PC: British Caribbean secession over slavery

I remember watching a documentary a long time ago about slavery and abolition in Britain. One thing it mentioned is that, as the influence of abolitionism began to grow, some prominent slaver owners in the British Caribbean threatened to sever ties with Britain and join the United States. Obviously it never came to that OTL, but I was wondering how plausible such a scenario could be or what would need to happen to bring it about?
 
IIRC the planter threats in OTL came to nothing because the Haitian Revolution had just happened and it got pretty hard to argue in its wake that slavery was not dangerous. That's how abolitionism gained the momentum it had by the period of 1807 through 1833*. Getting even a majority of the planters on side doesn't sound very likely absent real interest from America, and I'm not aware of America having been interested in acquiring more states with large slave populations by that point, so I would say not very plausible.

(The pro-slavery faction in America might have been interested, so I guess you could make it more plausible if you could find a way for the Confederacy to win the Civil War as a slave power.)

* More complicated than this of course, but I think that's the biggest impetus.
 
Last edited:
I remember watching a documentary a long time ago about slavery and abolition in Britain. One thing it mentioned is that, as the influence of abolitionism began to grow, some prominent slaver owners in the British Caribbean threatened to sever ties with Britain and join the United States. Obviously it never came to that OTL, but I was wondering how plausible such a scenario could be or what would need to happen to bring it about?

To be quite honest.....you'd definitely need a fairly strongly divergent POD to allow this scenario to have even have a realistic hope of succeeding.....including for the fact that the global abolitionist movement was(sadly) still not all that powerful yet, that, and for that matter, you'd need a rather different Revolution as well.
 
I don't see it being very plausible, but if slavery was baked in for ideological reasons and they weren't simply property I guess it could work. When slaves are viewed as property, there is not a huge reason to be furious at the stuff being taken but compensated (I say furious, but you probably will be annoyed since... well let's face it every time the US government or a state took something by eminent domain, the paid market value of what it would be without the bid but the very act of adding to demand for the land increases the fair value...)
 
Caribbean : we're seceding
Britain: no you're not
Caribbean: we'll revolt
Britain: you and what Navy?
Caribbean : we'll be good

That's about how it would go.
 
Getting even a majority of the planters on side doesn't sound very likely absent real interest from America, and I'm not aware of America having been interested in acquiring more states with large slave populations by that point, so I would say not very plausible.

I'd argue that there were a number of potential reasons for the US having an interest in intervening.
  1. Whilst Manifest Destiny was still in its infancy there was still a lot of popular support for expansionism.
  2. The Slave States would of course want to opportunity to add more potential Slave States to the Union.
  3. Southern slave breeders in particular would be salivating at the prospect of placing the Caribbean islands under US control which would allow them to openly export their stock to them, given how heavily dependent they were on importing slaves.
  4. The US and Britain had a number of border disputes, at the time that Britain abolished slavery, in Oregon, Maine and the Great Lakes region. Historically these were resolved diplomatically with the Webster–Ashburton Treaty (1842) and the Oregon Treaty (1846). A war could be seen by some as a way to resolve these disputes on favourable terms, especially if the US was able to win a decisive victory. It's worth noting that IOTL there were concerns that the Oregon dispute could have lead to war at some point, although it was probably unlikely.

Caribbean : we're seceding
Britain: no you're not
Caribbean: we'll revolt
Britain: you and what Navy?
Caribbean : we'll be good


But what if:

Caribbean : we're seceding
USA: cool, a new independent state in the Americas
Britain: no you're not
Caribbean: we'll revolt
Britain: you and what Navy?
USA: MONROOOOE DOCTRINE!!!
 
I don't see it being very plausible, but if slavery was baked in for ideological reasons and they weren't simply property I guess it could work. When slaves are viewed as property, there is not a huge reason to be furious at the stuff being taken but compensated (I say furious, but you probably will be annoyed since... well let's face it every time the US government or a state took something by eminent domain, the paid market value of what it would be without the bid but the very act of adding to demand for the land increases the fair value...)
How plausible would it be for the British government to take a no-compensation stance? Probably unlikely, but is there at least a slim chance?
 

Ryan

Donor
But what if:

Caribbean : we're seceding
USA: cool, a new independent state in the Americas
Britain: no you're not
Caribbean: we'll revolt
Britain: you and what Navy?
USA: MONROOOOE DOCTRINE!!!

Britain: you mean that thing we enforce because you lack the navy to do so?
USA:...
 
Britain: you mean that thing we enforce because you lack the navy to do so?
USA:...

Yeah, on this note - if the USA were that foolish, they'd be threatening a war with Britain rapidly approaching the height of its power, in the name of slavery.

Heck, it could be a disaster on multiple fronts for multiple reasons.

1) Britain controls the sea. They can invade where and when they want, and merely need to hold the line in Canada - and burn Washington again. The USA suddenly loses access to most of its export markets because they're blockaded by Britain.

2) No distraction. There isn't a Napoleonic War going on at this point. This isn't 1812 v2. The UK and USA are both stronger, making this a bloody affair.

3) Civil division - It isn't impossible for the British to get supporters since this is a war explicitly over the abolition of slavery in the Caribbean. This could well lead to the USA splitting over the issue, especially if Britain offers to make peace with any states (including those Northern ones) that leave the USA.
 
Yeah, on this note - if the USA were that foolish, they'd be threatening a war with Britain rapidly approaching the height of its power, in the name of slavery.

Heck, it could be a disaster on multiple fronts for multiple reasons.

1) Britain controls the sea. They can invade where and when they want, and merely need to hold the line in Canada - and burn Washington again. The USA suddenly loses access to most of its export markets because they're blockaded by Britain.

2) No distraction. There isn't a Napoleonic War going on at this point. This isn't 1812 v2. The UK and USA are both stronger, making this a bloody affair.

3) Civil division - It isn't impossible for the British to get supporters since this is a war explicitly over the abolition of slavery in the Caribbean. This could well lead to the USA splitting over the issue, especially if Britain offers to make peace with any states (including those Northern ones) that leave the USA.


All good points. So hows about this:

The 1930 Belgian Revolution ends up escalating resulting in Britain entering on the side of the Dutch, instead of staying neutral as IOTL. Other Great Powers might get involved, but the details don't matter so long as it keep Britain and France bogged down in fighting.

In order to help finance the war Parliament raises taxes on their colonies, in particular on sugar. The Caribbean planters are, understandably, less than thrilled, but are willing to go along with it for the mean time.

In Jamaica Samuel Sharpe decides to launch his strike a year early judging that the wartime situation would give more of an impact. As a result the Baptist War happens a year earlier as does the subsequent Parliamentary Inquiries, which recommended abolishing slavery, and the Slavery Abolition Act. Due to the wartime situation Parliament significantly cuts back the proposed compensation for the planters which, combined with the previously increased taxes, is the final straw for them and leads to their secession, which involves a lot of fancy words about taxation and representation.

America intervenes on the side of the Caribbean islands, citing the Monroe Doctrine, as well as other grievances, real or otherwise, such as border disputes and maybe the British accidentally sinking an American ship or two. France and the US form an alliance and offer each other material aid.

With Britain now at war with France and the USA the Boers in the Cape Colony rise up against the British over their grievances, which IOTL resulted in the Great Trek. Both the USA and France support the rebels. This threatens Britain's lines of communication and supply to their Indian and Pacific holdings, thus making it an important theatre which they can't afford to ignore.

Britain is now fighting a war on three continents and the prospect of a complete break-down of the balance of power in Europe, which means that they can't just bring the full force of their army and navy to bear in the Americas, all of which gives the US somewhat better odds.
 
Last edited:
Whilst Manifest Destiny was still in its infancy there was still a lot of popular support for expansionism.

Yes, but not so much for expansionism that would involve taking over territories with large extant slave populations and making states out of them.

The Slave States would of course want to opportunity to add more potential Slave States to the Union.

Which the rest of the Union by and large very much did not want. The business of balancing slave vs. free states was a delicate tightrope walk as early as 1820.

Southern slave breeders in particular would be salivating at the prospect of placing the Caribbean islands under US control which would allow them to openly export their stock to them, given how heavily dependent they were on importing slaves.

Possibly, but see above.

The US and Britain had a number of border disputes, at the time that Britain abolished slavery, in Oregon, Maine and the Great Lakes region.

Unless your POD wipes out the War of 1812 it would have to be a pretty fresh memory at the time, there wasn't an intervening couple of centuries to soft-soap it into having been some kind of draw. Forget even "distractions," even when attacking the UK while "distracted" they had been basically whooped and were just lucky to weather the counter-attack well enough not to lose territory (or expected future territory) themselves. I take it to be a big reason why they weren't all that eager to go back to war with the UK in OTL.
 

So, basically France joins in on Americas behalf because Taxation & Representation. Considering France isn't on top form, this seems odd. Especially considering that 1830 has the fall of the Bourbon Dynasty in the July Revolution.

Ignoring that as well as the fact that backing independence so didn't exactly go well for France last time - I'm skeptical, but I'll roll with it.

My main question is - why wouldn't other European Powers get involved against France and the US? Spain for example? The violation of the Monroe Doctrine, and Britain needing the help leaves Spain in a position where they can attempt to reestablish control over their colonies - which Britain can hardly complain about since they're doing the same - it may end up being post-war, but nonetheless, having the British OK will be useful for the Spanish, as they can take advantage of Mexican instability.

My other question is - why does American violate the Monroe Doctrine? After all the US agreed not to interfere with existing European colonies, or European affairs. Intervening on the behalf of the British colonies in the Caribbean is a violation of the Doctrine.

I can see this ending badly for the United States - mainly because with the Monroe Doctrine disregarded, and a window for Spain and Portugal to reassert control in Latin America - this could be one of the messiest wars in that time line. Fighting in Europe against France, bankrolled by Britain whose control over the seas isn't really challenged, with Spain and Portugal involved to boot.

Honestly, the biggest winners here? Indians. - The Boers might force the British to deploy Sepoys, or Indian Troops, or whatever name you want to give to an expeditionary force from India - in South Africa. A bloody affair, with the Boers outnumbered - and a change to British Military Doctrine to boot. Deploying Indians as traditional forces outside of India would raise their profile, and make White British be more fond of their Indian British 'brethren-in-arms'. (cue propaganda).

I'd say the USA suffers in such a war - if the Latin American states, especially Mexico, can organise during the war, a late entry could lead to them seizing a lot of the midwest, with Britain's aim being restoring as much of the Eastern Seaboard as possible. I think the US national psyche might well shatter if Britain lands Indian troops from the Boer Rebellion in America too. Indians beating on White folk? Might give some Amerindians ideas, especially if the British support them.

Yeah, American getting involved is a bad idea for America as it was at the time.
 
I'd argue that there were a number of potential reasons for the US having an interest in intervening.
  1. Whilst Manifest Destiny was still in its infancy there was still a lot of popular support for expansionism.
  2. The Slave States would of course want to opportunity to add more potential Slave States to the Union.
  3. Southern slave breeders in particular would be salivating at the prospect of placing the Caribbean islands under US control which would allow them to openly export their stock to them, given how heavily dependent they were on importing slaves.
  4. The US and Britain had a number of border disputes, at the time that Britain abolished slavery, in Oregon, Maine and the Great Lakes region. Historically these were resolved diplomatically with the Webster–Ashburton Treaty (1842) and the Oregon Treaty (1846). A war could be seen by some as a way to resolve these disputes on favourable terms, especially if the US was able to win a decisive victory. It's worth noting that IOTL there were concerns that the Oregon dispute could have lead to war at some point, although it was probably unlikely.
But what if:

Caribbean : we're seceding
USA: cool, a new independent state in the Americas
Britain: no you're not
Caribbean: we'll revolt
Britain: you and what Navy?
USA: MONROOOOE DOCTRINE!!!

I think that by the time the U.S. is in any position to compete in a naval war with Britain, slavery is a long-dead issue.
 
I'd argue that there were a number of potential reasons for the US having an interest in intervening.
  1. Whilst Manifest Destiny was still in its infancy there was still a lot of popular support for expansionism.
  2. The Slave States would of course want to opportunity to add more potential Slave States to the Union.
  3. Southern slave breeders in particular would be salivating at the prospect of placing the Caribbean islands under US control which would allow them to openly export their stock to them, given how heavily dependent they were on importing slaves.
  4. The US and Britain had a number of border disputes, at the time that Britain abolished slavery, in Oregon, Maine and the Great Lakes region. Historically these were resolved diplomatically with the Webster–Ashburton Treaty (1842) and the Oregon Treaty (1846). A war could be seen by some as a way to resolve these disputes on favourable terms, especially if the US was able to win a decisive victory. It's worth noting that IOTL there were concerns that the Oregon dispute could have lead to war at some point, although it was probably unlikely.




But what if:

Caribbean : we're seceding
USA: cool, a new independent state in the Americas
Britain: no you're not
Caribbean: we'll revolt
Britain: you and what Navy?
USA: MONROOOOE DOCTRINE!!!
Britain: shut up or I'll sink all your boats, bombard your ports and invade you.
USA: hmmm this seems like a raw deal, I don't think I'm going to get involved.
The end.
 
USA: MONROOOOE DOCTRINE!!!

Unlikely, unless the US government all simultaneously go insane. The British Empire and navy are at their heyday relative to other states, and the US' armed forces are way too small to contemplate a war against the world's foremost imperial power, even leaving aside the extraordinarily divisive effect going to war to defend slavery is likely to have on the home front.
 
Britain falls into revolution due to some alt-Days of May riots. Fearing these republican "Jacobins", the Caribbean colonies declare their independence.
 
Just to note, slave states didn't want more slave states as such, they wanted virgin land where they could have slavery. The Caribbean islands were not really what they were after. At least not until the fire eaters went full retard and started that golden circle nonsense
 
My other question is - why does American violate the Monroe Doctrine? After all the US agreed not to interfere with existing European colonies, or European affairs. Intervening on the behalf of the British colonies in the Caribbean is a violation of the Doctrine.

I can see this ending badly for the United States - mainly because with the Monroe Doctrine disregarded, and a window for Spain and Portugal to reassert control in Latin America - this could be one of the messiest wars in that time line. Fighting in Europe against France, bankrolled by Britain whose control over the seas isn't really challenged, with Spain and Portugal involved

I think we tend to make a bigger deal of the Monroe doctrine than it really was to people at the time. It wasn't an international agreement or anything, just a general statement of foreign policy - which the USA couldn't even enforce.
 
I think we tend to make a bigger deal of the Monroe doctrine than it really was to people at the time. It wasn't an international agreement or anything, just a general statement of foreign policy - which the USA couldn't even enforce.
It's funny, I think we don't make enough of it. Given that it serve both British and American interests I think it goes a long way toward explaining forms of reticence in New World policy post-1823 that otherwise seem inexplicable.
 
It's funny, I think we don't make enough of it. Given that it serve both British and American interests I think it goes a long way toward explaining forms of reticence in New World policy post-1823 that otherwise seem inexplicable.

I think it can be explained that there were easier conquests elsewhere in the world. France and the UK did flout the doctrine on a few occasions though.

France sent a bunch of warships to Haïti to collect reparations payments for slavery (which it continued to collect all century), while the UK continued to conquer northern North America, and also established a new colony in the Falkland Islands.

No one else really had a reason to go conquering again in the Americas. Spain was exhausted and in turmoil, while the Portuguese and Dutch were busy building their empires elsewhere. The lands of Africa, Asia, and the Pacific seemed like easier targets.
 
Last edited:
Top