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.
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.
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.