Did Britain make emancipation a condition for patronizing Texas, and could TX have been receptive?

Could British influence have led to Emancipation in the Republic of Texas?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 39.5%
  • No

    Votes: 23 60.5%

  • Total voters
    38

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The circumstances must be that being annexed to US in the near term is not an option.

Were the British considering loans and recognition but conditioning it on abolishing slavery?

If they did, and the Texas Republic really valued British support as a balance to Mexican revanchism, would the Texans consider meeting an emancipation condition for said support, at all?
 
I've done a fair amount of research on the issue, for my own timeline, which I shall shamelessly plug here. There was a lot of correspondence between men like Charles Elliott, the British Charge d'affairs and Sam Houston as well as Texas Ambassador to Britain, Ashbel Smith. Charles Elliott was an ardent abolitionist and his correspondence is very heavy with prid pro quo regarding favored status for Texas in exchange for emancipation. Equally telling in the correspondence is the Texans' own correspondence. It has a very distinct Southern tone to it. Men like Houston were prisoners of their time and place, and coupled with the importance to cotton to Texas' struggling economy they were internally dismissive of Elliott's opinions.

You'd need to change the demographic makeup of Texas to shift the opinions on slavery in the 1840s. Even though my TL's still a work in progress, that's been a goal of the administration, to expand Northern and European immigration to Texas.

There are a few things to consider regarding Texas, if the US were to be under a Clay (Whig) administration that was hostile to Texas Annexation. 1) Being hostile to Texas annexation doesn't mean being hostile to Texas. Trade flowed quite freely between the two countries in the years of the Republic. A Clay administration wouldn't change that, so the American influence on Texas would remain very strong.
2) Efforts by Mexico to invade Texas in 1841 and 1842 met with very limited success. Texas' population was booming during this period, despite the heavy uncertainty and if Mexico had made a concerted effort to invade Texas in 1845, there's a very real possibility they could be facing 10,000 or more militia.
3) The negative though is that by 1845 Texas was drowning under 10,000,000 in debt. Texas' options were limited. Unless you change the underlying philosophy of the leadership of Texas, England's efforts at emancipation were simply wishful thinking on the parts of Elliott and other British abolitionists. The Southerners in control of Texas would have let the country sink into default on their loans before they would have budged on emancipation, I think.

Anyway, that's just my two cents, FWIW.
Drew.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Drew, I would tend to agree with you. I had heard the idea bandied about regarding an abolition quid pro quo for an independent Texas, but I didn't see it as too likely. I remain to be persuaded by stronger arguments or evidence.
 
Men like Houston were prisoners of their time and place, and coupled with the importance to cotton to Texas' struggling economy they were internally dismissive of Elliott's opinions.

You'd need to change the demographic makeup of Texas to shift the opinions on slavery in the 1840s...

The negative though is that by 1845 Texas was drowning under 10,000,000 in debt. Texas' options were limited. Unless you change the underlying philosophy of the leadership of Texas, England's efforts at emancipation were simply wishful thinking on the parts of Elliott and other British abolitionists. The Southerners in control of Texas would have let the country sink into default on their loans before they would have budged on emancipation, I think.
So likely crazy idea here, but supposing Britain put together a very generous loan for Texas, to help with their very dire financial difficulties, in exchange for basically funding their manumission program? Would the Lone Star Republic be more amendable to a gradual abolition of slavery if it came with favorable compensation for the white slavers? And if Texas is amendable to it, could (or would) the British Empire even be able to put something like that together?
 
I wonder if you mixed the emancipation requirement up. The State of Texas would agree to ban the import and export of slaves, but not the internal trade in them for 30 years, or an unspecified length of time.

Meanwhile, the British would happily provide investment, but on the conditions that whoever takes the loans needs to agree to freeing their slaves as part of the condition. (Perhaps with the British agreeing to forfeit the interest on part of the principle equal to the sale price of the slaves.)

Heck, if you're really super-abolitionist, bite the bullet, buy the slaves, and offer to give them transport to a new home in British Guiana as an alternative or supplement to the East Indians. Plus, having Free African Americans that could arguably be Pro-British, mixing with the Afro-Guianans. It'd be a good way to bolster the image of the British. (Guiana isn't the only option, but it is one).

In addition, for those worried about maintaining their cotton supplies without slaves, have Texas be given preferential trade status on cotton, so that the import is cheap. (I may misunderstand the concern here, I'll admit).
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Heck, if you're really super-abolitionist, bite the bullet, buy the slaves, and offer to give them transport to a new home in British Guiana as an alternative or supplement to the East Indians.

And before you know it, the thread turns into another game of "pin the Liberia on the tropics"
 
So let's see if we can think of this another way -- if a President hostile to annexation (though not necessarily to Texas as such) is elected in 1844, how does the Lone Star Republic fare for the next four years? On the one hand, as @drewmc2001 noted, they can most likely fight off any other invasions that Mexico may (or more likely, won't) throw at them; on the other hand, as also noted, their finances are in a very bad way, and pretty much the only ones willing and able to loan them money, Britain, want to see at least some move toward abolishing slavery as a condition for said aid.

Now it's noted that Texan political leadership took issue with this, but UIAM, that does proffer the question -- aren't these the same leaders who are at the very least highly preferential to annexation, and arguably have been banking pretty much everything on it happening? If it looks like said gamble is not paying off, and won't for at least another four years, does the Texas political establishment become more receptive to some kind of manumission? Or are they, despite everything, still determined to carry on as an independent slave republic?
 
So let's see if we can think of this another way -- if a President hostile to annexation (though not necessarily to Texas as such) is elected in 1844, how does the Lone Star Republic fare for the next four years? On the one hand, as @drewmc2001 noted, they can most likely fight off any other invasions that Mexico may (or more likely, won't) throw at them; on the other hand, as also noted, their finances are in a very bad way, and pretty much the only ones willing and able to loan them money, Britain, want to see at least some move toward abolishing slavery as a condition for said aid.

Now it's noted that Texan political leadership took issue with this, but UIAM, that does proffer the question -- aren't these the same leaders who are at the very least highly preferential to annexation, and arguably have been banking pretty much everything on it happening? If it looks like said gamble is not paying off, and won't for at least another four years, does the Texas political establishment become more receptive to some kind of manumission? Or are they, despite everything, still determined to carry on as an independent slave republic?
Good points.
I think that the financial incentives will make the less proslavery Texan politicians more heard but will it make manumission legislation possible before annexation becomes a possibility again?
 
Good points.
I think that the financial incentives will make the less proslavery Texan politicians more heard but will it make manumission legislation possible before annexation becomes a possibility again?

IOTL, Slavery was given up typically when it wasn't fiscally prudent. By and large. I think the fiscal incentives shift things enough to change the circumstances.

However, I'm also confident that manumission legislation would be almost cursory once loans under those incentives start being taken. It is much easier to reduce the stakeholders in slavery, and create further indifference to manumission legislation, then shift the politicians willingness to fight the slaveholders.

Plus, if Texas becomes more economically successful, I also think people may be less than willing to join the US. Moreso since we're talking about a group that just seceded from Mexico.

There is also a soft-power aspect in play that I'm not sure has been discussed. British investors will likely bring British intellectuals in tow. Including those who are abolitionists. Chances are that'll be discussed more and more, by people who've just been persuading the British to give up slavery. That could well shift popular opinion, rather than "The British", the 1st version of "The Mexicans" for this group, mandating it. If I'm Texan, I'd say stuff it on principle. So that soft power effect of abolitionists coming in, blunts the "I'm Texan" aspect of things.
 
So let's see if we can think of this another way -- if a President hostile to annexation (though not necessarily to Texas as such) is elected in 1844, how does the Lone Star Republic fare for the next four years? On the one hand, as @drewmc2001 noted, they can most likely fight off any other invasions that Mexico may (or more likely, won't) throw at them; on the other hand, as also noted, their finances are in a very bad way, and pretty much the only ones willing and able to loan them money, Britain, want to see at least some move toward abolishing slavery as a condition for said aid.

Now it's noted that Texan political leadership took issue with this, but UIAM, that does proffer the question -- aren't these the same leaders who are at the very least highly preferential to annexation, and arguably have been banking pretty much everything on it happening? If it looks like said gamble is not paying off, and won't for at least another four years, does the Texas political establishment become more receptive to some kind of manumission? Or are they, despite everything, still determined to carry on as an independent slave republic?

Not particularly. As a self professed expert on Texas ;), allow me to explain. Sam Houston, when he was president of Texas, worked tirelessly on annexation. Politically, he was a unionist. He was also more sympathetic to the finding equitable solutions with AmerIndians. He was not virulently pro-slavery, like the fire-eaters across the south. But he had a very negative view towards abolitionism, and saw that as a destabilizing influence on the US. If someone is really interested in doing a TL on this, I may dig out some of the writings I found online between San Houston, Ashbel Smith, Anson Jones and Charles Elliott that I used when researching my own TL, that shows Houston's thinking on that issue. Hell, even Ashbel Smith, a Connecticut transplant, was proslavery according to his own correspondence.

But the problem is that Sam Houston's opponents were not abolitionists, not in Texas. His chief political rival was Mirabeau Lamar. Lamar was rabidly independence minded and was pretty much the 19th century equivalent of a white nationalist. My point is that without some pretty serious handwavium, it's hard to get to a Texas that would kowtow to Britain on the issue of slavery, unfortunately. Sure, you could reasonably craft a story that is internally consistent in which Texas agreed to limit the importation of slaves, from Africa. As early as the 1830s and 40s, it might even be enforceable. But any agreement would either exclude slaves from the United States being covered by the treaty.

@RogueTraderEnthusiast, it's hard to overstate the case for cotton production between 1836 and 1860 in east Texas. Keep in mind, by 1860 in the US, chattel slavery counted for around $3 Billion in capital in the South, in 1860s currency. During the 20-30 years prior to the ACW, there was, I think, a correlation between the price of a slave and the global price of cotton. My point, is that these are the headwinds you're facing in thinking British loans would force a bunch of transplanted southerners into forgoing slavery during it's most lucrative time period.

Let's shift and talk about how to overcome these structural headwinds. It is, I think, about the POD. Expanded immigration from Europe helps. More Germans, more Scots, more French, more Scandinavian immigration during the years of the republic are needed to get Texans to think differently about Southern, racial slavery. In that environment, British loans could have more of an impact, because there are more people who are not emotionally invested in slavery. Honestly, I'm not sure how to get that immigration up. The political uncertainty, Mexico's bellicose attitude, the panic of 1837 and other factors did nothing to make Texas a particularly inviting place to come. What Texas had was cheap land, and that's ultimately what drew folks to Texas during that period.
 
@RogueTraderEnthusiast, it's hard to overstate the case for cotton production between 1836 and 1860 in east Texas. Keep in mind, by 1860 in the US, chattel slavery counted for around $3 Billion in capital in the South, in 1860s currency. During the 20-30 years prior to the ACW, there was, I think, a correlation between the price of a slave and the global price of cotton. My point, is that these are the headwinds you're facing in thinking British loans would force a bunch of transplanted southerners into forgoing slavery during it's most lucrative time period.

Let's shift and talk about how to overcome these structural headwinds. It is, I think, about the POD. Expanded immigration from Europe helps. More Germans, more Scots, more French, more Scandinavian immigration during the years of the republic are needed to get Texans to think differently about Southern, racial slavery. In that environment, British loans could have more of an impact, because there are more people who are not emotionally invested in slavery. Honestly, I'm not sure how to get that immigration up. The political uncertainty, Mexico's bellicose attitude, the panic of 1837 and other factors did nothing to make Texas a particularly inviting place to come. What Texas had was cheap land, and that's ultimately what drew folks to Texas during that period.

I was worried that would be the case, limiting any uptake of those sort of loans to those with abolitionist sympathies, or eager to build mills and other secondary industrial projects. That would be an interesting piece of disruption, but that'd just increase the price of cotton domestically, making it less likely for uptake in those loans.

I do like your idea to increase immigration is interesting, I wonder if the disruption of new factories would be enough to encourage more immigration - but I suppose particular British investment to develop Texas could ramp up immigration like that. But immigration could become increasingly contentious and create a new problem.

If we stop looking at this as a benevolent project, but possibly as a 'pincer' of good and bad - is there any way that Britain could increase cotton production so as to vastly increase supply, and make both Texan and Southern US cotton production impractical? The first instinct would be to simply grow more, but depending on who buys Texan cotton, and US cotton, could Britain opting to create a huge tariff on cotton from the two cause an economic crisis, destablising the South and Texas so that Texan entry into the Union is less attractive because the Union is unstable? It would rely on Britain being the main consumer of American Cotton. You might be more oblique and have Britain state that it is putting a levy on "Slave Cotton", rather than explicitly target the US and Texas, with the purpose of using the levy to buy slaves to free them. Both measures radically raising the price of cotton. However, it is an audacious scheme that I don't even know if Britain could be persuaded to undertake.

It is a more side-on attack on slavery, and a form of Market-Manumission, but not impossible. It is however expensive, and these 'free slaves' need work to do somewhere. (Heh, African American slaves given jobs in India? That couldn't possibly make the Raj more complicated. :p )
 
@drewmc2001 @RogueTraderEnthusiast So if Texas agreeing to manumission as a quid pro quo for financial aid is out of the question, how does a republic forced to survive for longer fare? What actually changes? If government finances are still a mess, Britain isn't going to help them, and Mexico is still hostile, even if their population is committed and capable enough to make sure reconquest cannot happen, all while the solution of American annexation is now off the table... well, what do they do?

Put another way, slavery completely aside, how does Texas fare if they go on for longer as a republic? And for how long can the pro-slavery establishment keep "slavery aside" given the challenges?
 
@drewmc2001 @RogueTraderEnthusiast So if Texas agreeing to manumission as a quid pro quo for financial aid is out of the question, how does a republic forced to survive for longer fare? What actually changes? If government finances are still a mess, Britain isn't going to help them, and Mexico is still hostile, even if their population is committed and capable enough to make sure reconquest cannot happen, all while the solution of American annexation is now off the table... well, what do they do?

Put another way, slavery completely aside, how does Texas fare if they go on for longer as a republic? And for how long can the pro-slavery establishment keep "slavery aside" given the challenges?

If the political players remain the same or similar as OTL, they play for time. Every four years they get to pull the handle and see if they can hit the annexation jackpot. IOTL the Southern Democrats really wanted Texas. It was as much about counterbalancing the northern interests in the Senate as anything else.

In a few similar threads, some have made strong arguments that a Texas that is independent after 1845 is not going to grow as fast as an annexed Texas, and if we assume the conditions detailed in your post, the most likely outcome is for Texas to limp along til the 1848 election and hope the Democrats win.

If Texas had remained independent until 1848 or even 1852, their prospects marginally improve as they go along, because cotton production would have continued to rise in the east, and cheep land would have still brought some of the Europeans who fled the failed liberal revolutions of 1848. But the net effect is more revenue. Not enough to dig themselves out of the huge hole, but enough to keep from bottoming out.

What's sad is that there's probably a timeline in which the Whigs keep Texas out of the union. The civil war still happens, and at the end of the war, there's still a slavocracy in North America, as ex-confederates slink across the border of a slave holding Texas, propping it up with a million refugees.
But maybe that's just me being a pessimist.
 
If the political players remain the same or similar as OTL, they play for time. Every four years they get to pull the handle and see if they can hit the annexation jackpot. IOTL the Southern Democrats really wanted Texas. It was as much about counterbalancing the northern interests in the Senate as anything else...

If Texas had remained independent until 1848 or even 1852, their prospects marginally improve as they go along, because cotton production would have continued to rise in the east, and cheep land would have still brought some of the Europeans who fled the failed liberal revolutions of 1848. But the net effect is more revenue.
Does there come a point where the Texas political establishment doesn't desire annexation, even if the US receptive? Was there even such a faction in Texas in 1844 (that might have come to power from Washington declining time after time)? Or is an invitation that effectively stays open indefinitely until accepted?
 
@John Fredrick Parker There was a faction that didn't favor annexation in 1844. Lamar's faction favored independence. Although both Sam Houston and Anson Jones were annexationists, it is possible that someone from Lamar's faction could have won the election after Anson Jones, and worked to build alliances with France or England. Given France's complex relationship with Mexico, a TL that explores a more symbiotic relationship between Texas and France actually makes sense if Texas wasn't annexed. Someone did it a few years ago.
 
One more thought -- can a President Clay get an Oregon Treaty with the British (similar to OTL's) ratified, or would southern democrats pretty much demand placation on Texas? If he can, then will future Democratic Presidents now have difficulty getting Northerners to go along with annexing another slave state, without compensatory expansion, other than admitting new states out of territory the US already has?
 
I was under the impression that a major reason behind the American immigrant revolt was because Mexico was abolitionist.
 
I was under the impression that a major reason behind the American immigrant revolt was because Mexico was abolitionist.
I've heard that narrative before. At it's best it is incomplete, at its worst, it is disingenuous. This link does a fairly good job of explaining the reasons for the revolution. The immediate cause of the revolution was the Central Government in Mexico City repudiating the constitution of 1824 with a series of laws referred to as the "siete leyes." The revolt in Texas was one of several that broke out around the same period, From Texas in the north to Yucatan in the south.

I don't want to minimize the role of racism or slavery played in early Texas, because both of these elements existed. But when we look at the documents from the period, we don't find a bunch of original source documents supporting slavery as a casus belli of the revolutionaries, like you do with the Confederacy a quarter century later. But by the time the revolution was over and they had adopted a constitution, it was clear the founders of Texas were going to protect their nascent economic interests and slavery.
 
Top