Southern states say “no thanks” to American revolution

[drewmc2001]

They may not have the power to stop abolition. When the vote was increased to allow the middle class they were very anti slavery and out numbered the rich (who themselves were divided on the issue) as soon as the voting reform of 1832 happened the middle class voted and only took a year to get slavery abolished.

Different world. Before one assumes that the middle class will be the same in this timeline as ours, one needs to track the previous 70 years. In the timeline postulated by the TIN, it's just as likely that the colonies will 1) be politically integrated into the British union or 2) a commonwealth excluded from the law. 3) some other outcome.

For instance, what if the cotton gin (or any related type invention) is butterflied out of existence, and cotton remains costly and time intensive to de-seed (I know... not likely... the need for the invention was great, so the likelihood of the invention was also great)... but just for the sake of the argument, there is no cotton gin... in that world, the industrial revolution doesn't happen the same way as OTL. The middle class would likely be much smaller. But the economics of slavery would also be far worse.

On the other hand, an American South part of the british colonial system with the cotton gin will further integrate the southern plantation system into the British system. What would that look like?
It's not simply a matter of wishing away slavery. There's the role the colonies would play in the Napoleonic wars, there's the role it would play politically from 1776 until parliament can find a way to pass an abolition act.

I'm not disputing that slavery would last until the 1860s. A South integrated into the British empire (however that might work out) will be influenced by the whole as much as the British system in influenced by the South. I'm saying though, that the cotton production and Southern views will play a role in how and when abolition happens.

The British spent 20 million pounds to emancipate 800,000 slaves in the Caribbean. How much more would they have paid ITTL?

 

[haider najib]

@drewmc2001 true im just basing off if the vote is expanded that is the outcome, again the reform act happened in psrt due to unrest at home. So what if cotton gin is still invented, also so what if the south in intergrated slave owner's don't out number the anti slavery people or middle class. Btw i get point but it still stands.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

How are we defining southern states?

Georgia and the Floridas could easily remain British.


The states that were to be included in the Albany plan of union stretched down to the Potomac. I could see the American/Yankee irridentists demanding such a border.

 

[ric350]

My original thoughts of “Southern states” were the ones in the mid 1700s who’s economies were primarily agriculturally driven (e.g. cotton and tobacco) and dependent on slave labor. Therefore I envisioned the New England states to be for independence, Virginia and south to be loyalist, and NJ, NY, and Maryland on the fence. Rural Pennsylvania would also be on the fence, while Philadelphia would back the New England states.
There’s also diverging lifestyles, between the stiff-neck yankee farmers and sailors of New England, vs the upper class land owners of the south. The former seeing less and less in common with their English rulers, while the latter identified more and more with a ruling aristocracy. As a result, many of the notable architects of the American revolution IOTL, may now sit on their porches and view the Yankees with disdain.

Ric350

 

[The Gunslinger]

My original thoughts of “Southern states” were the ones in the mid 1700s who’s economies were primarily agriculturally driven (e.g. cotton and tobacco) and dependent on slave labor. Therefore I envisioned the New England states to be for independence, Virginia and south to be loyalist, and NJ, NY, and Maryland on the fence. Rural Pennsylvania would also be on the fence, while Philadelphia would back the New England states.
There’s also diverging lifestyles, between the stiff-neck yankee farmers and sailors of New England, vs the upper class land owners of the south. The former seeing less and less in common with their English rulers, while the latter identified more and more with a ruling aristocracy. As a result, many of the notable architects of the American revolution IOTL, may now sit on their porches and view the Yankees with disdain.

Ric350

A revolution contained to that small an area probably gets snuffed out. Without Virginia the Brits can get up the Delaware without breaking a sweat and sit on Philidelphia. After that it's pretty well just New York and New England.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Contrary to what some historians claims, slave-worked plantations were still very lucrative when Britain abolished the slave trade. Maybe having more plantations in the Empire would delay the abolition, but I'm not so sure; the financial and economic arguments were against abolitionism, so if abolitionists had cared about such things, they wouldn't have been abolitionists. Abolitionism was driven primarily by moral, rather than economic, concerns, and presumably these moral concerns would still be around ITTL.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Contrary to what some historians claims, slave-worked plantations were still very lucrative when Britain abolished the slave trade. Maybe having more plantations in the Empire would delay the abolition, but I'm not so sure; the financial and economic arguments were against abolitionism, so if abolitionists had cared about such things, they wouldn't have been abolitionists. Abolitionism was driven primarily by moral, rather than economic, concerns, and presumably these moral concerns would still be around ITTL.

The United States banned the slave trade around the same time Britain did and about half the states banned slavery itself before the British colonies did, but that still didn't stop it from taking several more decades and a bloody civil war to actually getting around to ending it.

 

[Lusitania]

The United States banned the slave trade around the same time Britain did and about half the states banned slavery itself before the British colonies did, but that still didn't stop it from taking several more decades and a bloody civil war to actually getting around to ending it.

Could we of had a situation where they outlAw slave trade, importing of slaves and that all children are free. Only the existing adult slaves stay as slaves.

Other options was to put a “room and board” tax on slave and his family that in essence makes the free person owe more than they earn and be prisoner of plantation or property owner.

There were many different options and ways that people used to keep others as slaves or near that

 

[Rosa Luxemburg]

In 1800 Britain abolished slavery. The southern states go into open rebellion.

The British South (Georgia, Florida, and the Carolinas), assuming the Brits abolish around the same time as OTL probably have neither the power nor the will to rebel

 

[Lusitania]

The British South (Georgia, Florida, and the Carolinas), assuming the Brits abolish around the same time as OTL probably have neither the power nor the will to rebel

When I said rebellion, I meant turning anti british government in same way 13 colonies turned against British rule in 1770s prior to arw

 

[Marc]

Different world. Before one assumes that the middle class will be the same in this timeline as ours, one needs to track the previous 70 years. In the timeline postulated by the TIN, it's just as likely that the colonies will 1) be politically integrated into the British union or 2) a commonwealth excluded from the law. 3) some other outcome.

For instance, what if the cotton gin (or any related type invention) is butterflied out of existence, and cotton remains costly and time intensive to de-seed (I know... not likely... the need for the invention was great, so the likelihood of the invention was also great)... but just for the sake of the argument, there is no cotton gin... in that world, the industrial revolution doesn't happen the same way as OTL. The middle class would likely be much smaller. But the economics of slavery would also be far worse.

On the other hand, an American South part of the british colonial system with the cotton gin will further integrate the southern plantation system into the British system. What would that look like?
It's not simply a matter of wishing away slavery. There's the role the colonies would play in the Napoleonic wars, there's the role it would play politically from 1776 until parliament can find a way to pass an abolition act.

I'm not disputing that slavery would last until the 1860s. A South integrated into the British empire (however that might work out) will be influenced by the whole as much as the British system in influenced by the South. I'm saying though, that the cotton production and Southern views will play a role in how and when abolition happens.

The British spent 20 million pounds to emancipate 800,000 slaves in the Caribbean. How much more would they have paid ITTL?

Approximately 2 million slaves in the American South in 1830. Say another 50 million pounds. The total - borrowed of course, took nearly a century to completely clear the bonds - would have been roughly about 18% of GB's national income at the time. There is a sense among most historians, that the original amount was a serious over-payment. If the greater number had been in play, i.e. the American slaves, likely the final numbers would have been a bit less. However, it was doable - and one should never forget that by the early 1800's the moral stench of slavery was in the noses of millions of people, and the British Empire was entering into an era of unprecedented prosperity.

 

[1940LaSalle]

How are we defining southern states?

Georgia and the Floridas could easily remain British.


The states that were to be included in the Albany plan of union stretched down to the Potomac. I could see the American/Yankee irridentists demanding such a border.

Thank you: I presumed that Pennsylvania would join the New England states, New York, and New Jersey. Delaware I also thought would probably go with the rest of the northeast given a fairly strong influence from Pennsylvania (i.e., would more or less be coerced to keep the Delaware River / Bay in the hands of the new nation). Maryland might be somewhat up for grabs with something of a southern culture at the time, and a desire to keep the Chesapeake open for navigation to the sea by having it under one sovereign authority--but Maryland remaining loyal would mean no natural boundaries, which were far more important then. Maybe Maryland going along with the north would mean an earlier C & D canal to boost the port of Baltimore?

 

[Kaze]

The Southern States supported the revolution for a single reason -- there was an idiot in London passing around a bill to end the slave trade. This scared the Southern States so much that rebellion was the only way to escape passage of the bill.
Here is the kicker - the bill was going nowhere fast, it was placed into committee and was debated until 1800 abolishment of slavery.

 

[funnyhat]

The Southern States supported the revolution for a single reason -- there was an idiot in London passing around a bill to end the slave trade. This scared the Southern States so much that rebellion was the only way to escape passage of the bill.
Here is the kicker - the bill was going nowhere fast, it was placed into committee and was debated until 1800 abolishment of slavery.

That seems too easy of an explanation. There was a movement in the USA against the slave trade as well.

Independence movements usually are not driven by practical considerations. They are driven by sentiment - a feeling that a nation is ready to govern itself, without outside interference. Loyalism is the side that usually tries to offer pragmatic arguments (independence is too costly, dangerous, etc).

 

[ric350]

I think with a more delicate hand, the British could have kept the south loyal. After all the south did provide a relatively easy source of textile materials as well as other consumables, so Britain’s mills keep humming along. The British could continued to shrug off the slavery issue in the southern colonies (out of sight/out of mind), while demonizing the north as trouble makers trying to ruin the southern way of life. Perhaps even granting British nobility titles, as the south already had some semblance of the British aristocracy lifestyle. Wasn’t this approach similar to to how Britain “pacified” India? Create princely states that become more and more dependent on the crown?

Ric350

 

[Lusitania]

I think with a more delicate hand, the British could have kept the south loyal. After all the south did provide a relatively easy source of textile materials as well as other consumables, so Britain’s mills keep humming along. The British could continued to shrug off the slavery issue in the southern colonies (out of sight/out of mind), while demonizing the north as trouble makers trying to ruin the southern way of life. Perhaps even granting British nobility titles, as the south already had some semblance of the British aristocracy lifestyle. Wasn’t this approach similar to to how Britain “pacified” India? Create princely states that become more and more dependent on the crown?

Ric350

The princely states already existed. What British East India company was able to do was to defeat them one at a time and take part of their lands and leave the ruler and his descendants govern remainder but as subjects of Britain and its royalty. That was Why British king was also emperor of India and when Edward VII became king of British empire in 1910 they had a huge coronation in india as emperor.

 

[Ninja Bear]

The Southern States supported the revolution for a single reason -- there was an idiot in London passing around a bill to end the slave trade. This scared the Southern States so much that rebellion was the only way to escape passage of the bill.
Here is the kicker - the bill was going nowhere fast, it was placed into committee and was debated until 1800 abolishment of slavery.

Considering Virginia reacted to independence by immediately banning the importation of slaves, it seems somewhat unlikely that Virginia had such sentiments (if we are considering them as part of "the South") or that "the South" would have made common cause with a rebellion where even their neighboring states had such obviously opposite sympathies (if we are not).

 

[Marc]

I think with a more delicate hand, the British could have kept the south loyal. After all the south did provide a relatively easy source of textile materials as well as other consumables, so Britain’s mills keep humming along. The British could continued to shrug off the slavery issue in the southern colonies (out of sight/out of mind), while demonizing the north as trouble makers trying to ruin the southern way of life. Perhaps even granting British nobility titles, as the south already had some semblance of the British aristocracy lifestyle. Wasn’t this approach similar to to how Britain “pacified” India? Create princely states that become more and more dependent on the crown?

Ric350

Rather doubt it. Consider that purely on net revenues the Caribbean colonies were more important than the American Southern colonies. to cite: The sugar colonies were Britain's most valuable colonies. By the end of the eighteenth century, four million pounds came into Britain from its West Indian plantations, compared with one million from the rest of the world. While during the early 19th century it's likely that a Loyalist South might be more of an asset relative to the West Indies, it's unlikely that they would get special treatment as the abolition movement was growing rapidly and powerfully in Great Britain.
If you consider the vast profitability of slavery, it's amazing that it didn't last much longer, But, there is that pesky ethical dimension to human lives. You see, fundamentally, slavery was being increasing seen as immoral - by the people who mattered, the ruling British elite - and those who supported and profited by it were being more and more regarded with the kind of abhorrence we associate today with child abusers.

 

[Lusitania]

The carribean was so important to Europe that the loss or control of them changed history.

1) France chose to keep french Carribean colonies over the money loosing New France as part of 7 year war treaty.
2) Napoleon sold French Louisiana when France was unable to recapture Haiti. Without Haiti French louisiana was worthless to him.
3) the British navy cost during Napoleonic wars were paid by the captured French Carribean colonies.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

Here's an idea:

1) The Albany Plan of Union goes through, resulting in the unification of Maryland, Pennsylvania (including Delaware), New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
2) In the peace at the end of the 7-Year's War, Britain demands that Guadeloupe remain British. France thus retains Canada, although the border is set at the Great lakes and Ohio River and Britain gets OTL New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton Island, and Newfoundland island. The Southern colonies are happy, as they get their boundary claims extended to the Mississippi. The northern colonies may have gotten a bit of a buffer, but on the whole they feel cheated.

Backed by the French, the northern colonies later declare independence.