Effect of an averted American Revolution on the abolition of slavery

This is totally why the northern states freed their slaves during and after the war based on republican ideals, and why Britain proceeded to take years to ban the slave trade and slavery itself.

Yeah, plus the "Africans in the British military" were formed in 1775 when Dunmore, desperate, tried to raise troops among Virginia slaves; this "recruitment drive" was stopped when the generals from Britain arrived, and the forces raised went largely non-utilized in battle, and "Dunmore's troops" got somewhat screwed over during and after the war; Dunmore was also mostly poorly received for his actions back home in Britain. It was the exceptions to the latter (Dunmore's defenders) and British who were appalled at the treatment of "loyal soldiers" that much of the roots of abolitionist sentiment in Britain (as opposed to anti-slavery sentiment) can be found.

And of course the idea that "London-imposed abolition throughout the colonies was a very real and threatening possibility" in 1776 is pure bullshit, with practically no historical record supporting it whatsoever.

(I suppose I should also mention -- though honestly, given the above it's almost beside the point -- that, while Virginia absolutely was petrified of a slave insurrection, their main policy response in the 1770's was by limiting the number of imported slaves, which was blocked by imperial veto; so whatever their sentiments and motivations, this still puts the Virginia House of Burgess on the anti-slavery side policy wise.)
 
The "Counter-Revolution of the slave-planters and allies" wasn't until 1787 really. If anything the ARW itself actually *weakened* the status of slavery in North America (along with wiping out indentured servitude and remnants of feudalism up north).
 
A few responses to points people have made so far:

1. The debates around freedom due to the American Revolution brought the issue of slavery to the forefront, which caused the abolitionist movement to really get started.
2. Despite this, the Somersett decision meant the debate was starting to be had anyway, and I can't see it being delayed by more than a decade.
3. For every South Carolina and Georgia added to the British Empire, a Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have been added, meaning little overall change in terms of balance between each side within the Empire.
4. Even the firebreathers would know that the Royal Navy can blockade their overseas trade incredibly easy. If there's a war, they lose through economic collapse.
5. Even if they got round the blockade and won the war, who are they going to sell to? Cotton was consumed in the textile mills of Great Britain.
6. This to me is the most important part. The abolition of slavery in the British Empire did not happen through abolitionists convincing parliament. It happened through the make-up of parliament changing. With the Great Reform Act, the middle classes came into the electorate and the rotten boroughs were abolished. Parliament thus changed from representing mainly corporate interests (which supported slavery) to representing the views of the upper middle class (which was highly hostile). In the movie Amazing Grace, Pitt summed this up when he told Wilberforce he would now be "pushing at an open door". How an averted ARW affects abolition depends on how it affects the date of parliamentary reform. It likely brings it forward.

whilst i can see the point of items 1 to 5 i cant see how a change to Parliament made in 1832 could possibly have secured abolition several years prior to the Reform Act being passed.
The Prime Minister in 1832 was Lord John Russell not Pitt, who held office under the unreformed Parliaments of the Napoleonic era, and is seperated from 1832 and the (moderately) reformed parliament by several other Prime Ministers includiing the rather un middle class Liverpoool and Wellington.
The really significant changes to Parliamentary representation really did not happen until 1867.
 
whilst i can see the point of items 1 to 5 i cant see how a change to Parliament made in 1832 could possibly have secured abolition several years prior to the Reform Act being passed.
The Prime Minister in 1832 was Lord John Russell not Pitt, who held office under the unreformed Parliaments of the Napoleonic era, and is seperated from 1832 and the (moderately) reformed parliament by several other Prime Ministers includiing the rather un middle class Liverpoool and Wellington.
The really significant changes to Parliamentary representation really did not happen until 1867.

I never claimed Pitt was PM in 1832. I am not talking about abolition happening before the Great Reform Act being passed. I am talking about American colonies being inside the Empire would likely cause the Great Reform Act happening sooner (or in several stages), which would likely bring about abolition some time in the 1820s. The 1832 Act caused a huge change - it eliminate a whole bunch of seats that could just be bought by the highest bidder, and it added a huge chunk to the electorate who didn't have a huge interest in the slave trade. The only reason the Tories survived was because the Tamworth Manifesto made clear they weren't going to be the same party any more. One historian stated "the reformed Parliament was, unquestionably, more liberal and progressive in its policy than the Parliaments of old; more vigorous and active; more susceptible to the influence of public opinion; and more secure in the confidence of the people".
 
Top