Abolitionism and the ARW

My thinking on this is sort of along these lines:

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...

This is to say nothing of the effect on slavery's power in America itself.

Imagine, then, that the American Revolution was prevented, or if the British won -- if the above analysis is correct, than it's likely the slave trade and slavery itself would have continued longer. Maybe much longer :(

What do you think?
 
I think the above isn't quite right, look at the Somersett's Case of 1772, in the colonies the case gets a lot of coverage more or less Madison used that case as "The Government will take our slaves!!!!"
 
I think the above isn't quite right, look at the Somersett's Case of 1772...

Which said that slavery was not supported in England by common law; there was a lot of emphasis on its limited scope.

in the colonies the case gets a lot of coverage more or less Madison used that case as "The Government will take our slaves!!!!"

Which (a) for the reason given above, is a dubious claim, and (b) was hardly among the causes of the conflict; also (c) do you have a source on the Madison quote? Regardless, (d) the ARW had a very noticeable accelerating effect on abolitionism in the US, esp. the north.
 
Big difference if the American Revolution is prevented vs. put down.

If it is put down, I think there would be a large number of slaves freed in the South, mostly as a punitive measure aimed at those who supported the Revolution. Many loyalists, however, were also slave owners, and would probably view it as a betrayl if the Empire turned around and freed their slaves.
Also, remembering the recent rebellion, England might be less likely to consider the wholesale abolition of slavery. Having seen evidence that the North American colonists were willing to take up arms to defend what they viewed as their fundamental rights (and owning slaves definitely fell into that category for many Americans) the English might be extremely wary of inciting yet another troublesome and costly revolt.

If there was no American Revolution, it is very difficult to guess how abolition might be effected. You would still have many colonists who would be very strongly supportive of slavery, but they would have no legal means of making their voice heard. Plus, enforcing any sort of abolition would require far more "boots on the ground" to enforce than England would normally have stationed in the colonies.

In either case I think an end to the transatlantic slave trade is far more likely than an end to the institution of slavery. If England owned the American south the financial consequences of abolition would simply be too great. Especially when one considers that the abolitionist movement was not nearly as broad-based in the 1780's as it would be later on.
 
If it is put down, I think there would be a large number of slaves freed in the South, mostly as a punitive measure aimed at those who supported the Revolution. Many loyalists, however, were also slave owners, and would probably view it as a betrayl if the Empire turned around and freed their slaves.

Even there, the British had pretty low success rate recruiting runaway slaves -- Lord Dunmore got less than a thousand over the course of the war, and none of them saw any real action.

But on that subject -- do you think this means that abolition is even less likely if the revolt is suppressed in the north, and the southern theater is prevented?

In either case I think an end to the transatlantic slave trade is far more likely than an end to the institution of slavery.

Even there, you need a real abolitionist movement to get the Empire to put principle over profit in such clear terms -- and I'm pretty sure it'll be much weaker TTL. That's not even taking into account the butterflies of how the Western Hemisphere Theater of the wars with France* will be affected.

*assuming they still happen TTL
 
Last edited:
Top