serving to embitter the minds of all men, and to unite and arm all the colonies against us. That the ineffective attempt upon the negroes was the grand cause of that greater aversion and resentment, which appeared in the southern, than in many of the central and northern colonies; of their being the first to abjure the King; and of the declaration made by Virginia , that if the rest should submit, they would notwithstanding hold out singly to the last extremity: for what security could they receive, that, if they admitted an English governor, he would not raise their negroes on them, whenever he thought it good to construe any occasional disturbances into a rebellion, and to adopt martial law as a system of government?” (IXX: 698-699)

· T. Townshend, MP – no proof of Patriots courting Indians: “but granting the fact...in its fullest extent to be true, it would not beet the main objection stated by the hon. mover, which was, not that those barbarities would be exercised on men with arms in their hands, or made captives in battle; but on innocent, peaceable people in their habitations; unless, therefore, the noble lord would make one supposition more, which was, that the slaves in the southern colonies, as well as the savages, would make a forced march over to Great Britain, and execute here what the two proclamations now read invited them to perpetrate in America; the pretence of employing them to murder old men, women, and children, in stead of making war against their armed enemies, even in their usual way, was entirely at an end.” (IXX: 701)

· Lord North: “he also was glad that no strangers were admitted on this day, though for another reason, namely, lest they should be worked up into an indignation and horror against the gentlemen on the other side of the House, for declaring sentiments so contrary to those which the honour and dignity of the country demanded. That in respect to the employment of savages, he looked on it as bad, but unavoidable; that they were of that nature, that if one side did not, they would enter immediately on the other. That as to the negroes who were set at liberty from their masters, and inlisted to join our army, the proclamation of lord Dunmore did not call on them to murder their masters, as had been said in the debate, but only to take up arms in defence of the sovereign; but he was willing lord Dunmore’s proclamation should be laid on the table, that, if reprehensible, it might be attended to.” (IXX: 707-708)

· Edmund Burke proposes an amendment to a spending bill in the House of Commons: “excepting the sum of 160,837l. which appears, by sir Guy Carleton’s accounts, laid before this House, to have been expended for the carrying on of a Savage War in a manner contrary to the usage of civilized nations, against the English colonies in North America; excepting also the sum of 16,000l. which appears to have been expended for the same purpose in the southern department of Indians; excepting also the sum of 5,000l. which hath been expended in carrying on a war of insurgent negroes against the inhabitants of the province of Virginia; and excepting whatever hath been paid out of the said extraordinaries, specified in general Carleton’s correspondence, for 100 Crosses, and five grose of Scalping Knives, the said expenditure being disgraceful to religion and humanity.” (IXX: 971-972)

· 25 November 1779 – Lord Shelburne in House of Lords on fears of emancipation in Jamaica: “...one [action taken by the royal governor] in particular which gave great offence, that was a proposition for arming the negroes, and by that means rendering them, at least pro tempore, free and upon an equality with a white man. This was looked upon as a precedent not less impolitic than hazardous; impolitic, because it would tend to inspire the slaves with ideas productive of disobedience, dissatisfaction, and revolt, at a future period, when they found themselves obliged to return to their former condition. It was a wanton attack on the property of individuals, and if adopted, would answer no good purpose. It was dangerous, because the instant the slaves found arms in their hands, who could promise, that the very first use they would make of their weapons, would not be against those whom they were purposely armed to assist and defend? The house of representatives, or assembly, fully weighing these points, and urged with other motives, rejected the proposition, which had created an ill-will between the legislative powers of the state, and produced many marks of jealousy, enmity, and bad temper, which portended the very worst effects.” (XXI: 1061-1062)

· 12 June 1781 – Lord Westcote [William Henry Lyttelton] defends his earlier claims about weaknesses of the Southern colonies: “He acknowledged he had said, that the influence of the climate might operate in the southern colonies, and, he beleived, universal experience ahd confirmed the truth of the observation. He might have said, that the inhabitants of the southern colonies were likely to be enervated by natural cuases, and less able to resist than [444] those colonies situated to the northward; but he did not ground his opinion on the propriety of carryong on our operations to the southward merely on that ground, but combined with other circumstances, which came within his knowledge or experience; some, perhaps, founded in speculation, others from the state and situation of the country, particularly that part of it, the government of which he had been intrusted with by his Majesty: he meant the general disposition of the inhabitants, the great number of slaves, and persons employed by the planters, &c. He thought he was well founded in saying, that the resistance was not likely to prove so general in the first instance, nor so effectual in the second; but even allowing there was no ground for the former supposition, the loyal attachment to their sovereign and to this country, there was strong reason to presume, that so effectual a resistance would not be made against the British arms in a country where, besides having the horrors of war to encounter, the people would at the same time have the apprehension upon their minds of a more dangerous, because more cruel enemy, their slaves, servants, &c. to whose mercy and protection, while they were contending for what they deemed their rights, they must have trusted their wives, children, and property. ... Notwithstanding every thing which had been urged to the contrary by the hon. gentleman, his general opinion of the practicability of carrying on operations to the southward with success had been confirmed by experience; the inhabitants of those colonies now acknowledged the sovereignty of Great Britain, and enjoyed those rights which had been so long withheld from them, through the oppressive and traitorous conduct of an internal faction, supported by a rebel congress. Before he proceeded farther, he would just observe, that the particular, as well as general reasons for carrying on operations [445] to the southward, still remained uncontradicted, nay, were literally confirmed...” (XXII: 443-445)

Source: Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, vols. 18-22.