what did the american revolution mean for slavery?

Answer 1

Nothing positive.

Answer 2

Slavery was practiced in many older civilizations and was slowly abandoned without a need for a state law to be enacted.

But some how those who were slaves still continued to believe that they were to serve some master or other and therefore, they were proud of being slaves. Some places and civilizations slaves were just servants and could become rich in time. So such things did happen once long long ago.

As they say, "History repeats itself," rather I would say, "History relapses itself".

Even during the American Civil War the Yankees were not absolutely against giving freedom to slaves and taking them to war. This has happened with both North and South parties. But in my knowledge the Southern parties still refused to admit them in to politics and be in-charge of something very important politically.

Due to "Lincon's" efforts and other important political moves, slowly Americans stepped in to a free world. But the process was very slow. At least it took another two hundred years now to give slaves a better position.

Answer 3

Some will note the hypocrisy in a fight for liberty, and a Declaration that asserts "all men are created equal", accompanied by the CONTINUATION of slavery in English North America. Hypocrisy there surely was, but at the same time, the anti-slavery cause was making important headway, and the ideals embraced in support of the Revolution were a piece of that.

Observe that it was during and just after the Revolution that ALL the Northern colonies/states passed legislation to end slavery in their own territories (in most cases through a program of gradual emancipation). Now this WAS an easier move for the North, which was not economically dependent on the institution as the South was, but the progress should be appreciated nonetheless.

As for the South, though they could not see how to rid themselves of slavery just yet, the view of many of their leaders was that slavery WAS basically an evil institution**, that they were hopeful would die out in time, esp. that the next generation might be able to find a way out of (The view of their "peculiar institution" as a "positive good" did not arise till the 1830s, with John Calhoun being one of the first to advance this argument.)

**For an example of this, consider the powerful language of an item JEFFERSON, a Virginian, included in his original draft of the Declaration (but which representatives from the Deep South demanded the removal of), in which he charged the England's monarchs with the beginnings of slavery in the colonies. It begins:
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them to slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportations thither. this piratical warfare the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where men should be bought & sold. . . ."
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/rough.htm#transcription


Further steps in the 'right direction' were the agreement by Southern leaders to ban slavery in the Northwest Territories, and to allow Congress to legislate an end to the slave trade (specified in the Constitution) in the near future (both of these passing in 1787).

Now it would be oversimplification to say that these anti-slavery steps were simply a result of the American Revolution much less to suggest that it would not have happened otherwise. It would be better to recognize that there were ideas and ideals bearing fruit in that era in BOTH the Revolution and in the push to end slavery.

In fact, this entire period (second half of the 18th century), quite apart from the American Revolution, was a time when opposition to slavery and the slave trade was beginning to grow throughout the British Empire. This was rooted in a combination of "Enlightenment ideals" and religious convictions. As far as the latter, note that the leaders of the anti-slave trade and later abolitionist movements did so for RELIGIOUS reasons -- first the Quakers, and then the evangelicals, spurred in part by the "Great Awakening" (1730s-40s) to support this and a number of other "reform" efforts.

There is at least one way in which the Revolution may have UNDERCUT anti-slavery efforts. The British tactic of promising freedom to slaves who left their rebel masters to fight for the crown may have produced something of a backlash among Southern slave owners, making them less amenable to the idea of gradual emancipation.

Answer 4

When the states were drafting policy it was decided that in order to appeal to both slave owners and non-slave owners that the import of slaves from outside the US was to be banned in 1808, but not the institution itself. Interstate trading of slaves was still permitted.

Answer 5

It meant that more slaves than ever were imported into America in order to take care of the cotton crops and work in sweat shops in the North.

Answer 6

It saved there lives as being slaves, in the u.s.a they were doomed living in Africa

Answer 7

to be fucked with your own will