answersLogoWhite

0

Overall it was better.

"Free Blacks" who served under Gen. Washington were in many cases, landowners themselves. Often with deep ancestral roots in colonial America.

"Free blacks" consisted of free-borns who trace lines as far back as the early 1600's. Many as a result of miscegenation between free/indentured whites and blacks. Those born to free white mothers, took on her surname and not that of the black father.

Other Free Blacks gained their freedom status as a result of an individual landowners personal conflicts over slavery & his religious teachings. Quakers & Baptist were among the denominations to free "enslaved blacks" bound to them prior to 1806.

Gen. Washington admitted "free blacks" to the continental military with little to no problem; however he was vehemently against the entry of "enslaved" blacks as he feared they would use their weapons to take up arms against their Masters or worse, flee ranks and compromise Patriot strongholds or positions.

When Lord Dunmore issued his proclamation granting freedom to anyone who fought with them, tens of thousands of "enslaved men" fled their masters for freedom under the British.

Gen. Washington had little choice but to issue a counter-proclamation that included freedom for the "enslaved soldier/sailor" with land grant.

After the war Free Blacks rec'd on average 100+ acres each. If their wives survived them, the wives were allowed to draw on their husband's pension. My ancestor Susanna Simmons-Goings did just that after her husband's death.

After the war, the "Enslaved black" was granted his freedom as promised and rec'd on avg. 25-100 acres of land. Unfortunately, the freedom was granted to him alone; not his children or mate.

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago

What else can I help you with?