Race And Slavery In British America

[Kaptin Kurk]

The American Revolution fails, for whatever reasons, or variable reasons depending on the poster. How does this effect the evolution of race and slavery issues in British North America? Or the British Americas in general, considering their Carribean posessions.

 

[Arachnid]

Well it depends on what sort of post war system is set up. Are we looking at an effectively independent Dominion of North America with only nominal allegiance to the Crown, are we talking about direct rule from London (very unlikely), are we looking at a return to pre-war status. Or somewhere in between.

 

[Dave Howery]

Depends mostly on if the cotton gin is still invented or not. If it is, then ending the highly profitable cotton plantation slavery is going to be a real battle. If not, then (assuming the Brits end slavery as per OTL) it won't be such a fight...

 

[Socrates]

I suspect the banning of the slave trade would take longer, causing a larger black population in the US. It's also likely that the British would use their position to pick up more sugar islands in the Caribbean.

However, I also think outright abolition is likely to happen by the 1830s, and probably with slave owners compensated for their losses. I doubt the slave states would dare to rebel against their overwhelming export market.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

My relevant thoughts...

 

[Andrew Hudson]

There would be tensions regarding the black loyalists but as compensation was paid anyway that would have solved that issue. There would probably have been a second revolutionary war when Britain tried to abolish slavery in the colonies but New England may well have been in the loyalist camp by then

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Yes, it will be ugly. Britain is slowly moving towards an abolitionist position, and will abolish slavery sooner or later, probably in the 1830s. The Caribbean Islands were quite pissed about it, but too weak to do anything about it. One can wonder how the Southern parts of British North America would react. A reason for a second revolt?

 

[Socrates]

Yes, it will be ugly. Britain is slowly moving towards an abolitionist position, and will abolish slavery sooner or later, probably in the 1830s. The Caribbean Islands were quite pissed about it, but too weak to do anything about it. One can wonder how the Southern parts of British North America would react. A reason for a second revolt?

A lot of how the argument will be framed depends on how America remains British. If the colonies (either these ones or reorganised ones) get some acknowledgement of autonomy, we might get "states rights" style arguments. On the other hand, the British are much more likely to be willing to compensate slave owners to deal with the problem, as they did in OTL. (It's worth bearing in mind the total market value of all slaves in the US was about the same as the total financial cost on both sides of the Civil War, but without the loss of life.)

However, THAT SAID, rebelling states would have to deal with the world's most powerful navy, the huge industrial base of both New England and Britain, and, if victorious, the elimination of virtually its entire export market.

I imagine you'd get a manumitted abolition, with compensation for slave owners, and acceptance from Westminster of no suffrage for blacks. (Heck, in British America, there'd probably still be property limits on voting anyway.)

 

[Thande]

I suspect it would be no rose garden, especially if the solution to American complaints was for America to elect MPs at Westminster rather than setting up an American parliament. Banning slavery and the slave trade was already a terrible uphill struggle in Britain in OTL and that was without the influence of too many people making potloads of dosh off it, never mind the later ideological attachment to slavery that arose in the southern states (or colonies).

This may seem an odd position for me to take given the current events in my own timeline, but things are a wee bit different there and it's not over yet.

 

[MAlexMatt]

I think reactions would be different in different colonies.

In the Virginia Piedmont I could see Tidewater planters happily and graciously accepting the Crown buying and freeing their slaves, on the condition that they are then moved elsewhere, or were somehow still tied to the land as a captive workforce. Some may even do it for free.

Trans-Appalachian slave owners WILL have to be paid. Every single one of them is going to want compensation in full.

Deep South planters won't move an inch. They will actively resist if abolition is forced on them and they won't take money for it, either. They feel about slavery as the Caribbean slave lords did, but there are a LOT more of them over a much greater area of land.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I reference the idea in my above links, but I'll say it again now -- you have to take in to account how the American Revolution in OTL significantly strengthened the Abolitionist movement on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

I have to give you JFP, we should be having this conversation in your thread.

 

[Socrates]

I suspect it would be no rose garden, especially if the solution to American complaints was for America to elect MPs at Westminster rather than setting up an American parliament. Banning slavery and the slave trade was already a terrible uphill struggle in Britain in OTL and that was without the influence of too many people making potloads of dosh off it, never mind the later ideological attachment to slavery that arose in the southern states (or colonies).

This may seem an odd position for me to take given the current events in my own timeline, but things are a wee bit different there and it's not over yet.

But all those new pro-slavery MPs are significantly outnumbered by the anti-slavery Yankee MPs - and in this situation they won't be balanced out by Senate representation rules giving them an unfair boost. (Even if you include the Caribbean planters who will also likely be added in, as they were under Pitt's plans.)

It's worth bearing in mind that the US banned the slave trade as soon as it was constitutionally allowed, but I appreciate John's point about the ARW have an extra push on the movement, so the slave trade may last a bit longer.

However, once the Great Reform Act happens you have an expanded electorate that is overwhelmingly anti-slavery. So the determining date of outright abolition is basically dependent on that. The mid 1830s is probably the latest that can happen, without revolution on the streets.

In terms of whether the Deep South would rebel: who would they sell their cotton too? The two biggest consumer markets by far at this time in history are the Northern states and the British Isles. Even if they get their independence, they will collapse economically and be reconquered pretty quickly.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

However, once the Great Reform Act happens you have an expanded electorate that is overwhelmingly anti-slavery...

Ah, but would there be a Great Reform Act of 1832 in TTL? Without a, more or less, pro-"democracy" revolution* failing, and a non-existent US, does the idea of popular democracy also suffer setbacks?

Also, if the Abolitionist Movement is strangled in the cradle**, would the expanded electorate still be anti-slavery? Or at least passionately so? Why?

*ok, a revolution based on the premise that taxation without representation is tyranny, and OTL saw an explosion of democratic values on the Continent, and following that, elsewhere...

**maybe not killed outright -- then again...

 

[Socrates]

Ah, but would there be a Great Reform Act of 1832 in TTL? Without a, more or less, pro-"democracy" revolution* failing, and a non-existent US, does the idea of popular democracy also suffer setbacks?

Again, I take your point, but I think you're overstating it. Universal manhood suffrage had been demanded during the time of Cromwell. By the 1830s, it wasn't ideology pushing the change, it was an emerging middle class that was getting wealth from the industrial revolution and wanted a political voice to match that. Perhaps someone can state with more certainty, but I believe Enlightenment literature was increasingly calling for popular sovereignty before the ARW. Pitt the Elder had already backed electoral reform.

We then have... whatever happens in America... many of the ideas articulated have still been put out there if its a failed revolution. If it's simply the British giving American more rights, that will equally lead to more calls for more rights at home. Even before the ARW, the suffrage was much broader in the colonies and attention to this is going to want a greater suffrage in British elections to level the playing field.

For that matter, what happens in France will matter a lot. Obviously the coming financial crisis there could be butterflied a lot of ways, but its hard to see many circumstances where there isn't some explosion of radical democratic thought in public debate, even if they aren't successful at taking control of the government.

Also, if the Abolitionist Movement is strangled in the cradle**, would the expanded electorate still be anti-slavery? Or at least passionately so? Why?

Not convinced the Abolitionist Movement is strangled at birth. British generals were often against slavery as far back as 1730s, as shown by Oglethorpe banning it when he founded Georgia. The Somersett case showed the way the tide was really turning in Britain, and judges tend to be one of the most conservative parts of British society. As soon as the colonists demanded more liberty, newspaper articles and cartoons immediately lashed out at their hypocrisy on slavery as it was a live issue. There's no event here to strangle the growing movement - just the lack of an extra push. I really can't see how you can prevent the British middle class from being strongly anti-slavery a half century after a court of law has banned it as "so odious" and "incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political".

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Again, I take your point, but I think you're overstating it. Universal manhood suffrage had been demanded during the time of Cromwell. By the 1830s, it wasn't ideology pushing the change, it was an emerging middle class that was getting wealth from the industrial revolution and wanted a political voice to match that. Perhaps someone can state with more certainty, but I believe Enlightenment literature was increasingly calling for popular sovereignty before the ARW. Pitt the Elder had already backed electoral reform.

Fair points, especially regarding the emerging middle class. What I tried getting at in the post is would the expansion of suffrage still happen when it did? I suppose the fundamentals being what they are, the delay, if it happens, would be slight. Still...

We then have... whatever happens in America...

I'm of the school that says they get oppressed hard -- after all, that's essentially what happened whenever any other part of the Empire rebelled (Ireland, India, what have you). Any subsequent democratic movements, at least in the next few decades, get squashed hard.

For that matter, what happens in France will matter a lot...

As I see it, there's less debt, but still financial troubles. Whatever "revolution" happens likely won't be nearly as radical as OTL, and seeing as the later took so long to tackle slavery, I can't see why TTL's France would do any better.

Not convinced the Abolitionist Movement is strangled at birth... As soon as the colonists demanded more liberty, newspaper articles and cartoons immediately lashed out at their hypocrisy on slavery as it was a live issue. There's no event here to strangle the growing movement - just the lack of an extra push.

This is a well known tactic used against political adversaries, that when the opportunity presents itself, point out the hypocrisy of their actions against their stated ideals -- even when you care not a fig for neither. That's how I see Samuel Johnson's famous quip, for example.

The Somersett case showed the way the tide was really turning in Britain, and judges tend to be one of the most conservative parts of British society... I really can't see how you can prevent the British middle class from being strongly anti-slavery a half century after a court of law has banned it as "so odious" and "incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political".

It's getting late for me, so I can't go into detail, but this historical interpretation of the Somersett Case is something I've come across on the board before, and its historical significance misinterpreted and overstated.

I will just say this -- what the case determined, and what the judge went to lengths to clarify, is that there was no legal basis for the establishment of slavery in English Common Law; as such, it applied to the British Isles, and to the Isles alone. This had, at the end of the day, a negligible impact of the slave economy of the British Empire.

 

[Socrates]

I'm of the school that says they get oppressed hard -- after all, that's essentially what happened whenever any other part of the Empire rebelled (Ireland, India, what have you). Any subsequent democratic movements, at least in the next few decades, get squashed hard.

This is a whole another debate, so maybe for another time, but a few points: In Ireland, they established the union to address complaints about the powers of the Ascendancy. In India, they brought control under the crown to address complaints about EIC corrupt rule. In Canada, they reformatted governance to address complaints. I think a combination of a clampdown and an address of (some) grievances is most likely.

As I see it, there's less debt, but still financial troubles. Whatever "revolution" happens likely won't be nearly as radical as OTL, and seeing as the later took so long to tackle slavery, I can't see why TTL's France would do any better.

Someone has posted numbers on here before, but the expenditures on the ARW were actually small fry in the scheme of things. The crisis might come a few years later, and then all the Enlightenment thinking spills out, even if it's put down. And to be clear, my point on this is not how it changes attitudes on slavery, its how it changes attitudes on a greater franchise, thus causing the alt Great Reform Act.

This is a well known tactic used against political adversaries, that when the opportunity presents itself, point out the hypocrisy of their actions against their stated ideals -- even when you care not a fig for neither. That's how I see Samuel Johnson's famous quip, for example.

I accept this is a possible explanation, but it wouldn't be used unless it would strike a chord among the public, even if the newspaper owners don't care.

It's getting late for me, so I can't go into detail, but this historical interpretation of the Somersett Case is something I've come across on the board before, and its historical significance misinterpreted and overstated.

I will just say this -- what the case determined, and what the judge went to lengths to clarify, is that there was no legal basis for the establishment of slavery in English Common Law; as such, it applied to the British Isles, and to the Isles alone. This had, at the end of the day, a negligible impact of the slave economy of the British Empire.

Agreed, but it's still pretty evident of the feeling in the British Isles at the time. And let's be clear, it was (and is) commonplace for English judges to establish precedents from existing custom and/or morality in England even if "positive law" from parliament hasn't been made. That's largely how Common Law works. The decision here was that slavery was "so odious" that ONLY positive law could make it legal, even if the decision led to all sorts of practical problems.

You're right that the decision only affected the British Isles, and had no impact on the wider empire from a legal perspective. But it does become a cornerstone of how the British in the home islands think about slavery, and will affect who they elect to parliament 50 years later.

 

[Alratan]

Fair points, especially regarding the emerging middle class. What I tried getting at in the post is would the expansion of suffrage still happen when it did? I suppose the fundamentals being what they are, the delay, if it happens, would be slight. Still...

One of the major reasons for the delay in enacting Reform in Britain was the conservative backlash triggered by the French Revolution. If France doesn't go bankrupt and tear itself apart, then reform should be accelerated rather than retarded.

 

[Mark E.]

You can set up some big butterflies with the French Revolution, Haiti, the Louisiana Purchase, eventual Mexican War, etc. You will have a substantial French and Spanish presence in the Southwest and Midwest, and substantial potential to produce cotton in these areas. British America moves more towards steam power and industry; French and Spanish America become bastions of slavery.