Slavery in a British Victory of American Revolutionary war?

Note that there was no support for the South abroad in the OTL Civil War and they managed to make that last four years.
Except that the South could buy weapons from Britain, or buy them in Europe and sneak them through the relatively leaky Union blockade. Not an option with the much larger Royal Navy assisting, and both Britain and the North fighting against the South.

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).
Actually, it bottomed out at 87,993 in 1838, rose to 116,434 in 1846 and stood at 217,922 in 1861.

Britain's army was also obsolete as proven by the Crimean War and was led by "old-timers" like the Duke of Cambridge.
A war it won, and a general who was 35 at the time. What the war proved was not that the army was obsolete- in fact, the fighting arms performed well given the parsimonious nature of their funding and the length of time since a major European engagement. What it showed was that the support services were inadequate, something that would be dramatically less of a factor fighting in America at the end of a much smaller supply chain.
 
Except that the South could buy weapons from Britain, or buy them in Europe and sneak them through the relatively leaky Union blockade. Not an option with the much larger Royal Navy assisting, and both Britain and the North fighting against the South.

That's the main problem; I don't think the 1830s North was anti-slavery enough to fight the South in order to enforce a British abolition order. Not only do I think the North would take offense at the involvement in American internal laws to begin with, but as anyone in a Civil War thread will tell you, OTL the North would never have launched a war to end slavery in the South in 1861. Never. It took the South flipping out about a likely gradual abolition of slavery in some indeterminate time in the future, seceding, and firing on a federal military station for that to happen.
 
I don't see a "southern revolt" in response to the British Empire outlawing slavery, especially if compensation is being offered. he principle of "sates rights" is certainly not the same here as OTL, and even if the boundaries of the "USA" are the same her as OTL I would expect that the border states will be with the "north" here. Virginia and North Carolina were somewhat on the fence here, and they may try to adopt a "neutral" stance like Kentucky tried OTL, but likely end up as Kentucky did - staying with the "Union". A slave state revolt involving SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX, and possibly AR & TN has no chance against a "Britain" which includes the RN, and population of the rest of British North America. In the 1860s the South had essentially zero warmaking industries, even less so in the 1830-1850 time frame, and there is nobody who will be able and willing to try and give them any supplies.

Another factor is that from the get-go this war is going to be all about slavery. The slave population in these states will know that Britain winning means freedom and the south winning means continued slavery. With slaves who have everything to win by helping defeat the revolution in any way possible, the south is going to have huge problem dealing with their slaves. Work slowdowns to actual armed revolt as well as being eyes and ears for British forces will force the south to devote assets to subduing the slaves, assets they simply don't have.

All of this doesn't mean that certain elements of southern society won't contemplate or even actually start a revolt, OTL a connection with reality was not something many southerners had. One wonders what will be the effects of a significant number of Australians tracing their ancestry to southern rebels transported for treason....
 
OTL the North would never have launched a war to end slavery in the South in 1861.
But we're dealing here with a society in which the abolitionists of Britain and America have been working together for generations without a border to separate them, in which Britain hasn't enlisted slaves to fight against the liberty of their masters, in which nobody has said that racial equality is "a philosophical idea, an English idea, but it is eminently un-American" (Representative Charles J. Biddle [Democrat, Pennsylvania], 1862). Historically, the North got uncomfortably close to slavery in large part because the British fought against it- remember the New York regiments volunteering for war to protect American slave ships from Royal Navy boarding parties in 1858- and then abandoned it with remarkable haste when the situation changed. By the 1830s, the North would likely be in the forefront of popular agitation for compensated emancipation.

Furthermore, you're overlooking the fact that the North doesn't have to fight as wholeheartedly to put down the rebellion in TTL. All they do is make a smaller contribution of forces and avoid selling the South arms, and British military, economic and naval strength makes up the difference.
 
But we're dealing here with a society in which the abolitionists of Britain and America have been working together for generations without a border to separate them,

While this is true, I also think it's very overly optimistic, and remember we're talking about a timeline where the very first colony to abolish slavery will likely do it in the 1790s, assuming that the American colonies are no more anti-slavery than Upper Canada was.

in which Britain hasn't enlisted slaves to fight against the liberty of their masters,

I thought this was a failed ARW timeline? Although now that I think about it, I actually think a "No American Revolution" would be much more realistic for this being able to work, since there wouldn't be a history of resistance and bad relations between Britain and the North in this TL.

Anyway, that is going to make things worse in one way, the slave population would be slightly higher, and Britain and the US wouldn't be having a frantic one-upmanship contest to see who could be more free. It was also the very idea that slaves would fight to be free that drove abolition in the British Empire, one less example of that wouldn't help.

in which nobody has said that racial equality is "a philosophical idea, an English idea, but it is eminently un-American" (Representative Charles J. Biddle [Democrat, Pennsylvania], 1862). Historically, the North got uncomfortably close to slavery in large part because the British fought against it- remember the New York regiments volunteering for war to protect American slave ships from Royal Navy boarding parties in 1858- and then abandoned it with remarkable haste when the situation changed. By the 1830s, the North would likely be in the forefront of popular agitation for compensated emancipation.

They probably would, but that doesn't mean that they'd be willing to go to war to enforce it. And if the North and South are in any sort of Canada-esque union, abolitionism is not going to be able to get a majority. Maybe by the 1850s, with the addition of colonies in OTL Canada, but not the 1830s, when those colonies will have barely abolished slavery themselves.

Furthermore, you're overlooking the fact that the North doesn't have to fight as wholeheartedly to put down the rebellion in TTL. All they do is make a smaller contribution of forces and avoid selling the South arms, and British military, economic and naval strength makes up the difference.

This is true, but we're also talking slower troop mobilization, slower production of arms, slower and more rural everything, especially with the very long supply lines from Britain.

The South is at its peak condition to fight the North in 1830-1840; while I think they and Britain would win, it would be a few bloody years, and I doubt that politically the will would be there, realistically. I think that maybe the will would be there to strong-arm the South into agreeing to a gradual abolition ending decades later, but I think if slavery is straight-up abolished in 1838 there's going to be a revolt on the southern mainland; slavery is just too profitable, and unlike in the Caribbean, they can revolt. British legal authority for abolition on the mainland is likely to be questioned as well, if there was no ARW, then British authority over the colonies will have been unenforced for half a century. I think there has to be a strong anti-slavery push from the North for it to work.
 
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.

No it wouldn't. The £20M figure wasn't a reasonable estimate of the value of slaves in the British Empire - it was a figure basically pulled out of thin air and explicitly designed to be inadequate in order to encourage slave owners to emancipate their slaves as quickly as possible (if they waited too long and the compensation fund had dried up, they were required to free slaves without compensation). If there were more slaves in the Empire, the figure would probably be larger but there's no reason for it to be 200% larger - the slave owners would just be forced to take a bigger haircut.

Other than that, what Socrates said - the presence of the southern colonies is not going to affect the debate in the UK in the slightest once the Great Reform Act is passed. At most they will get an exemption similar to India, which got another decade or so to abolish slavery.
 
While this is true, I also think it's very overly optimistic, and remember we're talking about a timeline where the very first colony to abolish slavery will likely do it in the 1790s, assuming that the American colonies are no more anti-slavery than Upper Canada was.
An overly pessimistic assumption, given that the first anti-slavery literature in Canada wasn't published until after the end of the war. It seems more reasonable to expect the North to abolish sooner than Canada instead of later.

I thought this was a failed ARW timeline?
Works either way. If it's a peaceful settlement, as some have suggested, you don't have the negative propaganda impact. If the Americans conclusively lose the war, then not only does Britain retain a greater degree of control, but freed slaves fighting to preserve British control becomes a positive for the loyalist elites rather than a negative for the newly-installed rebels.

Britain and the US wouldn't be having a frantic one-upmanship contest to see who could be more free.
Britain was already beginning to define itself as anti-slavery by the start of the War of Independence. Without the need to forge a single unified national identity, it's more likely that the Northern colonies would begin to do the same.

They probably would, but that doesn't mean that they'd be willing to go to war to enforce it.
Many would. Many more would dislike the idea of coercion, but would do little actively to prevent the British from recruiting colonial regiments among the willing, or risk the repercussions of shipping weapons to slave-owning rebels with whom they have little in common.

This is true, but we're also talking slower troop mobilization,
US regular army, 1861: 16,000. British regular army, 1833: 78,503 rank and file net of British troops serving in India. British Colonial Marines enlisted from liberated slaves and trained by veteran British drill instructors, 1834: ??,???.

slower production of arms,
The state of the technological art in 1830 is still the flintlock musket, of which the British have literally millions in store following the Napoleonic Wars: they sent half a million to the colonies, 88,960 to France in 1830, 341,600 to Spain in 1834-8 and still had 280,000 to lose in the fire at the Tower in 1841.

slower and more rural everything, especially with the very long supply lines from Britain.
Supply lines from North America, I think you mean. The British will buy as many supplies as possible locally to minimise the administrative burden: reinforcements and weapons, where required, will come from both North America and Britain. Given the poor road network and primitive rail system, the best way of moving troops and supplies is likely to be by boat, a set of circumstances which I would generally imagine favours the side with the largest navy in the world over the side without one.

When you consider the critical role that foreign powers played in the War of Independence, the likely state of the post-Napoleonic settlement, and how unlikely European states are to back the rebellion of a small section of slave-owners, I think the idea of the war lasting a couple of years is fair but the idea of it being much bloodier than many of the other colonial conflicts that Britain got involved in is perhaps giving the South too much credit.
 
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.

I agree that America colonies abolishing slavery would be 10-15 years behind schedule in this timeline.

The point about enforcement is a great one. I can actually see the South simply refusing to co-operate. How would the British respond to that? I guess an economic blockade by sea would be the easiest way.

That's the main problem; I don't think the 1830s North was anti-slavery enough to fight the South in order to enforce a British abolition order. Not only do I think the North would take offense at the involvement in American internal laws to begin with, but as anyone in a Civil War thread will tell you, OTL the North would never have launched a war to end slavery in the South in 1861. Never. It took the South flipping out about a likely gradual abolition of slavery in some indeterminate time in the future, seceding, and firing on a federal military station for that to happen.

What about if the South killed some imperial troops that went down to Virginia for one reason or another? A lot depends on north-UK relations at this point. If the UK has simply put down the ARW and then kept its foot on its throat, they'll be screwed. If the UK has done a deal for local autonomy (in my opinion, pretty likely), and the north is booming thanks to being part of an integrated Atlantic economy, I can see them getting on better.

If the colonies have some sort of imperial representation, then the vote could well have northern representatives backing it. The North might feel differently about the South rebelling in such a case.
 
They probably would, but that doesn't mean that they'd be willing to go to war to enforce it. And if the North and South are in any sort of Canada-esque union, abolitionism is not going to be able to get a majority. Maybe by the 1850s, with the addition of colonies in OTL Canada, but not the 1830s, when those colonies will have barely abolished slavery themselves.

Canada was federated to protect the colonies being swallowed up by the US one-by-one. In this timeline there won't be federation. UK will try to keep them apart, except maybe a few colonies might be consolidated (e.g. New England, Chesapeake Bay).

This is true, but we're also talking slower troop mobilization, slower production of arms, slower and more rural everything, especially with the very long supply lines from Britain.

The supply lines would be from the north. Northern colonies would definitely have the will to "support the troops" and make money off it to boot.

The South is at its peak condition to fight the North in 1830-1840; while I think they and Britain would win, it would be a few bloody years, and I doubt that politically the will would be there, realistically. I think that maybe the will would be there to strong-arm the South into agreeing to a gradual abolition ending decades later, but I think if slavery is straight-up abolished in 1838 there's going to be a revolt on the southern mainland; slavery is just too profitable, and unlike in the Caribbean, they can revolt. British legal authority for abolition on the mainland is likely to be questioned as well, if there was no ARW, then British authority over the colonies will have been unenforced for half a century. I think there has to be a strong anti-slavery push from the North for it to work.

But how can the South survive an economic blockade? Their entire export market collapses. Virtually the entire colony is based off the export of tobacco and cotton by sea. And most of it was bought by England!
 
I agree that America colonies abolishing slavery would be 10-15 years behind schedule in this timeline.

The point about enforcement is a great one. I can actually see the South simply refusing to co-operate. How would the British respond to that? I guess an economic blockade by sea would be the easiest way.

Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I think in this timeline slavery would be abolished. But I don't think it could be abolished anywhere near as soon as the 1830s. The British public may want to, but that financial burden of compensating the slave owners and Southern resistance, coupled with possibly a real lack of British legislative authority, would stretch things out. If together with pressure from the north, the southern colonies were strong-armed into an imperial end-date for slavery sometime up the road, that might be plausible, though the south would still fight it. I do not think immediate abolition is plausible. Parliament could force the Caribbean planters to comply, but the entire slave-holding British North America would be much tougher. This would be a very, very different British Empire.

What about if the South killed some imperial troops that went down to Virginia for one reason or another? A lot depends on north-UK relations at this point. If the UK has simply put down the ARW and then kept its foot on its throat, they'll be screwed. If the UK has done a deal for local autonomy (in my opinion, pretty likely), and the north is booming thanks to being part of an integrated Atlantic economy, I can see them getting on better.

If the colonies have some sort of imperial representation, then the vote could well have northern representatives backing it. The North might feel differently about the South rebelling in such a case.

I think this entire scenario involves a best-case failed ARW scenario. If the UK has not reached some sort of accommodation with the colonies, there would probably be another revolt decades before this. The 1770s British hoped that if the Americans were defeated the colonies would be quiet afterwards, but the American population was growing rapidly and the trend is for New World colonies to revolt. I think all it would take would be instability in Europe; Britain and colonial leaders would have to come to some sort of an accommodation or the colonies would become one gigantic weak spot in the event of any British war with another power. Personally I doubt they would come around to it fast enough, but like I said: best case scenario.

But it's a Catch 22: If Britain has a lot of legislative authority over the colonies, then they'll be itching to revolt again, especially in the North. But if they've given up a lot of autonomy to the colonies by that time, their authority to declare slavery within the colonies illegal would be much weaker than OTL. And the UK is going to have the exact same amount of authority over the northern and southern colonies, since southern leaders would demand it even if loyalism was initially strongest in that area.

I do think it would be very likely that somebody would try the imperial representation scheme, but OTL it wasn't very popular: Colonial leaders weren't particularly in favor of it, even pro-American British politicians like Charles Fox thought it was a bad idea, and the idea of an imperial parliament was never pursued with Canada or Australia, which makes me doubt that it's all that workable. But the situation was bad enough that I'm sure it would eventually be tried.


Canada was federated to protect the colonies being swallowed up by the US one-by-one. In this timeline there won't be federation. UK will try to keep them apart, except maybe a few colonies might be consolidated (e.g. New England, Chesapeake Bay).

If tensions with the UK reach any sort of high, the colonies will federate (or confederate at least) themselves. This would be a bottom-up rather than top-down change, but Britain might have eventually accepted it, especially if there was a high demand in the colonies for it. When the first Continental Congress was formed, Pitt the Elder was in favor of passing a law legalizing it and authorizing the colonies to hold it annually, so it's not like the idea was an obvious anathema.

But you're right. If tensions with Britain are low, this may not happen at all. Hard to say.

But how can the South survive an economic blockade? Their entire export market collapses. Virtually the entire colony is based off the export of tobacco and cotton by sea. And most of it was bought by England!

An economic blockade still allows rebels to control everything. There's a reason Britain sent troops in during the ARW, although they could have just sat back and blockaded the rebelling colonies. It would turn into a war of attrition that would damage both sides without getting any closer to a victory, as long as both sides were determined.
 
I don't think we're too far apart. I think we're aligned that everything depends on the relationship between Britain and America. I think we can have three broad scenarios:

1. A victory in the ARW that leads to an ongoing repressive attitude by the British. This would cause a fractious relationship between the Brits and all the colonies and ongoing threat of revolt. In this scenario, it's very unlikely the British will want to rock the boat, and they'll probably carve out an exception for the American colonies. If they do rock the boat, it'll result in the south rebelling, and the north, at best, remaining neutral, but likely joining in a rebellion for some war-related excuse (i.e. the British troops on their territory). This would be a similar scenario to the ARW and would likely lead to the same result.

2. An averted ARW via a return to the status quo ex ante, and an ongoing policy of benign neglect. In this situation, the question of British authority over the colonies never gets settled. In this situation, it'll largely depend on the circumstances of British politics. I can imagine them feeling slavery is important enough that it's an imperial issue they pass it, but with lots of concessions to slaveowners, such as an apprenticeship system and compensation. The North is likely doing well, and would probably feel uncomfortable about the intervention, but equally feel uncomfortable about backing the slavers in a war over slavery. They will probably not actively participate, but will be happy to sell supplies to the British and be used as a base. It's touch and go whether the south rebels, but if they do, they'll eventually lose a war of attrition and blockade. And I do think they'd lose. The south would simply go bankrupt in a naval blockade, while the Brits would not. What's the point of keeping slavery to keep your way of life if your way of life gets even more hurt by doing so?

3. An averted ARW via a comprehensive settlement, or an ARW victory that results on a Boer-war style concessionary peace. In this situation the British authority will likely be established, but with some sort of colonial representation in London (either MPs or privy councillors or agents) and an acceptance that most local issues will be left to be decided by each colony. In this scenario I can imagine the British definitely legislating to ban slavery, and, given the right assurances, the North being comfortable with it, as the Brits have respected the settlement on other issues, and they agree with them on slavery. I could imagine a Republican-style north being active participants in the vote to ban slavery. In this case the south will know they are screwed and won't actively rebel. However, they could take a similar attitude they did to reconstruction in our timeline, with domestic terrorism against blacks and slavery-in-name continuing.
 
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'm afraid we can't be so sure of this: do remember that abolitionism only took off and gained mainstream support *after* the American Revolution had succeeded.

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.

Britain was on the brink of revolution in the 1830s? Where did you read that? :confused:

Had it not been for the French Revolution, which made the British elite more conservative, reform and thus abolition would happen even earlier.

And that's assuming that the French Revolution even changes all that much in a meaningfully notable compared to OTL, let alone is butterflied altogether; that's far from certain, especially in the case of the latter.

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.

TBH, though, the Somersett decision had no immediate effects outside of Britain proper, and was only mentioned in passing even in the southern Colonies. Furthermore, how would we be so sure that religious revivals lead to virtually the same outcomes as IOTL, in this case? Do remember, many of those religious people who did become sympathetic to the abolitionist cause in the *U.S. IOTL, were very much influenced by the success of the Revolution-

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.

I'm assuming you meant the 1850s, right?

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?

Good point.

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.

All too true. IIRC, Massachusetts was the first former colony to abandon slavery, and that was only after Revolutionary ideals took hold.

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.

Also true, and that's assuming that slavery doesn't manage to spread west of the Mississippi, or north of the Ohio, as it did, and tried to, respectively, in our own reality.

That's the main problem; I don't think the 1830s North was anti-slavery enough to fight the South in order to enforce a British abolition order. Not only do I think the North would take offense at the involvement in American internal laws to begin with, but as anyone in a Civil War thread will tell you, OTL the North would never have launched a war to end slavery in the South in 1861. Never. It took the South flipping out about a likely gradual abolition of slavery in some indeterminate time in the future, seceding, and firing on a federal military station for that to happen.

That's true, and this was IOTL, in which the Revolution succeeded. How would it necessarily be significantly earlier ITTL, without rather large divergences from OTL?

But we're dealing here with a society in which the abolitionists of Britain and America have been working together for generations without a border to separate them,

Maybe somewhat true, but again, we need to take into account the high probability of a rather stunted development of abolitionism compared to OTL.

in which Britain hasn't enlisted slaves to fight against the liberty of their masters,

The Patriots did the same thing, by the way.

in which nobody has said that racial equality is "a philosophical idea, an English idea, but it is eminently un-American" (Representative Charles J. Biddle [Democrat, Pennsylvania], 1862).

Firstly, this was only one guy, and many conservative Democrats were still fairly sympathetic to the South. Furthermore, I find that your belief that nobody in a British North America would make similar statements like Mr. Biddle's is honestly misplaced, at best.....perhaps rather naive at worst.

Historically, the North got uncomfortably close to slavery in large part because the British fought against it-

Not exactly, especially when you take into account that slavery had already been abandoned in most areas by the time that the War of 1812 broke out IOTL, and that the war had no notable negative effects in that regard.

remember the New York regiments volunteering for war to protect American slave ships from Royal Navy boarding parties in 1858-

Out of a willingness to defend American life and property, and not nearly so much out of a sympathy for slavery, though, that's the thing.

and then abandoned it with remarkable haste when the situation changed.

No, the North had been moving away from slavery for a while; several decades, in fact, as far as the Northeast is concerned.

By the 1830s, the North would likely be in the forefront of popular agitation for compensated emancipation.

Unfortunately, for reasons I've already listed, this is rather unlikely to have occurred at such an early date, unless there is a major departure from the most likely scenario.

Furthermore, you're overlooking the fact that the North doesn't have to fight as wholeheartedly to put down the rebellion in TTL. All they do is make a smaller contribution of forces and avoid selling the South arms, and British military, economic and naval strength makes up the difference.

This assumes that Southern industrial development remains minimal as IOTL; unfortunately, this isn't guaranteed, even if it *is* true that Southern slaveowners who did engage in industrial development, whether directly or not, often did have trouble hanging on for longer periods of time(including the fact that slaves sometimes engaged in intentionally sloppy work, or even sabotage).

While this is true, I also think it's very overly optimistic, and remember we're talking about a timeline where the very first colony to abolish slavery will likely do it in the 1790s, assuming that the American colonies are no more anti-slavery than Upper Canada was.

And it would probably be in a place like Rhode Island, Connecticut or Massachusetts.

I thought this was a failed ARW timeline? Although now that I think about it, I actually think a "No American Revolution" would be much more realistic for this being able to work, since there wouldn't be a history of resistance and bad relations between Britain and the North in this TL.

I'll have to agree with that.

Anyway, that is going to make things worse in one way, the slave population would be slightly higher, and Britain and the US wouldn't be having a frantic one-upmanship contest to see who could be more free. It was also the very idea that slaves would fight to be free that drove abolition in the British Empire, one less example of that wouldn't help.

Also true. Of course, there does remain the possibility of a slave revolt in the Carribean, especially Haiti/Sto. Domingo, which, if successful(as Haiti's was IOTL), might well provide a boon for the abolitionists.

They probably would, but that doesn't mean that they'd be willing to go to war to enforce it. And if the North and South are in any sort of Canada-esque union, abolitionism is not going to be able to get a majority. Maybe by the 1850s, with the addition of colonies in OTL Canada, but not the 1830s, when those colonies will have barely abolished slavery themselves.

Sad, but true. And that's assuming that Mexico doesn't still lose Texas as they did IOTL.

This is true, but we're also talking slower troop mobilization, slower production of arms, slower and more rural everything, especially with the very long supply lines from Britain.

Also true, especially, since, you know, there's an entire ocean separating Britain and the Colonies.

The South is at its peak condition to fight the North in 1830-1840; while I think they and Britain would win, it would be a few bloody years, and I doubt that politically the will would be there, realistically. I think that maybe the will would be there to strong-arm the South into agreeing to a gradual abolition ending decades later, but I think if slavery is straight-up abolished in 1838 there's going to be a revolt on the southern mainland; slavery is just too profitable, and unlike in the Caribbean, they can revolt. British legal authority for abolition on the mainland is likely to be questioned as well, if there was no ARW, then British authority over the colonies will have been unenforced for half a century. I think there has to be a strong anti-slavery push from the North for it to work.

Also agreed. I mean, it's not impossible that there could be a strong anti-slavery push roughly around OTL's timeframe, but you'd have to go back a ways, which is why it'd be rather easier to contemplate with a different Revolutionary period, or none at all.
 
I don't see a "southern revolt" in response to the British Empire outlawing slavery, especially if compensation is being offered. he principle of "sates rights" is certainly not the same here as OTL, and even if the boundaries of the "USA" are the same her as OTL I would expect that the border states will be with the "north" here. Virginia and North Carolina were somewhat on the fence here, and they may try to adopt a "neutral" stance like Kentucky tried OTL, but likely end up as Kentucky did - staying with the "Union". A slave state revolt involving SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX, and possibly AR & TN has no chance against a "Britain" which includes the RN, and population of the rest of British North America. In the 1860s the South had essentially zero warmaking industries, even less so in the 1830-1850 time frame, and there is nobody who will be able and willing to try and give them any supplies.

Another factor is that from the get-go this war is going to be all about slavery. The slave population in these states will know that Britain winning means freedom and the south winning means continued slavery. With slaves who have everything to win by helping defeat the revolution in any way possible, the south is going to have huge problem dealing with their slaves. Work slowdowns to actual armed revolt as well as being eyes and ears for British forces will force the south to devote assets to subduing the slaves, assets they simply don't have.

All of this doesn't mean that certain elements of southern society won't contemplate or even actually start a revolt, OTL a connection with reality was not something many southerners had. One wonders what will be the effects of a significant number of Australians tracing their ancestry to southern rebels transported for treason....

Woah woah woah, what's this about "FL, AL, MS, LA, TX, and possibly AR & TN" rebelling? However the Revolution goes for the British (in one of the three scenarios Fabius outlined), those "states" won't exist, because there won't be a Louisiana purchase (lets not even get into how a fizzled/failed American Revolution would affect French politics), let alone the Colonies/Commonwealth/Dominion/Whatever getting control of what would later be Tejas/Texas. The rest of the "western" territories could end up very, very different from OTL's states.

Seriously, an averted/failed American Revolution would produce enormous butterflies, we can't act like the map would be the same as OTL but colored red instead of blue.
 
I don't think we're too far apart. I think we're aligned that everything depends on the relationship between Britain and America. I think we can have three broad scenarios:

1. A victory in the ARW that leads to an ongoing repressive attitude by the British. This would cause a fractious relationship between the Brits and all the colonies and ongoing threat of revolt. In this scenario, it's very unlikely the British will want to rock the boat, and they'll probably carve out an exception for the American colonies. If they do rock the boat, it'll result in the south rebelling, and the north, at best, remaining neutral, but likely joining in a rebellion for some war-related excuse (i.e. the British troops on their territory). This would be a similar scenario to the ARW and would likely lead to the same result.

2. An averted ARW via a return to the status quo ex ante, and an ongoing policy of benign neglect. In this situation, the question of British authority over the colonies never gets settled. In this situation, it'll largely depend on the circumstances of British politics. I can imagine them feeling slavery is important enough that it's an imperial issue they pass it, but with lots of concessions to slaveowners, such as an apprenticeship system and compensation. The North is likely doing well, and would probably feel uncomfortable about the intervention, but equally feel uncomfortable about backing the slavers in a war over slavery. They will probably not actively participate, but will be happy to sell supplies to the British and be used as a base. It's touch and go whether the south rebels, but if they do, they'll eventually lose a war of attrition and blockade. And I do think they'd lose. The south would simply go bankrupt in a naval blockade, while the Brits would not. What's the point of keeping slavery to keep your way of life if your way of life gets even more hurt by doing so?

3. An averted ARW via a comprehensive settlement, or an ARW victory that results on a Boer-war style concessionary peace. In this situation the British authority will likely be established, but with some sort of colonial representation in London (either MPs or privy councillors or agents) and an acceptance that most local issues will be left to be decided by each colony. In this scenario I can imagine the British definitely legislating to ban slavery, and, given the right assurances, the North being comfortable with it, as the Brits have respected the settlement on other issues, and they agree with them on slavery. I could imagine a Republican-style north being active participants in the vote to ban slavery. In this case the south will know they are screwed and won't actively rebel. However, they could take a similar attitude they did to reconstruction in our timeline, with domestic terrorism against blacks and slavery-in-name continuing.

Well, that's the thing. Banning slavery is still an intervention in the internal affairs of a colony. If Britain has officially or unofficially stopped making internal laws for British North America, then banning slavery would be a massive departure from policy. If there is no such policy, then the North isn't going to be upset about slavery being banned, in fact I'm sure many would welcome it, but if Britain still has the power to legislate for the colonies at will, I think it's unlikely that they're still going to have control of the colonies at all. Assuming that a workable imperial parliament solution is not found. If, on the other side of the coin, there is such a policy of imperial non-interference in internal affairs, then a sudden reversal of policy would rankle the North, which will have already abolished slavery in its own territory, and in the 1830s would likely be as much or more concerned about a sudden apparent increase in British power over them than stamping out slavery in the South. Meanwhile the South, if it does revolt, would use the apparent breaking of British policy as a springboard for revolt.

What I'm saying is that I just don't think it could be so simple as Britain passing a law and slavery being abolished. British North America would have a population nearly as large as Britain's at that point; if they're still in that much of a subordinate position to the British parliament, they would have revolted again by then. The British Empire in this time period would have to deal with transitioning to being a somewhat bi-centered empire, otherwise it would fracture and fracture hard. Which in my opinion is by far the most likely outcome in the first place. There would be some serious bad, bad feelings after a failed ARW, and I would expect that British politics would shift more conservative than OTL, which wouldn't help things at all. I think it would take a miracle and incredibly gifted politicians to avert a second rebellion, this question completely aside. Now, maybe, maybe if the Imperial Parliament thing worked out abolition could somehow happen right on time, in 1838, but everything would have to go pretty much perfectly. If it didn't happen by then in 1838 I think Britain and eventually the North could still bring enough pressure to bear to get rid of slavery, but not so quickly. Assuming that British and Northern alt-US relations became good once again.
.
 
Last edited:
Well, that's the thing. Banning slavery is still an intervention in the internal affairs of a colony. If Britain has officially or unofficially stopped making internal laws for British North America, then banning slavery would still be a massive departure from policy. If there is no such policy, then the North isn't going to be upset about slavery being banned, in fact I'm sure many would welcome it, but if Britain still has the power to legislate for the colonies at will, I think it's unlikely that they're still going to have control of the colonies at all. Assuming that a workable imperial parliament solution is not found. If, on the other side of the coin, there is such a policy of imperial non-interference, then a sudden reversal of policy would rankle the North, which will have already abolished slavery in its own territory, and in the 1830s would likely be as much or more concerned about a sudden apparent increase in British power over them than stamping out slavery in the South. Meanwhile the South, if it does revolt, would use the apparent breaking of British policy as a springboard for revolt.

What I'm saying is that I just don't think it could be so simple as Britain passing a law and slavery being abolished. British North America would have a population nearly as large as Britain's; if they're still in that much of a subordinate position to the British parliament, they would have revolted again by then. The British Empire in this time period would have to deal with transitioning to being a bi-centered empire, otherwise it would fracture and fracture hard. Which in my opinion would be the by far the most likely outcome in the first place. Now, maybe, maybe if the Imperial Parliament thing worked out abolition could somehow happen right on time, in 1838, but everything would have to go pretty much perfectly.

I guess we just disagree on how much slavery is a domestic issue. I could easily see it as a "rights of English subjects" issue, and I could imagine an abolitionist North seeing it as the same. Practically, what issues would the North be worried about the UK re-implementing? Especially if northern MPs helped vote through the measure.
 
I guess we just disagree on how much slavery is a domestic issue. I could easily see it as a "rights of English subjects" issue, and I could imagine an abolitionist North seeing it as the same. Practically, what issues would the North be worried about the UK re-implementing? Especially if northern MPs helped vote through the measure.

Ok, ok, we're on different pages here. I'm imagining a scenario where either the colonies go on with their business a lot like pre-ARW, or North America forms a separate parliament like Canada's, but earlier. You're on the page of an "Imperial Parliament" scenario. You are completely right, in that case, the North would completely side with the British and there wouldn't be much the plantation colonies could do.

I'll admit, my argument is colored by that fact that I think British-American relations in a ARW-defeat scenario are most likely screwed to begin with. I think the whole thing has "this won't end well" written all over it. Mostly because there's such little time-if British North America gets close to the point of matching Britain in population and economic power and is still subordinate to the motherland, there's going to be another revolt. If the economy is suppressed, there's definitely going to be another revolt. And the former is going to happen within 50 years of the end of the ARW, leaving very little time to work something out to anyone's satisfaction, especially with a British government that thought at the beginning of the war that the best way to win was to have their colonial secretary declare in parliament that he would accept nothing but unconditional submission from the colonies. Those hardliners would not be able to come up with a good compromise, things would have to wait until they got kicked out of office, and that's just more time wasted.
 
Ok, ok, we're on different pages here. I'm imagining a scenario where either the colonies go on with their business a lot like pre-ARW, or North America forms a separate parliament like Canada's, but earlier. You're on the page of an "Imperial Parliament" scenario. You are completely right, in that case, the North would completely side with the British and there wouldn't be much the plantation colonies could do.

I'll admit, my argument is colored by that fact that I think British-American relations in a ARW-defeat scenario are most likely screwed to begin with. I think the whole thing has "this won't end well" written all over it. Mostly because there's such little time-if British North America gets close to the point of matching Britain in population and economic power and is still subordinate to the motherland, there's going to be another revolt. If the economy is suppressed, there's definitely going to be another revolt. And the former is going to happen within 50 years of the end of the ARW, leaving very little time to work something out to anyone's satisfaction, especially with a British government that thought at the beginning of the war that the best way to win was to have their colonial secretary declare in parliament that he would accept nothing but unconditional submission from the colonies. Those hardliners would not be able to come up with a good compromise, things would have to wait until they got kicked out of office, and that's just more time wasted.

Yes, this is why I spelt out the different context scenarios. I think we agree with what would happen in each scenario, we just disagree with the likelihood of each context. In a defeated ARW situation, I think a scenario 1 is very possible if you have perpetual Tory repression. On the other hand, I can also see a scenario where a Tory government that wins the war eventually collapses within a few years (as in, less than 5), and a Whig government comes in to be more conciliatory. If it's actually an averted ARW situation, then I can't see the Tories getting in for long at all, and a positive situation developing. 50 years really is a very long time to sort something out: think of the constitutional changes between 1789 and 1839 in France for instance.
 
Yes, this is why I spelt out the different context scenarios. I think we agree with what would happen in each scenario, we just disagree with the likelihood of each context.

I see. Yes, you're right, I agree with your analysis, the only thing I disagree about is the likelihood of it.

50 years really is a very long time to sort something out: think of the constitutional changes between 1789 and 1839 in France for instance.

It would be, but what's really being fought is an entrenchment of anti-British American nationalism. If a large contingent of nationalists set on dismembering the empire have formed, last-decade changes to the government system won't matter.
 
Maybe somewhat true, but again, we need to take into account the high probability of a rather stunted development of abolitionism compared to OTL.
The probability is only high if you assume abolitionism is the result of the War of Independence. That seems an extremely unlikely conclusion, unless you play down the effect of the Somerset case by overlooking the underlying anti-slavery attitudes demonstrated by the judge's comments that slavery is "incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law…[and] so odious that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law" in favour of looking purely at the legalistic scope of the case, or ignore the fact that Johnson's famous comment "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" dates from 1775. On the other side of the Atlantic, you see Benjamin Rush writing in 1773 that "Anthony Benezet stood alone a few years ago, in opposing negro slavery in Philadelphia; and now three-fourths of the province, as well as of the city, cry out against it. A spirit of humanity and religion begins to awaken, in several of the colonies in favour of the poor negroes." As such, I'm unconvinced that the development of abolitionism would be stunted by continued union: it seems like the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

The Patriots did the same thing, by the way.
Nowhere on the same scale, of course; almost exclusively in response to British actions ("we must use the Negroes or run the risk of loosing the war... success will depend on which side can arm the Negroes faster", George Washington, 20 December 1775), and while the British sought to evacuate Loyalist slaves where possible many black men who fought for freedom on the Patriot side- like Samuel Charlton- were forced back into slavery when the war was over.

Furthermore, I find that your belief that nobody in a British North America would make similar statements like Mr. Biddle's is honestly misplaced, at best.....perhaps rather naive at worst.
I'd suggest the only naivety lies in your inability to understand the importance of the quote: I'm not denying that there would be racism in the colonies. The point is that continued union between Britain and America removes a large part of the necessity for Americans to define themselves in opposition to Britain, making ideas such as the fundamental equality of humanity regardless of skin colour more palatable than they were historically.

Firstly, this was only one guy, and many conservative Democrats were still fairly sympathetic to the South.
Not strictly relevant to the argument, but I should point out that there is copious contemporary witness testimony to the fact that racial discrimination is far more prevalent in mid-century America than mid-century Britain. If that was what I was trying to prove, rather than the idea that for some racial equality became an "English" idea to be avoided where possible, the post would have been dramatically longer.

Not exactly, especially when you take into account that slavery had already been abandoned in most areas by the time that the War of 1812 broke out IOTL, and that the war had no notable negative effects in that regard.
Again, missing the point. Plenty of people in the North, from the New York Herald to Lincoln himself, saw shoring up slavery as the price of keeping the Union together. That phenomenon stems from the perception of outside threats: that the Union is under continual attack from the forces of monarchy and reaction, and that any price is worth paying to keep the great experiment alive. Remove that factor, you remove a major incentive for many in the North to tacitly or overtly support slavery.

Out of a willingness to defend American life and property, and not nearly so much out of a sympathy for slavery, though, that's the thing.
This shows you're almost at the point, but are too busy trying to defend the North from hints of complicity with slavery to appreciate it. The New York regiments volunteered to protect their countrymen- "American lives and property". If they don't see the South as their countrymen, but as a separate colony that just happens to be in union with Britain, the circumstances change entirely. No sense of national identity= no support for slavery.

No, the North had been moving away from slavery for a while; several decades, in fact, as far as the Northeast is concerned.
Here you're confusing abolition within individual states with abolition on a country-wide basis. The North was prepared to tolerate slavery as long as it contributed to domestic unity. Within a few years of secession, opinion shifts dramatically against accepting the existence of slavery. What we're positing here is a scenario in which the North has no interest in retaining slavery as a tool of domestic unity.

Unfortunately, for reasons I've already listed, this is rather unlikely to have occurred at such an early date, unless there is a major departure from the most likely scenario.
Here's my previously-posted rationale as to why the 1830s remains a likely point for moves towards emancipation:
The reason it strikes me as likely that abolition would have happened more or less at the same time as historically is because the War of Independence strengthened the hand of the slave-owners. It took sovereignty away from a distant Westminster elite, left it with local wealthy elites in Washington and state capitals (many of whom had direct interests in slavery) and then increased the ability of those elites to block legislation they didn't like. That wasn't the aim of the Founding Fathers- though, had you told them that would be the effect, the majority wouldn't particularly have cared- any more than disenfranchising ethnic minorities was the aim of the British before 1832. Nevertheless, the political calculus seems to me to be:

Net balance of British abolitionism - Influence of Southern slaveowners + Influence of Northern abolitionists = 1830s abolition date.

And that's discounting the effect that earlier reform might have had: after all, the example of America's working classes contributing to government would have carried more weight in British debates if a) They were still on the inside of the tent in a recognisably British political system and b) They hadn't blotted their already-blotted copybook by teaming up with a continental dictator in the 1810s to launch a war of conquest.

This assumes that Southern industrial development remains minimal as IOTL; unfortunately, this isn't guaranteed,
Under any circumstances where Americans are prevented from imposing restrictive tariffs, on a level playing field with Britain industrial development in the South does not have a bright future.
 
Top