Some American leftists are confused by the fact that the British emancipated Black slaves and armed some of them to fight the Patriots during the War of Independence of the latter. For instance, the colonial governor Lord Dunmore in Virginia, who had been a Jacobite in his youth and later became a Toryesque "Bedford Whig".
Emancipating the slaves of the enemy (or at least able-bodied male slaves willing to be cannon fodder) was standard practice during the Early Modern Period, so it´s not clear why Dunmore´s emancipation of slaves owned by "rebels" should be seen as any different? Or why on earth the old reactionary should be seen as some kind of Abraham Lincoln? Unless the point is the opposite: smear Lincoln. Not sure if these two agendas are compatible! Aren´t there any relevant differences between the oldest military tactic in the book, and Radical Reconstruction?
The link below goes to a blog post by (the late) Louis Proyect, an independent Marxist who supported the 1619 Project, plus a commentary thread. The 1619 Project are a group of mostly Black activists who take the line that the American Revolution was really pro-slavery.
No comments:
Post a Comment