Slavery and a failed ARW question

[Prime Minister]

If the American revolution were to fail what would the aftermath look like? And how would this wind up effecting the French possessions in America?

But, the big thing. What happens when the British Empire ban slavery? Do they fight the south again? or maybe re fight the American revolution?

 

[Tripwire]

If the American revolution were to fail what would the aftermath look like? And how would this wind up effecting the French possessions in America?

But, the big thing. What happens when the British Empire ban slavery? Do they fight the south again? or maybe re fight the American revolution?

I think the problem here is the assumption that the ban on slavery will go through right on schedule. I think there's problems with this, for two reasons:

1. In the 19th century the British public was highly anti-slavery. However, the powerful Sugar Baron class of the British Caribbean were able to exert enough influence on Parliament to delay emancipation til 1833, and then to have their former slaves made unpaid "apprentices" for another 6 years, so that in reality they weren't free until 1840. In this ATL, the Caribbean slave-owning lobby would be combined with that of the cotton planters on the American mainland. I don't know how far this would push back the date of emancipation, but I imagine it would push it back to at least somewhat later.

2. In order to avert the American Revolution, or prevent a second one, the colonies pretty much have to have been given quite a bit more autonomy than they had in the 1770s. By the 1830s or later, parliament may no longer have the authority to ban slavery or anything else in the mainland colonies. However there likely won't be a unified British North American colonial government, either. Unfortunately I have a very hard time predicting what exactly the governmental landscape of North America would look like in a no/failed ARW timeline, because it's such a major divergence. You could be looking at either a dominion-like massive unified country spanning the continent, or 20+ independent colonies loosely attached to Britain. Don't forget that part of the impetus for forming the Confederation of Canada in 1867 was fear of American annexation if the colonies remained separate.

 

[Johnrankins]

In 1867? I am not saying you are wrong but it seems a weird time for BNA to worry about being annexed by the US. The US just fought a long and bloody war and is reconstructing the South and settling the new Western territories. It seems to to be one of the least likely times in the 19th century for the US to do this. What was the reasoning?

 

[Tripwire]

In 1867? I am not saying you are wrong but it seems a weird time for BNA to worry about being annexed by the US. The US just fought a long and bloody war and is reconstructing the South and settling the new Western territories. It seems to to be one of the least likely times in the 19th century for the US to do this. What was the reasoning?

I don't mean "The US is suddenly going to attack and annex Canada!" I mean as a long-term thing, where the Canadian colonies would slowly be dragged into the US's sphere, with eventual annexation being the likely result. This was a worry at the time.

 

[Prime Minister]

I don't mean "The US is suddenly going to attack and annex Canada!" I mean as a long-term thing, where the Canadian colonies would slowly be dragged into the US's sphere, with eventual annexation being the likely result. This was a worry at the time.

And is still today now and again. Such as in any reactions towards events like NAFTA, the cancellation of Avro Arrow, and any time Canadians think the US is gaining more influence in Canada than is right.

 

[katchen]

Good question. Would the South try to declare independence over slavery in 1838? The West Indies went along with freeing the slaves in 1838. But being small islands, the whites of the West Indies didn't have much choice. The result of Great Britain attempting to end slavery in South Africa was the Boers going on the Great Trek to the interior. Depending on how good communications were in interior North America were by the 1830s, we might see a North American version of VoortrekkersITTL. After all, we did with the Mormons.

 

[Beedok]

In 1867? I am not saying you are wrong but it seems a weird time for BNA to worry about being annexed by the US. The US just fought a long and bloody war and is reconstructing the South and settling the new Western territories. It seems to to be one of the least likely times in the 19th century for the US to do this. What was the reasoning?

It also had an absolutely massive army that had Canada terrified.

 

[Prime Minister]

It also had an absolutely massive army that had Canada terrified.

Yes, also this.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Of course owners of people got generously compensaed when British slavery was abolished

 

[Tyr]

I think for the ban on slavery you have to even out the UK dates and the US dates, taking into account relative strength to an extent.
It'll be more towards the British date but kind of halfway between the two.


On autonomy- the American revolution was a bit of a turning point for how the rest of the British empire would turn out. Would it follow centralisation or decentralisation. IOTL it was decentralisation and local government which ruled the day. It could well be though that in an OTL that direct incorporation is the route followed.

 

[Socrates]

I've thought a lot about this question.

The reality is that slavery got an imperial ban due to the Great Reform Act. The middle classes in Britain were heavily anti-slavery, less receptive to the concerns of business owners, and shortly after they got the vote, the ban passed easily. If the American Revolution is averted, it is likely that electoral reform will happen earlier, rather than later as (a) the American colonies have a wider franchise, and that would pressure Britain to follow suit and (b) it's quite likely the Americans would at some point get some sort of representation in parliament, who would be very pro-reform. A ban could well happen in the 1820s. If the French Revolution doesn't happen, it's even earlier: electoral reform could even happen by the 1790s, which would then mean a ban on slavery by the early 1800s.

The question is whether the imperial ban would apply to the Southern colonies, due to any devolved power they have. If the ARW is fought and lost, ultimate parliamentary supremacy is likely to be put on a much stronger footing and it probably will. If the ARW is averted through some deal, parliamentary sovereignty will likely be accepted notionally, but not in practice. This means the initial ban likely wouldn't apply to the southern states.

However, pressure is likely to be toned up in the decades that follow, and eventually something will be passed that even applies to the southern states I think. The South will says its unconstitutional, ignores British liberties etc, but probably won't rebel, as they've got no chance of winning at all if they do. Better to just take the compensation deal, which will likely be on some pretty generous terms.

 

[phx1138]

Better to just take the compensation deal, which will likely be on some pretty generous terms.

That does suggest a variation on the Voortrekker model. Do they go West & set up? Or move to Central America or someplace?

Another factor: what happens to the freed blacks? The "40 acres & a mule" promised OTL AFAIK never actually materialized...

 

[MerryPrankster]

Why would electoral reform happen earlier rather than later? The French Revolution and Napoleon set the advance of freedom back in Britain (due to fear of unrest and dictatorship). See "Peterloo."

Thande has made the case that it was defeat in the Revolution that made Britain self-examine and ultimately turn against slavery.

 

[Tripwire]

I've thought a lot about this question.

The reality is that slavery got an imperial ban due to the Great Reform Act. The middle classes in Britain were heavily anti-slavery, less receptive to the concerns of business owners, and shortly after they got the vote, the ban passed easily. If the American Revolution is averted, it is likely that electoral reform will happen earlier, rather than later as (a) the American colonies have a wider franchise, and that would pressure Britain to follow suit and (b) it's quite likely the Americans would at some point get some sort of representation in parliament, who would be very pro-reform. A ban could well happen in the 1820s. If the French Revolution doesn't happen, it's even earlier: electoral reform could even happen by the 1790s, which would then mean a ban on slavery by the early 1800s.

Interesting thought about wider franchises. I'm not entirely sure how much a wider franchise would do to clean out corruption (which is where the OTL sugar barons and ATL cotton lords will get their power in parliament) but if it does indeed widen the franchise, the opportunities for extreme corruption would be lessened, so it seems reasonable. I think in order to get this timeline you need a much stronger 18th century Whig party, to create a both earlier parliamentary reform and no ARW timeline.

Generally I do not agree that No American Revolution = No French Revolution. I think the only lasting effect the lack of an American Revolution will have on the French Revolution is that it will give the French monarchy a few more years, the butterflies of which are huge and completely unpredictable during something as volatile as the French Revolution.

One more problem I just thought of. OTL, the American Revolution hurt the Caribbean planters, because separation of the US and the British empire threw up trade barriers between them and their traditional source of supplies, and hurt their profits. The pre-Revolution colonial trade was all deeply interlinked. The independence of the US led to tariffs and occasional embargoes between the US and the British Caribbean. So if they remain under the same crown it's going to benefit the Caribbean planters, though I'd have to do more research to find out to what extent.

(edit: I tried to look up that last thing and quickly found out it's actually some sort of scholarly debate in Caribbean history between two different schools of thought, and therefore I sure as hell am not going to be able to come to a conclusive answer)

 

[Simreeve]

Thande has made the case that it was defeat in the Revolution that made Britain self-examine and ultimately turn against slavery.

Slavery had already been declared illegal within Britain itself in 1772, i.e. two years before the Americans' declaration of independance.

 

[Tripwire]

Slavery had already been declared illegal within Britain itself in 1772, i.e. two years before the Americans' declaration of independance.

To be fair to Thande I have heard this argument about Anglo-American rivalry affecting abolitionist attitudes elsewhere*, but the theory is.....more than a little out there. Anyone citing it as a major cause of anything is probably wrong.

*and by elsewhere I mean "some Irish guy on the historum forums."

 

[Socrates]

That does suggest a variation on the Voortrekker model. Do they go West & set up? Or move to Central America or someplace?

Another factor: what happens to the freed blacks? The "40 acres & a mule" promised OTL AFAIK never actually materialized...

I doubt it. These are independent frontier farmers. The planter class are landed aristocrats who enjoy fine manufactured goods and going to the theatre. They'd be giving up their lifestyles more if they trekked to the frontier than if they allowed slavery to perish. Besides, I struggle to see slavery surviving in some protostate in the middle of nowhere: it'd be so easy for the slaves to escape. Also, the economic model depends on access to international export markets.

As for free blacks, I'd imagine they'd be kept in servility of some form via a tougher apprenticeship system and debt slavery. True emancipation would likely be gradual. You'd probably get shanty towns getting set up in places, and others would move north.

 

[Socrates]

Slavery had already been declared illegal within Britain itself in 1772, i.e. two years before the Americans' declaration of independance.

By judicial decision rather than by act of parliament, however. I think it's correct that anti-slavery became part of British identity due to the ARW (and also the Napoleonic Wars), but it's also correct there was an ongoing debate. I mean, let's face it, slavery is a rather unpleasant thing to anyone not raised in a slave society. Many parliamentarians accepted is as an unpleasant but necessary thing for commerce, and I'm sure their own economic interests were connected to that. The middle class, on the other hand, saw it as just unpleasant and, as they largely didn't have equity in these enterprises, weren't as bothered about the commercial concerns.

 

[Socrates]

Interesting thought about wider franchises. I'm not entirely sure how much a wider franchise would do to clean out corruption (which is where the OTL sugar barons and ATL cotton lords will get their power in parliament) but if it does indeed widen the franchise, the opportunities for extreme corruption would be lessened, so it seems reasonable. I think in order to get this timeline you need a much stronger 18th century Whig party, to create a both earlier parliamentary reform and no ARW timeline.

The Whigs were pretty damn strong in our timeline anyway. The only reason the Tories hung on was because the franchise was so restricted. Once Wellington, a national war hero, was out the picture, the right had to reform as the Conservative party, with an explicit new manifesto embracing Whig-style reforms, to remain competitive. There was increasing agitation for reform from the 1760s, and I think it happened later than likely even in our timeline. If, however, there are people in another part of the empire with that reform already, I really can't see parliament holding out.

Generally I do not agree that No American Revolution = No French Revolution. I think the only lasting effect the lack of an American Revolution will have on the French Revolution is that it will give the French monarchy a few more years, the butterflies of which are huge and completely unpredictable during something as volatile as the French Revolution.

It's not the finance issue that's the issue more as the example that a people can take it upon themselves to institute a new government. Before then, all the Enlightenment thinkers believed in generous Kings and parliaments improving things through benevolence. Even if the Estates General is called, and if the Third Estate get double representation - two big Ifs - then I really can't see themselves calling themselves the national assembly, and I really can't see them saying that they're going to form a constitution whether the King wants it or not. I imagine it's far more likely they're going to call for checks on the King's power along English lines.

[One more problem I just thought of. OTL, the American Revolution hurt the Caribbean planters, because separation of the US and the British empire threw up trade barriers between them and their traditional source of supplies, and hurt their profits. The pre-Revolution colonial trade was all deeply interlinked. The independence of the US led to tariffs and occasional embargoes between the US and the British Caribbean. So if they remain under the same crown it's going to benefit the Caribbean planters, though I'd have to do more research to find out to what extent.

(edit: I tried to look up that last thing and quickly found out it's actually some sort of scholarly debate in Caribbean history between two different schools of thought, and therefore I sure as hell am not going to be able to come to a conclusive answer)

There's also the case that industrialisation is likely to be slower in the US. In our timeline, Britain deliberately tried to prevent industrialisation in the colonies to force them to be dependent on the homeland. While they will have to buckle on this in this timeline, lest there's a second revolt, there's still not going to be an American system. That means less demand for cotton output, for the textiles industry. So while the sugar planters might be better off, the cotton planters are going to be less so. In addition, as sugar is more profitable in general, I imagine the price of slaves will be bid up by the sugar planters, meaning less slaves and lower margins for the cotton folks.