In 1772, the groundbreaking legal case Somerset v Stewart swept away all legal justification for slavery within England. No law allowed a master to use compulsion against his so-called slaves. Lord Mansfield's judgement was comparatively dry and technical, but the poet William Cowper later expressed it more eloquently: Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs Receive our air, that moment they are free: They touch our country and their shackles fall The Somerset case sent shockwaves through the English-speaking world. Two years later in 1774 a similar case, Knight v Wedderburn, was brought in Scotland; and soon established that slavery was not legal in Scotland either, just as it was not legal in England. Newspapers in the Thirteen Colonies brought news of the judgement there, and it caused great alarm. The British government in Westminster was already seeking to extend centralised control, with its Stamp Act and other much-disliked measures. If slavery was legal in America but illegal in England, how soon would it be before Westminster tried to apply the same law in both places? Worse still, how long before the slaves themselves started to get unwelcome ideas about freedom? In January 1773, the slaves of Massachusetts sent a petition to the General Court asking for relief from their 'unhappy state and condition' — the first of five such measures. By September of that year, a Virginia slave owner advertising in the newspaper for help recapturing two runaway slaves, noted with exasperation that they "will endeavour to get out of the Colony, particularly to Britain, where they imagine they will be free (a notion now too prevalent among the Negroes, greatly to the Vexation and Prejudice of their Masters)". A year later another advertisement for a runaway in Georgia said specifically that he would probably "attempt to get on board some Vessel bound for Great Britain, from the Knowledge he has of the late Determination of Somerset's Case". In September 1774 Abigail Adams wrote to her husband that a 'conspiracy of the Negroes' had just been discovered, by which they offered to form a militia to support the British royal governor in Massachusetts if he would promise them their freedom and give them weapons. In 1775, as unrest gathered. the governor of Virginia Lord Dunmore actually went ahead and formed a regiment of ‘Ethiopians’, promising freedom to the former slaves of rebels who escaped from their masters. If even illiterate slaves in the Deep South knew about Somerset's Case and were using it as a justification for escape — or worse, perhaps for rebellion — then this was clearly a crisis for American slaveowners. It might not be enough in itself to provoke rebellion, but it was another straw on the camel's back. When the Declaration of Independence was written, one of the main charges levelled against King George was that "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us" — by offering the hope of freedom to the slaves. 3.1k Views · View Upvoters Related QuestionsMore Answers Below How do they teach the American Revolution in the U.K.? If the British won the American Revolutionary War, would slavery in America have lasted as long as it did? How important was slavery as an issue in the American War of Independence? What percentage of people in America owned slaves at the peak of slavery? Why did the United States lose the Vietnam War? Ask New Question Kiani Francis Kiani Francis, works at Glasgow Answered Jul 20 2016 · Upvoted by Carrington Ward, Ph.D Diplomatic History & History of the United States of America (2008) · Author has 545 answers and 610.8k answer views The British declared the rebels to be traitors & thus their property was forfeited including their slaves (George Washington owned 318). Consequently many black soldiers joined the British Army. Later many ran away to join the Royal Marines. When the British lost the black Loyalists settled in Saskatchewan & many came to London & took English wives. Slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833 & in the USA after the Civil war in 1865. The Somerset Case in 1772 declared slavery illegal in England (& that it had NEVER been legal since the Statute of Westminster 1101), after a public anti slavery campaign led by Granville Sharp. So it would certainly have been a logical move for Washington, Jefferson & the other slave owners to rebel & for their slaves to fight for Britain. In fact one of Washington's slaves called Henry Washington actually did run away to fight for Britain. Similarly Native Americans were consistently better treated by the British & Canadians than by the USA. 421 Views · View Upvoters Daniel Baker Daniel Baker, M.A. in European History, George Mason University Answered Jul 20 2016 · Upvoted by Carrington Ward, Ph.D Diplomatic History & History of the United States of America (2008) · Author has 1.8k answers and 2.8m answer views There was no reason to believe in the 1770s that Britain would outlaw slavery at any time in the foreseeable future. Although the continental slave owners weren’t represented in Parliament, the fabulously wealthy sugar planters of Barbados, Jamaica, Antigua, and other British colonies in the Caribbean were very well represented, since many of them were absentee landowners who lived in Britain. Those sugar planters depended on slavery, and nobody expected them to let an abolition bill get through Parliament. And indeed they did successfully defend slavery in Parliament, right down to 1832 and the Reform Act which cost the nobility much of their influence and allowed abolition to finally pass the next year. But nobody could have foreseen the Reform Act in the 1770s. In any case, the main hotbed of revolution in America was Massachusetts, where slavery barely existed. Even in the more slavery-dependent South, many of the planters had imbibed Enlightenment-era ideas and saw slavery as a necessary evil that they hoped to get rid of, once they figured out a way to do it without losing their wealthy position. Unfortunately, that attitude would begin to change rapidly after the introduction of the cotton gin in 1793, but that was long after the War of Independence. Ultimately, slavery wasn’t much of an issue either way in the Revolution; many slave owners were loyalists, like Joseph Brant and James Chalmers, while some, like Washington and Jefferson, joined the revolutionaries. 624 Views · View Upvoters Sara Matthews Sara Matthews, Teacher/Student American history, American literature and ELL Answered Jul 22 2016 · Author has 10.4k answers and 3.7m answer views As Joseph Boyle points out - it wasn't given as a reason and one might think there'd be some hint of it along the way. The impact of Somerset v. Stewart was to create an anti-slavery movement in England but this is occurring after the Revolution - over in 1781. Cowper writes his poem in 1785 and in 1776 slavery is alive and thriving in the British empire if not on English soil - and powerful voices in England support slavery in the Empire as they were indeed owners of slaves in the Caribbean. Prior to the Revolution - roughly 2% of Massachusetts' population were slaves in contrast to 40% of Virginia's population. The two hotbeds of revolution were Massachusetts - where slavery barely existed - and then Virginia - though Virginia was hardly the only slave-owning colony. Virginia's planters were tobacco planters and heavily in debt to British merchants and struggling with low tobacco prices sources suggest their letters and thoughts are consumed with that worry - their debts being called in and having no way to pay them. 409 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Daniel Baker Joseph Boyle Joseph Boyle Answered Jul 21 2016 · Author has 25.2k answers and 18.1m answer views Somerset v Stewart says some historians believe “the case contributed to increasing colonial support for separatism…, by parties on both sides of the slavery question” and “some individuals in pro-slavery and anti-slavery colonies, for opposite reasons, desired a distinct break from English law in order to achieve their goals with regard to slavery”. By 1784, 3 of the 4 largest Northern states had abolished slavery. If the Somerset decision caused fears among slaveholders, they did not list this as their reason to revolt and neither did the British state abolition as a goal. If the planters’ only desire was to keep slaves working their plantations, they would have done much better not to revolt and just continue as the West Indies did for another 60+ years, by which time the Northern states had turned against slavery in the South. 684 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Daniel Baker Douglas C. Miller Douglas C. Miller, I have been reading history for over 50 years Answered Jul 23 2016 · Author has 1k answers and 577.2k answer views Several of the answers here affirm the proposition that a threat that Britain might try to ban slavery was a significant motivation for the revolution. This is essentially an economic argument and there have been other interpretations claiming economic motives as the primary cause of the revolution. I think this is too simple; economists or economic historians like to make economic motivations the primary ones for many historical events but they ignore other powerful motivations. While New England may have been a key player in the slave trade Sam Adams and his ilk were mostly not rich ship owners or builders and did not depend on the slave trade for their livelihood. Parliamentary arrogance in imposing taxes where none had previously existed produced political motives for rebellion, overshadowing economic ones. The s is true of John Adams and middle class attorneys and other professionals like him as well. Ben Franklin was not involved in the slavezs trade as well. I think one can't rule out some small role for this issue in helping along the revolution, but I can't see it as primary or even close at all. 412 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Daniel Baker Chris Marciano Chris Marciano, US citizen Answered Jul 20 2016 · Author has 131 answers and 44.2k answer views Not at all. An early draft of the Declaration said that George III was responsible for "the sin of slavery." Many founding fathers hated slavery, but left it out in order to unify the colonies. South Carolina was a hold out in voting for independence.

May 22, 2018

In 1772, the groundbreaking legal case Somerset v Stewart swept away all legal justification for slavery within England. No law allowed a master to use compulsion against his so-called slaves. Lord Mansfield's judgement was comparatively dry and technical, but the poet William Cowper later expressed it more eloquently: Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs Receive our air, that moment they are free: They touch our country and their shackles fall The Somerset case sent shockwaves through the English-speaking world. Two years later in 1774 a similar case, Knight v Wedderburn, was brought in Scotland; and soon established that slavery was not legal in Scotland either, just as it was not legal in England. Newspapers in the Thirteen Colonies brought news of the judgement there, and it caused great alarm. The British government in Westminster was already seeking to extend centralised control, with its Stamp Act and other much-disliked measures. If slavery was legal in America but illegal in England, how soon would it be before Westminster tried to apply the same law in both places? Worse still, how long before the slaves themselves started to get unwelcome ideas about freedom? In January 1773, the slaves of Massachusetts sent a petition to the General Court asking for relief from their 'unhappy state and condition' — the first of five such measures. By September of that year, a Virginia slave owner advertising in the newspaper for help recapturing two runaway slaves, noted with exasperation that they "will endeavour to get out of the Colony, particularly to Britain, where they imagine they will be free (a notion now too prevalent among the Negroes, greatly to the Vexation and Prejudice of their Masters)". A year later another advertisement for a runaway in Georgia said specifically that he would probably "attempt to get on board some Vessel bound for Great Britain, from the Knowledge he has of the late Determination of Somerset's Case". In September 1774 Abigail Adams wrote to her husband that a 'conspiracy of the Negroes' had just been discovered, by which they offered to form a militia to support the British royal governor in Massachusetts if he would promise them their freedom and give them weapons. In 1775, as unrest gathered. the governor of Virginia Lord Dunmore actually went ahead and formed a regiment of ‘Ethiopians’, promising freedom to the former slaves of rebels who escaped from their masters. If even illiterate slaves in the Deep South knew about Somerset's Case and were using it as a justification for escape — or worse, perhaps for rebellion — then this was clearly a crisis for American slaveowners. It might not be enough in itself to provoke rebellion, but it was another straw on the camel's back. When the Declaration of Independence was written, one of the main charges levelled against King George was that "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us" — by offering the hope of freedom to the slaves. 3.1k Views · View Upvoters Related QuestionsMore Answers Below How do they teach the American Revolution in the U.K.? If the British won the American Revolutionary War, would slavery in America have lasted as long as it did? How important was slavery as an issue in the American War of Independence? What percentage of people in America owned slaves at the peak of slavery? Why did the United States lose the Vietnam War? Ask New Question Kiani Francis Kiani Francis, works at Glasgow Answered Jul 20 2016 · Upvoted by Carrington Ward, Ph.D Diplomatic History & History of the United States of America (2008) · Author has 545 answers and 610.8k answer views The British declared the rebels to be traitors & thus their property was forfeited including their slaves (George Washington owned 318). Consequently many black soldiers joined the British Army. Later many ran away to join the Royal Marines. When the British lost the black Loyalists settled in Saskatchewan & many came to London & took English wives. Slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833 & in the USA after the Civil war in 1865. The Somerset Case in 1772 declared slavery illegal in England (& that it had NEVER been legal since the Statute of Westminster 1101), after a public anti slavery campaign led by Granville Sharp. So it would certainly have been a logical move for Washington, Jefferson & the other slave owners to rebel & for their slaves to fight for Britain. In fact one of Washington's slaves called Henry Washington actually did run away to fight for Britain. Similarly Native Americans were consistently better treated by the British & Canadians than by the USA. 421 Views · View Upvoters Daniel Baker Daniel Baker, M.A. in European History, George Mason University Answered Jul 20 2016 · Upvoted by Carrington Ward, Ph.D Diplomatic History & History of the United States of America (2008) · Author has 1.8k answers and 2.8m answer views There was no reason to believe in the 1770s that Britain would outlaw slavery at any time in the foreseeable future. Although the continental slave owners weren’t represented in Parliament, the fabulously wealthy sugar planters of Barbados, Jamaica, Antigua, and other British colonies in the Caribbean were very well represented, since many of them were absentee landowners who lived in Britain. Those sugar planters depended on slavery, and nobody expected them to let an abolition bill get through Parliament. And indeed they did successfully defend slavery in Parliament, right down to 1832 and the Reform Act which cost the nobility much of their influence and allowed abolition to finally pass the next year. But nobody could have foreseen the Reform Act in the 1770s. In any case, the main hotbed of revolution in America was Massachusetts, where slavery barely existed. Even in the more slavery-dependent South, many of the planters had imbibed Enlightenment-era ideas and saw slavery as a necessary evil that they hoped to get rid of, once they figured out a way to do it without losing their wealthy position. Unfortunately, that attitude would begin to change rapidly after the introduction of the cotton gin in 1793, but that was long after the War of Independence. Ultimately, slavery wasn’t much of an issue either way in the Revolution; many slave owners were loyalists, like Joseph Brant and James Chalmers, while some, like Washington and Jefferson, joined the revolutionaries. 624 Views · View Upvoters Sara Matthews Sara Matthews, Teacher/Student American history, American literature and ELL Answered Jul 22 2016 · Author has 10.4k answers and 3.7m answer views As Joseph Boyle points out - it wasn't given as a reason and one might think there'd be some hint of it along the way. The impact of Somerset v. Stewart was to create an anti-slavery movement in England but this is occurring after the Revolution - over in 1781. Cowper writes his poem in 1785 and in 1776 slavery is alive and thriving in the British empire if not on English soil - and powerful voices in England support slavery in the Empire as they were indeed owners of slaves in the Caribbean. Prior to the Revolution - roughly 2% of Massachusetts' population were slaves in contrast to 40% of Virginia's population. The two hotbeds of revolution were Massachusetts - where slavery barely existed - and then Virginia - though Virginia was hardly the only slave-owning colony. Virginia's planters were tobacco planters and heavily in debt to British merchants and struggling with low tobacco prices sources suggest their letters and thoughts are consumed with that worry - their debts being called in and having no way to pay them. 409 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Daniel Baker Joseph Boyle Joseph Boyle Answered Jul 21 2016 · Author has 25.2k answers and 18.1m answer views Somerset v Stewart says some historians believe “the case contributed to increasing colonial support for separatism…, by parties on both sides of the slavery question” and “some individuals in pro-slavery and anti-slavery colonies, for opposite reasons, desired a distinct break from English law in order to achieve their goals with regard to slavery”. By 1784, 3 of the 4 largest Northern states had abolished slavery. If the Somerset decision caused fears among slaveholders, they did not list this as their reason to revolt and neither did the British state abolition as a goal. If the planters’ only desire was to keep slaves working their plantations, they would have done much better not to revolt and just continue as the West Indies did for another 60+ years, by which time the Northern states had turned against slavery in the South. 684 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Daniel Baker Douglas C. Miller Douglas C. Miller, I have been reading history for over 50 years Answered Jul 23 2016 · Author has 1k answers and 577.2k answer views Several of the answers here affirm the proposition that a threat that Britain might try to ban slavery was a significant motivation for the revolution. This is essentially an economic argument and there have been other interpretations claiming economic motives as the primary cause of the revolution. I think this is too simple; economists or economic historians like to make economic motivations the primary ones for many historical events but they ignore other powerful motivations. While New England may have been a key player in the slave trade Sam Adams and his ilk were mostly not rich ship owners or builders and did not depend on the slave trade for their livelihood. Parliamentary arrogance in imposing taxes where none had previously existed produced political motives for rebellion, overshadowing economic ones. The s is true of John Adams and middle class attorneys and other professionals like him as well. Ben Franklin was not involved in the slavezs trade as well. I think one can't rule out some small role for this issue in helping along the revolution, but I can't see it as primary or even close at all. 412 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Daniel Baker Chris Marciano Chris Marciano, US citizen Answered Jul 20 2016 · Author has 131 answers and 44.2k answer views Not at all. An early draft of the Declaration said that George III was responsible for "the sin of slavery." Many founding fathers hated slavery, but left it out in order to unify the colonies. South Carolina was a hold out in voting for independence.

https://www.quora.com/Did-slave-owning-American-colonists-fear-the-British-would-eventually-outlaw-slavery-in-America-Did-this-help-motivate-the-War-of-Independence

7 Answers

Stephen Tempest, MA Modern History, University of Oxford (1985)

Answered Jul 20 2016 · Upvoted by Federico Bruzone, BA History, MA Classics Candidate (U. of Buenos Aires) and Carrington Ward, Ph.D Diplomatic History & History of the United States of America (2008) · Author has 2k answers and 15.6m answer views

Yes, they did, and it was certainly a motivating factor.

In 1772, the groundbreaking legal case Somerset v Stewart swept away all legal justification for slavery within England. No law allowed a master to use compulsion against his so-called slaves. Lord Mansfield's judgement was comparatively dry and technical, but the poet William Cowper later expressed it more eloquently:

Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs
Receive our air, that moment they are free:
They touch our country and their shackles fall

The Somerset case sent shockwaves through the English-speaking world. Two years later in 1774 a similar case, Knight v Wedderburn, was brought in Scotland; and soon established that slavery was not legal in Scotland either, just as it was not legal in England.

Newspapers in the Thirteen Colonies brought news of the judgement there, and it caused great alarm. The British government in Westminster was already seeking to extend centralised control, with its Stamp Act and other much-disliked measures. If slavery was legal in America but illegal in England, how soon would it be before Westminster tried to apply the same law in both places? Worse still, how long before the slaves themselves started to get unwelcome ideas about freedom?

In January 1773, the slaves of Massachusetts sent a petition to the General Court asking for relief from their 'unhappy state and condition' — the first of five such measures.
By September of that year, a Virginia slave owner advertising in the newspaper for help recapturing two runaway slaves, noted with exasperation that they "will endeavour to get out of the Colony, particularly to Britain, where they imagine they will be free (a notion now too prevalent among the Negroes, greatly to the Vexation and Prejudice of their Masters)".
A year later another advertisement for a runaway in Georgia said specifically that he would probably "attempt to get on board some Vessel bound for Great Britain, from the Knowledge he has of the late Determination of Somerset's Case".
In September 1774 Abigail Adams wrote to her husband that a 'conspiracy of the Negroes' had just been discovered, by which they offered to form a militia to support the British royal governor in Massachusetts if he would promise them their freedom and give them weapons.
In 1775, as unrest gathered. the governor of Virginia Lord Dunmore actually went ahead and formed a regiment of ‘Ethiopians’, promising freedom to the former slaves of rebels who escaped from their masters.

If even illiterate slaves in the Deep South knew about Somerset's Case and were using it as a justification for escape — or worse, perhaps for rebellion — then this was clearly a crisis for American slaveowners. It might not be enough in itself to provoke rebellion, but it was another straw on the camel's back.

When the Declaration of Independence was written, one of the main charges levelled against King George was that "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us" — by offering the hope of freedom to the slaves.

3.1k Views · View Upvoters

Related QuestionsMore Answers Below

Ask New Question

Kiani Francis, works at Glasgow

Answered Jul 20 2016 · Upvoted by Carrington Ward, Ph.D Diplomatic History & History of the United States of America (2008) · Author has 545 answers and 610.8k answer views

The British declared the rebels to be traitors & thus their property was forfeited including their slaves (George Washington owned 318). Consequently many black soldiers joined the British Army. Later many ran away to join the Royal Marines. When the British lost the black Loyalists settled in Saskatchewan & many came to London & took English wives. Slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833 & in the USA after the Civil war in 1865. The Somerset Case in 1772 declared slavery illegal in England (& that it had NEVER been legal since the Statute of Westminster 1101), after a public anti slavery campaign led by Granville Sharp. So it would certainly have been a logical move for Washington, Jefferson & the other slave owners to rebel & for their slaves to fight for Britain. In fact one of Washington's slaves called Henry Washington actually did run away to fight for Britain. Similarly Native Americans were consistently better treated by the British & Canadians than by the USA.

421 Views · View Upvoters

Daniel Baker, M.A. in European History, George Mason University

Answered Jul 20 2016 · Upvoted by Carrington Ward, Ph.D Diplomatic History & History of the United States of America (2008) · Author has 1.8k answers and 2.8m answer views

There was no reason to believe in the 1770s that Britain would outlaw slavery at any time in the foreseeable future. Although the continental slave owners weren’t represented in Parliament, the fabulously wealthy sugar planters of Barbados, Jamaica, Antigua, and other British colonies in the Caribbean were very well represented, since many of them were absentee landowners who lived in Britain. Those sugar planters depended on slavery, and nobody expected them to let an abolition bill get through Parliament. And indeed they did successfully defend slavery in Parliament, right down to 1832 and the Reform Act which cost the nobility much of their influence and allowed abolition to finally pass the next year. But nobody could have foreseen the Reform Act in the 1770s.

In any case, the main hotbed of revolution in America was Massachusetts, where slavery barely existed. Even in the more slavery-dependent South, many of the planters had imbibed Enlightenment-era ideas and saw slavery as a necessary evil that they hoped to get rid of, once they figured out a way to do it without losing their wealthy position. Unfortunately, that attitude would begin to change rapidly after the introduction of the cotton gin in 1793, but that was long after the War of Independence.

Ultimately, slavery wasn’t much of an issue either way in the Revolution; many slave owners were loyalists, like Joseph Brant and James Chalmers, while some, like Washington and Jefferson, joined the revolutionaries.

624 Views · View Upvoters

Sara Matthews, Teacher/Student American history, American literature and ELL

Answered Jul 22 2016 · Author has 10.4k answers and 3.7m answer views

As Joseph Boyle points out - it wasn't given as a reason and one might think there'd be some hint of it along the way. The impact of Somerset v. Stewart was to create an anti-slavery movement in England but this is occurring after the Revolution - over in 1781. Cowper writes his poem in 1785 and in 1776 slavery is alive and thriving in the British empire if not on English soil - and powerful voices in England support slavery in the Empire as they were indeed owners of slaves in the Caribbean.

Prior to the Revolution - roughly 2% of Massachusetts' population were slaves in contrast to 40% of Virginia's population. The two hotbeds of revolution were Massachusetts - where slavery barely existed - and then Virginia - though Virginia was hardly the only slave-owning colony. Virginia's planters were tobacco planters and heavily in debt to British merchants and struggling with low tobacco prices sources suggest their letters and thoughts are consumed with that worry - their debts being called in and having no way to pay them.

409 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Daniel Baker

Joseph Boyle

Answered Jul 21 2016 · Author has 25.2k answers and 18.1m answer views

Somerset v Stewart says some historians believe “the case contributed to increasing colonial support for separatism…, by parties on both sides of the slavery question” and “some individuals in pro-slavery and anti-slavery colonies, for opposite reasons, desired a distinct break from English law in order to achieve their goals with regard to slavery”. By 1784, 3 of the 4 largest Northern states had abolished slavery.

If the Somerset decision caused fears among slaveholders, they did not list this as their reason to revolt and neither did the British state abolition as a goal. If the planters’ only desire was to keep slaves working their plantations, they would have done much better not to revolt and just continue as the West Indies did for another 60+ years, by which time the Northern states had turned against slavery in the South.

684 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Daniel Baker

Douglas C. Miller, I have been reading history for over 50 years

Answered Jul 23 2016 · Author has 1k answers and 577.2k answer views

Several of the answers here affirm the proposition that a threat that Britain might try to ban slavery was a significant motivation for the revolution. This is essentially an economic argument and there have been other interpretations claiming economic motives as the primary cause of the revolution. I think this is too simple; economists or economic historians like to make economic motivations the primary ones for many historical events but they ignore other powerful motivations. While New England may have been a key player in the slave trade Sam Adams and his ilk were mostly not rich ship owners or builders and did not depend on the slave trade for their livelihood. Parliamentary arrogance in imposing taxes where none had previously existed produced political motives for rebellion, overshadowing economic ones. The s is true of John Adams and middle class attorneys and other professionals like him as well. Ben Franklin was not involved in the slavezs trade as well. I think one can't rule out some small role for this issue in helping along the revolution, but I can't see it as primary or even close at all.

412 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Daniel Baker

Chris Marciano, US citizen

Answered Jul 20 2016 · Author has 131 answers and 44.2k answer views

Not at all. An early draft of the Declaration said that George III was responsible for "the sin of slavery."

Many founding fathers hated slavery, but left it out in order to unify the colonies. South Carolina was a hold out in voting for independence.

Search This Blog

Guru channel(TM) is a trademark owned by Warren A. Lyon.

Did slave-owning American colonists fear the British would eventually outlaw slavery in America? Did this help motivate the War of Independence?

Related QuestionsMore Answers Below

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Edward the Black Prince: Signet ring of the Black Prince in the Louvre. Signet-ring of the Black Prince (1330–1376). Gold (originally enameled) and ruby, late 14th century. Found in Montpensier (Auvergne, France), 1866.