More notes for alternate history novel

Naturally, I found this when I was looking for material for the John Brown story.

As it turns out, South Carolina is, as the nice fellow told me, very key: more key, maybe, than Virginia. I had thought Virginia was the key of all keys because John Brown and Frederick Douglass seemed to thinks so when they were discussing Brown's strategy.

But -- the nice fellow said Charleston was the birthplace and hotbed of secession from way back. So I thought I'd pay attention to Charleston when I get deeper into research.

This is what I discovered, though: there was in fact a suggestion to arm slaves to fight against the British, and it came from South Carolina: a man named John Laurens. The suggestion was rejected on the grounds that the slaves would obviously join up with the Tories if they had the slightest chance. Why is that? Is that connected with the fact that many Tories ended up going to Canada, and the fact that Canada had no slavery?

edited to add:
Now I find the name of Henry Laurens, a wealthy slave trader of the low country. Also a major figure of the Revolution -- President of the Second Continental Congress, captured at sea and held in the Tower of London, exchanged for Cornwallis after Yorktown. Negotiated the treaty for the peace with Bruce Oswald, his British partner in the slave trade. It turns out he's the father of John Laurens. John died in 1782, having been Washington's right hand man, and Henry lived to 1795, having left the slave trade but not having freed his slaves.

This is what John Laurens said:

I think we Americans at least in the Southern Colonies, cannot contend with
a good Grace, for Liberty, until we shall have enfranchised our Slaves. How
can we whose Jealousy has been alarm'd more at the Name of Oppression
sometimes than at the Reality, reconcile to our spirited Assertions of the
Rights of Mankind, the galling abject Slavery of our negroes. . . . If as some
pretend, but I am persuaded more thro' interest, than from Conviction, the
Culture of the Ground with us cannot be carried on without African Slaves,
Let us fly it as a hateful Country, and say ubi Libertas ibi Patria [where Liberty
is there is my Country].

So, what's the deal between Henry and John? I must find out. Later. I have a story to write.

-- end edit

Another suggestion that came out of South Carolina: General Thomas Sumter (the Gamecock) offered to pay soldiers in slaves because the Continental Army was low on cash. And this suggestion was carried out, by Sumter and at least one other general.

My childhood hero, the Swamp Fox, Francis Marion, demurred on the grounds that he couldn't be sure he could carry out the promise. What does this mean? Does it mean he disapproved of using human beings for money, or does it mean that his operational style did not guarantee the ability to transport slaves?

"Sumter's Law" is that you can take anything you want from enemy households, and it's not stealing.

I think, preliminarily, that Sumter was a rapacious criminal, but I have to read a full biography of him before I can commit to that idea. What else I know about him is that he lived to the 1830's and was a staunch supporter of State's Rights and the doctrine of nullification -- if a state doesn't like a federal law, they can nullify it and declare it not to apply in that state. And he was very rich and influential, and he founded Statesburg, meaning for it to be the capital of the state, which it almost was.

I will also have to read biographies of Francis Marion, John Laurens, Benjamin Franklin, and dog knows who else.

Who else should I read about?

on another front, my yard has not exactly dried out but it's no longer actually slimy. And freesias and Louisiana irises and Douglas irises are blooming.