Slavery and the colonies of British America

Hup hup hup -- no independence, no manufacturing policy, no mass industrialization in the North; the south is thus at less of a disadvantage vis a vis New England. Plus, it's far from guaranteed that the northern states would abolish slavery after getting whupped (idealism about liberty and all that likely to be a lot less popular, you know...)

Fair point and one that was on mind.

But, this might be just the thing to stimulate the nascent New Englander industry, since this war's closer to home than Britain is and will still take a couple years to crush. Witness the groth of industry in the OTL Civil War with a war effort close to home to supply. Gotta get the troops clothed and armed soon as possible, anyways, and even the OTL Dominions began to industralize in time.

Not to mention the 'north', even if you slap the border states to the south than the north to make up for *Canada being part of the *Union, is still very much more populous than Dixie. Numbers helped in the OTL Civil War and they will here.

Idealism's a mixed bag-New England's beef was on representation and taxation and if you get that solved the old amicability with Britain will probably come back, since trade and profits will quickly quelsh whatever independentist sentiments remain. And as noted, there were anti-slavery sentiments even before the Revolution.

EDIT: Beefed the post up a bit.
 
Idealism's a mixed bag-New England's beef was on representation and taxation and if you get that solved the old amicability with Britain will probably come back, since trade and profits will quickly quelsh whatever independentist sentiments remain.

I agree with most sentiments on the likelihood and outcome of some type of Southern colonial uproar or revolt but like mentioned the key element will be whether the Middle and Northern colonies (along with whatever territory is settled by that time). Again like mentioned the key is whether that issue of representation is settled. George III wasn't likely to be the most gracious of victors given some of the dialog he's known to have said concerning the colonies and likely I can see the 13 rebel territories being levied with more taxes than before to pay for the 'Tea Rebellion'. Perhaps after his death ... things might get better or more relaxed but just what kind of plausible representation is possible near and around the 1830's ... aka when I see the slavery issue culminating.
 
Had the Brits crushed the American Revolution several interesting scenarios come to mind:

Some of the Founders may well have escaped to France where they would have had little influence but would have been endlessly lampooned and mocked in the British press. Franklin, for example, would be dubbed "Franklinstein" and portrayed as a dirty old man similar to a monster in an EC comic with a nasty penchant for little girls, etc. etc.

As to slavery in the American colonies, it would have been abolished during the early 19th century, possibly with some force of arms but probably instead with intelligent $$$ incentives and certainly not in a full-blown civil war. Slavery would have met the same fate as it did in the rest of the British Empire.

Almost certainly the borders of the modern "USA" would be different than they are now. Canada would be part of it -- or us to them -- but probably not the American Southwest or California which would have stayed with Mexico. Alaska might have been annexed to Canada tho.

The fate of the Louisiana Purchase territory in the center of the continent is an interesting problem. Who would have gotten that?

And lastly, we would all say "eh?" like in Canada and would have national health care and the Queen of England would be pictured on our money.
 
Something to consider is that before the revolution slaves were mainly used to grow rice, tobacco, and indigo. In the aftermath of the war the British had stopped buying and both tobacco and rice went into decline while the indigo market completely collapsed. This reduced slave prices to become low and slaves were used in things like industry and wheat until the cotton gin was invented. So if America had stayed in the Empire then growing indigo might have remained profitable until cotton comes on the scene, keeping slave prices high and so less people would be able to afford them. From there I can see slavery being weaker in British America then in the USA.

But I'm no economist. I just try to be.
 
The British did offer freedom to slaves who runaway and fought on their side during the American Revolution. Sure they screwed them over afterwards and they didn't they land they were also promised but they were free.
 
Top