Now, since I have the advantage here in that I have a highly tuned sense of curiosity, wheras Mr. Matthews took what his professors fed to him in total without asking one single question to counter what he was being fed, I would prefer to from this point focus on the three arguments in the article, which are as wrong as can possibly be. In particular, the first and the third are of the most interest. The second is so completely laughable that I'm not going to bother spending more than a half paragraph on it.
To begin, I would like to point out that the opening of the article is a picture, a painting really - That of George Washington Crossing the Delaware. The irony is that there's a black person sitting right there in the boat with Washington. Does that make my curiosity a curse or a gift? I know who that man is, too. But I'm not going to footnote this one. I want you to look it up and find his name on your own, I think that would be very useful.
Since there is a black person sitting right there in the boat with George Washington, what does that say about the rest of the article as written on Vox? He has no clue about his history, he only knows what was on the spoon that he was fed by.
Contention #1: "Abolition would have come faster without independence"
Vox Media is an outlet for leftists, so let's start with a concept that they are well familiar with. Outsourcing. This is an easy thing to grasp, so I will quickly move on. In regards to slavery and its abolition, the American Founding presented England with an opportunity to get rid of the institution of slavery. When the colonies were joined together with the kingdom as English subjects and the slave trade was booming, there is no chance that England would do what it did in 1807 and again 1834 with a united force of slavers. Since the colonies split with the kingdom taking some of the slavers with them, that pressure of the slave trade was essentially(partially) outsourced. This is a contention that is even admitted in the piece to a degree, in that "Britain would have had much more to gain from the continuance of slavery". But we can't let facts get in the way of a good guilt trip. Especially, since I brought up the abolition of the slave trade in 1807. Did you notice how that was omitted from the Vox piece? Of course it was. Why? America abolished the slave trade before England did. Again, why let facts get in the way of a good guilt trip?
Let's examine the NIMBY aspect of English slavery at the time. The English abolished slavery on the homefront in 1772, yet the king did everything he could to see to its continuance in his colonies. This is NIMBYism, not any reliance upon some sort of principle. Slavery made the king a lot of money, and he need that money for all of his wars. There were a lot of anti-slavery laws that were being passed by the colonies, and the king would have none of it. Virginia, for example, passed a law in 1761 that met with a Monarchical veto.(1) The king then issued a decree to the Governor of Virginia that:
"upon pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be in any respect prohibited or obstructed."(1)
When we examine the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, we see a similar situation. The language here is even more striking:(2)
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation 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
So lets review - in the original article, Lord Dunmore's proclamation is cited. This cite is misused. The king had no interest in abolishing slavery for the specific sake of abolishing slavery. He only was interested in bringing in more soldiers for his fight against liberty. Lord Dunmore's proclamation ends with this phrase "God Save The King". But in reality, those who are against slavery should be saying this: God Damn The King. Not only for what he did to those people back then and for what he prevented from happening(abolition), but for how this legacy is abused today to further the anti-American, anti-Liberty agenda of today's progressives. While we are on this point, it needs to be examined: When the king was leveraging slaves in the American colonies to try to increase his soldier count, what did the king do? He set a precedent that slavery was a bad thing - the very thing he tried fighting against just a few years earlier. This precedent would surely be beneficial to the anti-slavery kind in England, such as William Wilberforce.
The worst part of it is this: the king upheld slavery when it benefitted him, and modern progressives let him get away with it. Hypocrites. All progressives are hypocrites on this point of slavery - for letting the king get away with this.
Note that the first draft is even mentioned in the article, but since all of the anti-slavery colonial laws (and the king's vetos of them) have been wiped from history, that allows progressive writers to cast the original "draught" of the Declaration as merely a response to Dunmore and nothing more, when as can be seen above, it was not. Anti-slavery laws were common in the American colonies(3), but in order to believe what has been written you have to assume that the drive for American Independence only began in 1775. It, of course, did not. Like Lord Dunmore, Lord Norborne Berkeley(Dunmore's predecessor) was also a loyalist monarchist governor. So when the king vetoed colonial anti-slavery laws, it stuck.
Contention #2: "Independence was bad for Native Americans"
A large portion of this section is spent apologizing for Canadian "horrible, indefensible crimes". I could simply just cut and paste the article itself back in here, but that would be a copyright issue. It's a sad fact of humanity that the "big dogs" always pick on the "little dogs". This is probably one of the few areas of agreement I would have since I wish it weren't the case as well, but I am certainly not going to feel guilty about it in the context of America when every society/nation I've ever read about is guilty of this. To point out that Vox is engaging in a futile attempt at navel gazing would be an understatement.
Contention #3: "America would have a better system of government if we'd stuck with Britain"
As I have consistently written, progressives do not like individual liberty. This article is no different. A parliament is inferior to the separation of powers that exists in the United States Constitution. One of the big reasons why progressives going all the way back to Woodrow Wilson love the English style of government is that their constitution, the UK Constitution, is a living and breathing document.(4) I wrote a paper about this already, which will save me time here.(4) The difference between the US Constitution being a "living and breathing" document is de-facto, that is, it is only true because the courts have made it so through force, coercion, and deception. It was never inherently such. But the UK Constitution is de-jure "living and breathing". You can't even print out a copy of it! Go ahead, go to https://www.google.com and give it a try. Try printing a copy of the UK Constitution.
Since England is still a monarchy(even limited), its people are still subjects. They are not free citizens. They may have been free from subjection for a short time, at some point after the American Revolution, but their government has controlled their healthcare for generations. This is pretty simple - when the government controls your healthcare, the government controls your body - they control you. Your body is you.(Surprise surprise!) If the government controls you, then you're not a free citizen. You're a subject. (And yes, sadly, I know that I have been a subject myself since March 23, 2010. I do put myself in that lot.) So if the subjects of England did have freedom, they lost it on July 5th, 1948. Mark the date.
And yes, let me make this clear: If the king would have controlled the Founding Fathers' healthcare, there would not have been an American Revolution. There would have been even less of an interest in independence, since government controlled healthcare is in reality all about dependence.
Now, as to the progressives' rejection of individual liberty, I will cite a few here. I have gone in depth with them in the past both in my blog, and there are examples as well written in my paper on the UK Constitution.(4) Both Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey(for example) have quite explicitly rejected individual liberty. John Dewey wrote that liberal schools and the philosophical doctrines that underlay it:(5)
served to break down the idea that freedom is something that individuals have as a ready-made possession
Dewey also wrote that:(6)
The emancipated individual was to become the organ and agent of a comprehensive and progressive society.
Dewey is talking about "emancipating" individuals from the evils of 18th century ideology. That is, the beliefs of the Founders and all of this "Nature" stuff that they(the Founders) kept talking about.
Woodrow Wilson was even more elitist about his rejection of individual liberty. He wrote:(7)
a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.
For people who would prefer not to be slaves of progressivism, yes, individual liberty is indeed a "fundamental principle". You can quote me on that. Finally, one of Wilson's most famous quotes is where he says that "If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface."(8) Make no mistake about it, progressivism is all about government that works "more efficiently" - meaning fast government, faster and faster and faster government. For progressives, they don't mind that authoritarian government exists, as long as they are the ones controlling it. Even monarchism, progressives will support. That's better than individual liberty for them.
King George got a lot of things done. He was very efficient. The irony is that the English people themselves fought for nearly a thousand years to do something about out of control, efficient, fast government. See the 1100 Charter of Liberties, the Magna Carta, the 1628 Petition of Right, the 1642 Grand Remonstrance, and the 1689 Bill of Rights for more details. And yes, this history does matter in the context of American History, see Federalist #84.(9)
Parliamentarian government is "faster government", as has been admitted in the original article. That's what makes it tyrannical. People need time to read, think about, and digest laws. Not pass them to find out what is in them!
In closing, there is only one reason why more conservatives cannot push back against this extreme misuse of the travesty of slavery against America, and it goes right to the heart of progressivism and back to the opening sentences of my writing. Colleges are pushing out nothing but propaganda, so very, very few people even know the king's true role in upholding slavery as well as the Founding generation's valiant efforts to get rid of it.
It's time to start pushing back. Any time the issue of "slavery" comes up, who should be running for the tall grass is progressives. There's no reason why anybody should be afraid of this when it is used. We don't own this. The king does.
God Damn The King
(3) The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America: 1638–1870, by W.E.B. DuBois (Note: DuBois makes many of the same errors as are written on Vox)