A Southern revolt, over something dumb like hearing a mild reform like "elderly emancipation",would probably get squashed quickly.
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?
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?
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Probably becomes a major issue come the second part of the 19th century.
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?
"bound agricultural contract workers"
a class of semi free serfs
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.
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 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.
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.