Britain is defeated in the Napoleonic Wars: What happens to slavery?

How long would it take for the slave trade to die out, if the British Empire and Royal Navy are emasculated, and are thus unable to campaign as they did throughout the nineteenth century to stamp out the slave trade across the world? Will Imperial France be interested in stopping the trade? How about the USA?
 
It would take significantly longer I'm sure. There was a substantiusal abolitionist movement on the continent, but without the example and the support of what was arguable the most sucessful nation on earth, it would have a much harder time. The USA might stop the import relatively soon-ish. France is a good candidate for abolition in the colonies once the wars end, and of course, Britain might do it anyway. Still, a much more piecemeal and slower process.
 
How long would it take for the slave trade to die out, if the British Empire and Royal Navy are emasculated, and are thus unable to campaign as they did throughout the nineteenth century to stamp out the slave trade across the world? Will Imperial France be interested in stopping the trade? How about the USA?
Short of Napoleon successfully invading Britain and seizing the Royal Navy for himself...which is pretty much in ASB territory...there is no way the Royal Navy will be "emasculated" even if Great Britain comes out on the losing side of the Napoleonic Wars. At most Britain will be forced to sign a peace treaty recognizing Napoleon's hegemony over Europe. But France really did not have the ability to take control of the seas. The Royal Navy of that time period was simply too good...better ships, far better trained men...to be beaten.

So I really don't see that anything here affects Britain's ability to stamp out the slave trade, or to emancipate it's own slaves on roughly the same schedule as OTL.
 
The USA abolished the slave trade in 1808 and Britain had nothing to do with it. So there's no "might" about it. It definitely would stop it as it did in OTL.
I'd be very leery about claiming it had noithing to do withit, given that Britain had laws of this kind debaterd in Parliament several times before and passsed its own prohibition in 1807. Legislation doesn't happen in a vacuum. That said, the influence of a more successgul Napoleon on US policy at that time may be small enough to not affect events much, ao an 'around 1805-1810' date remains likely unless something happens with Louisiana.
 
Short of Napoleon successfully invading Britain and seizing the Royal Navy for himself...which is pretty much in ASB territory...there is no way the Royal Navy will be "emasculated" even if Great Britain comes out on the losing side of the Napoleonic Wars. At most Britain will be forced to sign a peace treaty recognizing Napoleon's hegemony over Europe. But France really did not have the ability to take control of the seas. The Royal Navy of that time period was simply too good...better ships, far better trained men...to be beaten.

So I really don't see that anything here affects Britain's ability to stamp out the slave trade, or to emancipate it's own slaves on roughly the same schedule as OTL.
Not in its own colonies, but bear in mind that Britain put a lot of pressure on continental powers to abolish the trade, allow Royal Navy enforcement and eventually emancipate. Without the victor's role, the small continental powers (suchg as remain) are unlikely go along with this, and that means more slavers still in business and less chances for the RN to stop them. IOTL, stopping a Hamburg merchantman off West Africa was covered by treaty and legal, and if slaves or slaving supplies were found, the prize court in Sierra Leone was competent. IATL, that would be a casus belli with France.
 
Top