Independent America Without The North?

Okay, so, Union of Southern America has got me thinking:

Would it be possible to see an American revolution where America consists only of Virginia, Delaware and Maryland south, including the then British Florida?
 
I once thought of a similar scenario where the initial revolution fails and abolitionist laws in the British Empire cause a second, successful revolution in the South in 1833 or so. Not sure about plausibility, though; if the British Empire could have continued profiting from slavery via cotton exports, would they still have passed abolitionist legislation as quickly as in OTL?
 
Okay, so, Union of Southern America has got me thinking:

Would it be possible to see an American revolution where America consists only of Virginia, Delaware and Maryland south, including the then British Florida?

Honestly, the opposite is easier. The South had a greater interest in retaining the Status quo, especially since the lands South of the Ohio were soon to be open for settlement.
 
Honestly, the opposite is easier. The South had a greater interest in retaining the Status quo, especially since the lands South of the Ohio were soon to be open for settlement.

Agree that in the short term this is definitely the case as the core of the rebellion was in New England and neighbouring regions. Its difficult to see them staying in a BNA without the revolt being totally defeated.

A later conflict over the ending of slavery in say the 1820-40's or whenever TTL Britain ends slavery is possible but baring major problems for Britain elsewhere or a lot of support for the rebellion in the north the odds would be very much against the rebels.

Steve
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I once thought of a similar scenario where the initial revolution fails and abolitionist laws in the British Empire cause a second, successful revolution in the South in 1833 or so. Not sure about plausibility, though; if the British Empire could have continued profiting from slavery via cotton exports, would they still have passed abolitionist legislation as quickly as in OTL?
Yes, they profited much more from sugar, and they still abolished slavery in the Caribbean. The anti-slavery lobby was very powerful in Britain.
 
Yes, they profited much more from sugar, and they still abolished slavery in the Caribbean. The anti-slavery lobby was very powerful in Britain.

But the price of sugar was very low at the time of abolition, meaning the planters took their chance to get a decent chunk of compensation versus an uncertain future on the sugar price. There would be very limited opportunities to get a low price of both sugar and cotton, although it's possible they might ban it anyway despite a high price.

There's also the case that the Caribbean islands were much more dependent on the British Empire for supplies than the continental Southern colonies.

On the other hand, cotton is much more dependent on Britain as a market (due to it being vast bulk of the world's industry) than sugar (which was consumed everywhere). This effect is even stronger if New England is part of the British Empire. Going to war with your only customers isn't the brightest idea. But then, going to war with the much stronger northern half of the country isn't a good idea and the firebreathers still did that...

A lot will also be related to voting reform. Once non-conformists and the middle classes get the franchise it's a lot harder to stop abolition. The type of setup that avoids OTL American revolution will also matter in terms of the agreement between division of power between Westminster and local assemblies.
 
Top