"Counter-Revolution of 1776": Was U.S. Independence War a Conservative Revolt in Favor of Slavery?
Guests
Gerald Horne,
professor of history and African American studies at the University of Houston. He is author of two new books: The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America and Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow.
DONATE →
This is viewer supported news
As the United States prepares to celebrate Independence Day, we
look at why July 4 is not a cause for celebration for all. For Native
Americans, it may be a bitter reminder of colonialism, which brought
fatal diseases, cultural hegemony and genocide. Neither did the new
republic’s promise of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
extend to African Americans. The colonists who declared their freedom
from England did not share their newly founded liberation with the
millions of Africans they had captured and forced into slavery. We speak
with historian Gerald Horne, who argues the so-called Revolutionary War
was actually a conservative effort by American colonists to protect
their system of slavery. He is the author of two new books: "The
Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the
United States of America" and "Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba
During Slavery and Jim Crow." Horne is professor of history and African
American studies at the University of Houston.
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman in Chicago with our next guest. Juan González is in New York.JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, next weekend, the United States celebrates the Fourth of July, the day the American colonies declared their independence from England in 1776. While many Americans will hang flags, participate in parades and watch fireworks, Independence Day is not a cause for celebration for all. For Native Americans, it is yet another bitter reminder of colonialism, which brought fatal diseases, cultural hegemony and full-out genocide. Neither did the new republic’s promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness extend to African Americans. As our next guest notes, the white colonists who declared their freedom from the crown did not share their newly founded liberation with the millions of Africans they had captured and forced into slavery.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Gerald Horne argues that the so-called Revolutionary War was actually a counterrevolution, in part, not a progressive step forward for humanity, but a conservative effort by American colonialists to protect their system of slavery.
For more, Professor Horne joins us here in our Chicago studio. He’s the author of two new books: The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America and another new book, just out, Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow. Professor Horne teaches history and African American studies at the University of Houston.
Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us. So, as we move into this Independence Day week, what should we understand about the founding of the United States?
GERALD HORNE: We should understand that July 4th, 1776, in many ways, represents a counterrevolution. That is to say that what helped to prompt July 4th, 1776, was the perception amongst European settlers on the North American mainland that London was moving rapidly towards abolition. This perception was prompted by Somerset’s case, a case decided in London in June 1772 which seemed to suggest that abolition, which not only was going to be ratified in London itself, was going to cross the Atlantic and basically sweep through the mainland, thereby jeopardizing numerous fortunes, not only based upon slavery, but the slave trade. That’s the short answer.
The longer answer would involve going back to
another revolution—that is to say, the so-called Glorious Revolution in
England in 1688, which, among other things, involved a step back from
the monarch—for the monarch, the king, and a step forward for the rising
merchant class. This led to a deregulation of the African slave trade.
That is to say, the Royal African Company theretofore had been in
control of the slave trade, but with the rising power of the merchant
class, this slave trade was deregulated, leading to what I call free
trade in Africans. That is to say, merchants then descended upon the
African continent manacling and handcuffing every African in sight, with
the energy of demented and crazed bees, dragging them across the
Atlantic, particularly to the Caribbean and to the North American
mainland. This was prompted by the fact that the profits for the slave
trade were tremendous, sometimes up to 1,600 or 1,700 percent. And as
you know, there are those even today who will sell their firstborn for
such a profit. This, on the one hand, helped to boost the productive
forces both in the Caribbean and on the mainland, but it led to numerous
slave revolts, not least in the Caribbean, but also on the mainland,
which helped to give the mainlanders second thoughts about London’s
tentative steps towards abolition.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ:
Gerald Horne, one of the things that struck me in your book is not only
your main thesis, that this was in large part a counterrevolution,
our—the United States’ war of independence, but you also link very
closely the—what was going on in the Caribbean colonies of England, as
well as in the United States, not only in terms of among the slaves in
both areas, but also among the white population. And, in fact, you
indicate that quite a few of those who ended up here in the United
States fostering the American Revolution had actually been refugees from
the battles between whites and slaves in the Caribbean. Could you
expound on that?
GERALD HORNE:
It’s well known that up until the middle part of the 18th century,
London felt that the Caribbean colonies—Jamaica, Barbados, Antigua, in
particular—were in some ways more valuable than the mainland colonies.
The problem was that in the Caribbean colonies the Africans outnumbered
the European settlers, sometimes at a rate of 20 to one, which
facilitated slave revolts. There were major slave revolts in Antigua,
for example, in 1709 and 1736. The Maroons—that is to say, the Africans
who had escaped London’s jurisdiction in Jamaica—had challenged the
crown quite sternly. This led, as your question suggests, to many
European settlers in the Caribbean making the great trek to the
mainland, being chased out of the Caribbean by enraged Africans. For
example, I did research for this book in Newport, Rhode Island, and the
main library there, to this very day, is named after Abraham Redwood,
who fled Antigua after the 1736 slave revolt because many of his, quote,
"Africans," unquote, were involved in the slave revolt. And he fled in
fear and established the main library in Newport, to this very day, and
helped to basically establish that city on the Atlantic coast. So, there
is a close connection between what was transpiring in the Caribbean and
what was taking place on the mainland. And historians need to recognize
that even though these colonies were not necessarily a unitary project,
there were close and intimate connections between and amongst them.
AMY GOODMAN:
So, why this great disparity between how people in the United States
talk about the creation myth of the United States, if you will—I’m not
talking about indigenous people, Native American people—and this story
that you have researched?
GERALD HORNE:
Well, it is fair to say that the United States did provide a sanctuary
for Europeans. Indeed, I think part of the, quote, "genius," unquote, of
the U.S. project, if there was such a genius, was the fact that the
founders in the United States basically called a formal truce, a formal
ceasefire, with regard to the religious warfare that had been bedeviling
Europe for many decades and centuries—that is to say, Protestant
London, so-called, versus Catholic Madrid and Catholic France. What the
settlers on the North American mainland did was call a formal truce with
regard to religious conflict, but then they opened a new front with
regard to race—that is to say, Europeans versus non-Europeans.
This, at once, broadened the base for the
settler project. That is to say, they could draw upon those defined as
white who had roots from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains, and indeed
even to the Arab world, if you look at people like Ralph Nader and Marlo
Thomas, for example, whose roots are in Lebanon but are considered to
be, quote, "white," unquote. This obviously expanded the population base
for the settler project. And because many rights were then accorded to
these newly minted whites, it obviously helped to ensure that many of
them would be beholden to the country that then emerged, the United
States of America, whereas those of us who were not defined as white got
the short end of the stick, if you like.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ:
And, Gerald Horne, as a result of that, during the American Revolution,
what was the perception or the attitude of the African slaves in the
U.S. to that conflict? You also—you talk about, during the colonial
times, many slaves preferred to flee to the Spanish colonies or the
French colonies, rather than to stay in the American colonies of
England.
GERALD HORNE:
You are correct. The fact of the matter is, is that Spain had been
arming Africans since the 1500s. And indeed, because Spain was arming
Africans and then unleashing them on mainland colonies, particularly
South Carolina, this put competitive pressure on London to act in a
similar fashion. The problem there was, is that the mainland settlers
had embarked on a project and a model of development that was
inconsistent with arming Africans. Indeed, their project was involved in
enslaving and manacling every African in sight. This deepens the schism
between the colonies and the metropolis—that is to say, London—thereby
helping to foment a revolt against British rule in 1776.
It’s well known that more Africans fought
alongside of the Redcoats—fought alongside the Redcoats than fought with
the settlers. And this is understandable, because if you think about it
for more than a nanosecond, it makes little sense for slaves to fight
alongside slave masters so that slave masters could then deepen the
persecution of the enslaved and, indeed, as happened after 1776, bring
more Africans to the mainland, bring more Africans to Cuba, bring more
Africans to Brazil, for their profit.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to historian Gerald Horne. He’s author of two new books. We’re talking about The Counter-Revolution of 1776. The subtitle of that book is Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America. And his latest book, just out, is called Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow.
He’s professor of history and African American studies at University of
Houston. When we come back, we’ll talk about that second book about
Cuba. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: "Slavery Days" by Burning Spear, here on Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.
I’m Amy Goodman in Chicago. Juan González is in New York. Before we
talk about the book on slavery, I want to turn to President Obama’s
remarks at the White House’s Fourth of July celebration last year. This
is how President Obama described what happened in 1776.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: On July 4th, 1776, a small band of patriots declared that we were a people created equal, free to think and worship and live as we please, that our destiny would not be determined for us, it would be determined by us. And it was bold, and it was brave. And it was unprecedented. It was unthinkable. At that time in human history, it was kings and princes and emperors who made decisions. But those patriots knew there was a better way of doing things, that freedom was possible, and that to achieve their freedom, they’d be willing to lay down their lives, their fortune and their honor. And so they fought a revolution. And few would have bet on their side. But for the first time of many times to come, America proved the doubters wrong. And now, 237 years later, this improbable experiment in democracy, the United States of America, stands as the greatest nation on Earth.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was President Obama talking about the meaning of July 4th. Gerald Horne, your book, The Counter-Revolution of 1776, is a direct rebuttal of this, as you call, creation myth. Could you talk about that?
GERALD HORNE:
Well, with all due respect to President Obama, I think that he
represents, in those remarks you just cited, the consensus view. That is
to say that, on the one hand, there is little doubt that 1776
represented a step forward with regard to the triumph over monarchy. The
problem with 1776 was that it went on to establish what I refer to as
the first apartheid state. That is to say, the rights that Mr. Obama
refers to were accorded to only those who were defined as white. To that
degree, I argue in the book that 1776, in many ways, was analogous to
Unilateral Declaration of Independence in the country then known as
Southern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, in November 1965. UDI,
Unilateral Declaration of Independence, was in many ways an attempt to
forestall decolonization. 1776, in many ways, was an attempt to
forestall the abolition of slavery. That attempt succeeded until the
experiment crashed and burned in 1861 with the U.S. Civil War, the
bloodiest conflict, to this point, the United States has ever been
involved in.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Gerald Horne, how does this story, this, what you call, counterrevolution, fit in with your latest book, Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow?
GERALD HORNE:
Well, there’s a certain consistency between the two books. Keep in mind
that in 1762 Britain temporarily seized Cuba from Spain. And one of the
regulations that Britain imposed outraged the settlers, as I argue in
both books. What happened was that Britain sought to regulate the slave
trade, and the settlers on the North American mainland wanted
deregulation of the slave trade, thereby bringing in more Africans. What
happens is that that was one of the points of contention that lead to a
detonation and a revolt against British rule in 1776.
I go on in the Cuba book to talk about how one
of the many reasons why you have so many black people in Cuba was
because of the manic energy of U.S. slave traders and slave dealers,
particularly going into the Congo River Basin and dragging Africans
across the Atlantic. Likewise, I had argued in a previous book on the
African slave trade to Brazil that one of the many reasons why you have
so many black people in Brazil, more than any place outside of Nigeria,
is, once again, because of the manic energy of U.S. slave traders and
slave dealers, who go into Angola, in particular, and drag Africans
across the Atlantic to Brazil.
It seems to me that it’s very difficult to
reconcile the creation myth of this great leap forward for humanity
when, after 1776 and the foundation of the United States of America, the
United States ousts Britain from control of the African slave trade.
Britain then becomes the cop on the beat trying to detain and deter U.S.
slave traders and slave dealers. It seems to me that if this was a step
forward for humanity, it was certainly not a step forward for Africans,
who, the last time I looked, comprise a significant percentage of
humanity.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ:
And, Gerald Horne, so, in other words, as you’re explaining the
involvement of American companies in the slave trade in Brazil and Cuba,
this—that book and also your The Counter-Revolution of 1776
makes the same point that slavery was not just an issue of interest in
the South to the Southern plantation owners, but that in the North,
banking, insurance, merchants, shipping were all involved in the slave
trade, as well.
GERALD HORNE:
Well, Juan, as you well know, New York City was a citadel of the
African slave trade, even after the formal abolition of the U.S. role in
the African slave trade in 1808. Rhode Island was also a center for the
African slave trade. Ditto for Massachusetts. Part of the unity between
North and South was that it was in the North that the financing for the
African slave trade took place, and it was in the South where you had
the Africans deposited. That helps to undermine, to a degree, the very
easy notion that the North was abolitionist and the South was
pro-slavery.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Gerald Horne, what most surprised you in your research around Cuba, U.S. slavery and Jim Crow?
GERALD HORNE:
Well, what most surprised me with regard to both of these projects was
the restiveness, the rebelliousness of the Africans involved. It’s well
known that the Africans in the Caribbean were very much involved in
various extermination plots, liquidation plots, seeking to abolish,
through force of arms and violence, the institution of slavery.
Unfortunately, I think that historians on the North American mainland
have tended to downplay the restiveness of Africans, and I think it’s
done a disservice to the descendants of the population of mainland
enslaved Africans. That is to say that because the restiveness of
Africans in the United States has been downplayed, it leads many African
Americans today to either, A, think that their ancestors were
chumps—that is to say, that they fought alongside slave owners to bring
more freedom to slave owners and more persecution to themselves—or, B,
that they were ciphers—that is to say, they stood on the sidelines as
their fate was being determined. I think that both of these books seek
to disprove those very unfortunate notions.
AMY GOODMAN: So, as we move into the Independence Day weekend next weekend, what do you say to people in the United States?
GERALD HORNE:
What I say to the people in the United States is that you have proved
that you can be very critical of what you deem to be revolutionary
processes. You have a number of scholars and intellectuals who make a
good living by critiquing the Cuban Revolution of 1959, by critiquing
the Russian Revolution of 1917, by critiquing the French Revolution of
the 18th century, but yet we get the impression that what happened in
1776 was all upside, which is rather far-fetched, given what I’ve just
laid out before you in terms of how the enslaved African population had
their plight worsened by 1776, not to mention the subsequent liquidation
of independent Native American polities as a result of 1776. I think
that we need a more balanced presentation of the foundation of the
United States of America, and I think that there’s no sooner place to
begin than next week with July 4th, 2014.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Gerald Horne, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Historian Gerald Horne is author of two new books: The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America as well as Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow. He’s a professor of history and African American studies at the University of Houston.
That does it for our broadcast. Happy birthday to Jon Randolph. Democracy Now! has two job openings — administrative director, as well as a seasoned Linux systems administrator — as well as fall internships. Check out democracynow.org/jobs for more information.
No comments:
Post a Comment