Slavery in a British Victory of American Revolutionary war?

Not sure if such a thing has been asked before, but what I'm curious about is how the issue of slavery would have been dealt with, if the British were able to win the American Revolutionary War.

Assuming that the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 goes through like it did OTL, how would the Slave owners and Slaves react to this?
 
Not sure if such a thing has been asked before, but what I'm curious about is how the issue of slavery would have been dealt with, if the British were able to win the American Revolutionary War.

Assuming that the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 goes through like it did OTL, how would the Slave owners and Slaves react to this?

It's been discussed before, but never really in depth. I think it comes down to how the British won: if it's a military victory, my guess is the colonies would rebel again over slavery, but it'd merely be an excuse to try and break free from Great Britain again (of course, given that the Northern colonies even then weren't too keen on slavery, the rebellion might be a hell of a lot messier).

If it's a political one (in that the British cave and offer the colonies some token representation), it's doubtful that slavery would even be abolished. Having your main colonial moneymaker be partly reliant on a slave economy would go a long way towards squashing any British abolitionist movement (indeed, there's probably an argument to be made that the loss of the colonies paved the way for the abolition of slavery, since they no longer had to worry about the colonies getting pissed about it).
 
If the American colonies were granted representation in the British parliament, the pro-slave southern American bloc would be a small minority dwarfed by a coalition of northern American and British parliamentarians. Abolitionism would be a very useful issue from London's perspective: it would encourage the Yankee section to identify culturally and politically with the metropole, weakening relations between northern and southern Americans and greatly reducing the chance of another pan-colonial rebellion. If a unilateral southern rebellion occurred, it would be crushed by the Anglo-Yankee juggernaut.
 
If the American colonies were granted representation in the British parliament, the pro-slave southern American bloc would be a small minority dwarfed by a coalition of northern American and British parliamentarians. Abolitionism would be a very useful issue from London's perspective: it would encourage the Yankee section to identify culturally and politically with the metropole, weakening relations between northern and southern Americans and greatly reducing the chance of another pan-colonial rebellion. If a unilateral southern rebellion occurred, it would be crushed by the Anglo-Yankee juggernaut.

This assumes that Britian gives the colonies seats in parliament. They seemed to be in no hurry to do so, as far as I know.
 
Not sure if such a thing has been asked before, but what I'm curious about is how the issue of slavery would have been dealt with, if the British were able to win the American Revolutionary War.

Assuming that the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 goes through like it did OTL, how would the Slave owners and Slaves react to this?

It honestly really depends, but I can say that many of the "Britain abolishes slavery much sooner than OTL" scenarios are a tad too optimistic to be terribly realistic.

This assumes that Britian gives the colonies seats in parliament. They seemed to be in no hurry to do so, as far as I know.

They weren't. Even in Sobel's classic For Want of a Nail story, IIRC, the colonies had to be appeased with what was essentially a mix of a modified version of the Albany Plan, combined with the Galloway Plan, called the "Britannic Design".

The Wiki probably explains it better, though:

http://fwoan.wikia.com/wiki/Britannic_Design

It's been discussed before, but never really in depth. I think it comes down to how the British won: if it's a military victory, my guess is the colonies would rebel again over slavery, but it'd merely be an excuse to try and break free from Great Britain again (of course, given that the Northern colonies even then weren't too keen on slavery, the rebellion might be a hell of a lot messier).

If it's a political one (in that the British cave and offer the colonies some token representation), it's doubtful that slavery would even be abolished. Having your main colonial moneymaker be partly reliant on a slave economy would go a long way towards squashing any British abolitionist movement (indeed, there's probably an argument to be made that the loss of the colonies paved the way for the abolition of slavery, since they no longer had to worry about the colonies getting pissed about it).

I do think that slavery's abolishment could be delayed by a few decades in this case(maybe around OTL's date for the abolishment of slavery in the U.S.), but I'm also not convinced that it would be likely to last beyond the 1880s, and the turn of the century might be really pushing it a bit.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
If this victory should somehow result in young Eli Whitney dying due to the diseases that the British Army brings with it while marching through central Massachusetts and spreading them to Westborough, MA, I don't think there will be much of an issue abolishing slavery by 1830. It was a dying institution in the US until the cotton gin came about. For one thing, it was not all that economical, and for another thing, manumission was becoming increasingly popular due to the fact that many Revolutionaries personally did away with slavery in their own homes, and in the North, especially New England and every other northern state besides NY, the political consensus was anti slavery.

Slavery in the empire, due to the sugar planting operations in the West Indies, was durable. I doubt American slavery, mostly for tobacco and cotton, vastly less profitable ventures, has that kind of institutional staying power.
 
" ... main colonial money maker ..."?
Hah!
By the time of the American Revolution, I was under the impression that both England and France had concluded that there was more money to be made trading spices, tea, opium, etc. with the East Indies.

Example, how little effort the French Navy devoted to re-conquering Quebec the spring after the Battle on the Plains of Abraham.

Returning to the original question: even if England banned slavery, I suspect that slavery would have continued (in the American colonies) under a slightly different label ... maybe share-cropping.

Example, slavery may have been banned in Africa decades ago, but it is still practiced in African countries like Mali and Burkino Faso because the climate is too harsh on horses and the soil is too poor to fuel tractors.
 
The UK banned slavery throughout the Empire by the 1830s as I recall. This included British Caribbean islands where slavery and the plantation system mad huge profits with sugar (primarily) - way more profitable than cotton in the USA. I don't see the British allowing slavery in the "USA" while it is forbidden elsewhere in the Empire. Given that slave owners were compensated when the British did away with it, that would reduce resistance to this in the "USA".

Given that in the "no USA" scenario the political power of the southern/slave areas will be much less than it was in the USA, even if there are parliamentary members fro North America, the ability of slave owners to control political actions or even have extension of slavery before it is abolished will be much less than OTL.

Bottom line, slavery in North America is finished before 1850...
 
I agree, Sloreck. I suspect abolition would have happened before 1840. Many people don't realize that American slavery deteriorated for a long time before experiencing a second wind in the mid-19th century. It was rejuvenated by a combination of factors: technological advancements, territorial expansion, and the protection of a belligerent, expansionist U.S. government dominated by southerners for half a century. If the revolution were to have failed, none of this would have happened. The cotton belt would not even have been settled. If the British could abolish slavery where it was most lucrative (in the Caribbean sugar plantations), they could certainly have abolished it where it was moribund and regarded with moral ambivalence even by its hereditary practitioners.
 
The main reason for the timing of the slavery ban was the expansion of the vote in the Great Reform Act. The financial elite were marginally pro-slavery while the middle class was strongly hostile. As soon as the middle class gets the vote, slavery gets banned. It's very hard to see the vote being held back much beyond the 1830s, as it was late in our timeline: nation was on the brink of revolution. Had it not been for the French Revolution, which made the British elite more conservative, reform and thus abolition would happen even earlier.

The only exception I see to this is if the ARW is avoided, which might delay the debate on slavery a bit longer, (but not more than a decade due to timing of Somersett decision and religious revivals); or if negotiated compromise gives domestic policy to colonies, and they are exempted from decision. Even then I see the pressure getting too high by the 1950s, and the southern colonies would have to be really, really stupid to take on both the North and the British Empire combined.
 
Not sure if such a thing has been asked before, but what I'm curious about is how the issue of slavery would have been dealt with, if the British were able to win the American Revolutionary War.

Assuming that the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 goes through like it did OTL, how would the Slave owners and Slaves react to this?


"Oi where's our compensation?"

In the territories of the British Empire where slavery was abolished, which by the explicitly did not include the whole of the Empire until some ten years later, the Crown raised £20 million pounds to compensate slave owners. How much more would the British Government have to raise, would Parliament instead choose to make an exception of the American mainland colonies or would parliamentarians simply baulk?

Further on the matter of representation it should be remembered that none of the slave holding colonies were represented in Parliament but that it was still a long hard fight to get to the Bill as the slave interests had considerable amounts of patronage (a polite way of describing outright bribery) to influence MPs. Add in Southern Plantation owners and that patronage potential merely grows.
 
Very roughly in 1830 there were approx. 2 million slaves in the USA and around 900,000 in the British Caribbean - say a million including the Cape and other places affected.

Compensating the US slave owners on a similar basis to the Caribbean plantation owners would require an additional £40 million in funds. That is around 9% of GDP or an increase of approx. 5% in public debt.

In comparison the bank bailout in 2008 was equivalent to 100% GDP

In short it could be done - unsure whether it would be done.
 
Assuming that the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 goes through like it did OTL, how would the Slave owners and Slaves react to this?

I think this is a big assumption. For one thing, as Rodest Revolution points out, this will mean that millions of more slaves will have to be paid for as compensation, and for another thing, this scenario means that the Caribbean and American planter lobbies will be united. OTL the Caribbean planters were able to delay actual abolition till 1838. With the South presumably supplying even more cotton to the UK in this TL, and the compensation issue, I wonder just how long the planters would be able to drag it out.

Also unlike the Caribbean colonies, colonies in the OTL US would have the possibility of armed revolt if Britain tries to abolish slavery, so it's possible there could be some sort of weird American Civil War analogy. Although since in this case the South's main market would be against them, they might not dare. A lot might depend on British-French relations, too. If the northern colonies have any grievances with the British government at the same time, it could really turn into a mess.

I would also expect abolition to have proceeded more slowly in the northern colonies in this TL, but it would be such a small player in their economies that I wouldn't expect it to be any impetus for revolt like it would in the Deep South, and by 1833 I think most of the OTL states that abolished slavery would also have abolished it in this timeline, so maybe not too many differences there.

But really, at the end of the day, I think this entire scenario is unrealistic. I think even with a victory in the ARW it is highly unlikely that Britain can maintain enough control over their North American mainland colonies by the 1830s to retain the power to abolish slavery there. By 1830 the OTL US had a population as large as England's; something would have to give. Personally I think the most likely scenario is that there's a second revolution, but the alternative is that Britain grants the ATL US sweeping autonomy sometime in the next few decades after the failed ARW. The alternative to that is almost certainly a second revolt, and I think a second revolt would be the most likely outcome anyway. The best outcome as far as slavery goes would be for that second revolt to go in a radical direction like the French Revolution and have slavery abolished during the war. Though if that happened I don't know if the Deep South would join in; a Second American Revolution ATL US might end up split.

I agree, Sloreck. I suspect abolition would have happened before 1840. Many people don't realize that American slavery deteriorated for a long time before experiencing a second wind in the mid-19th century. It was rejuvenated by a combination of factors: technological advancements, territorial expansion, and the protection of a belligerent, expansionist U.S. government dominated by southerners for half a century. If the revolution were to have failed, none of this would have happened. The cotton belt would not even have been settled. If the British could abolish slavery where it was most lucrative (in the Caribbean sugar plantations), they could certainly have abolished it where it was moribund and regarded with moral ambivalence even by its hereditary practitioners.

I don't agree with this assessment, because I don't buy the argument that plantation slavery was in any sort of decline post-1800. There had been a major cotton bust right around 1825, but that was just a fluctuation; it had been at record highs the 5 years prior to that, and cotton was no less profitable at the start of the 19th century than it was during the middle of it. The price of slaves during that same period 1800-1830 also held steady or rose, meaning that slavery was still a profitable institution or even an increasingly profitable institution. OTL the vast majority of slaves in 1830 were in the Cotton Belt east of the Mississippi, and why would a British victory in the ARW have resulted in the cotton belt not being settled? It was the most profitable single part of the country.
.
 
If the American colonies were granted representation in the British parliament, the pro-slave southern American bloc would be a small minority dwarfed by a coalition of northern American and British parliamentarians. Abolitionism would be a very useful issue from London's perspective: it would encourage the Yankee section to identify culturally and politically with the metropole, weakening relations between northern and southern Americans and greatly reducing the chance of another pan-colonial rebellion. If a unilateral southern rebellion occurred, it would be crushed by the Anglo-Yankee juggernaut.

Indeed economically the west indies planters had quite a lot of money, but it availed them little against the different interests of the rest of the Empire. Adding the southern colonies would only have made a difference if by some method Britain had managed to lose the Northern colonies, but held on to the south. additionally Britain may or may not have annexed louisiana and texas, if not the slave states are considerably weakened. The south without New orleans is hamstrung.
 
Indeed economically the west indies planters had quite a lot of money, but it availed them little against the different interests of the rest of the Empire. Adding the southern colonies would only have made a difference if by some method Britain had managed to lose the Northern colonies, but held on to the south. additionally Britain may or may not have annexed louisiana and texas, if not the slave states are considerably weakened. The south without New orleans is hamstrung.

The whole financial interest thing has been blown out the window by the Great Reform Act, however. Not only was the electorate doubled, but the rotten boroughs were abolished, and small constituencies had their power drastically diminished. The Abolition of Slavery Act was carried by 267 votes for goodness sake. It wasn't even close.

Also unlike the Caribbean colonies, colonies in the OTL US would have the possibility of armed revolt if Britain tries to abolish slavery, so it's possible there could be some sort of weird American Civil War analogy. Although since in this case the South's main market would be against them, they might not dare. A lot might depend on British-French relations, too. If the northern colonies have any grievances with the British government at the same time, it could really turn into a mess.

If things have lasted for a half century, then there can't be too much of a state of grievance. Given the largely inevitable development of abolitionist feeling in the north in our timeline during the early 1800s, I just can't see how northern colonies can back the southern colonies to keep slavery against the metropole. Considering that, how stupid would the south have to be to take on both the north and the world's greatest navy? The UK is massively benefitting from the industrial development at this point too. Also, should the South win, who are they going to sell their agricultural exports to? The textile factories of England are now shut off to them. Even winning is a terrible scenario. They'd have to be mad to revolt.
 
If the southern states decide to revolt over slavery in 1833, they'd be crushed. Even IOTL the American Revolution was nearly defeated several times, and the British would have some major advantages in the slave rebellion scenario:

1.) A significant part of British public opinion during the AWI was sympathetic to, or even outright supportive of, the rebels, who were seen as fighting for their rights as Englishmen against arbitrary government, in the fine old tradition of the Glorious Revolution. If the rebellion was fought primarily over slavery, public opinion is going to be a lot more belligerent.

2.) The northern states would be unlikely to rebel, meaning that the British have a much better base of operations than during the AWI. They also have to reoccupy a much smaller amount of land to win.

3.) The French, Dutch and Spanish navies still hadn't recovered from the Napoleonic Wars, meaning that Britain was now the naval world's undisputed top dog. Hence there would be little to no hope of meaningful foreign interventions in support of the rebels.
 
I bought an AH novel a short time ago regarding this very situation (no American Revolutionary War).

One of the key elements is that Britain announced the repeal of slavery in the 1840ish timeframe. Wish I'd read it.

I have no idea how the book goes but I suspect a southern Revolutionary War may be coming. I'll try to find the book when I get home.
 
If the southern states decide to revolt over slavery in 1833, they'd be crushed. Even IOTL the American Revolution was nearly defeated several times, and the British would have some major advantages in the slave rebellion scenario:

1.) A significant part of British public opinion during the AWI was sympathetic to, or even outright supportive of, the rebels, who were seen as fighting for their rights as Englishmen against arbitrary government, in the fine old tradition of the Glorious Revolution. If the rebellion was fought primarily over slavery, public opinion is going to be a lot more belligerent.

2.) The northern states would be unlikely to rebel, meaning that the British have a much better base of operations than during the AWI. They also have to reoccupy a much smaller amount of land to win.

3.) The French, Dutch and Spanish navies still hadn't recovered from the Napoleonic Wars, meaning that Britain was now the naval world's undisputed top dog. Hence there would be little to no hope of meaningful foreign interventions in support of the rebels.

Note that there was no support for the South abroad in the OTL Civil War and they managed to make that last four years.

Also, in the 1840's to 1860's, Britain's army topped out at about 50,000 worldwide (not all could be sent to America).

Britain's army was also obsolete as proven by the Crimean War and was led by "old-timers" like the Duke of Cambridge.

I suspect the North would be required to shoulder the bulk of the burden.

How about a scenario that the South rebels, a largely indifferent north grudgingly attempts to stop them, all the while the Indian mutiny occurs (sucking up British resources)?
 
The banning of slavery would be pushed forward a bit, at around the 1850s. This "Second American Revolt" would probably be stopped with widespread Northern support, resulting in the grudge of the North against British Empire to subsidize.

If the Indian Mutiny still occurs, the North will have more of the burden of stopping the Second America Revolt, and as a result, nationalism will grow. This nationalism will be a lot like the nationalism of Canada post-WWI.
 
If things have lasted for a half century, then there can't be too much of a state of grievance.

No, which is why I'm highly doubtful that Britain would still have the power to abolish it. How would they even enforce it? We're assuming that the alt-US (I don't know what else to call it) has powers similar to Canada after Confederation. Britain can end the slave trade, no problem, but how is Britain going to wipe out slavery in the American South, against the will of whatever alt-Colonial confederation government there is? Maybe by 1860 again the rest of the continent would be onboard with forcing slavery out, but not in 1830. I'd expect abolition in North America to be about a decade behind schedule anyway as it is. When does the first colony abolish slavery? It's not 1777.

If the Indian Mutiny still occurs, the North will have more of the burden of stopping the Second America Revolt, and as a result, nationalism will grow. This nationalism will be a lot like the nationalism of Canada post-WWI.

If the North is that involved, and they'd have to be in order to win, it would just be the Southern Revolt.

I'll maintain that Britain could not win a war against a revolting South without significant northern help. By 1830 the alt-US would have a population as large or close to as large as England's, and about half of that is the South. Britain is not going to be able to reconquer that much populated territory without the northern colonies supplying most of the manpower.
 
Last edited:
Top