American Revolution averted: do the British expand slavery Westwards?

It seems to me that the abolitionist movement got an enormous jolt forward due to the American Revolution, but the seeds of it were already growing before it happened. Oglethorpe banned slavery in the initial charter of Georgia, the Somersett decision ruled the thing illegal in England, and there was already enough of a shift for the slave state-dominated Congress to ban slavery in the northwest territories.

So it seems quite possible that Britain might already have a distaste for slavery. So what would happen as Westward expansion is organised? It seems to me quite possible slavery could be banned West of the proclamation line. Is it possible that most of the Deep South could never have slavery? What would be the impact of that?
 
It seems to me that the abolitionist movement got an enormous jolt forward due to the American Revolution, but the seeds of it were already growing before it happened. Oglethorpe banned slavery in the initial charter of Georgia, the Somersett decision ruled the thing illegal in England, and there was already enough of a shift for the slave state-dominated Congress to ban slavery in the northwest territories.

So it seems quite possible that Britain might already have a distaste for slavery. So what would happen as Westward expansion is organised? It seems to me quite possible slavery could be banned West of the proclamation line. Is it possible that most of the Deep South could never have slavery? What would be the impact of that?

It could have theoretically happened, but it probably wouldn't; firstly, as Jasen777 correctly pointed out, they didn't really bother to stop settlement west of the Proclamation Line(or, I'd like to add, at least not that of the Scots-Irish, who were often seen as a particularly troublesome minority). And, secondly, in a nutshell, abolitionism didn't really take off until the victory of the Patriots in the Revolutionary War IOTL, and without the humbling of the Empire, as well as what was essentially seen as a boon for the Enlighenment, well, I'm afraid a delay of some years would've been all but inevitable.....that's not to say that there couldn't have been alternative paths, of course, but merely that these paths might be difficult to find.
 
How would they stop it? The proclamation line didn't stop settlement, including slaves.

I know, but new colonies could have been created around roughly that line, as it was the edge of settlement. They were thinking of creating new colonies of Vandalia and Charlotiana, so they could ban it in the new colonial charters.
 
It seems to me that the abolitionist movement got an enormous jolt forward due to the American Revolution, but the seeds of it were already growing before it happened. Oglethorpe banned slavery in the initial charter of Georgia, the Somersett decision ruled the thing illegal in England, and there was already enough of a shift for the slave state-dominated Congress to ban slavery in the northwest territories.

So it seems quite possible that Britain might already have a distaste for slavery. So what would happen as Westward expansion is organised? It seems to me quite possible slavery could be banned West of the proclamation line. Is it possible that most of the Deep South could never have slavery? What would be the impact of that?

Even with the addition of the American south, slave power will never have the kind of political power in the British empire that it did in Antebellum America. Slavery gets banned on schedule in 1833 with a lot more huffing and puffing, maybe even a rebellion or two. No Jim Crow in the aftermath either.
 
I know, but new colonies could have been created around roughly that line, as it was the edge of settlement. They were thinking of creating new colonies of Vandalia and Charlotiana, so they could ban it in the new colonial charters.

It's certainly possible, but not certain, I'm afraid: Vandalia would have been mostly mountains, last I checked, so it'd be fairly easier, but the southern areas of Charlotiana would have, unfortunately, allowed for traditional slavery, if London so allowed it, to at least survive(even if not really thrive; the main problem would be the occasional extreme winters), by the Ohio River.

Even with the addition of the American south, slave power will never have the kind of political power in the British empire that it did in Antebellum America. Slavery gets banned on schedule in 1833 with a lot more huffing and puffing, maybe even a rebellion or two. No Jim Crow in the aftermath either.

Sadly, I'm not so sure about that: remember what happened in South Africa, IOTL.....in 1948, no less? That's right, that was the year Apartheid first formally started down there, and this even after having fought the Axis Powers in WWII.

In all likelihood, perhaps slavery might be totally banned by around 1870 or so, with the slave trade possibly ending maybe as soon as a decade away from OTL, but I'm afraid it's highly likely that there *will* be some from of Jim Crow-if segregation could become a reality in the postbellum United States(even to some degree in the North), it can certainly happen in a British North America, or at least those areas not a part of *Canada, anyway(although *Canadians probably wouldn't be nearly as willing to allow that kind of thing, due to the cultural differences: this was definitely true even IOTL).
 
Top