The Declaration of Independence

[Keirador]

Actually the ruling by Lord Mansfield was not ignored, the problem was that it was only binding in England not in the rest of the British Empire which was not under the authority of English Courts.

However the ruling did have an impact on the American Colonies since the Courts there were able to use English Legal Precedent on which to make decisions (because the Courts in the 13 Colonies followed English Common Law). In fact several slaves in the Colonies did bring cases to the Courts claiming that based on Mansfields Ruling they were now free.

A question worth pondering is would the Colonies have accepted an offer of unification with England (giving them equal legal rights and Parliamentary representation) if the automatic end result was that Lord Mansfields ruling automatically came into force and they had to give up their slaves? It was the Act of Union 1707 that legally united England and Scotland. Might another hypothetical Act of Union 1774 uniting Great Britain and the American Colonies really end the pressure for secession or not?

It actually would not have been as grave a problem as one might think. At that point, the New England and MidAtlantic colonies were already renouncing slavery, and in the South restrictions were being placed on the continuation of the slave trade. The booming cotton economy that would make slavery the pedestal of Southern life would not occur for decades later with the invention of the cotton gin, making cotton possible to profitably cultivate in the south.

 

[Keirador]

Your posts have been very informative. They do not vindicate Washington though

I have not seen evidence to support your post, but I would like to. I would also like to see that the same documents actually landed on PM North's desk along with dates - which are required to see if suggestions were being made in a reasonable fashion.

Without evidence, your post could be just another fable like the one about a tyrant King George III raping and pillaging in the collonies

I never intended to vindicate Washington, I intended to vindicate the cause. (I do find it interesting, by the way, that you damn Washington based on something you might have read somewhere at some point some time ago, yet demand specific proofs from me.)
At any rate, I think I did give sufficient evidence to support my posts, but I can give more. Examples of harsh Parliamentary treatment of the colonies can be seen in the Iron Act, the Quartering Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, the Impartial Administration of Justice Act, and the Boston Port Act. They are matters of British historical law and one should be able to find them quite easily. Just Google them. The aforementioned Declaration of Rights and Grievances (sent to the King, not the Prime Minister) was issued by the First Continental Congress in October of 1774. It explained the colonists' complaints about Parliaments' actions and contains statements based on English law explaining the illegality of these actions, ie their broach of the Rights of Englishmen. Along with these complaints was issued an official statement of a boycott of English trade, as well as a proclamation of loyalty to Britain and several expressions of hope for a closer union in future. You can easily google it and find it.
Here is a letter writ by American stateman Benjamin Franklin, circulated to first the British governor of Massachusetts, then to Parliament itself.

BOSTON, December 22, 1754

SIR:

Since the conversation your Excellency was pleased to honor me with, on the subject of uniting the colonies more intimately with Great Britain, by allowing them representatives in Parliament, I have something further considered that matter and am of opinion that such a union would be very acceptable to the colonies, provided they had a reasonable number of representatives allowed them; and that all the old acts of Parliament restraining the trade or cramping the manufactures of the colonies be at the same time repealed, and the British subjects on this side the water put, in those respects, on the same footing with those in Great Britain, till the new Parliament, representing the whole, shall think it for the interest of the whole to re-enact some or all of them. It is not that I imagine so many representatives will be allowed the colonies as to have any great weight by their numbers, but I think there might be sufficient to occasion those laws to be better and more impartially considered, and perhaps to overcome the interest of a petty corporation, or of any particular set of artificers or traders in England, who heretofore seem, in some instances, to have been more regarded than all the colonies or than was consistent with the general interest or best national good. I think, too, that the government of the colonies by a Parliament in which they are fairly represented would be vastly more agreeable to the people than the method lately attempted to be introduced by royal instructions, as well as more agreeable to the nature of an English constitution and to English liberty; 4 and that such laws as now seem to bear hard on the colonies would (when judged by such a Parliament for the best interest of the whole) be more cheerfully submitted to and more easily executed.

I should hope, too, that by such a union the people of Great Britain and the people of the colonies would learn to consider themselves as not belonging to a different community with different interests but to one community with one interest, which I imagine would contribute to strengthen the whole and greatly lessen the danger of future separations.

It is, I suppose, agreed to be the general interest of any state that its people be numerous and rich; men enough to fight in its defense and enough to pay sufficient taxes to defray the charge; for these circumstances tend to the security of the state and its protection from foreign power. But it seems not of so much importance whether the fighting be done by John or Thomas, or the tax paid by William or Charles. The iron manufacture employs and enriches British subjects, but is it of any importance to the state whether the manufacturers live at Birmingham, or Sheffield, or both, since they are still within its bounds, and their wealth and persons still at its command? Could the Goodwin Sands be laid dry by banks, 5 and land equal to a large country thereby gained to England, and presently filled with English inhabitants, would it be right to deprive such inhabitants of the common privileges enjoyed by other Englishmen -- the right of vending their produce in the same ports, or of making their own shoes, because a merchant or a shoemaker living on the old land might fancy it more for his advantage to trade or make shoes for them? Would this be right even if the land were gained at the expense of the state? And would it not seem less right if the charge and labor of gaining the additional territory to Britain had been borne by the settlers themselves? And would a not the hardship appear yet greater if the people of the new country should be allowed no representatives in the Parliament enacting such impositions?

Now, I look on the colonies as so many countries gained to Great Britain, and more advantageous to it than if they had been gained out of the seas around it of coasts and joined to its land; for, being in different climates, they afford greater variety of produce, and being separated by the ocean, they increase much more its shipping and seamen; and since they are all included in the British Empire, which has only extended itself by their means, and the strength and wealth of the parts are the strength and wealth of the whole, what imports it to the general state whether a merchant, a smith, or a hatter grow rich in Old or New England? And if, through increase of people, two smiths are wanted for one employed before, why may not the new smith be allowed to live and thrive in the new country, as well as the old in the old? In fine, why should the countenance of a state be partially afforded to its people, unless it be most in favor of those who have most merit? And if there be any difference, those who have most contributed to enlarge Britain's empire and commerce, increase her strength, her wealth, and the numbers of her people, at the risk of their own lives and private fortunes in new and strange countries, methinks ought rather to expect some preference. With the greatest respect and esteem, I have the honor to be

Your Excellency's most obedient and most humble servant,
B. FRANKLIN

Source: American Constitution Society

That self-same statesman's interrogation at Parliament, clearly stating the will of the American people to resist British tyranny in legal ways, not through rebellion:

Q. What is your name, and place of abode?
A. Franklin, of Philadelphia.
Q. Do the Americans pay any considerable taxes among themselves?
A. Certainly many, and very heavy taxes.
Q. What are the present taxes in Pennsylvania, laid by the laws of the
colony?
A. There are taxes on all estates, real and personal; a poll tax; a tax on
all offices, professions, trades, and businesses, according to their profits;
an excise on all wine, rum, and other spirit; and a duty of ten pounds per
head on all Negroes imported, with some other duties.
Q. For what purposes are those taxes laid?
A. For the support of the civil and military establishments of the country,
and to discharge the heavy debt contracted in the last [Seven Years']
war.
Q. Are not all the people very able to pay those taxes?
A. No. The frontier counties, all along the continent, have been frequently
ravaged by the enemy and greatly impoverished, are able to pay very
little tax.
Q. Are not the colonies, from their circumstances, very able to pay the
stamp duty?
A. In my opinion there is not gold and silver enough in the colonies to
pay the stamp duty for one year.
Q. Don't you know that the money arising from the stamps was all to be
laid out in America?
A. I know it is appropriated by the act to the American service; but it will
be spent in the conquered colonies, where the soldiers are, not in the
colonies that pay it.
Q. Do you think it right that America should be protected by this country
and pay no part of the expense?
A. That is not the case. The colonies raised, clothed, and paid, during
the last war, near 25,000 men, and spent many millions.
Q. Were you not reimbursed by Parliament?
A. We were only reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced
beyond our proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected
from us; and it was a very small part of what we spent. Pennsylvania, in
particular, disbursed about 500,000 pounds, and the reimbursements, in
the whole, did not exceed 60,000 pounds.
Q. Do you think the people of America would submit to pay the stamp
duty, if it was moderated?
A. No, never, unless compelled by force of arms.
Q. What was the temper of America towards Great Britain before the
year 1763?
A. The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the government of
the Crown, and paid, in all their courts, obedience to acts of
Parliament.
Q. What is your opinion of a future tax, imposed on the same principle
with that of the Stamp Act? How would the Americans receive it?
A. Just as they do this. They would not pay it.
Q. Have not you heard of the resolutions of this House, and of the House
of Lords, asserting the right of Parliament relating to America, including a
power to tax the people there?
A. Yes, I have heard of such resolutions.
Q. What will be the opinion of the Americans on those resolutions?
A. They will think them unconstitutional and unjust.
Q. Was it an opinion in America before 1763 that the Parliament had no
right to lay taxes and duties there?
A. I never heard any objection to the right of laying duties to regulate
commerce; but a right to lay internal taxes was never supposed to be in
Parliament, as we are not represented there.

Q. Did the Americans ever dispute the controlling power of Parliament to
regulate the commerce?
A. No.
Q. Can anything less than a military force carry the Stamp Act into
execution?
A. I do not see how a military force can be applied to that purpose.
Q. Why may it not?
A. Suppose a military force sent into America; they will find nobody in
arms; what are they then to do? They cannot force a man to take stamps
who chooses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion; they may
indeed make one. [Keirador's note: despite Franklin's warning, troops WERE dispatched to the colonies to end the boycott through intimidation, and it did nothing but spark resent. See the Quartering Act.]
Q. If the act is not repealed, what do you think will be the
consequences?
A. A total loss of the respect and affection the people of America bear to
this country, and of all the commerce that depends on that respect and
affection.
Q. How can the commerce be affected?
A. You will find that, if the act is not repealed, they will take very little of
your manufactures in a short time.
Q. Is it in their power to do without them?
A. I think they may very well do without them.
Q. Is it their interest not to take them?
A. The goods they take from Britain are either necessaries, mere
conveniences, or superfluities. The first, as cloth, etc., with a little
industry they can make at home; the second they can do without till they
are able to provide them among themselves; and the last, which are mere
articles of fashion, purchased and consumed because the fashion in a
respected country; but will now be detested and rejected. The people
have already struck off, by general agreement, the use of all goods
fashionable in mourning.
Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would it induce the assemblies
of America to acknowledge the right of Parliament to tax them, and
would they erase their resolutions [against the Stamp Act]?
A. No, never.
Q. Is there no means of obliging them to erase those resolutions?
A. None that I know of; they will never do it, unless compelled by force of
arms.
Q. Is there a power on earth that can force them to erase them?
A. No power, how greatsoever, can force men to change their
opinions.
Q. What used to be the pride of the Americans?
A. To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great Britain.
Q. What is now their pride?
A. To wear their old clothes over again, till they can make new ones.

Source: The Parliamentary History of England (London:
1813), XVI, 138-159.


What else is necessary?

 

[Hotpoint]

It actually would not have been as grave a problem as one might think. At that point, the New England and MidAtlantic colonies were already renouncing slavery, and in the South restrictions were being placed on the continuation of the slave trade. The booming cotton economy that would make slavery the pedestal of Southern life would not occur for decades later with the invention of the cotton gin, making cotton possible to profitably cultivate in the south.

Slavery was still legal in every one of the 13 Colonies in 1774, it wasn't until 1777 that the first state prohibited Slavery (Vermont) with most of the rest laggging some years behind. Connecticut was the first to end the slave trade (although you were allowed to still have slaves there) in 1772* however

Even in the Northern States Slavery was still going to be around for decades to come. New York for example didn't even introduce a gradual process of ending slavery until 1799 and New Jersey not until 1804.

One point that might be worth noting here is that at the dawn of the United States in 1776 20% of the population of the 13 Colonies were slaves. In 1860 it was 14%. Even in a southern state like Virginia the percentage of slaves was actually lower at the start of the Civil War than it had been during the War of Independence.



* Rhode Island also banned the international slave trade in 1772 but still allowed trading between states.

 

[Keirador]

I said the more northernly colonies were renouncing slavery, not illegalizing it. Abolitionist groups in the Revolutionary era were gathering strength in the North, and their slaveholder statistics are rather skewed; because a significant but indeterminate amount of Northern slaveowners were freed slaves who could only reunite with their families by buying them.

 

[Hotpoint]

I said the more northernly colonies were renouncing slavery, not illegalizing it. Abolitionist groups in the Revolutionary era were gathering strength in the North, and their slaveholder statistics are rather skewed; because a significant but indeterminate amount of Northern slaveowners were freed slaves who could only reunite with their families by buying them.

I'm not doubting rising abolitionist sentiment in the North rather I was expressing doubt at your assertion that "It actually would not have been as grave a problem as one might think", given the fact that although the acceptance of slavery may have been waning in some parts of the colonies, in the 1770's it was still entrenched enough generally to cause serious trouble in the scenario I offered.

As for the numbers of slaves your counter-point fails to account for the percentage of slaves in the South.

 

[YNCS]

In 1789, during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, slave owners had to be careful because any slave who had lived in Philadelphia for a year and a day was automatically freed. So slave owners, had to be sure to get their slaves out of Philly before time ran out.

 

[Keirador]

I'm not doubting rising abolitionist sentiment in the North rather I was expressing doubt at your assertion that "It actually would not have been as grave a problem as one might think", given the fact that although the acceptance of slavery may have been waning in some parts of the colonies, in the 1770's it was still entrenched enough generally to cause serious trouble in the scenario I offered.

As for the numbers of slaves your counter-point fails to account for the percentage of slaves in the South.

Alright, I'll concede. So you think had the Brits allowed colonial representation in Parliament, the South would have tried to secede? This brings up another point. Would they have had the stones to secede in that situation? In the Civil War, they were counting on British assistance, and their failure to procure it was a huge part of why the lost. With the Brits and the Yanks in collusion against them, would secession have been an option?