Black Loyalists

           In some respects, the American Revolution has been deemed an exclusive struggle between the British Crown and the rebellious colonies.  In the effort to attain independence and freedom from tyranny, the majority of America turned a blind eye to its slave population which desired the exact same thing.  As the war progressed and manpower became limited, the British opened its enlistments to runaway slaves or free blacks under Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation.  Many slaves believed that aligning themselves as Loyalists would be beneficial for their self-interests and that of the entire slave population in the colonies.  Even though Lord Dunmore promised freedom to the runaway slaves, many black loyalists found that they were still in a state of servitude to the British Crown after the war – especially in the colony of Sierra Leone.  This research will address whether freedom was truly given or taken by the British Crown from the black loyalists and provide reflection on what Lord Dunmore may have meant by the term “freedom” in his proclamation.  By evaluating the use of black troops during the American Revolution for both the Patriot and Loyalist cause, the story of the black soldier can be further appreciated during this momentous event in the Atlantic World.

            Once war ravaged the colonies, both the American colonies and the British Crown struggled to provide adequate manpower to sustain the war.  Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, felt obligated to resolve the issue due to the rising tension between the colonists and Parliament.  As a result, Lord Dunmore established martial law in the colony of Virginia in hopes of preventing a rebellion.  The colonists of Virginia were furious by this seemingly abuse of power as stated by the Virginia Delegates, “If the governor can be authorized to introduce martial law and annul the laws of this land, let us at once bend our neck to the galling yoke and hug the chains prepared for us” (Convention, 64).  On November 7, 1775, Lord Dunmore announced that he would provide freedom to any runaway slaves that wished to serve under the British Crown against the American rebels.  As announced by Lord Dunmore in the Virginia Gazette,


And to the end that peace and good order may the sooner be restored, I do require every person capable of bearing arms to resort to his majesty’s standard, or be looked upon as traitors to his majesty’s crown and government, and thereby become liable to the penalty the law inflicts upon such offenses, such as the forfeiture of life, confiscation of lands, and etc.  And I do hereby farther declare all indentured servants, Negroes, or others (appertaining to rebels) free (Dunmore, 2).
         
          Colonial newspapers such as the Virginia Gazette published Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation not only to inform the colonists of British intentions, but to also warn and discourage free blacks and slaves from joining the Loyalist cause (Quarles, 498).  For example, directly following Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation in the Virginia Gazette, John Pinkney, the editor of the paper, forms a response which reassures the colonists and warns potential runaway slaves that Lord Dunmore intends to mislead them with false promises of freedom.  Pinkney warns that only young male slaves that can provide military service will be granted freedom while, “The aged, infirm, the women, and children, are still to remain the property of their masters who will be provoked to severity should part of their slaves desert them (Pinkney, 2).  The editor also places blame on the British government for bringing the institution of slavery to the American colonies and questions whether Lord Dunmore would upkeep his promise of freedom to the slaves when the royal governor himself even owned slaves.  Various newspapers declared that the slaves would simply be sold to slavery in the West Indies to the profit of the British Crown and never get the chance to experience battle.  Despite warnings by various colonial newspapers such as, “Be not then, ye negroes tempted by this proclamation to ruin yourselves,” many slaves and free blacks ran to British lines anyway – perhaps because the slaves trusted the British over their current masters or because the great majority of slaves were illiterate (Pinkney, 2).  

          Hundreds of free blacks and runaway slaves responded to the Proclamation – much to the surprise of Lord Dunmore.  As stated by Quarles, “Some two hundred immediately joined him, and within a week after the proclamation the number had reached three hundred” (Quarles, 501).  It is important to note, however, that the free blacks and runaway slaves did not join Lord Dunmore’s army simply because they wanted to escape the institution of slavery.  As stated in the article, Blacks as American Loyalists: The Slaves’ War for Independence, “Theirs was indeed a quest for the American Dream, for freedom, for a small farm, for dignity and security as citizens of the realm” (Walker, 54).  If runaway slaves simply wanted to escape slavery, they could have ventured to the West or formed their own maroon communities outside the control of the colonies – yet the majority did not, including free blacks.  Runaway slaves and free blacks joined ranks with Lord Dunmore, a representative of the British government; because they desired to be treated like other British subjects and believed that a British victory would mean the end of slavery in the American colonies.  In other words, the runaway slaves and free blacks aligned themselves as Loyalists in the hope of equality and to improve their individual interests as well as that of the whole slave population in the colonies – in accordance to British promises made during the American Revolution.  Unfortunately after the war, the runaway slaves and free blacks would discover that the British had no intention to commit its resources to the black loyalists or to abolish slavery.

          Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation issued widespread fear in the colonists in respects to slave rebellions and insurrections – especially in communities where slaves outnumbered whites as in South Carolina.  In Virginia, intense vigilance was practiced by the colonists to prevent runaway slaves from joining Lord Dunmore’s ranks.  Often, when a slave was captured, they were returned to their master if possible, were forced to work in the lead mines, or sold to slavery in the West Indies where they would surely die (Quarles, 500). The Virginia Convention offered to pardon the runaway slaves if they returned to their masters within ten days or be subjected to punishment, yet this proved to be ineffective (Convention, 64).  Afterwards, the Convention stated, “that all negro or other slaves, conspiring to rebel or make insurrection, shall suffer, death, and be excluded all benefit of clergy” (Convention, 66).  Despite the various ordinances issued by the colonies, slaves continued to join Lord Dunmore and the British Crown against their masters in the American Revolution. 

          George Washington and the members of Congress became overwhelmed by the size of British forces which had increased due to the enlistment of runaway slaves and free blacks.  The issue of allowing blacks into the Continental Army was not only a military question; it was also a political, economic, and social one.  Blacks already had a presence in various state militias since slaves often served as substitutes for their masters.  In Virginia, the plan was entirely struck down, “Provided always, that no recruiting officer shall be allowed to enlist into the service any servant whatsoever, unless he be an apprentice, bound under the laws of this colony, nor any such apprentice, unless the consent of his master be first had in writing” (Convention, 30).  As pressure mounted during the war, the Northern colonies began to allow the inclusion of blacks into their regiments often in non-combatant service positions and even formed all black regiments.  In New England, blacks did not constitute a large portion of the population as in the South and were not as readily needed on plantations, so many were committed to military service such as the First Rhode Island Regiment – an all-black regiment.  In the South, where prejudice was widespread and economics depended on slavery, less progress was made.  As one delegate in Congress stated, “Many northern blacks were excellent soldiers, but southern troops would not brook an equality with whites” (Maslowski, 4).  Nevertheless, many blacks joined naval services loyal to the Patriot cause since, “Danger, discomfort, and separation from home for long periods discouraged recruits, so that a captain would settle for any able-bodied hand regardless of race” (Nalty, 23).  Many black sailors helped sail the ships of the Continental and state navies and even participated in commercial raiding of British ships in hopes of profit.  Runaway slaves and free blacks did not readily join the Patriot cause as they did the Loyalists, since the Patriots offered them little in terms of their service.  Even so, many slaves and free blacks joined the Patriots in hopes of elevating their status for themselves and their fellow slaves – as well as their loyalty to the ideals of the Revolution (Greene, 124).

          Lord Dunmore’s plan to enlist numerous runaway slaves to win the war against the American colonies ultimately failed.  Smallpox and fever spread among Lord Dunmore’s ranks and especially caused high mortality among the blacks (Quarles, 505).  With a British defeat after the war, the fate of the black Loyalists was undecided.  Some slaves were given back to their masters under the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which demanded that property be returned to the Americans.  Some blacks were even sold back to slavery and those that belonged to Loyalists were never given freedom (Walker, 59).  It is important to note that the British government and army were never fully committed to the abolition of slavery or the equality of blacks.  Runaway slaves and free blacks were offered freedom because the British needed to increase its manpower during the war as stated by the British Secretary-at-War, “Things are now come to that Crisis, that we must avail ourselves of every resource, even to raise the Negroes in our case” (Maslowski, 4).  As previously stated, blacks that served behind British lines and belonged to Loyalists were rarely offered freedom (Whitfield, 7).  Thus, it appears that freedom was only granted to those that would harm the American rebels.  By enlisting numerous runaway slaves into their forces, the British were able to harm the economy of the colonists and to sequentially increase their own manpower. Thus it can be determined that Dunmore’s Proclamation was an, “isolated and desperate attempt to bring the rebellious colonies to their knees by any available means (Walker, 60).  After the British defeat, however, the British generals felt that they should keep their promises to the free blacks and runaway slaves to escape slavery by allowing them to settle in British territories such as London and Nova Scotia.  Even though their intentions perhaps meant well, the British were not able to effectively care for the destitute American slaves or to ensure their success as is evidenced in Nova Scotia, London, and Sierra Leone.

           The blacks that settled in Nova Scotia found that their promises were unfulfilled on many levels in terms of their equal rights and access to arable land as is, “Consistent with their lack of any formulated plans during the war for the ultimate disposition of blacks, British officials continued to ignore and overlook the black Loyalists in their new homes” (Walker, 64).  The land in Nova Scotia proved to be difficult to cultivate and the blacks that lived there were often oppressed by their white neighbors – who had access to the very best land almost exclusively.  Instead of owning their own land and being self-sustaining British subjects as promised, the black loyalists found that they were reduced to indentured servitude and share-cropping agreements (Walker, 65).  Consequently, in London, the destitute blacks found that their situation was no better.  Unable to find employment, the American slaves were completely dependent on the government to provide their basic needs – which proved to be an unwanted expense in Britain.  Many of the Africans turned out to be common beggars on the streets and received very little compensation in comparison to the white Loyalists who ventured to London, “The contrast with whites is instructive: few whites were denied assistance altogether, although more than half the blacks were; the allowances awarded to even the very poorest whites were usually higher than that given to the most fortunate black” (Norton, 404).  It was suggested by the British government that the blacks be moved elsewhere so that they can find employment and not be a seemingly further burden to the city (Norton, 409).  The colony of Sierra Leone appeared to be the best alternative.   Accordingly, in Nova Scotia, the blacks appeared before Parliament stating their grievances of poor land and their desire to be treated like other British subjects as promised during the American Revolution – Sierra Leone once again was deemed the appropriate solution (Walker, 75-76).

          Parliament assured the blacks that, “It is therefore declared by the Company, that every free black, upon producing such a certificate, shall have a grant of no less than twenty acres of land for himself, ten for his wife, and five for every child, upon such terms, and subject to such charges . . . whether black or white” (Company, 4-5).  Sierra Leone appeared to be the answer to what the American slaves were looking for all along: freedom, the ability to own land that was arable, to participate in such political rights as serving on jury, the exclusion of slavery, and to be free of discrimination based on their race.  Unfortunately, the Sierra Leone colony proved to provide the same disappointments as experienced in Nova Scotia and in London.  The land was inadequate and the climate harsh as noted in the official account, “In speaking of the cultivation that has taken place since the institution of the colony . . . the Directors are not yet able to report any considerable progress” (Company, 67).  Many of the emigrants to Sierra Leone died from disease, an estimated one out of ten, on the ship and found their housing provided by the government insufficient protection from the seasonal rains in Sierra Leone – which led to more death and disease (Company, 49). The black colonists also struggled with subsistence in which the British government did not adequately provide for the entire population - another indication of the British Crown’s lack of concern with the colony’s success (Norton, 413).  Eventually, the colonists began to demand their rights and reminded Parliament of their promises.  Parliament made some efforts to appease the situation for the Sierra Leone colonists, but they proved ineffective.  The problem with the Sierra Leone colony was that it was never properly planned, it was rushed, and the success of the colony was never a major concern with the British government. 

           In conclusion, the American Revolution was not simply a war between American Patriots and the supposed British oppressors; it was a complex conflict that involved Americans with various ideals and interests.  The runaway slaves and free blacks that joined Lord Dunmore did so in hopes of elevating their individual status and those of their fellow bondsmen.  Even though Lord Dunmore promised freedom to runaway slaves that served in the British military, few actually gained the freedom they hoped for – which was to be treated like other British subjects, not simply to escape slavery.  The black loyalists hoped to have the freedom to own land, be politically active, and have rights as British subjects - but were disappointed in Nova Scotia, London, and in Sierra Leone.  In fact, very few black loyalists attained the improved status they hoped for in exchange for their military service.  Further, the form of freedom that the British offered to the runaway slaves was to escape the institution of slavery, but consequently their promises of equality as British subjects never materialized.

 Bibliography 

Convention, Virginia. The Proceedings of Convention of Delegates for the Counties and Corporations in the Colony of Virginia. Ritchie, Trueheart & Du-Val Printers, 1816.

Dunmore, John. "A Proclamation." Virginia Gazette, November 23, 1775, 1775, sec. 2.

Greene, Lorenzo J. "THE NEGRO IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, 1619-1783." Negro History Bulletin 14, no. 6 (03, 1951): 123.

Maslowski, P. "National Policy Toward the use of Black Troops in the Revolution." The South Carolina Historical Magazine 73, no. 1 (1972): 1-17.

Nalty, Bernard C. "A Record of Valor: Black Soldiers before Independence." American Visions 3, no. 4 (08, 1988): 18.

Norton, Mary Beth. "The Fate of some Black Loyalists of the American Revolution." The Journal of Negro History 58, no. 4 (Oct., 1973): pp. 402-426.

Pinkney, John. "Response to Lord Dunmore's Proclamation." Virginia Gazette,1775.

Quarles, B. "Lord Dunmore as Liberator." The William and Mary Quarterly 15, no. 4 (1958): 494-507.

Sierra, Leone Company. . An Account of the Colony of Sierra Leone, from its First Establishment in 1793. being the Substance of a Report Delivered to the Proprietors. Published by Order of the Directors. London, 1795.

Walker, James W. St G. "Blacks as American Loyalists: The Slaves' War for Independence." Historical Reflections/Réflexions Historiques 2, no. 1 (22, 1975): 51.

Whitfield, Harvey Amani. "Black Loyalists and Black Slaves in Maritime Canada." History Compass 5, no. 6 (-11-01, 2007): 1980-1997.

Atlantic Faiths: Restriction and Toleration

           Through the articles, it is quite apparent there were restrictions concerning religious freedom in the Atlantic World – such as the forced removal of Jews from the Iberian Peninsula or the forced baptism of newly arrived slaves in the New World.  Even though Christianity was forced upon various peoples in the Atlantic, many still retained their traditional beliefs secretly while adhering to a public Christian appearance.  Due to the demanding economy of the Atlantic and the lack of state church power in the New World, there were various religious leniencies within the Christian faith – such as African Christianity and the port Jews in Brazil.  As a result, an outward Christian identity proved paramount, while what the individual practiced privately was of less importance.

            Sultana Afroz attempts to make the argument that the Baptist Rebellion of 1831-1832 in Jamaica was actually a jihad influenced by slaves who practiced Islam secretly.  As noted by Afroz, 56.8% of Jamaican slaves came from Muslim areas (Afroz, 228).  Even though the slaves were members of Christian churches, many retained their Islamic faith.  Jamaican slaves that adopted Christianity done so to, “avoid confrontation and punishments from the plantation owners and the church (Afroz, 231).  Thus, African slaves often adopted Christianity from their masters in order to assimilate, avoid punishment, and fit into their new environment.  In essence, the Atlantic World proved to offer no alternatives to a Christian identity publicly. 

            John K. Thornton discusses the advent of African Christianity in the New World and in Africa, which blended African and Christian religious themes.  Various papal bulls demanded slaves to be instructed in Christianity after their purchase (Thornton, 269).  African Christianity typically paired African gods with Christian saints –an effort that missionaries eventually adopted so that Christianity appeared less foreign to their future converts.  Once the Atlantic slave trade increased, African Christians – not the clergy - taught African slaves how to retain their traditional beliefs, but to also exhibit the identity of a Christian.  Even though African Christianity was far from orthodox, it was accepted in Africa, the New World, and by the Church (Thornton, 266).  In the New World, African slaves that partook in acts that were deemed “fetishisms” were often punished such as nocturnal dancing (Thornton, 277).  Thus, even though variants of Christianity such as African Christianity were accepted in the New World, outward acts considered foreign such as nocturnal dancing were not tolerated.

            Finally, Wim Klooster discusses Jews who began to create their own communities along the ports of the Atlantic, so that their trading networks allowed economic and religious benefits.  Jews were forced to leave the Iberian Peninsula and its colonies or to convert to Christianity after the Alhambra Decree. Some Jews took a Christian identity to retain their homes and businesses, but secretly continued to adhere to Judaism.  Jews who fled to Amsterdam retained a strong religious and economic relationship with the crypto-Jews of the New World colonies.  Once the Jews in the New World proved to be successful economically, the Spanish and Portuguese became suspicious of the special relationship between Brazil and Amsterdam.  In response, the Dutch invaded Brazil and overall allowed religious toleration of the Jews because they proved to be, “indispensable to the colony” economically (Klooster, 137).  This is evidence of religious toleration in the Atlantic where the rules of the state church were not enforced as vigorously in the colonies as they were in the Old World.

              In all, there were religious restrictions in the Atlantic such as the forced baptism of slaves, but there was also toleration in the New World as exhibited by the port Jews - at least in comparison to the Old World where state churches were very powerful.  The lack of state church power in the American colonies allowed individuals to adopt a Christian public identity in order to assimilate or fit into their new environment, but to still practice their traditional religion secretly.

           

Harry Washington

In Human Tradition in the Atlantic World, 1500–1850, Cassandra Pybus discusses the story of Henry “Harry” Washington.  Harry Washington was a slave of George Washington who sought refuge behind British lines during the Revolutionary War.  After his service to the British Crown, Harry embarked on a transatlantic journey around the Atlantic World to attain his own sense of independence and freedom from the plantation slave society in Virginia.  Unfortunately, Harry Washington and his fellow runaway slaves found that their promise of freedom and independence would remain ultimately unfulfilled.  Harry Washington’s account and Richard Price’s discussion of the Saramaka Maroons are similar in their process of creolization – or cultural change.  The Saramaka Maroons were runaway slaves that wished to escape slave society and used their general African ancestry to form a community that was unique, but still retained New World concepts of culture – all characteristics that Harry Washington and his group of runaway slaves exhibited. 

George Washington often spoke about the tyranny of the British Crown over the American colonies and his desire for independence and political freedom in his home on Mount Vernon.  Harry Washington, his slave, also desired to discard the tyranny of slavery.  Thus, “As the king was now Washington’s enemy, it was to His Majesty that Harry should entrust his aspirations for freedom” (Racine, 103).  Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, invited runaway slaves to join his regiment with the promise of freedom for their loyalty to the British Crown.  Harry Washington joined Dunmore’s black regiment in a non-combatant support position in the Black Pioneers (Racine, 105).  As noted by Richard Price, the Saramaka Maroons were runaway slaves that resided in Suriname or French Guiana in South America.  The goal of Harry Washington and the Saramaka Maroons were essentially freedom, but the means in which they strove to acquire it were different according to their respective time period and surrounding world events.

After the war, negotiations commenced between the British Crown and the newly independent American colonies – with an uncertain future for the runaway slaves.  Harry Washington, along with other runaway slaves that served for the British Crown in the war, settled in British New York where they formed unique communities.   “Whether they lived in barracks or in the canvas town of the burned-out districts on Manhattan, the black allies of the British formed a community, bound together by the struggle to survive and by forms of cultural expression that reached back to an African past” (Racine, 106).  The runaway slaves found that their common African past served as a solid foundation for the newly formed community in British New York as it did for the Saramaka Maroons (Price, 518). 

Once England had officially granted independence to the American colonies, the question of how to upkeep former promises of freedom to the runaway slaves came to the forefront.  The Treaty of Paris 1783 had prohibited the British Crown from, “carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American Inhabitants” (Racine, 107).  The former slave owners arrived in New York to reclaim their runaway slaves through coercion or kidnapping.  The Maroons also struggled to retain their community, “Seeking refuge in a harsh and hostile environment, they were faced with the task of creating a whole new society and culture even as they were being relentlessly pursued by heavily armed colonial troops bent on the destruction of their communities” (Price, 517).  The runaway slaves pressed the British authorities to keep their promises and protect them from their former masters, in which the British assured they would keep their moral obligation.  

Harry Washington went on a British ship with almost 400 other Africans to Birchtown, Nova Scotia in which the climate proved to be inhospitable.  The black settlers found that their promises of land grants were not fulfilled and that tensions between the white settlers were increasingly strained due to widespread poverty.  Once the prospects proved dim, Harry Washington and many other black settlers took a ship to West Africa to settle in Sierra Leone.  In Sierra Leone, the black settlers once again found their promises unfulfilled as in Nova Scotia.  Conflicts with the company that financed the land grants in Sierra Leone forced some black settlers such as Harry to runaway once again and form their own camp in which they formed their own system of politics.  The runaway black settlers were hunted down by the Sierra Leone Company to pay their debts where they were executed, forced into slavery, or banished from the colony.  Harry was banished from the colony and his experience of hardship is emulated through the words of Price describing the fortunes and misfortunes of the Maroons, “creolization involved rupture and loss, creativity and transformation, and celebration as well as silencing of cultural continuities and discontinuities.”

 Overall, the account of Harry Washington who was a runaway slave and the account of the Saramaka Maroons are very similar despite different environments and political situations.  The Saramaka Maroons simply wished to attain independence from slave society and form their own community.  Harry Washington and the American runaway slaves desired freedom as well, but extended their definition of freedom to include political rights due to the influence of the American Revolutionary War.  Through their identity of runaway slaves that used a common African past to form unique communities which emulated New World concepts – Harry Washington and the Saramaka Maroons revolved around Price’s concept of creolization and cultural change.

Atlantic Communities

            In the Atlantic World, parallels are naturally drawn between the growth in Atlantic communities and the Atlantic slave trade.  Most Atlantic communities were located near major slave ports and were thus directly affected by conditions in Africa and the slave trade.  However, the Atlantic World and its communities did not necessarily grow solely because of the slave trade itself – forces behind the slave trade caused the growth in these communities.  Such influences as local competition in the global economy along with ideals of creating a distinct social identity where boundaries of race and culture became mixed were a driving force in the Atlantic communities.  Whether in Georgia or along the Slave Coast, the people of these Atlantic communities desired to create their own distinct identity.

Bristol attempted to keep a distinct financial identity in the Atlantic as a major slave port in Britain.  Even though its financial primacy was relatively short, Bristol made significant contributions to the Atlantic slave trade.  Its contribution and impact on the slave trade is quite apparent as well as its dependency on the slave trade financially, “For some, indeed, the city’s involvement in slave trafficking in the eighteenth century is synonymous with its golden age, when the city became the metropolis of the west and was a major importer, refiner and consumer of slave-grown American sugar and tobacco” (Richardson, 35).  In order to keep its share in the Atlantic slave trade, Bristol was constantly in competition with its local rivals in Liverpool and London to increase productivity and shorten voyage length to Africa and the New World (Richardson, 42). 

The communities of the Slave Coast became part of the wider Atlantic World through its participation in the slave trade which resulted in a blending of European and African customs.  As Bristol had struggled to retain financial dominance in the slave trade, so too did the slave ports named Ouidah and Lagos along the Slave Coast due to local events such as wars.  Europeans, especially the Portuguese, took advantage of African states that were politically weak which resulted in the spread of Christianity along the Slave Coast.  Europeans married Africans and their families formed a distinct identity along the Slave Coast in which they were not either entirely African or European (Law and Mann, 327-328).  Before the abolition of slavery, there were many European settlements along the Slave Coast – Portuguese, British, and French.  Once the slave trade was abolished, however, the Portuguese community dominated on the Slave Coast.  British and French merchants retreated from the area and essentially had ceased its trade with the area.  People on the Slave Coast began to self-identify themselves different from their neighbors, but retained their special connection with Brazil during the Atlantic slave trade.

In Minas Gerais, African slaves and free blacks who were transported to Brazil through the slave trade desired to form a distinctive identity of community and family in the New World.  The African slaves and free blacks were able to achieve this through the fraternity known as the Our Lady of the Rosary which blended Portuguese and African traditions of religion.  The article’s author, Kiddy, poses the question why slaves and free blacks would join an institution that was European in origin.  According to Kiddy, Our Lady of the Rosary did not make the slaves or free blacks social equals to the Europeans, but it did allow them onto the social playing field (Kiddy, 48).  Africans experienced a sense of “social death” when they arrived in the New World – being cut off from their sense of family and community.  The fraternity allowed the Africans to incorporate and assimilate into the culture of the New World while still creating a sense of resistance among the community to have a distinct ethnic identity through their time of oppression (Kiddy, 55).

The Trustees of Georgia also wished to create a distinct identity in the New World through moral reform and creating the ideal colony.  The Trustees wished to reform and elevate the lower classes of society through physical labor with an emphasis on morals.  The Trustees are often criticized for being overly idealistic, but their efforts created a distinct community in the Atlantic World.  For instance, to elevate the lower class, slavery was banned in hopes of securing employment for the lower classes so that they could compete within the world economy.  The settlers of Georgia, however, often disagreed with the ban on African slavery by declaring whites were naturally unfit to withstand the harsh climate and labor. Many settlers also contended that the British Empire, including Georgia, could not survive and compete with its rivals without slavery.  As Spady states, “The main consequence of not using the correct racial body for labor in Georgia was that Georgian exports were not as competitive with goods exported from South Carolina as they might have otherwise been” (Spady, 241).  Even so, the Trustees desired to make Georgia an ideal colony with a distinctive moral character, “Colonials defined their identity partly by what they would not allow it to become” (Spady, 257).  Once the ban on slavery was lifted in Georgia, however, the Trustees focused their efforts of reform on orphanages in which emphasis was placed on community identity.

Overall, the Atlantic was a driving force behind the growth in the Atlantic communities.  Local competition within the global economy which depended on the slave trade allowed massive financial gains in Bristol and the Slave Coast, but also caused concerns with the social aspects of slavery in Minas Gerais and Georgia.  Even though the Atlantic communities grew in very different ways, they all strove to attain a distinct identity and a feeling of belonging in a demanding global economy.

The Sugar Revolution and Involuntary Migration

Richardson describes the Atlantic slave trade as one of many types of involuntary migration in which he elaborates on Old World traditions of indentured servitude, serfdom, and even slavery.  The Atlantic slave trade, however, was distinct from Old World forms of involuntary migrations because of its scale, mortality, and obvious racial bias (Richardson, 581).  Before the advent of sugar plantations in the New World, the economic situation in British North America and Spanish South America were quite different.  At the start of the Age of Discovery, Spain was able to mine for gold and silver in South America while the British struggled to find a major export to sell to Europe (Elliot, 92).  It is also important to note that those that migrated to South America done so in search of profit from the supposed riches in the New World while the majority of those that populated North America done so to settle and form a new home. 

In the 16^th century, once the “sugar revolution” in the New World began, the economic situation in the Americas changed with labor in high demand to work the expanding sugar plantations in the Caribbean.  There was a large population of indigenous peoples in South America – which led to Spain experimenting with the ideal that the natives would be the laborers at the mines and on the sugar plantations.  This proved ineffective as many of the natives were killed by disease. In 1542, the Spanish Crown had ruled that the indigenous peoples were not to be enslaved since they were by extension subjects of the Spanish Crown.  Other attempts were made to accommodate the growing demand for labor on the sugar plantations – but none were satisfactory.  British North America invested in tobacco and sugar plantations in the Caribbean as well – but due to a low native population in comparison to South America, it needed a sustainable labor supply as well (Elliot, 104). 

As noted by Richardson, slavery was already a long established practice in the Old World - so to expand slavery to the Caribbean seemed to be a natural progression.  “In the Old World, plantations of sugar were often identified with African slavery especially in the Middle East and Mediterranean, until it moved to Brazil and the Caribbean Islands” (Richardson, 571).  Africa had a history of enslavement often after war raids in which it was an accepted form of international commerce whether it was for economic or political gains (Richardson, 572).  After 1700, Europe began to discredit the idea of enslaving its own people while supporting the use of African labor on the sugar plantations.  At the time, African slavery appeared to be the most logical and obvious choice to supply labor to the sugar plantations in the Caribbean.  The Atlantic slave trade proved to be devastating to many African societies, while for others it was a profitable venture to supply slaves for the sugar plantations in the Americas.

According to Richardson, the need for slaves never went away even in the Old World, “The pace of involuntary displacement of people did not apparently slow down, therefore, though its location and direction evidently changed” (Richardson, 571).  According to Richardson an estimated 80% of the slaves in Africa in the Atlantic slave trade from 1500-1800 were sent to work on the sugar plantations (Richardson, 580).  As the sugar plantations expanded, the demand for replacement slaves was even higher as the life expectancy for the slaves was dim.  It was believed by the West Indian planters that buying a new slave or replacement slave from Africa would be cheaper than producing them locally (Curtin, 117).  Even though Richardson is able to draw parallels to the Atlantic slave trade in the Old World, the severity, scale, and high mortality makes it distinctive to its comparisons.  The sugar plantations and African slavery in the New World provided an environment in which the African slave was seen as disposable and replaceable, while in the Old World slavery was a constant practice.  Overall, the “sugar revolution” brought an extraordinary demand for labor in which the native population of the Americas was unable to meet – which led to the expansion of African slavery in the New World which took a distinctive nature that even today Africa appears to be feeling the effects of.