From Persecution to Dominance: Christianity from 290- 390 C.E.

 

Throughout western civilization, the Catholic Church has been one of the most powerful and influential institutions since the dawn of humanity. It has commanded armies in holy wars, made or broke kings and emperors, all while being a shared facet of life for all of humanity for 2,000 years. The church quickly rose to prominence in the late antiquity of the Roman Empire. The relationship between the Christian church and the Imperial throne dramatically changed in between the 3rd the 5th century. The Christians went from being under extreme persecution by pagans to persecuting pagans in the same manner. Roman emperors tried to purge Christianity from the empire under the rule of Diocletian and Galerius. Constantine would conquer the empire wielding the power of the Christian God. Theodosius would submit himself to the power of that same God forever changing the relationship between church and state. The authority of Christianity withstood even the fall of the Roman Empire.
In the history of the early church Christians endured a prolonged persecution. The intensity of harassment varied and when political opposition towards Christians was high, so grew the list of Christian martyrs. But before the persecution during the reign of Diocletian and Galerius, Christians had a relatively peaceful existence in the empire. In the 290s the new generation of Christians did not personally experience the oppression of past persecutions, and so, were softer in the face of political opposition. Justo L. Gonzalez is a historian of Christianity and in his book The Story of Christianity: Volume 1 he points out that Diocletian’s wife and daughter were Christians themselves. Thus, Christians had few concerns towards the new Augustus’ policy. Historians believe it was the Caesar under Diocletian, Galerius, who advocated for a persecution of Christians. Galerius had come to believe Christians were dangerous when, over the issue of military service, Christians were put to death, either for attempting to leave the army or refusing to join. With pressure from Galerius, Diocletian banned all Christians from the military and high-level positions in the imperial bureaucracy. Gonzalez notes, “Even then, the purpose was not to kill Christians, but to remove them from positions of responsibility within the empire.” This was harsh, but, it was comparable to persecutions of the past. The Romans were great at knowing how much pressure they could place on a group of people without causing chaos.
However, sentiment towards the Christians grew even worse when two fires broke out at the Imperial Palace. Who started the fires remains a mystery, and some historians suggest that it was Galerius himself, regardless it was the Christians who were blamed, adding to the paranoia of Diocletian. Church leaders were soon arrested, and captured Christians were required to make sacrifices to the pagan gods, or be subject to imprisonment, torture, and death. Eusebius of Caesarea, a Christian historian who lived during this tumultuous time, writes.
“royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground, and the Scriptures be destroyed by fire, and ordering that those who held places of honor be degraded, and that the household servants, if they persisted in the profession of Christianity, be deprived of freedom. Such was the first edict against us. But not long after, other decrees were issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches in every place be first thrown into prison, and afterwards by every artifice be compelled to sacrifices.”
Eusebius of Caesarea, 260-339 C.E., was the first known historian of the Christian Church, he lived through the persecution, the civil wars, and to see the Roman Empire under the rule of Constantine the Great. Douglas Foster mentions that “Eusebius’s approach to historiography is unique in several ways. He was the first Christian apologist to bring the literary-historical point of view to his works.” His method of writing church history would be emulated throughout the middle ages. Eusebius saw the dominance of the Christian church as a success and had a very favorable view of Constantine because of it. When referencing Eusebius, we should keep his biases in mind. His work in Church History is an invaluable primary source.
The emperors Diocletian and Galerius saw Christians as an immoral and deviant group, and when Diocletian retired from the throne, Galerius rose to the rank of Augustus. The persecution continued under his reign. And as Gonzalez says, “the lists of martyrs grew longer and longer, there seemed to be no end in sight.” However, the persecution was not carried out in all parts of the empire. In the territories to the west two emperors, Maxentius and Constantine, refused to legitimize the policies of their rival Galerius. Civil war would soon consume the Roman empire, and one Emperor would be left standing. The life of Constantine the Great would dramatically change Christianity, and the world. The effects would last for over a millennium.
The civil wars, during which Constantine rose to become the sole ruler of the Roman Empire, is an endlessly fascinating period of history. A few instances during this time are significant to the rise of Christianity’s power. First, this is the story of the Death of Emperor Galerius, the orchestrator of the great persecution. Galerius believed that Christianity was a danger to the Empire. He was afraid of the God of the Christians, and this shows in his last days. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote that Galerius became painfully ill and, believing that this was a punishment from the Christian God, switched his policy on the Christians. According to Eusebius, Galerius thought he was restoring the tradition of the old Romans, and wanted to protect the worship of pagan ancestor. He claims that the Christians had been resilient in the face of punishment and said “therefore, moved by our mercy to be benevolent toward all, it has seemed just to us to extend to the m our pardon, and allow them to be Christians once again, and once again gather in their assemblies, as long as they do not interfere with public order.”
Five days after issuing this edict, Galerius would die. Eusebius is biased in his writing, and there is a chance that there were other reasons Galerius decided to end the persecution on his death bed. It is hard to believe that an Emperor who fought against Christianity for so long would have suddenly realized the cruelty he brought. It is hard to place yourself in the position of someone nearing the end of their life. Did Galerius believe the Christian God would lift his illness from him if he ended the persecution? Regardless of Galerius’ true intentions Christians would come to understand what he wrote. Galerius feared the Christian God, just as he had feared the Christians. And so, Christians interpreted the end of the persecution as divine intervention from God. This was proof that their God had power over even a Roman Emperor, who was to pagans partly a god himself. Constantine would use this power of Christ to his advantage in war.
After the death of Galerius, the empire was divided among four emperors: Licinius and Maximinus Daia in the East, Maxentius, and Constantine in the West. But, soon the other three saw Maxentius as illegitimate, and this gave Constantine an opportunity he was waiting for. Much to Maxentius’s surprise, Constantine marched his army over the Alps and towards Rome resembling nothing so much as when Julius Caesar himself marched on the Eternal City. Maxentius gathered his army outside of Rome, ready for battle. According to Christian historians, prior to the battle, Constantine had a vision or a dream from God. Eusebius claimed that Constantine saw in the sky “In this you shall conquer.” Gonzalez writes, “Constantine ordered that his soldiers should use on their shield and on their standard or labarum a symbol that looked like the superimposition of the Greek letters chi and rho…these are the first two letters of the name Christ.” The Battle of the Milvian Bridge was a victory for Constantine and gave him control over the Western Roman Empire.

Christians saw the story of his vision from God as further proof of the power of their God. Now the Christian God had the power to win or lose battles for an emperor, and Constantine’s relationship with God would only become more apparent.
After his defeat over Maxentius, Constantine struck an alliance with Licinius and came to an agreement that the persecution of Christians would end. The resulting agreement produced the Edict of Milan, which gave unprecedented legal protection for Christians in the Empire. The edict under the authority of both Constantine and Licinius granted “to the Christians and other full authority to observe that religion which each preferred.” While most of the text focuses on Christians, the Edict of Milan was not placing Christianity over any other faiths at the time. “This regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion” The edict went far to heal the wounds caused by the persecution under Diocletian and Galerius by given by confiscated Christian property. It said,
“Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which they were accustomed to assemble, but also other property, namely the churches, belonging to them as a corporation and not as individuals, all these things which we have included under the above law, you will order to be restored, without any hesitation or controversy at all, to these Christians.”
No simple gesture, the Edict of Milan was intended to be spread everywhere and be announced to all. This was a huge boon to Christians all over the empire, and it is no wonder that church officials like Eusebius and others who still bore the marks of torture looked to Constantine as a hero and champion of faith. It is ironic though, that Constantine was not a Christian himself. He would only be baptized on his death bed. Until then Constantine had a long bloody road as he fought to become the sole ruler of the Roman World. He would defeat Maximinus Daia, the successor of Galerius who did not recognize the Edict of Milan and still persecuted Christians. And eventually, he would turn on his ally Licinius, whose character became tainted to the eyes of Eusebius or Caesarea. Despite being involved in the Edict of Milan, Eusebius would portray Licinius as a tyrant whose Wickedness led to his death.
And so, with Constantine’s rise to absolute authority came the marriage of the Christian church with Imperial influence. The church, now with the support of the emperor, would not be the same. The Bishops and other members of church hierarchy gained new marks of status and prestige. Church property was exempt from taxes, as were the bishops who also were free of military conscription and now had open access to all imperial posts. Bishops wearing luxurious garments now had judiciary powers which led to corruption by the use of bribes. It seemed possible now for someone to buy their way into high offices of the church. But bishops weren’t the only beneficiaries. The first day of the week was put aside for a day of worship, thus beginning the weekly cycle we still recognize today. Christians now had the pleasure of going to beautiful churches freshly built by orders of the emperor. Even the image of Christ was altered by this Imperial influence. Christians now knelt as they prayed the same as if addressing an emperor. Jesus, the carpenter, was now depicted as sitting on a throne as ruler of the universe. All of this saw to a massive surge in popularity for the church. The number of converts was so much that much of the usual initiation process of becoming a member of the church was skipped. Now many new members of the church carried in with them beliefs and ideas the early church would have disliked. The power of the church was emerging with the power of the emperor, but Constantine still held personal sway over church doctrine.
Gonzalez states that “Constantine hoped that the church would become the cement of the empire.” But that foundation he sought after was soon on shaky ground as the church stood divided on the Aryan controversy. The argument arose during Constantine’s wars with Licinius and threatened the unity of the church. Constantine called an Ecumenical Council in 325, the Council of Nicea. Here about 300 church officials still recovering from the persecution saw for the first time a physical manifestation of Christian organization. Gonzalez sets the scene: “Many of those present knew of each other via hearsay or through correspondence. But now, for the first time in the history of Christianity, they had before their eyes physical evidence of the universality of the church.” The satisfaction that those like Eusebius of Caesarea must have felt is hard to imagine. Finally, it seemed that all their faith and hard work was making a difference. However, the true power lay not in this body of men but with the emperor. “Now it was possible to invoke the authority of the state to settle a theological question.” The state, not the church would decide what was officially Christian. The Aryans were cast aside, for now, and Constantine banished the dissenting priests from their native cities. The issue of Arianism would not go away though, because after Constantine died those who inherited the throne shared different faiths. Some favored the Nicene ideas but others Aryanism. Both sides would enjoy imperial support until the Edict of Thessalonica made Christianity the only religion of the empire and outlawed both Aryanism and Paganism.
In 380 the Emperor Theodosius was stricken ill and so, preparing for death, was baptized by a Nicean Bishop. This may have played a significant role because after he recovered, Theodosius became loyal to Nicean Christianity. That same year, emperors Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica, bringing unity to the church and woe to heretics and pagans. It stated, “We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics.” These heretics would suffer “chastisement” and “divine condemnation” In 382, Emperor Gratian ended financial support for paganism, in 391 Theodosius banned pagan sacrifices and ordered temples closed, and in 392 all pagan worship was forbidden. Once it was pagans who had persecuted the Christians but now the roles were reversed. The use of violence against pagans, and Jews, was rarely punished and zealous priests were fond of ordering the destruction of pagan shrines and buildings. It only took 100 years for the Roman world to be turned upside down, or had it? Emperors still warred among one another, minorities were still persecuted for their beliefs, and most people were subjects to the wealthy and powerful.
Theodosius may have felt obligated after receiving baptism from the Nicean bishop, and he may have even credited his recovery as an act of God. At this point the relationship between Christianity and the Emperor changed from the time of Constantine. Constantine believed in the power of the Christian God but still sought to use it for his means. He controlled the direction of the church, and the church looked to Constantine for that direction. It is telling that Constantine is remembered both as a saint and a pagan god. He would not let religion define him; rather it was the opposite. Theodosius was not the same. He felt bound to God and was concerned for his soul and everlasting life. His actions on earth sought to please the church. In 390 a small revolt in the city of Thessalonica brought the ire of Theodosius. Jamie Joosten writing for St. Ambrose University says, “As soon as Theodosius heard of the uprising, he ordered an immediate retaliation. The army units sent to Thessalonica acted as if they had captured a hostile city. Over 7,000 citizens were murdered.” Theodosius was already regretting the slaughter when he received a letter from Ambrose the Bishop of Milan, condemning Theodosius for the massacre. Ambrose was arguably the most prominent member of the church at the time, and his opinion carried great weight. Ambrose threatened that he would not offer sacrifice in the emperor’s presence unless he would repent, and Ambrose personally scolded Theodosius when the emperor tried to attend mass. Fearing for his soul, Theodosius apparently spent eight months begging the bishop for forgiveness, even to the point of moaning and crying before Ambrose. And so it came to pass, that the Emperor of the Roman Empire, the most powerful man in western society, submitted himself to a bishop of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic church would outlast the Western Roman Empire and continue to wield power and influence over the kingdoms that followed. But it is important to remember how Christianity came to use that power. It can be said that when the church was infected with wealth and power at the time of Constantine’s reign, it had started to become corrupt. Different sects of Christianity fought with themselves over official church doctrine and once given the power; the church persecuted pagans to the extent that they were persecuted themselves. In history, the changes that occur over time can overshadow what stays the same. Humans are selfish and tribalistic. We have ingroups, and we have outgroups. The majority always uses its power and influence to disenfranchise the minority. Once the church was given power we see that they became the same as those who had persecuted them, but there is another side to this view. Millions of people throughout the history of Christianity have shared this one faith. I believe that while the Western Empire fell the reason that the church did not fall with it was that Christians continued to believe. Christianity does not rely on power, doctrines, or wealth and orderly institutions. It relies on faith alone and all the unnamed people in history that continued the tradition of that faith.

SOURCES

Constantine Augustus, Licinius Augustus. The Edict of Milan. 313 C.E. http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/edict-milan.asp

Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History. 340 C.E.

Foster, Douglas A. “Eusebius of Caesarea.” Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia (January 2015): Research Starters, EBSCOhost (accessed May 30, 2017).

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 2010.

Gratian, Valentinian, Theodosius. Edict of Thessalonica. 380 C.E. http://arielcaliban.org/PX_edict_thessalonica.pdf

Joosten, Jaimie. Theodosius and the Relationship Between Church and State. St. Ambrose University. http://www.sau.edu/The_Academy_for_the_Study_of_St_Ambrose_of_Milan/Students_and_Scholars/Joosten.html

How Hellenism, the Pax Romana, and Judaism Politics Shaped the Early Christian Church

At the time of the early Christian church, Europe and parts of the Middle East were in a state in which diversity flourished, and society was postured for the assimilation of cultures. The successful growth of Christianity was due to centuries of westernization, and much influenced by Hellenism and the Pax Romana. The former grounded in language, philosophy and culture, the latter through order, security, and communication. To understand how a small sect of Judaism grew into a religion shared by diverse communities spread continents apart, we must grasp these two social forces, what they meant, and how they shaped the Western World.

The Pax Romana, meaning the Roman Peace, was an idea ancient Rome used to legitimize its conquests and civilization of the world. It was believed that life under Roman rule was preferable to anywhere else. Thus as territories and kingdoms were swallowed up by the Empire, a considerable effort was made to assimilate the native populace into fellow Romans. This was not always welcomed, least of all in Judea. Jews bitterly clung to their cultural identity in the process of being ‘Romanized,’ however, for Jews living in various parts of the Empire this wasn’t always resisted to the extent as it was in Jerusalem.  The Pax Romana also means to us today is a long reign of prosperity that came along with the Roman Peace. Across the Empire, cities were built in the Roman Design, road systems that exist still today connected all parts of the civilized western world. The economy thrived, and goods were transported all the way from the Africa, Britain, and the Middle East. Along with these prosperous times came a connected world where ideas could spread quickly. It was at this point that the Early Christian church grew and expanded throughout the whole of the Roman Empire.

Before the time of the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great of Macedonia conquered the Greek City States and toppled the Persian Empire. After his death, the conquered lands were divided amongst his generals once again disjoining the Western World. But the cohesion of Greek ideas continued to influence,  combine and clash with the native cultures now free of Alexander’s grasp. This is what historians refer to as Hellenism. By the time of the early Christian church, half of the Roman Empire spoke Greek in addition to any native languages. This is much like how different parts of the world use English as a common language for communication today. In fact, many Jews of the Diaspora, Jews not living in the homeland of Judea, had long since forgotten to speak Hebrew. Jewish Scriptures had been translated into Greek as a result. Jewish apologists, those in defense of the Jewish faith, would use similarities in ancient Greek philosophy and Jewish theology to convince pagans of the legitimacy of Hebrew monotheism. Hellenism was attributing to a diverse mixture of cultures and religions slowly joining into a larger social identity. This was at the time of Jesus and the early Christian church, a church whose prominence would rival that of the Romans or Alexander the Great. 

In Summary, the combined forces of Hellenism and the Pax Romana greatly influenced and assisted the expansion of the early Christian Church. It was possible to spread a message of One God because of the relative safety and ease of travel of the Roman Empire. Early Christian and Jewish writers could relate to intellectuals of the time by using Greek Philosophy to argue for monotheism. Much of the Empire spoke Greek, so the Christian message was accessible to even the lowest rungs of society. This all goes to show just how connected the Western World was becoming. Soon Christian communities, same as Jewish populations before, could be found in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

To understand the early Christian church, we must see its roots in Judaism and examine the politics and ideology of Judaism at the time of Jesus. The history of Jerusalem directly shaped the course of Judaism and thus the course of Christianity. It is hard to over-exaggerate the importance of the Temple in Jerusalem and its role in Jewish history a center for worship and cultural identity. Far greater than the United States’ Statue of Liberty or the Eiffel Tower in France as far as man-made structures are concerned. The city of Jerusalem itself goes back to ancient times far before Rome or Alexander. Many times throughout history Palestine, the territory around Jerusalem, was conquered by a foreign force. This made the Jews a hardy people who had an embedded urge to preserve their faith and traditions in the face of hostility.

In 586 BCE Palestine was occupied by the Babylonians. The sacred Jewish temple was destroyed, and the Jews were exiled. The Babylonian occupation ended as the Persians defeated the Babylonians, allowing the Jewish people who had the means to return to the homeland. The Persians fell to Alexander the Great and with that came Hellenism and its clash with Jewish culture. The land of Palestine fell into one power’s hands onto another’s until it was absorbed into the Roman Empire in 40 BCE when Herod the Great was named king by Roman Authority.  What we should take from this is that because of war and foreign rule many of the Jewish faith had migrated throughout the world, Judaism in Diaspora. While both cultures shared the same religion at the time of the emergence of Christianity, Judaism in Palestine and Judaism in Diaspora were quite different.

Judaism in Palestine was fraught with sectionalism among various political groups. By examining these political parties of the first century CE, we can see the roots of many facets of the early Christian church. Let us first look at the High Priests and Temple officials of Jerusalem who are directly tied with the Sanhedrin, an aristocracy of powerful families in Jerusalem. We can find a highly structured religious hierarchy that managed the Temple as well as city administration. The Sanhedrin being a Greek type of city council even. These offices are preludes to the structure of the Catholic Church but would cease to exist after the destruction of the Temple at the end of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome.

 When concerning the interpretation of religious scripture, the Sadducees and the Pharisees battled ideologically. The Former a more conservative group who rejected ideas closer to Greek thought, the latter a more populous sect who made Judaism more practical to common folk. The resurrection of the dead, an afterlife, and the role of fate were contested because of their Greek influence, but with the fall of the Temple in 70CE, the philosophy of the Sadducees gave way as the Pharisee’s ideology continued to shape rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity.

Finally, we should look at the Essenes, a more isolated group who lived in a settlement outside of Jerusalem. The Essenes doctrine was apocalyptical in natural. They opposed the Greek idea that existence is a circle that repeats itself, and instead that there is a beginning and an end to existence. They believed in Messiahs who would save Jewish people of the true faith. The Essenes were vocally anti-Roman, which would lead to their defeat during the First Jewish Revolt.

All of the aforementioned political groups were in Palestine, and so we must consider Jews in Diaspora as well. In Jerusalem, there was very much a resisting of Hellenism with more conservative groups rejecting Greek thought, but for communities of Jews living throughout the Roman Empire, Greek Culture was a part of their daily lives. These Jewish enclaves had to cling to their religious identity in the face of a Greco-Roman world and thus felt a bond with other Jew of the Diaspora throughout the Empire. This is important because the path of Christianity will grow through these connected Jewish communities, carrying the influences of the Homeland with it. Indeed, early Christianity shared the same struggles as Judaism during this period when the two were less separate from one another.

 

SOURCES

White, Michael L. From Jesus to Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 2004.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 2010.

 

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPACT ON SLAVERY

When the signers of the Declaration of Independence placed their names in ink on that sacred text, they placed a defining principle of what it means to be a citizen of the United States, “That all men are created equal.”[i]This is something we take for granted today but at the time was a radical statement. Of course, the notion that all men are equal is also a hypocrisy in the American Revolution, because of Slavery. Men, women, and children of African descent were the property of wealthy individuals and worked in bondage without rights. They were not seen as citizens even though they made up a large minority in colonies. However, slavery played an intricate role in the founding of the United States. The American Revolution’s impact on slavery caused large populations of Slaves to be freed, established the issue of Slavery into politics, and defined how Slaves would be represented in government.

It is known that not every American living in the colonies at the time of the Revolution wanted independence from Great Britain. While many radical Patriots and were prepared to shed the bonds of monarchy, others very much identified themselves as Englishmen. In his book, Birth of the Republic 1763-89, Edmund S. Morgan estimates that about one-fifth of Americans Colonist fought for the British during the American Revolution.[ii]As tensions rose towards conflict, many Americans sitting on the fence had to choose one side or the other and this choice was not limited to white landowning men, but to large populations of African slaves in the colonies. The slave population numbered close to 500,000 in all the colonies, with the most working in bondage on rice and tobacco plantations in the South.[iii] Many slaves did choose to fight for Great Britain and against the colonies.

There was an immediate effect that the American Revolution had on slavery, once the war got started a British call-to-arms for any slave willing to fight for the crown was proclaimed with the promise that they would be freed after their service. On November 17, 1775, Lord Dunmore executed martial law and issued an order requiring “every person capable of bearing arms to resort to his majesty’s standard.”[iv] This must have been a tempting offer for many slaves to openly rebel with the backing of the British Military. However, any slave who did not choose to take this offer would be treated as a traitor and be subject to punishment.[v]The offer to free the enslaved Africans was not made for any moral reasons as the British sought to use the slave population to their advantage in the war, still, though, at least fifteen thousand Africans migrated from the American colonies after the war.[vi]

At the surface, these numbers seem to indicate that either the British government was far more enlightened than Americans when concerning the institution of slavery, or that Africans who fought on the Loyalist side benefited greatly compared to those who were Patriots. However, the truth is more complex as the fate of all fifteen thousand slaves did not end with freedom. Eight to ten thousand African Americans resettled in the British Empire.[vii]About three thousand freed black loyalists moved to Canada after the war, and in 1792 twelve hundred moved again to Sierra Leon, a free black colony in Africa.[viii] On the other hand, about half of the migrating Africans leaving the colonies were slaves traveling with their loyalist masters.[ix]They would find themselves to be resettled in Florida, Jamaica, or other British Caribbean colonies not as free men but as slaves.[x]

Late 1700s Britain’s position on slavery is complex as one would expect of an Empire spanning from North America to Africa and India. While they had no qualms moving wealthy Loyalist and their slaves elsewhere to continue the horrid practice of human bondage, they also resettled many Blacks, giving them not only freedom but land to settle on and a place in society. A hypothetical encounter comes to mind wherein two Africans, one a freed Loyalist and one a slave of a Loyalist, meet each other as the British scramble to migrate Loyalists from the colonies after their defeat.  Did these two people see each other as equals and how did they feel about the plight of slaves overall? Where they hopeful or pessimistic? Freedom for slaves was not a cause either side fought for during the Revolution, and both fates of liberty and enslavement constituted the lives of Africans who left the colonies as well as those who continued to live in the new nation of the United States.

The relationship between Great Britain, Colonial America, and the slave trade was the center of much debate at the time of the American Revolution and this debate engraved the issue of slavery into politics and public opinion. In his essay, The American Revolution Prompted New Debates About Slavery, Christopher Leslie Brown makes the point that in the exchange between American and British propaganda blaming each other for the evil of slavery the issue itself became a topic of morality.[xi]Brown says, “This sharpened sense of the slave system as a product of human choices and preference enabled radically different descriptions of moral duty.”[xii]The irony of this particular effect that the Revolution had on slavery was that the arguments and propaganda were more focused on blaming either the British or the Americans on slavery rather than establishing the evils of the institution itself.[xiii] Indeed, it was akin to a parent discovering two children covered in spilled milk, each pointing fingers at the other while the mess is yet to be cleaned. However, many in the colonies did see the issue of slavery as a moral hypocrisy in regards to the ideas of the Revolution and sought to end the tyranny of human bondage as the modern world was born. In fact, there were many petitions signed for slave emancipation and in defense of the practice of slavery.

A letter written on April 20, 1773, and addressed to legislators in Boston, Massachusetts by four slaves petitioning for the manumission of them and their fellow Africans, is an example of a peaceful attempt at freedom.[xiv] Peter Bestes, Sambo Freeman, Felix Holbrook, and Chester Joie, use moral argument and an air of civility in the attempt to legitimize their request.[xv] They use words and phrases mimicking Patriot ideas such as freedom, fellow-man, and liberty while remaining humble insisting on gaining freedom through peaceful and lawful attempts.[xvi] This breaks the preconceived stereotype of the illiterate slave and shows that the ideology of the Revolution was held by slaves as well as free whites.

Another petition was addressed to the New Hampshire House of Representatives in 1779 and signed by nineteen slaves.[xvii] They center their arguments on very strict moral ground often using religious reasoning to shed light on their injustice.[xviii] The Petition made it a point to note that God had created all men equal including African slaves in America.[xix] By appealing to the religious morality of the New Hampshire representatives, they separated themselves from the notion that slaves are property but instead are equal men who share the same creator as Whites. It is telling that much of colonial culture was now being adopted by the slave population. In fact, most of the names signed onto the petition are English or names carried over from ancient Rome, a civilization the Republic was in some ways trying to recreate.[xx]

Manisha Sinha is a Professor and Historian who specializes in African American History.[xxi] In her work, To “Cast Just Obliquy” on Oppressors: Black Radicalism in the Age of Revolution, Manisha Sinha discusses these petitions among others and is quick to point out the radicalism present in black abolitionists during the Revolution.[xxii] Sinha notes that a counter-tale of the revolution consisted of the hypocrisy of slavery rather than a celebration of freedom.[xxiii] She says, “Rather than simply reiterating revolutionary ideas to condemn slavery, they often challenge and reversed the symbolism of the American Revolution, describing the Patriots as tyrants and oppressors and their ideas as, at best, empty rhetoric.”[xxiv] The most radical of black revolutionists looked towards the Haitian Revolution rather than to the American Revolution for inspiration preferring even death over slavery and calling for rebellion.[xxv]

We cannot know whether the rhetoric of the American Revolution was truly believed by all who participated but we can see how it was used. This includes the manumission acts of the Northern states that banned slave slavery after the war. The idea of a benevolent creator under whom all mean was made equal and language copied straight from the Declaration of Independence was used. In 1784 the Rhode Island General Assembly passed “An Act authorizing the Manumission of Negroes, Mallottoes, and others, and the gradual Abolition of Slavery.”[xxvi] This document clearly states that all men are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and goes on to say that slavery is “repugnant to this principle.”[xxvii] Not only does this act gradually abolish slaves it pays attention to freed children of slaves, enabling them to receive a formal education.[xxviii]

Pennsylvania passed a similar act in 1780, establishing a “Gradual Abolition of Slavery.[xxix] This document compares the tyranny of Great Britain to that of the slaves and says that the freedom won by the colonists should extend to others, now that they have the power to do so.[xxx] In very colorful language it says “we find our hearts enlarged with kindness and benevolence towards men of all conditions and nations.”[xxxi] However, Pennsylvania’s Act also states that runaway slaves will be returned to their owners.[xxxii] In here we see a contradiction between the ideology behind slave manumission and the reality of the times. Even when granted freedom African Americans still were subject to laws that men of other color were not.

When examining the numbers of Slave populations compared to Whites, we can grasp certain realities. As for the Northern colonies, there were far fewer slaves even years prior to the American Revolution.[xxxiii] Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and New York had 550 to 11,014 slaves apiece in the 1750s, 157- 21,193 (and one free state: Massachusetts) in the 1790s, 108-15,017 (and two free states) in the 1810s, and by the 1860s were all free states.[xxxiv] This is a stark comparison to the southern states whose slave population was continually nearly equal to half of its white population.[xxxv] In the 1790s the South had 654,121 Slaves and 1,240,454 Whites, 1,103,700 Slaves to 2,118,144 Whites in the 1810s, and by the 1860s the Southern States had 3,950,511 Slaves to 8,036,700 Whites.[xxxvi] (The above figures omit Free Nonwhites that added to the total populations)

As we can see of the original thirteen colonies, the northern states had a slave population that was dwarfed in comparison to the Southern colonies. While the North’s slave population dwindled, the South’s skyrocketed well unto the Civil War. As to why the North became free while the South continued the practice of slavery two reasons are prominent. First it was the South that relied heavily on slave labor for its economy and second, Whites who lived in the South had a fear of a large population of Africans running unchecked.[xxxvii] As before mentioned the slave population in the south was 1 slave for every 2 whites.[xxxviii]The fear of what damage a slave rebellion could cause was real. In Birth of the Republic 1763-89, Edmund S. Morgan quotes a slave owner, Landon Carter, from the time of the Revolution who says, “If you free the slaves, you must send them out of the country, or they must steal for their supper.”[xxxix] This fear held as much practicality as it did racism and the South’s dependence on the institution of slavery, as well as how they viewed African slaves in general, spurred a sectionalism that divided the new United States and influenced the make-up of the young nation’s democracy.

In 1785, three counties in Virginia sent out a petition totaling near three hundred signatures which defended the right to own slaves.[xl] Arguing in favor of property rights, an important issue to Patriots of the Revolution, they also sought to defend slavery on a spiritual level.[xli] Using several verses from the Christian Bible, these Virginians claim that slavery was a natural existence that was ordained by God himself.[xlii] Finally, the petition warned that a massive slave emancipation would cause great harm to the country saying it would cause a “breach of public faith, and loss of credit with foreign nations: and, lastly, sure and final ruin to this now flourishing free and happy country.”[xliii] We cannot know if every signature on this document came from men who believed in the “holiness” of slavery, or if this is just a pursuit of the self-interests of the state of Virginia. What we do know is that in the construction of the Constitution delegates debated as to whether a slave should be legally viewed as property, a measure of wealth, or if slave populations should be calculated into representation in the democracy.[xliv]

In a battle for representation in Congress, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention were in a deadlock between Northern free states and Southern slave states. Early in the convention, there had been a push for wealth as a measure of representation.[xlv] John Rutledge, a powerful politician from South Carolina, said concerning the issue, “Money is power, states ought to have weight in the government in proportion to their wealth.” [xlvi] For this reason, the Southern states wanted to count slave population with their free population which would grant them more seats in Congress. The delegates from the North did not wish for their citizens to be on the same level as the slaves.[xlvii] The compromise to count “all other persons,” meaning slaves, as three-fifths of a person settled the matter. In his book, Plain, Honest Men: The making of the American Constitution, Richard Beeman elaborates on the reasoning behind this. He says, “The three-fifths compromise was not proposed because the delegates believed that African slaves were only 60 percent human. Rather, the fraction ‘three-fifths’ was intended as a rough approximation of the measure of wealth that an individual slave contributed to the economy of his or her state.”[xlviii] Beeman goes on to say that the delegates had merely deferred the problem of political sovereignty and the sectionalism between the North and South attributed to the causes of the American Civil War.[xlix]

At to its impact on the institution of Slavery, the American Revolution played direct and indirect roles, both towards emancipation and against manumission. The British government and the Loyalists in the colonies spurred massive migrations including Whites and Africans after the war. Some find freedom in new lands while others continued to endure bondage. Meanwhile, the exchange in debate between the Crown and American Propagandists etched the issue of slavery into United States Politics which lead to many petitions for and against slavery. The Northern States slowing abolished the practiced based on religion and the principles that fuel the revolution while the South preserved Slavery using the same ideas. The role of how slave populations would factor into representation in Congress affected the Constitution and foreshadowed the division between North and South that would erupt in Civil War. Regardless of the positive or negative effects it had towards Slavery, the American Revolution was deeply involved and provides us historical context in how we understand Slavery in the United States today.

Finally, it is imperative that we consider the suffering of slaves and try to understand the hardships that they endured. With modern values, we look back on slaves in the United States and realized that they were Americans and were a part of our culture. The cruelty of owning another human being is thankfully a thing of the past in the United States, but the importance of this is lost if we do not recognize the hypocrisy of the founding fathers, many of whom owned slaves. To understand slavery and racism is crucial to understanding the values that Patriots originally fought for and what it means to be a Citizen of the United States. That all men are created equal, and all men have certain unalienable rights.

 

Bibliography

“Slavery Economics.” Accessed February 20, 2017. http://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/history%201700_slavery%20economics.html.

Beeman, Richard. “Slavery and Sectionalism Influenced the Convention Debates.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 464-473. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.

Bestes, Peter. Peter Bestes, Sambo Freeman, Felix Holbrook, and Chester Joie to the town representatives, Boston, 20 April 1773. “Massachusetts Slaves Argue for Freedom 1773.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 248-249. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.

Brown, Christopher Leslie. “The American Revolution Prompted New Debates About Slavery.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 261-277. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.

Hammond, Isaac W, eds. “New Hampshire African-Americans Petition for Freedom, 1779.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 251-253. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.

Jasanoff, Maya. “Loyalists in Exile Highlight the Wider British Empires.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 202-211. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.

Morgan, Edmund S. The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013.

Murray, John. 4th Earl of Dunmore. 1775. “Lord Dunmore Promises Freedom to Slaves Who Fight for Britain, 1775.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 249-250. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014

Schmidt, Fredrika T. and Wilhelm, Barbara, Early Proslavery Petitions in Virginia. “Three Virginia Counties Defend Slavery, 1785”. In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 253-254. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.

State of Pennsylvania, An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery. March 5, 1780. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pennst01.asp. Accessed February 25, 2017.

Sinha, Manisha. “Black Abolitionists Developed Their Own Radical Tradition.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 277-285. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.

Rhode Island General Assembly, An Act authorizing the Manumission of Negroes, Mallattoes, & others, and for the gradual Abolition of Slavery, 1784. http://sos.ri.gov/virtualarchives/items/show/71. Accessed February 25, 2017.

University of Connecticut, Department of History. “Mansiha Sinha.” Accessed February 25, 2017. http://history.uconn.edu/faculty-by-name/manisha-sinha/

U.S. Continental Congress. “The United States Declare Independence.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 150-152. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.

[i] U.S. Continental Congress. “The United States Declare Independence.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 150-152. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014
[ii] Morgan, Edmund S. The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013. 78.
[iii] Morgan, Edmund S. The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013. 6.
[iv] Murray, John. 4th Earl of Dunmore. 1775. “Lord Dunmore Promises Freedom to Slaves Who Fight for Britain, 1775.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 249-250. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014
[v] Murray, John. 4th Earl of Dunmore. 1775. “Lord Dunmore Promises Freedom to Slaves Who Fight for Britain, 1775.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 249-250. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014
[vi] Jasanoff, Maya. “Loyalists in Exile Highlight the Wider British Empires.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 202-211. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[vii] Jasanoff, Maya. “Loyalists in Exile Highlight the Wider British Empires.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 202-211. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[viii] Jasanoff, Maya. “Loyalists in Exile Highlight the Wider British Empires.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 202-211. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[ix] Jasanoff, Maya. “Loyalists in Exile Highlight the Wider British Empires.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 202-211. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[x] Jasanoff, Maya. “Loyalists in Exile Highlight the Wider British Empires.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 202-211. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xi] Brown, Christopher Leslie. “The American Revolution Prompted New Debates About Slavery.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 261-277. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xii] Brown, Christopher Leslie. “The American Revolution Prompted New Debates About Slavery.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 261-277. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xiii] Brown, Christopher Leslie. “The American Revolution Prompted New Debates About Slavery.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 261-277. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xiv] Bestes, Peter. Peter Bestes, Sambo Freeman, Felix Holbrook, and Chester Joie to the town representatives, Boston, 20 April 1773. “Massachusetts Slaves Argue for Freedom 1773.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 248-249. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xv] Bestes, Peter. Peter Bestes, Sambo Freeman, Felix Holbrook, and Chester Joie to the town representatives, Boston, 20 April 1773. “Massachusetts Slaves Argue for Freedom 1773.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 248-249. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xvi] Bestes, Peter. Peter Bestes, Sambo Freeman, Felix Holbrook, and Chester Joie to the town representatives, Boston, 20 April 1773. “Massachusetts Slaves Argue for Freedom 1773.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 248-249. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xvii] Hammond, Isaac W, eds. “New Hampshire African-Americans Petition for Freedom, 1779.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 251-253. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xviii] Hammond, Isaac W, eds. “New Hampshire African-Americans Petition for Freedom, 1779.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 251-253. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xix] Hammond, Isaac W, eds. “New Hampshire African-Americans Petition for Freedom, 1779.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 251-253. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xx] Hammond, Isaac W, eds. “New Hampshire African-Americans Petition for Freedom, 1779.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 251-253. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xxi] University of Connecticut, Department of History. “Mansiha Sinha.” Accessed February 25, 2017. http://history.uconn.edu/faculty-by-name/manisha-sinha/
[xxii] Sinha, Manisha. “Black Abolitionists Developed Their Own Radical Tradition.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 277-285. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xxiii] Sinha, Manisha. “Black Abolitionists Developed Their Own Radical Tradition.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 277-285. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xxiv] Sinha, Manisha. “Black Abolitionists Developed Their Own Radical Tradition.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 277-285. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xxv] Sinha, Manisha. “Black Abolitionists Developed Their Own Radical Tradition.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 277-285. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xxvi] Rhode Island General Assembly, An Act authorizing the Manumission of Negroes, Mallattoes, & others, and for the gradual Abolition of Slavery, 1784. http://sos.ri.gov/virtualarchives/items/show/71. Accessed February 25, 2017.
[xxvii] Rhode Island General Assembly, An Act authorizing the Manumission of Negroes, Mallattoes, & others, and for the gradual Abolition of Slavery, 1784. http://sos.ri.gov/virtualarchives/items/show/71. Accessed February 25, 2017.
[xxviii] Rhode Island General Assembly, An Act authorizing the Manumission of Negroes, Mallattoes, & others, and for the gradual Abolition of Slavery, 1784. http://sos.ri.gov/virtualarchives/items/show/71. Accessed February 25, 2017.
[xxix] State of Pennsylvania, An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery. March 5, 1780. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pennst01.asp. Accessed February 25, 2017.
[xxx] State of Pennsylvania, An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery. March 5, 1780. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pennst01.asp. Accessed February 25, 2017.
[xxxi] State of Pennsylvania, An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery. March 5, 1780. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pennst01.asp. Accessed February 25, 2017.
[xxxii] State of Pennsylvania, An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery. March 5, 1780. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pennst01.asp. Accessed February 25, 2017.
[xxxiii] “Slavery Economics.” Accessed February 20, 2017. http://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/history%201700_slavery%20economics.html.
[xxxiv] “Slavery Economics.” Accessed February 20, 2017. http://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/history%201700_slavery%20economics.html.
[xxxv] “Slavery Economics.” Accessed February 20, 2017. http://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/history%201700_slavery%20economics.html.
[xxxvi] “Slavery Economics.” Accessed February 20, 2017. http://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/history%201700_slavery%20economics.html.
[xxxvii] Morgan, Edmund S. The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013. 96.
[xxxviii] “Slavery Economics.” Accessed February 20, 2017. http://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/history%201700_slavery%20economics.html.
[xxxix] Morgan, Edmund S. The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013.
[xl] Schmidt, Fredrika T. and Wilhelm, Barbara, Early Proslavery Petitions in Virginia. “Three Virginia Counties Defend Slavery, 1785”. In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 253-254. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xli] Schmidt, Fredrika T. and Wilhelm, Barbara, Early Proslavery Petitions in Virginia. “Three Virginia Counties Defend Slavery, 1785”. In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 253-254. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xlii] Beeman, Richard. “Slavery and Sectionalism Influenced the Convention Debates.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 464-473. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xliii] Schmidt, Fredrika T. and Wilhelm, Barbara, Early Proslavery Petitions in Virginia. “Three Virginia Counties Defend Slavery, 1785”. In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 253-254. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xliv] Beeman, Richard. “Slavery and Sectionalism Influenced the Convention Debates.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 464-473. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xlv] Beeman, Richard. “Slavery and Sectionalism Influenced the Convention Debates.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 464-473. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xlvi] Beeman, Richard. “Slavery and Sectionalism Influenced the Convention Debates.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 464-473. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xlvii] Beeman, Richard. “Slavery and Sectionalism Influenced the Convention Debates.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 464-473. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xlviii] Beeman, Richard. “Slavery and Sectionalism Influenced the Convention Debates.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 464-473. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.
[xlix] Beeman, Richard. “Slavery and Sectionalism Influenced the Convention Debates.” In Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, 3rd ed, edited by Richard D. Brown and Benjamin L. Carp, 464-473. Boston: Wadsworth, 2014.