Abolitionism and the ARW: the Poll

Which outcome of a failed ARW is the most likely?

  • Total voters
    73

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
I thought this recent thread of mine could use a poll, so I'm putting one up here.

The idea is, I want to know how you think slavery would most likely fare in a world where the American Revolution failed -- let's say with switched victories at Second Saratoga -- no French alliance, etc -- and the cause is defeated by the end of 1778.*

I've got four broad possibilities:

Optimistic
The Atlantic slave trade, slavery, or both, are abolished throughout the Empire sooner.

Small Butterfly
Both the slave trade and slavery itself are abolished throughout the Empire around the same time as OTL (by around 1810 and 1835 respectively)

Pessimistic
Even though the slave trade is abolished around the same time (or sooner), slavery itself endures throughout the Empire significantly longer

Really Pessimistic
The Atlantic Slave Trade endures significantly longer, as slavery itself likely does.

I'd love if voters could comment on how much sooner or later the ends of the trade and institution would likely come about respectively; also, if there's another possibility I'm overlooking, would love to hear it.

*(Also, assume the whole colonies remain British -- no Federation of America, or anything like that ;))
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
As an example, I voted "really pessimistic" (reasoning in the link)

I'd say, to start, the key growth of the abolitionist movement in the 1780's -- both Britain and in America -- doesn't happen; assuming war breaks out with France in the 1790's, they'll still see less progress by 1800 than they had by 1790 OTL.

So I'd say, for the slave trade, a decade extension would be conservative estimate. But I could easily see it going another 25 years... :(
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I go for pessimist; if it didn't butterfly the french revolution, you'll have even more willingness to use french slaveholders as a fifth column in the carribean once slavery is abolished in the 1790s, and the monarchy might well consider it anyway if reforms go through (the tension was not merely economic but also political and some of the gears that set the revolution in motion had been going since the economic crisis caused by the failure of John Law's bank, or for close to a century), which means in case of war, they'll probably end up having to support the plantocracy there as they might well end up having to do in the american provinces.

That could actually turn into extreme pessimism.
 

RPW@Cy

John Fredrick Parker said:
As an example, I voted "really pessimistic" (reasoning in the link)

I'd say, to start, the key growth of the abolitionist movement in the 1780's -- both Britain and in America -- doesn't happen; assuming war breaks out with France in the 1790's, they'll still see less progress by 1800 than they had by 1790 OTL.

So I'd say, for the slave trade, a decade extension would be conservative estimate. But I could easily see it going another 25 years... :(
Click to expand...

I don't get the logic of this. Britian and the USA abolished the slave trade at essentially the same time OTL (February 1807 and January 1808, respectively). If the southern slave owners couldn't block it in their own country, then where on earth are they getting the power from to block it in the British Empire as a whole?

As for slavery itself, the presence of the slave owning southern states in the empire is not going to affect the growth of abolitionist sentiment in Britain in the slightest (any boost they provide to the pro-slavery cause will surely be countered by also having northern abolitionists in the empire) - which, to be blunt, is where it counts. The biggest problem they represent frankly is that the amount required to compensate slave owners will be hugely increased, but this is not beyond the wit of man to solve.
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
I'll quote the relevant sections from a website on abolitionism set up by the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture and the New York Public Library (quoted and referenced in the OP's link); to summarize somewhat, it isn't just the keeping of southern colonies that maintains slavery, but the damage done to abolitionism in the failure of the Revolution.

Like its American counterpart, the British [abolitionist] movement had emerged in the years immediately following the American Revolution. The timing was again significant. The Revolution galvanized political debate in Britain, at the same time giving slavery (disfranchisement) an immediate significance by linking it to the political condition of thousand of native-born Britons. But the Revolution also had a more far-reaching effect.

Defeat in the American war brought with it a searching and sometimes painful reevaluation of Britain’s standing as a once victorious Protestant nation. One result of the loss of the American colonies was a move to tighten the reins of empire elsewhere, notably in Canada, Ireland, and the British Caribbean. Another, however, was a rise in enthusiasm for political and religious reform, for virtually anything, in fact, that might prevent a similar humiliation in the future.

The loss of the American colonies forced Britons to think about themselves and about their failings. Naturally enough, slavery and the slave trade also came under the microscope, leading some Britons to contemplate alternative visions of empire, including, significantly, an empire without slavery. If the debate was rarely framed in these precise terms, we should not underestimate the impact of the American Revolution and imperial crisis on British political thought.

Seen in this light, the abolition of the slave trade was inextricably linked with the character, virtue, and destiny of the British nation, at least until the rising tide of revolutionary violence in France shifted the terms of debate yet again. The American Revolution also had a vital impact on British abolitionism because it effectively divided British America, at the same time halving the number of slaves in the British Empire. Abolitionists were well aware of the importance of these events. "As long as America was ours," wrote abolitionist Thomas Clarkson in 1788, "there was no chance that a minister would have attended to the groans of the sons and daughters of Africa, however he might feel for their distress."

War — or, more precisely, defeat — created a climate in which abolitionism could take root...
Click to expand...

The revolutionaries’ commitment to freedom and equality necessarily led to growing unease over the legitimacy of slavery, as did the valor of the African Americans who enlisted in the Patriot cause. As physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush put it, "It would be useless for us to denounce the servitude to which the Parliament of Great Britain wishes to reduce us, while we continue to keep our fellow creatures in slavery just because their color is different."

Significantly, the Revolution witnessed the emergence of the first broad-based abolitionist organizations, in the shape of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society (organized in 1775, reorganized in 1784) and the New York Manumission Society (1784). Soon, other groups appeared in New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island and, for a short time, in Maryland, Virginia, and Kentucky. Moreover, in 1794 an American Convention of Abolition Societies was formed in an unsuccessful effort to give the early abolitionist movement national scope.

The progress of abolition in America was initially swift. By 1788 no fewer than six states had legislated for the immediate abolition of the slave trade and two more, South Carolina and Delaware, had suspended it temporarily. Others, like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, had also gone further and made some provision for the gradual or immediate abolition of slavery itself...
Click to expand...
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Well, without much elaboration I'm afraid, It has been taught to me that the British had a religious / spiritual revival in the Aftermath of the American Revolution which contributed to their abolitionism movement and their missionary movement. A zeal for humanism / true Christianity if you will, that petered out, ironically, around the 1860's, when it was replaced by British Race Nationalism / Darwinism.

The classic example of this, is the altruism of Dr. Lingstone (Early 19th Century) vs the Racist Darwinism of Rhodes. (Late 19th Century)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top