Slavery and Race Relations in British North America

[chrispi]

No ATL of a failed American rebellion can be complete without tackling the bugbear of (mostly) African slavery, and what the British would do about its abolition.

The most significant effect of a British victory in the ARW, I think, would be an earlier end to the Atlantic slave trade than OTL, since slave ships cannot evade the Royal Navy by flying the US flag. That, and the North American naval squadrons would pursue slavers with equal zeal rather than with the historical laxity and indifference. (Indeed, in OTL the illegal transatlantic trade dried up within months when President Lincoln, distracted by internal matters, allowed the British to search suspect American ships.)

Thus, an effective end to the trade in 1807 rather than 1861 would mean fewer Africans in the Americas (probably by half, considering that the illegal era was also the slave trade's Golden Age.)

Another consequence would be the prohibition of slavery anywhere west of the Appalachians, starving the peculiar institution of its oxygen: westward expansion and the profits made reinvested into ever more slaves.

What will this mean for black Americans? They will be fewer and more assimilated or even absorbed into White society. While there are still antimiscegenation laws around, there is no One Drop Rule and Brazilian gradation of races is the norm.

[carlton_bach]

Assuming British politics will be the same as OTL, that would be an unmitigated boon to US rae relations. However, that is a big if. Britain could afford to do the moral thing on slavery largely because its investment in the issue, while considerable, was not vital. With British North America still in the fold - and American interests speaking at the Westminster green baize tables - I would think British slavery policy being different. Unless, of course, Britain choosese to abolish slavery early in order to undermine the recalcitrant governments in the southern American seaboard colonies. Probably not a nice thing for the black population, as they'll be resented.

[Mr_ Bondoc]

There are serval points that would be made if the British did succeed in crushing the American Revolution.

-Slavery would have been abolished, with the rest of the Commonwealth in 1835, but enforcement would be lax. Case and point, slavery was still a part of life, despite British military intervention in Egypt and Sudan...

-Slavery would be eliminated but the issue of equality would be a "moot point", this would be based on the ideas of "Social Darwinism" on a scientific basis and a "caste-system" until the late twentieth century...

-Egalitarian beliefs might begin to arise out of a socialist/labor class movement, but this doesn't necessarily have to be so. Case and point, in the writings of H.G. Wells and Jack London, the ideas of Fabian Socialism are quite prevalent, but "separation of the races" is considered an elightened policy, complete with occupations/jobs for "certain, distinct classes"

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Mr_ Bondoc

There are serval points that would be made if the British did succeed in crushing the American Revolution.

-Slavery would have been abolished, with the rest of the Commonwealth in 1835, but enforcement would be lax. Case and point, slavery was still a part of life, despite British military intervention in Egypt and Sudan...

Egypt and the Sudan, like the Native States of India, were only under British supervision and tutelage, not British-governed territories, so Common Law writ did not run there. By comparison, enforcement of the antislavery laws in British Guyana or Jamaica was fairly strict (unlike, frex, Haiti, where slavery was abolished early but the system of 'restavecs' continues to this day).

But more importantly, why would British history in the late 18th and early 19th century be unaffected by a victory in America to the degree as to stipulate an abolition of slavery at the exact csame date? What makes Westminster be so impervious to butterflies?

-Slavery would be eliminated but the issue of equality would be a "moot point", this would be based on the ideas of "Social Darwinism" on a scientific basis and a "caste-system" until the late twentieth century...

Social Darwinism, yes, but I doubt the British government would condone a caste system. They were fairly clear about that. I am also not at all sure that Britain would insist on a formal, bureaucratic race classification as the British laissez-faire regime coupled with socioetal racism was pretty efficient at keeping 'the coloureds in their place' while being more accepting of individual successful nonwhites than formal segregation.

-Egalitarian beliefs might begin to arise out of a socialist/labor class movement, but this doesn't necessarily have to be so. Case and point, in the writings of H.G. Wells and Jack London, the ideas of Fabian Socialism are quite prevalent, but "separation of the races" is considered an elightened policy, complete with occupations/jobs for "certain, distinct classes"

I don't think you can avoid egalitarian thinking. Not if you have Enlightenment ethics. And given lower tension - race relations not burdened with the legacy of the Civil War - I don't see how this stance would become less popular.

[Faeelin]

On the idea of resentment: If the southern colonies decide to try to revolt against Britain, could they convince the northern states to join them? If so, then the independent nation would have, as part of its founding ideology, the idea that Blacks should be slaves (along with other inferior races). Talk about a dystopia...

[Xen]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

On the idea of resentment: If the southern colonies decide to try to revolt against Britain, could they convince the northern states to join them? If so, then the independent nation would have, as part of its founding ideology, the idea that Blacks should be slaves (along with other inferior races). Talk about a dystopia...

Thank you for addressing this one issue, I tire of hearing overly patriotic Americans assume if the British won the Revolution then the Colonies would rebel another time. While the colonies may rebel another time, will they rebel together is the question. The United States really didnt help Canada in 1837, in spite of the belief all of North America should be united.

What is likely to happen, we will have the butterflies extend slavery in the British Empire until say the 1850s, when it is finally ended. This of course upsets the cotton producing colonies in the Amercian south and the Cotton Rebellion begins and is crushed rather easily by British troops as well as New Englanders, Canadians and others. It is also likely we will see the British try to resettle the freed American slaves to Africa, perhaps combining Liberia (as it wont exist) and Sierre Leon into one giant free state.

What percentage will go? And how will this country develops is hard to tell.

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by Xen

Thank you for addressing this one issue, I tire of hearing overly patriotic Americans assume if the British won the Revolution then the Colonies would rebel another time. While the colonies may rebel another time, will they rebel together is the question. The United States really didnt help Canada in 1837, in spite of the belief all of North America should be united.

I agree with you there. I don't necessary believe that given a failed ARW that the colonies will revolt again. The more integrated the economics become between Britain and the colonies the more unlikely rebellion.

[chrispi]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

Assuming British politics will be the same as OTL, that would be an unmitigated boon to US rae relations. However, that is a big if. Britain could afford to do the moral thing on slavery largely because its investment in the issue, while considerable, was not vital. With British North America still in the fold - and American interests speaking at the Westminster green baize tables - I would think British slavery policy being different. Unless, of course, Britain choosese to abolish slavery early in order to undermine the recalcitrant governments in the southern American seaboard colonies. Probably not a nice thing for the black population, as they'll be resented.

The Slave Power in British North America was much smaller than the slave interests in the British West Indies. I don't see the Americans getting much voice at Westminster for several reasons: they are already too numerous for British comfort (4 million vs 10 million in Britain itself,) the time involved sending American MPs to London (two months versus a fortnight even from Skegness,) and the Yanks themselves distrust the Commons and its rotten boroughs.

Instead the North Americans will get full Dominion/Commonwealth status within the Empire (read: independence.) However, there will not be a single confederation; even the USA was big enough and faced a civil war four score years later, the entire BNA under one government in 1800 is impossible. Even two dominions--North and South--will prove too much. Most likely there will be four dominions the size of Britain itself and based on long histories: New England, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida. Canada and the Indian Reserve remain Crown colonies where slavery is banned. But Britain cannot abolish slavery within Virginia and Florida...

[chrispi]

One case study that can be used for a failed ARW is South Africa. The Boer War and the Union of South Africa offer clues as to what would happen in North America. WRT race, there were not two but three groupings: White, Coloured and Black, and intermarriage there was more common than in the US. This too was the antebellum Southern racial policy. Without a Civil War, Jim Crow and all that we would see a much smaller "black" population than OTL.

[chrispi]

Another side effect: the earlier abolition of slavery means that alternate sources of labor must be found--immigrants. The bulk of the increased immigration will come from Germany and to a lesser extent Scandinavia, then Ireland after the Great Potato Blight sometime mid-century. Mediterranean immigration would likely remain the same or even decline, especially if Italy does not have a risorgimento...

[Wyboy26]

Hi

What would happen, if the British tried to get rid of slavery in 1770, and the south rebelled for that reason, and won. Would the basis of American liberty be based on the plantation owners having the right to keep slaves

Simon

[JHPier]

Originally Posted by chrispi

Thus, an effective end to the trade in 1807 rather than 1861 would mean fewer Africans in the Americas (probably by half, considering that the illegal era was also the slave trade's Golden Age.).

I wonder how you reach that estimate. From what I've read the 18C was the period when the bulk of the slaves made the Middle Passage, the growth of the US slave population was for 90% (or more) due to natural increase, and by and large the illegal slave trade was aimed at Cuba.

Originally Posted by chrispi

What will this mean for black Americans? They will be fewer and more assimilated or even absorbed into White society. While there are still antimiscegenation laws around, there is no One Drop Rule and Brazilian gradation of races is the norm.

The One Drop Rule was the result of the numerical predominance of whites. Brazilian gradation of races is the result of Blacks (initially) outnumbering badly the master class. This made the latter practice divide and rule, i.e. setting apart Coloreds from Blacks. The US South did not need to divide and rule, they had the numbers to just rule.

[chrispi]

Originally Posted by Wyboy26

Hi

What would happen, if the British tried to get rid of slavery in 1770, and the south rebelled for that reason, and won. Would the basis of American liberty be based on the plantation owners having the right to keep slaves

Simon

I presume that you refer to Somerset v. Stewart and having it apply to the whole British Empire, not merely England. Well I can tell you now that it would be the West Indies, not the Southern Continentals, who would rebel first.

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Starting in 1854, there is the sudden threat of the Knights of the Golden Circle, pro-slavery advocates in the North, who terrorized the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. To make matters even more ugly, starting in 1862, you could have Clement L. Vallandingham, Supreme Commander of the Sons of Liberty lead a series of race riots or pro-slavery secession, based on the ideals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

[Melvin Loh]

What PODs could be designed such that slavery in the North was more long-lasting in places where it died out relatively early, such as northern new England ? Would there necessarily needed to have been a system of plantation economy to maintain slavery's cont'd existence in the likes of Maine, New Hampshire, or Vermont ?

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Melvin Loh

What PODs could be designed such that slavery in the North was more long-lasting in places where it died out relatively early, such as northern new England ? Would there necessarily needed to have been a system of plantation economy to maintain slavery's cont'd existence in the likes of Maine, New Hampshire, or Vermont ?

I think it would have required an ideological ground shift. Slavery can exist quite happily in a society with no pressing economic need for it - like Renaissance Italy - but with widespread ideological objections, it will take some kind of economic imperative tpo keep it going. I don't see any way (short of huge changes to European demographics making emigration impossible) to make New England or the Midwest depend on slave labour. However, if there was a widespread belief that slavery was acceptable, even a positive thing, it could be done. Note, though, that this kind of view is quite rare in history. even the Romans regarded slavery as something like a deplorable necessity. The only concept that I think could do it would be 'scientific' racism. It fits the Enlightenment mindset well enough.

[chrispi]

Originally Posted by JHPier

I wonder how you reach that estimate. From what I've read the 18C was the period when the bulk of the slaves made the Middle Passage, the growth of the US slave population was for 90% (or more) due to natural increase, and by and large the illegal slave trade was aimed at Cuba.

I got this from Hugh Thomas' The Slave Trade. The bulk of the illegal trade went to Brazil, with some trade to Cuba. Indeed, in the late antebellum South there was an increase in the illegal importation of slaves (with the help of the planters' friends in the New England shipping industry) that proved to be substantial enough that in the British Parliament even libertarians like young William Ewart Gladstone talked of ending the "failed" War on Slavery!

Originally Posted by JHPier

The One Drop Rule was the result of the numerical predominance of whites. Brazilian gradation of races is the result of Blacks (initially) outnumbering badly the master class. This made the latter practice divide and rule, i.e. setting apart Coloreds from Blacks. The US South did not need to divide and rule, they had the numbers to just rule.

The One-Drop Rule came out of the Jim Crow era. In the antebellum era there were many color lines and "passing" for white was common. With no Civil War this sort of "visual racism" will become the mode.

[Norman]

Originally Posted by Melvin Loh

What PODs could be designed such that slavery in the North was more long-lasting in places where it died out relatively early, such as northern new England ? Would there necessarily needed to have been a system of plantation economy to maintain slavery's cont'd existence in the likes of Maine, New Hampshire, or Vermont ?

I can't see any way slavery in New England was ever practical. The terrain is just to mountainous and rocky to make agriculture / plantation based slavery an economic benefit. In some of the midatlantic states slavery was widely practiced because it large scale agriculture was in place.

To have it succeed in PA, NJ and NY, I think you need to have more immigration from England with an 'aristocratic' bent. The immigrants into these areas tended to be commoners looking for free land and better opportunities, and because of their religious beliefs they didn't see slavery as a means to this end.

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Personally, I feel that if slavery is stopped in a surviving large BNA, it won't really matter what the locals want. Take Jamacia, for example. The island was a mess of sugar-producing slave plantations that gave more cash to Britain that the Thirteen Colonies did. The slaves were integral to the economy of Jamacia. Yet when the British abolished slavery in 1834, Jamacia followed suit (though there was foot-dragging well into 1838). I forsee something similar happening in the southern colonies (though the exact date of the British emancipation would differ from OTL).

[Glen]

I suppose in part the answer to this question of what would happen with Slavery in a British North America with a failed ARW would depend on the details of that failure.

Was it just aborted? The colonists and British come to terms and no war is fought? Its nipped in the bud, early on? Or was it a long, protracted war eventually lost by the colonies, and if so, who lost more during the war, the north or the south? And when the British were able to stop American Independence, was there a soft settlement with the Founding Fathers mostly going back to their previous lives or where there massive executions and exilements? All of these questions would have a profound effect on the relations between the British and British North America.

The minimalist approach would have the Colonies and the British avoiding war entirely, with some sort of political settlement and no lingering bad feelings. Very possible from many PODs. Okay, so things are better. As has been pointed out already, the British did eliminate slavery despite having very important colonial possessions in the Caribbean that were utterly immersed in slave labor. They didn't rebel and within a relatively short time slavery was ended. Why expect much difference in the Southern Colonies? Both the Caribbean and the South were dependent on Slave Labor. Perhaps the difference is in size? The British Caribbean is broken into small islands with small populations, with no reasonable chance of uniting effectively to fight off the British. The South is much larger, contiguous, and has a larger population base. So maybe there is a rebellion in the South over the issue of freeing the Slaves. However, I can see this being much more restricted than either the ARW or the ACW. South Carolina leads the charge again, most likely. However, in this timeline, the South is only a small part of the British Empire, and the slavery as previously mentioned has been limited in extent, so not nearly as predominant as in OTL USA. The North is not going to support a Slavers' rebellion, even if they do profit from the Slave Trade. Most of the border colonies likely won't join in either. So perhaps an uprising that is put down within a year or so?

As for the One Drop rule, no idea how that came about. Its not, I think, because of a white majority as mentioned. IIRC, in South Carolina there were a LOT of people of African descent. But I would guess that this would be less likely in this timeline, and while unfortunately racism is likely to continue for another century in some societal form, it will likely be less virulent overall, and particularly in the South.