Civil War in British America?

In 1833, the United Kingdom passed the Slavery Abolition Act, which banned slavery in the British Empire. If the colonies that later made up the United States stayed in the British Empire, would their be an alternate civil war over the matter? If so, who would be the rebels?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Assuming for the moment that the abolition act takes place at the same time as OTL (in short, granting the PoD), then... well, in the first place it's possible that slavery is less important to the South than it was OTL (as abolitionism got rolling a lot sooner in the British Empire than it did in the US).

Basically that's a big part of it. It might be only the deep south secedes, it might be every colony corresponding to an OTL state which had slavery, or it might even be every colony corresponding to a state which still had slavery in the 1830s (which is... pretty much the same).

Texas won't be there, most likely, I can't see why it would be annexed to BNA. But perhaps the more important matter is that such an ATL rebelling south BNA is going to get stamped on hard. (Assuming a reaction speed similar to that of the Crimean War, you'd functionally have 24 reinforcement battalions in theater inside four months - on top of whatever's already garrisoning BNA, which for now I'll estimate as being six battalions).

Even if this alt-South (and BNA North) musters as many men in the 1830s as it does in the 1860s, then imagine a battle the equivalent of Bull Run but with the "North" having an extra two bonus regular infantry corps.
 
In 1833, the United Kingdom passed the Slavery Abolition Act, which banned slavery in the British Empire. If the colonies that later made up the United States stayed in the British Empire, would their be an alternate civil war over the matter? If so, who would be the rebels?
The OTL liberation of British oversea slaves was a long term process and much less kind as thaught. New researches found that most Slave owners w
In 1833, the United Kingdom passed the Slavery Abolition Act, which banned slavery in the British Empire. If the colonies that later made up the United States stayed in the British Empire, would their be an alternate civil war over the matter? If so, who would be the rebels?
Most Slave owners got generous compensations and many slaves lived under slave like conditions as loaners afterwards. Main reason why slavery was abolished in the Empire seemed to be the numerous slave rebellions which took place in the Carribean.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Main reason why slavery was abolished in the Empire seemed to be the numerous slave rebellions which took place in the Carribean.
I seriously doubt this one - the abolition took place at the high point of a decades-long groundswell of public opinion, one which persisted for at least a generation afterwards.

Most Slave owners got generous compensations
Yes. Compensated Emancipation.
Worth noting, however, that by some accounts the compensation was deliberately set at a level that the "pot" of available money was smaller than the total theoretical value of the slaves - thus encouraging an early cash-out.
Compensated Emancipation is a process which works, because it ensures that people who supported the old system are not financially crippled - it gives them an "out", much like many other British approaches to problems throughout the 19th century.
 
Yes. Compensated Emancipation.
Worth noting, however, that by some accounts the compensation was deliberately set at a level that the "pot" of available money was smaller than the total theoretical value of the slaves - thus encouraging an early cash-out.
Compensated Emancipation is a process which works, because it ensures that people who supported the old system are not financially crippled - it gives them an "out", much like many other British approaches to problems throughout the 19th century.

... and, with limited 'pots' if gives a strong incentive to get out quickly -- if you're the last holdout, you risk getting screwed.

Honestly, without the OTL ACW, that kind of approach becomes more likely for the US, perhaps starting around 1870, within declining 'pots' in the 1880s before it's completely outlawed around 1890.
 
In 1833, the United Kingdom passed the Slavery Abolition Act, which banned slavery in the British Empire. If the colonies that later made up the United States stayed in the British Empire, would their be an alternate civil war over the matter? If so, who would be the rebels?

I suspect there would be variety of grievances ongoing in the continuing colonies and (though it might not matter too much to some colonies), this might be the issue that breaks the camel's back and leads them all into rebellion and a war for independence. You might have Southern colonies largely fighting for the freedom to consider slavery, while others are protesting capricious acts, illegal search and seizure, and high taxes.
 
If a civil war broke out, I suspect most of the North would side with the British (they would have done a propaganda campaign after the first rebellion). There might be an interesting switch. If the British couldn't stamp out smuggling in NE after the war, maybe Massachusetts might have a separate rebellion viewing the south as a distraction and the perfect opportunity to avenge 1777 failed rebellion. NC tried to be loyal in OTL, assuming their loyalty to Washington meant loyalty to a central government in general, that means they would be loyal tot he crown. They wouldn't be forced on the rebel side and could say "stick it up your *** the Royal Navy is going to land a brigade of regulars and help us out rebels." Texas might be part of a British NA. Once they see Mexico breaking away from Spain, the British likely wouldn't want to give their own colonists ideas, so they might encourage some expansionism to bring some land under a divinely ordained king, ie the British one since the Mexicans aren't answering to a Spanish one.

But honestly, the best case scenario for the rebels would be being able to muster as much as the south in real life. Then you end up with this
Even if this alt-South (and BNA North) musters as many men in the 1830s as it does in the 1860s, then imagine a battle the equivalent of Bull Run but with the "North" having an extra two bonus regular infantry corps.

Where they will get squished anyways. Unless a miracle happens at BNA Bull Run, in which case the South probably will be able to get pardons if they give up now.
 
Honestly, without the OTL ACW, that kind of approach becomes more likely for the US, perhaps starting around 1870, within declining 'pots' in the 1880s before it's completely outlawed around 1890.
The South opposed compensated emancipation because a lot of slave owners in the British West Indies lost most of their money.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
There might be an interesting switch. If the British couldn't stamp out smuggling in NE after the war, maybe Massachusetts might have a separate rebellion viewing the south as a distraction and the perfect opportunity to avenge 1777 failed rebellion.
I tend to assume the British would manage things well after a failed Revolutionary War (as they did in OTL Canada after the rebellions of the 1830s) and that from 1770s to 1830s is way too long to have "avenging" going on. Those men who were born during the rebellion (say, 1780) would be in their fifties by then.
 
Well then, either it would be JUST the south or the south minus NC give or take. Best case for the rebels is a Bull Run with another 3 corps on the "Loyalist" side. They might be able to get off with only an apology if they win that before Britain has to exert effort to put it down (and if they do need to take effort, it's not going to be so reconsilliary). "Eh, let's just say the revolt didn't happen?" If the rebels can't even get to that stage or they lose at that stage, then lots of slaveowners are going to end up with no compensation.

I still say the British would approve of their colonists grabbing Texas, unless the British was short on cash. A powerful independently minded nation state in the Americas might give some people in BNA ideas they really don't want to encourage. By approving a land grab, they are implicitly saying "that's not how to do it."

An impoverished independently minded republic south of BNA on the other hand will make them think "You know, our own government isn't perfect, but than the Lord the Loyalists came through because otherwise we'd end up like those poor souls"
 
Top