Tom Scalia Hist 353 Dr.

Adams Historiography of African Americans in the Era of the Revolution Within the Journal of African American History Within the Journal of African American History, formerly known as the Journal of Negro History, the role of African Americans in the American Revolution is a topic discussed by many historians. A majority of the articles are written in the middle of the twentieth century, however the topic is discussed as early as 1916 and as late as 1999. Historians have chose different issues to focus on while writing about the role of African Americans in the Revolutionary War; some choose to focus on their military service, where as some discuss rights for African Americans. Some historians even write about the founding fathers and their views on African Americans during the American Revolution. Despite there being such a great variety in the subject matter, the historians writing for the Journal of African American History tend to be writing in an attempt to either remind or enlighten the reader about the contributions of African Americans in the founding of our nation. The most significant reason that historians are writing about African Americans roles in the revolution seems to be to remind the reader of their contribution to America. In 1969, Historian I. A. Newby published an article titled Historians and Negroes. In this article he attempts to show how it took white historians until 1969 to realize

African Americans have a legitimate place in American history. Newby argues, White Americans have suddenly discovered that blacks have a history, and blacks have found new assurance that their history is worth knowing. Historians and educators now generally recognize that Carter Woodson saw long ago; classroom and textbook accounts of American history have too often ignored Negros and reflected the racism which permeates our national life.1 Newby goes as far as to argue that the lack of knowledge, especially by whites is the reason for racism that exists in American. He writes that it is important for African Americans to understand their history, but that is only part of the problem, the real problem according to Newby is to have whites know about African American history.2 Newby explains his theory that there are two different types of African American History; what blacks have done in American, and what whites have done to them. The portion of history regarding what American Americans have done involves a discussion on the major contributions by African Americans in American history, whereas the other portion, what white people have don't to African Americans involves a discussion as to the malicious treatment and the racism that existed in white society. According to Newby, The two sides are equally important, but their relative significance for whites and blacks is not the same. It is imperative that both races know both

I.A. Newby, Historians and Negros, The Journal of Negro History 54, no.1 (1969): 32. 2 Ibid., 32.
1

elements of Negro history. Blacks, however, have a more urgent need to know what their race has accomplished in America, while whites must recognize what their own race has done to Negros.3 Throughout the rest of his article, Newby discusses specific historians who he believes have neglected to give the proper credit to African Americans. Newby mentions notable historians such as Ulrich Bonnell Phillips and Wilbur J. Cash as historians who have wronged African Americans through their interpretation of history. He argues that these historians focus too much on the white south rather than African Americans and their experience. Newby also attribute the poor treatment of African Americans in American history to racism. In Newbys opinion, only a racist historian could write, under slavery, they were allowed opportunity for expressing the natural joyousness of the African temperament; and hardship was felt rather by individuals than by the mass slaves.4 Others have published articles that critique other historians works; for example, Staughton Lynds 1963 article, Turner, Beard and Slavery critizeses both Fredrick Jackson Turner and Charles Beard for systematically minimizing slaverys importance. Lynd argues by minimizing the significance of slavery, Turner and Beard inevitably also minimized the significance of slavery.5 According to Lynd, Beard minimized the significance of slavery by regarding slavery during the Ibid., 32. Ibid., 39. 5 Staughton Lynd, Turner, Beard and Slavery The Journal of Negro History 48, No. 4 (1963): 236.
3 4

period of the American Revolution as a form of agrarianism.6 This means that rather than defining slavery as a cruel institution, Beard describes it as an institution to aid Americas agrarian society. Historian W. B. Hartgrove also argues that historians have neglected African Americans specifically in terms of their Military Service . In his 1916 article titled The Negro Soldier in the American Revolution, he writes Historians have failed to consider the bearing of the status of the free Negro during the colonial period, the meaning of the Revolution to the Negro, and what the service of the Negro soldiers first enlisted effected in changing the attitude of the people toward the blacks throughout the original thirteen colonies.7 In other words, historians have neglected to include the significance of African Americans service in the American Revolution. Hartgrove attempts to show how African Americans were enthusiastic about their opportunity to fight for America. He argues, When the revolution came the Negro was actually in the army before the question of his enlistment could be raised by those who had not yet been won to the cause of universal freedom. Feeling the same patriotism which the white man experienced, the Negro bared his breast to the bullet and gave his life as a sacrifice for the liberty of his

Ibid., 244. W. B. Hartgrove, The Negro Soldier in the American Revolution The Journal of African American History 1, No.2 (1916): 110.
6 7

country.8 Another historian, Alan D. Watson, also discusses African Americans enthusiasm for joining the army in order to escape slavery. In his 1978 article Impulse Toward Independence: Resistance and Rebellion Among North Carolina Slaves, Watson argues, Bondsmen in the colony [North Carolina] continually protested their servitude, and at the outbreak of the Revolution many appear ready to secure their freedom as whites prepared to seek liberation from British tyranny.9 Although slaves and free African Americans may have been enthusiastic about joining the army, some whites were against it. In his article, The Persistence of Slavery and Involuntary Servitude in a Free State, which discusses slaves in New Jersey during the revolutionary era; Simeon F. Moss highlights how some individuals from New Jersey were leery about allowing African Americans into the army. According to Moss, many feared that a loosening of curbs on the slave population while the war was in progress might encourage them to desert their masters and espouse the loyalist cause.10 Some slave owners in New Jersey believed that freedom for themselves must come before freedom for slaves. Perhaps this belief is why some from New Jersey did not want to free slaves to fight in the war. According to the Wills for the Revolutionary period, only one slave was manumitted in the ten year Ibid., 112 Alan D. Watson, Impulse Toward Independence: Resistance and Rebellion Among North Carolina Slaves 63, No. 4 (1978): 317. 10 Simeon F. Moss, The Persistence of Slavery and Involuntary Servitude in a Free State The Journal of Negro History 35, No. 3 (1950): 298.
8 9

period between 1774 and 1783.11 Moss also attributes the fact that only one slave was manumitted during this period to the fact that slaves were needed during the revolution. He writes, While the war was in progress, manumissions decreased, but this was the case chiefly because slave labor was necessary for the maintenance of a sufficient supply of goods and agricultural products for the Continental Army.12 W. B. Hartgrove also discusses how colonists did not want African Americans to serve in the army. Hartgrove claims that some colonists had the idea that the negro was a savage, too stupid to be employed in fighting the battles of freemen. Others were fearful of the result from setting the example of employing an uncivilized people to fight the British.13 Eventually African Americans were allowed to participate in the war effort. Hartgrove claimed that colonists allowed African Americans into the army because they feared that the British would either entice them to rebel against the colonists or convince them to join the British Army. Watson highlights a specific example of slaves being used to stop the American Revolution. He claims that at the start of the revolution Governor Lord Dumore used a regiment of Ethiopian slaves to try and prevent Virginia from proceeded with the rebellion.14 Historian Mary Beth Norton in her 1973 article The Fate of Some Black Loyalists of the Moss., 301. Ibid., 301. 13 Hartgrove., 113. 14 Watson., 315.
11 12

American Revolution, also discusses how the British enticed slaves to join their army with promises of freedom. She starts off by discussing the paradox that existed during the revolutionary period. She explains how it is ironic that the colonists were fighting for equal rights of man, yet they still held slaves and some even refused to allow them to fight. According to Norton, American blacks themselves recognized the existence of this paradox and demonstrated their awareness of it by joining the British in large numbers, indeed by the ten thousands according to historian estimates.15 Norton also argues that Lord Dunmore was guilty of recruiting slaves for the British army; she writes, In November 1775, Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, promised freedom to all indentured servants, Negros, or others that are able and willing to bear arms.16 According to historian Philip Ranlet in his 1999 article The British, Slaves and Smallpox in Revolutionary Virginia, once the British acquired Portsmouth, they began recruiting slaves for their army. Ranlet writes, Portsmouth, first taken by British General Alexander Leslie in October 1780, became a base for British raids in eastern Virginia throughout the first half of 1781. These British expeditions encouraged many Virginian slaves to seek their freedom.17 Hartgrove argues for another reason that slaves were allowed to Mary Beth Norton, The Fate of Some Black Loyalists of the American Revolution, The Journal of Negro History, 58 No. 4 (1973): 403. 16 Ibid., 403. 17 Philip Ranlet, The British, Slaves, and Smallpox in Revolutionary Virginia, The Journal of Negro History 84, No. 3 (1999): 218.
15

join the colonial army. He argues that once the colonists heard that African Americans were upset that they werent allowed to fight they began to worry. He writes, Informed that the free Negros who had served in the ranks in New England were sorely displeased at their exclusion from the service and fearing that they might join the enemy, Washington departed from the established policy of the staff and gave the recruiting officers leave to accept such Negros.18 Now that slaves were allowed in the army, slave masters often sent slaves to fight in their place. Both Hartgrove and historian L. P. Jackson argue this point. In his article Virginia Negro Soldiers and Seamen in the American Revolution, L. P. Jackson argues that it is apparent that the practice of masters sending their slaves into the ranks as substitutes for themselves was fairly common, for at the close of the war, the General Assembly passed an act to provide for the freedom of such slaves.19 Hartgrove argues that these actions by the slave masters resulted in the establishment of the Act of Emancipation since some masters refused to grant their slaves freedom after the war.20 All of the previously mentioned historians attempt to show the reader that African Americans in the revolutionary era contributed to the colonists winning the war. The articles mentioned range throughout the Hartgrove., 117. L. P. Jackson, Virginia Negro Soldiers and Seamen in the American Revolution, The Journal of African American History 27, No. 3 (1942): 254. 20 Hartgrove., 119.
18 19

twentieth century, however they still write about similar issues. All of the historians seem to mention how colonists were leery about letting African Americans join the arm, the reasons the colonists allowed slaves to join the army, as well as what African Americans roles were in the war. In order to make their arguments about African American service in the revolution, these historians use a wide range of sources. Most of them are able to incorporate both primary and secondary sources in their articles. For the primary sources, these historians used anything ranging from a diary to a manuscript. The use of primary sources is advantageous to those reading or studying history because it allows them to see history at face value rather than through a historians point of view. The older articles seem to show African Americans in a different way when compared to the more articles. This is seen through their language when talking about African Americans. Historians like Jackson and Hartgrove freely use the term Negro in their work; perhaps this is due to a racial bias or just a product of the time that these articles were written. More recent articles like, Ranlets article The British, Slaves and Small Pox in Revolutionary Virginia do not include terms such as Negro when referring to African Americans. After reading the articles that cover African Americans service in the war, a question still remains. These historians have included little to no narratives from African Americans who fought in their discussions. It would be interesting to read about the topic more from the point of view of the

African Americans rather than the white slave masters. Perhaps it would reveal more information pertaining to the motives for African Americans to fight for a country that keeps them enslaved. Historians not only wrote about the times leading up to and during African American service in the continental army, some write about the aftermath of their service. Two historians took interesting perspectives on the topic; Sidney Kaplan wrote an article in 1948 titles A Negro Veteran in Shays Rebellion, which discusses the role on African Americans in the rebellion; Mary Beth Norton wrote her article The Fate of Some Black Loyalists of the American Revolution, in order to discuss what happened to African Americans who joined the British Army. Kaplan uses an indictment from Massachusetts to show how one individual, Moses Sash, was involved in the rebellion. The indictment reads, The jurors of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts upon their oath present that Moses Sash of Worthingtona Negro man and laborer being a disorderly, riotous and seditious person and minding and contriving as much as in him lay unlawfully by force of arms to stir up promote incite and maintain riots.21 Kaplan goes on to reveal more evidence that Moses was not only present at the rebellion but the fact that he participated in it. Norton attempts to show how the British promised liberty to any African American who served in the army, but often recanted this promise. She reveals that the British promised Sidney Kaplan, A Negro Veteran in Shays Rebellion, The Journal of African American History 33, No.2 (1948): 124.
21

refugee loyalists from America the option to be reimbursed for lost or damaged property as well as support to help them get settled in England. However, Norton argues A total of forty-seven blacks formally applied in England for pensions or property compensation. Of these, only one was awarded anything for his property losses; three received miniscule annual allowanced and twenty were given small sums of money.22 She contrasts this with the compensation of white loyalists and reveals that most white individuals were rewarded handsomely for their services. These articles being a little less than thirty years apart both discuss the aftermath for African American individuals who served in the war. They both do so in an interesting and diverse manner however, they also seem to leave out substantial evidence from slave narratives in their research. Another popular topic among historians is the various freedoms that were given or removed from African Americans during the revolution. In his 1953 article The Dilemma of the Rights of Man, Charles H. Wesley argues that whites could have done more during and after the revolution to guarantee rights for African Americans, they however chose not too. He argues there was inconsistency in the declarations advocating the rights of life, liberty, happiness, equality and fraternity for themselves [whites] while denying these rights to others, and particularly to the great body of Negros who were in the opposite
22

Norton., 404.

position to any and all of these rights.23 He reveals the paradox that African Americans were trusted into; Wesley uses George Buchanan to help convey this paradox. According to Wesley, Buchanan in An Oration upon the Moral and Political Evil of Slavery writes, Who could have suggested that American patriotism would at this day countenance a conduct so inconsistent that while America boasts of being a land of freedom and asylum for the oppressed of Europe, she should at the same time foster an abominable nursery for slaves.24 Buchanan and Wesley both argue the idea that America abused the Rights of Man by holding slaves after they had won their independence. In another article, Wesley writes about how the fact that African Americans were denied the right to suffrage contradicted revolutionary ideals. He discusses the various petitions that were started by African Americans in an attempt to win freedom for themselves. He argues Petitions directed attention to the rights of man as advocated in the American Revolution and the contrary practice in slavery.25 In these two articles, Wesley discusses how he believes whites wronged African Americans after the revolutionary war and the struggles that African Americans went through to gain freedom. Constance Baker Motley makes a similar argument to Wesley, Charles H. Wesley, The Dilemma of the Rights of Man, The Journal of African American History, 38 no. 1 (1953): 16. 24 Ibid., 23. 25 Charles H. Wesley, Negro Suffrage in the Period of Constitution Making, The Journal of African American History 32, No. 2 (1947): 152.
23

however, Motley argues that the fight for freedom for African Americans still continues today. On the eve of the bicentennial anniversary of the revolution, Motley writes, It was a revolution directed not only toward achieving the military victories necessary for independence but also toward establishing the political and legal framework necessary to assure all persons the right to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness free from unwarranted governmental interference. Consequently, unlike the military battles of the revolution, its legal and political struggles continue today.26 Motley also argues that there is a similar fight for representation in America two hundred years after the revolution. She writes, one of the basic complaints of the colonists against England was their lack of representation in the English Parliament despite the fact that they supported the government financially with their taxes and were subject to its laws. A similar fight has been waged by black lawyers for many years.27 In this article, she attempts to show how African Americans were fighting for their rights during the revolutionary era and continue to fight for rights in todays society. A similar argument is presented by historian Louis Ruchames in his article The sources of Racial Thought in Colonial America. In his article, he attempts to argue that slavery in the colonial era is the root of Constance B. Motley, The Quest for Freedom 1776-1976: The Continuing American Revolution, The Journal of African American History 61, No. 1 (1976): 8. 27 Ibid., 11.
26

the racism that is present in America today. He writes, The white mans enslavement of the African Negro, as a being obviously different from himself, and the ability to continue to do so with impunity, where the basic factors in the origin of prejudice and discrimination toward the black man.28 Ruchames attempts to convey his argument be explaining how whites during the revolutionary period saw it necessary to keep slavery alive because it was beneficial to the African Americans; this in his opinion is the root of racial thoughts in America today because some whites held on to this opinion for so long. Another historian, John Lofton also argues that slavery is the root of racial thought in America. In his article, Enslavement of the Southern Mind, he examines the history of South Carolina and Virginia during the revolutionary period and compares their racial thoughts to current feelings. According to Lofton, the intensity of white racial feeling is in direct ratio to the intensity of the desire to maintain economic and political status quo. The attempt to implement this desire is buttressed by the stereotype of the inferior Negro. Subordination of the Negro is justified by racial mythology.29 Wesley, Motley, Lofton and Ruchames all have similar arguments in their articles. All four of these historians attempt to show the sources of racism in America are because whites have contradicted their Louis Ruchames, The Sources of Racial Thought in Colonial America, The Journal of African American History 52, No. 4 (1967): 272. 29 John Lofton, Enslavement of the Southern Mind, The Journal of Negro History 43, No. 2 (1958): 139.
28

revolutionary principles. Motley fails to use primary sources from the revolutionary era in her article; however, this is because she attempts to use current issues to prove that African Americans are still struggling to fight for their freedoms. These writers do not seem to have an overt bias in their articles, despite the fact that these articles were written in a time where racial bias was prevalent in American History. They do however use the term negro often, however, as previously mentioned this may be a product of the times. This is a significant topic to research and discuss because it not only deals with America during the revolutionary period, it also deals with America and its current issues with racism. Many historians have chosen to publish articles concerning the rights and liberties given to African Americans both free and in bondage during the revolutionary period. Some also focus on the treatment of African Americans by white colonists during the revolution. Most historians attempt to argue that slaves were being exploited and abused by white colonists during the revolutionary period. For example, Darold D. Wax discusses in detail the logistics of the domestic slave trade and the slave market. He does so in an attempt to enlighten the reader of the many atrocities that existed within the institution of slavery. Wax shows the reader how picky slave owners were when buying their slaves; he writes, There were masters who preferred that slaves be seasoned to the country, and when they were able to exercise a degree

of control over the quality of slaves they were prepared to lay out their hard earned cash.30 Wax also discusses the various duties placed on slaves and claims that New York placed duties on their slaves all through the colonial and revolutionary period. According to Wax, this was because slaves coming from another state were often damaged, weak, or sickly.31 The discussion of the domestic slave trade is important to examine when studying the role of African Americans during the revolutionary period because it shows that colonists were not very interested in eliminating slavery and freeing those in bondage, they would rather do what they could to make as much money off of them. Another historian who discusses the rights and liberties that African Americans had access to is, Donnie D. Bellamy. He focused his article specifically on African Americans in Georgia. In his article, Bellamy argues that the legal status of free and enslaved African Americans was quite similar. According to his article, Laws which regulated the activities of the bondsmen were usually extended to free blacks, and violations of the laws brought the same penalties for both groups.32 Bellamy also reveals that free African Americans were not allowed to own their own residences in Georgia, they were required to live with their guardian. Free slaves were also not given the right to Darold D. Wax, Slave Preferences in Colonial America, The Journal of African American History 58, No. 4 (1973): 374. 31 Ibid., 384. 32 Donnie D. Bellamy, The Legal Status of Black Georgians During the Colonial and Revolutionary Eras, The Journal of African American History, 74 No. (1989): 5.
30

protection from illegal search and seizure.33 According to Bellamys arguments, free African Americans were in a precarious position where they did not have the rights than white men had, yet they were protected from bondage. Bellamy argues that Legally, free blacks were not significantly different from slaves, and no, the American Revolutionary philosophies did not significantly moderate the evils of slavery.34 Historian Debra L. Newman discusses the rights of African Americans during the revolutionary period, however she decides to focuses specifically on women. Newman attempts to show how the hardest difficulty for newly free African American women was how to make money. She argues that, The greatest transition for the black woman during the era of the American Revolution was the move from slavery to freedom. Economic improvement was practically nonexistent for all but few of these women.35 She also explains how it was common to have African American women work in the house as cooks and maids. Newman claims that it was so popular to have women perform this task during the revolution to help out white housewives.36 Wax, Bellamy and Newman write their articles with the intent on Ibid., 5. Ibid., 1. 35 Debra L. Newman, Black Women in the Era of the American Revolution in Pennsylvania, The Journal of Negro History, 61 No. 3 (1976): 283. 36 Ibid., 283.
33 34

enlightening the reader of the social standing of African Americans during the revolutionary period. Wax chooses to examine the domestic slave trade and how it shows the opinions that whites had of African Americans. Bellamy on the other hand attempts to show how what rights were given to African Americans in Georgia while Newman specifically focuses on Women. All of these historians choose to write their articles about the rights given to African Americans, however they choose to do so in a different way. Their discussions are important to history because it is helps to enlighten readers how whites treated their slaves and free African Americans. One last topic found in The Journal of Negro History is how the founding fathers view African Americans. Two historians, John R. Howe, Jr. and Pearl M. Graham write their respected articles three years apart. John R. Howe, Jr.s article John Adamss Views of Slavery attempts to show how John Adams had hatred towards slavery. Howe writes, The repugnance of Negro slavery seemed to Adams so obvious as hardly to merit argument. The rural New England society from which he came, full of proud, independent farmers, and almost empty of Negros, found nothing appealing about human bondage.37 Adams specifically feared that there would be slave insurrection if colonists refuse to end slavery. John Adams wrote to his daughter, that there will be an insurrection of blacks against the whites if there wasnt an effort to end slavery. John R. Howe, Jr. John Adamss Views of Slavery, The Journal of African American History, 49 No. 3 (1964): 201.
37

Although Adams felt that slavery is a terrible institution, he feared that if slaves were free, they may create numerous difficulties for America. Adams was worried that freeing slaves would result in the necessity of robbery, plunder and massacre to preserve their lives, since they wouldn't be able to earn money otherwise.38 Pearl M. Graham took a different approach when discussing founding fathers views on slavery. Her article titled, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, discusses the complicated relationship that existed between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. According to Graham, Thomas Jeffersons private holograph papers reveal that he is most likely the father of all of Sally Hemings children. Graham goes on to discuss Thomas Jeffersons views on emancipation. She claims that, he advocated emancipation, but insisted that freed blacks must be colonized outside the borders of the United States.39 She goes as far as to claim that if Thomas Jefferson lived during the 1960s, he would support the apartheid in Africa. Both of these historians discuss the views of the founding fathers on slaves differently. While Howe writes his article on John Adams in a positive manner, Graham writes hers more negatively. Grahams article is important in the understanding of American history because it is different from the typical portrayal of the founding fathers. Rather Ibid., 204. Pearl M. Graham, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, The Journal of African American History 46, No. 2 (1961) 103.
38 39

than falling into the myth of the founding fathers, she decided to write the opposite. After reading these articles, the question of how other founding fathers truly felt about slaves and African Americans remains. It would be interesting to read historical writings that veer from the traditional glorification of founding fathers. The trend within The Journal of African American History seems to be to show African Americans in a positive manner while enlightening the reader of their contributions. The difference in historians viewpoint may be attributed to the fact that they grew up in a racist society or just a product of the times. Although racism exists in The Journal of African American History, there does not seem to be much racial bias in the journal. The best historians who have written for The Journal of African American History in my opinion are those who include primary sources, however, most do not use slave narratives. This is detrimental to the discussion of American history because it only tells American history through the perspective of whites. The question that still remains after reading the articles from the journal pertaining to African Americans during the revolution is whether or not Americans actually give African Americans credit for helping in the revolution. Numerous historians write their articles to try to show their readers the role of African Americans in the revolution, but are they successful in their goal? In order for this to be answered, more

articles need to be published and high school teachers must teach about the role of African Americans in the revolution.