How would a British-ruled U.S. have dealt with slavery?

CaliGuy

Banned
Had Britain won the American Revolutionary War, how exactly would it have dealt with slavery in the U.S.--especially in the Southern U.S.--afterwards?

Would the process of slavery abolition in the U.S. have been easier and less bloody in this TL?

Any thoughts on this?
 
If Britain abolishes Slavery then the North including Canada would follow suit.
Being out numbered and out gun the South would try to get as much profit out of it as possible raging from selling their slavers to the government to expending operations in South America.
 

samcster94

Banned
A Southern revolt, over something dumb like hearing a mild reform like "elderly emancipation",would probably get squashed quickly.
 
A Southern revolt, over something dumb like hearing a mild reform like "elderly emancipation",would probably get squashed quickly.

Agreed, the South would be fighting the North, Canada and what would be the rest of the British Empire all at once. It would be quick if they dared revolt.
 

JamesG

Donor
Would Britain still have abolished slavery on OTL schedule if the rich, powerful, aristocratic Southern planters were still in the Empire supporting the rich, powerful, aristocratic Caribbean planters?
 
Would Britain still have abolished slavery on OTL schedule if the rich, powerful, aristocratic Southern planters were still in the Empire supporting the rich, powerful, aristocratic Caribbean planters?
Depends on why the US is still under British rule.
 
Would Britain still have abolished slavery on OTL schedule if the rich, powerful, aristocratic Southern planters were still in the Empire supporting the rich, powerful, aristocratic Caribbean planters?

Well, there would also be a lot more powerful, religiously motivated abolitionists.

I think a lot would depend on how whatever autonomy the colonies got was defined.

The other big aspect is parliamentary reform. As soon as you get rid of the rotten boroughs and give the urban middle classes reasonable representation. They were strongly abolitionist and that is whay caused the overwhelming change in parliamentary views in OTL. If the colonists are in parliament, that is likely to happen sooner.
 
It depends on how Britain won the war. if the war was won by mass enlistment of black troops in return for their freedom (think Lord Dunmore's army rather than just a regiment!) then the dynamics of the South after the war will be very unstable with a large free black minority. it's unlikely that the British would renege on their promises of freedom as they didn't in more difficult circumstances in OTL after they were defeated.

The planters will then be faced with either re-investing a large sum of money in new slaves or employing the freed blacks as paid labourers. I would imagine the solution will be both but this will make later abolition much easier in the South.
 

samcster94

Banned
Well, there would also be a lot more powerful, religiously motivated abolitionists.

I think a lot would depend on how whatever autonomy the colonies got was defined.

The other big aspect is parliamentary reform. As soon as you get rid of the rotten boroughs and give the urban middle classes reasonable representation. They were strongly abolitionist and that is whay caused the overwhelming change in parliamentary views in OTL. If the colonists are in parliament, that is likely to happen sooner.
For this scenario to work, an alt-French Revolution happens around 1800 from bankruptcy from a different war, so the social movement is still likely to happen. Abolition might be a bit later, but reactionary generations who see slavery as God's will are unlikely to exist. A failed rebellion over something else(1837-1838 Canada OTL) is possible and might influence slavery either direction though.
 
Would Britain still have abolished slavery on OTL schedule if the rich, powerful, aristocratic Southern planters were still in the Empire supporting the rich, powerful, aristocratic Caribbean planters?

Didn’t the British abolish slavery around 1808? The cotton gin would not have been around yet and the Southern plantation owners would not have had the political power they enjoyed after 1830. In OTL, many slaves were getting freed before 1800. So yes, slavery would have been abolished in British North America.
 
Didn’t the British abolish slavery around 1808? The cotton gin would not have been around yet and the Southern plantation owners would not have had the political power they enjoyed after 1830. In OTL, many slaves were getting freed before 1800. So yes, slavery would have been abolished in British North America.

IIRC Britain abolished slavery in the 1830s, not so early as 1808. It was a bit of a drawn-out process, thus I say 1830s and not a specific year.
 
It depends on how Britain won the war. if the war was won by mass enlistment of black troops in return for their freedom (think Lord Dunmore's army rather than just a regiment!) then the dynamics of the South after the war will be very unstable with a large free black minority. it's unlikely that the British would renege on their promises of freedom as they didn't in more difficult circumstances in OTL after they were defeated.

The planters will then be faced with either re-investing a large sum of money in new slaves or employing the freed blacks as paid labourers. I would imagine the solution will be both but this will make later abolition much easier in the South.
This really. The quickest way the British lost support in the South was the second rumors of the British arming slaves started reaching people's ears.
 
IIRC Britain abolished slavery in the 1830s, not so early as 1808. It was a bit of a drawn-out process, thus I say 1830s and not a specific year.

The British abolished the Slave Trade in 1807 in all their dominions meaning taking new slaves from Africa.

The RN began interdicting Slaver ships at sea almost immediately and established a small squadron off West Africa, stopping British ships at first.
However trade in existing slaves e.g. island to island in the Caribbean was only policed from 1811.

The British success in the Napoleonic wars allowed them to "persuade" other nations to abolish the trade
extending the blockade to their ships as well.
In 50 years it intercepted around 1,600 slaver ships of all nations, freeing 150,000 Africans.

Later the RN also destroyed slaver bases ashore (see the famous incident in Amistad dating ~ 1840)


Chattel Slavery in Britain itself was effectively outlawed in 1772, by the courts not an Act of Parliament.
Canada passed a local law in 1793.
Unfortunately, despite several attempts, Slavery was not abolished in most British territory by Act until 1833. In fact there were still two small exceptions only eliminated in 1843.

Later Edit after Research:
the original 1833 act included a transitional clause for "apprenticeships" of young slaves. There were protests from freed adults in the West Indies and the scheme was removed in 1838 ahead of it's planned end.

In addition the British did not enforce emancipation on the territories administered in India by the East India Company till the later date. Presumably on the questionable grounds that these were not actually Crown possessions and that most of the slaves and slave holders were not British subjects.
 
Last edited:
Probably becomes a major issue come the second part of the 19th century.


iOTL in both the West Indies and Cape Province, the British paid significant compensation to slave holders in the 1830s
.. not so much because slave workers left these areas to work elsewhere
(most did not becoming paid low paid employees or share croppers)
but because their value as capital assets had disappeared
(some holders actually had loans secured against their slaves).

The amounts were not trivial .. neither individually or as a % of Empire GDP .. so the British were serious about emancipation.

Assuming the 13 Colonies were still part of a larger Empire I think funds would have been found for them too.

There would probably have been resistance from some owners, but money talks
 

Saphroneth

Banned
It's entirely possible that the British would have enacted emancipation earlier even than OTL - it was already seen as a moral wrong by the time of the Revolutionary War OTL, and here the abolition sentiment would be fed and reinforced by the pro-abolition movements in the North.

I suspect it might have had a few knock-on effects:

1) Fewer slaves traded period, as it is not possible for anyone to hide behind the American flag to avoid British inspection. This would significantly reduce the number of slaves in the Americas, starting pretty much from 1810.
2) Wider sentiment of abolition, probably with the OTL "state by state" (colony by colony) compensated emancipation proceeding south faster - possibly with some considerable funding allocated from the Imperial government.
3) Critically, reduction in total capital value of slaves. ("Emancipation is coming" sentiment, combined with fewer total slaves present.)
 
Had Britain won the American Revolutionary War, how exactly would it have dealt with slavery in the U.S.--especially in the Southern U.S.--afterwards?

Would the process of slavery abolition in the U.S. have been easier and less bloody in this TL?

Any thoughts on this?

I think that given the willingness of the southern US to secede over slavery and that not all colonial subjects in Canada and northern US would enthusiastically respond to a large scale rebellion, the UK would need to move carefully. Maybe...

1807: Slave trade is abolished. This is an important first step, but as the U.S. south was not totally dependent on "imports", the impact is not that great. The natural population increase supplemented by smuggled slaves still meet labor demands. Thus, Britain gains a moral victory and pushes the potential conflict down the road.

1830s: Britain outlaws slavery. But, a wise Parliament adds a "with all deliberate speed" type clause to the law. Slaves are emancipated only when funds become available to compensate individual owners. This takes time. Owners can also volunteer to free their slaves for priority placement in being compensated. Voluntary emancipation also results in a higher compensation rate. Thus, the first emancipations involve at least somewhat willing owners who want out of the business.

Likewise, while slavery is outlawed, the employment of uhmmm..... "bound agricultural contract workers" is not. Thus slave owners not only get compensated, but are allowed to keep their slaves until the compensation actually arrives (a decade or longer in some cases). Following the arrival of the compensation, they can establish a class of semi free serfs. Revolt is avoided and Britain still outlaws slavery.
 
Last edited:
"bound agricultural contract workers"

iOTL the "mandatory 6 year apprentice" scheme for children born as slaves in the West Indies was protested both in Britain by whites and the islands by adult freed slaves. It was terminated 5 years early.

I think any other such "transitional" status created in TTL North America would also be short lived.
... lasting no later than 1850.

a class of semi free serfs

The whites ex slave holders would certainly try anything they could get away with (see Jim Crow). In fact the twin ideas of "company scrip" and "tied cottages" were common through the 1800s so even iOTL workers were restricted.

as a matter of fact, both my sets of grandparents lived in cottages tied to the farms where the men worked right up until after WW2.
 
Last edited:
I think that given the willingness of the southern US to secede over slavery and that not all colonial subjects in Canada and northern US would enthusiastically respond to a large scale rebellion, the UK would need to move carefully. Maybe...

1807: Slave trade is abolished. This is an important first step, but as the U.S. south was not totally dependent on "imports", the impact is not that great. The natural population increase supplemented by smuggled slaves still meet labor demands. Thus, Britain gains a moral victory and pushes the potential conflict down the road.

1830s: Britain outlaws slavery. But, a wise Parliament adds a "with all deliberate speed" type clause to the law. Slaves are emancipated only when funds become available to compensate individual owners. This takes time. Owners can also volunteer to free their slaves for priority placement in being compensated. Voluntary emancipation also results in a higher compensation rate. Thus, the first emancipations involve at least somewhat willing owners who want out of the business.

Likewise, while slavery is outlawed, the employment of uhmmm..... "bound agricultural contract workers" is not. Thus slave owners not only get compensated, but are allowed to keep their slaves until the compensation actually arrives (a decade or longer in some cases). Following the arrival of the compensation, they can establish a class of semi free serfs. Revolt is avoided and Britain still outlaws slavery.

The fact the colonies were (separate) colonies with distinct charters also seems to suggest that the British could outlaw it at different times in different colonies if they were so inclined. For instance, they could outlaw in colonies where it was more of a 'luxury' first and wait to outlaw it in the ones where it was most critical to the economy last. So, you could have something like your 1830 date, but the decision of what constistutes (all deliverable speed) could vary by colony.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If Britain abolishes Slavery then the North including Canada would follow suit.
Being out numbered and out gun the South would try to get as much profit out of it as possible raging from selling their slavers to the government to expending operations in South America.

Would the British government be willing to purchase the freedom of slaves in the Southern U.S. in this TL?

Would Britain still have abolished slavery on OTL schedule if the rich, powerful, aristocratic Southern planters were still in the Empire supporting the rich, powerful, aristocratic Caribbean planters?

Wasn't the amount of say that the colonies had in determining British policy almost zero due to their lack of representation in the British Parliament during this time, though?

Depends on why the US is still under British rule.

Because Britain won the American Revolutionary War.

It depends on how Britain won the war. if the war was won by mass enlistment of black troops in return for their freedom (think Lord Dunmore's army rather than just a regiment!) then the dynamics of the South after the war will be very unstable with a large free black minority. it's unlikely that the British would renege on their promises of freedom as they didn't in more difficult circumstances in OTL after they were defeated.

The planters will then be faced with either re-investing a large sum of money in new slaves or employing the freed blacks as paid labourers. I would imagine the solution will be both but this will make later abolition much easier in the South.

Out of curiosity--why exactly didn't Britain try making such a deal (freedom in exchange for joining the British military) with the slaves in the U.S. during the Revolutionary War in our TL?
 
Top