UK's Handling of Slavery is k/US?

Kosta

Banned
Another reason why the Colonists aren't just going to sit back. They want that land! Everyone in America wanted it, Loyalists included. If the war had ended with a British victory, they would still want that land from the Indians.

Now I do believe that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 did not say, "All right, you lot, there'll be no crossing of the border into newly begotten territory ever because we are the British Empire and we say so." What it did say was that for the safety of the colonists, they couldn't begin settlement until the territory was properly organised and relations with the Native Americans were all sorted out. I mean, why would the British Empire just let the land sit there? The Americans are going to get the land, it's just a matter of when.
 
A lot of early abolitionist sentiment (which got slavery banned in the north OTL, remember guys?) was a reflection fo the fact that Americans now lived in a republic that was based on the notion of inalienable rights and liberty.

Boom, gone. Instead you've got tories backed by bayonets.

I hate to defend the British, but America's inalienable rights and liberty ensured that their record of holding on to a slave-based economy on a massive scale was only exceeded by Brazil.

Every Tory with a bayonet whatever language he spoke managed to abolish it before them.

Even if American contributions to Enlightenment ideas on the subject are as key as you say, it's pretty obvious that the Americans themselves did not believe in them much.
 
The point is that now the British Parliament would be under the influence of the North American planter lobby, ie "Cotton is King" as well as the OTL West Indian planter lobby (which was bad enough).

The British West Indies had roughly 680,000 slaves in 1830, on the eve of OTL abolition. Even assuming all of the OTL Northern states abolish slavery somehow (which is unlikely), the OTL Southern states in 1830 would have 1,980,000 slaves. With rich slaveowners lobbying to keep their slaves.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to accelerate the abolition of British slavery.

Sounds about right to me.

I was wondering how a United States would evolve if it's rallying cry hadn't been "No taxation without representation!" but "Do not suppress our right to suppress blacks!"

Then I figured "meh, Decades of Darkness has already done that theme way better than I ever could."

You would likely need to eliminate both the Yankee and Jeffersonian + Washington influences on OTL's Revolution(especially the former!) if you wanted this to work right away. Otherwise, the planter lobby will need to try harder, possibly much more so, to find a way to industrialize slavery, expand it, and/or find convenient excuses to keep it alive(as was done in DoD, though New England's secession likely made things significantly easier, as I'm sure Jared would agree).


Now I do believe that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 did not say, "All right, you lot, there'll be no crossing of the border into newly begotten territory ever because we are the British Empire and we say so." What it did say was that for the safety of the colonists, they couldn't begin settlement until the territory was properly organised and relations with the Native Americans were all sorted out. I mean, why would the British Empire just let the land sit there? The Americans are going to get the land, it's just a matter of when.

I think so, too.

I hate to defend the British, but America's inalienable rights and liberty ensured that their record of holding on to a slave-based economy on a massive scale was only exceeded by Brazil.

Every Tory with a bayonet whatever language he spoke managed to abolish it before them.

Even if American contributions to Enlightenment ideas on the subject are as key as you say, it's pretty obvious that the Americans themselves did not believe in them much.

I beg to differ on that first part. Firstly, don't forget that the Revolution started in New England, and was largely carried on by Yankees, such as Sam Adams and Ben Franklin and Upper Southerners who believed in their cause, like Jefferson and Washington; for the most part, the South outside parts of Va., was full of nothing but opprotunists on the planter side of things whose only real concern was their profits; had the British promised to keep slavery alive, Georgia and the Carolinas might likely have stayed Loyalist, permanently. The leaders of an alternate *USA dominated by the South, and one without Jefferson and company, could not possibly boast about liberty with a straight face or clean conscience, and perhaps the less hypocritical of the Southron elite might actually be honest about things and admit their true aims.

On the other hand, a U.S. without any of the states from Virginia southwards, certainly would have eliminated slavery earlier than OTL.

And the Tories? I don't see many who were truly committed to abolition, except only to strike back at the United States for seceding And I still feel that Britain abolishing slavery, 30 years before the U.S. did, was kind of a stretch, even though it did occur under the Whigs.....
 
Which is, of course, why slavery was allowed to continue for so much longer in the British West Indies than in the southern USA?
Oh, wait, it wasn't.

I didn't think I needed to point out that the southern economy was far more important in 1830 than the British Caribbean isles. I guess I did?

I also vehemently disagree with everyone tying america's abolitionism to religion; in the Midatlantic and New England colonies it was tied to the revolution, e.g.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...nepage&q=revolution abolition america&f=false

(And New Jersey was one of the more reactionary northern states).
 
I hate to defend the British, but America's inalienable rights and liberty ensured that their record of holding on to a slave-based economy on a massive scale was only exceeded by Brazil.
.

And its belief that all men are created equal led to several hundred thousand Americans dying in a civil war over the issue while Britain sold guns and ships to plantation owners.
 
I didn't think I needed to point out that the southern economy was far more important in 1830 than the British Caribbean isles. I guess I did?
More important to the British Treasury? What level of taxation do you think they'd have been paying after the defeated revolution, and how much of that money would be used up just paying for the troops that garrison the area to keep them from rebelling again?
 
And its belief that all men are created equal led to several hundred thousand Americans dying in a civil war over the issue while Britain sold guns and ships to plantation owners.

Yep. Very true, although it seems to me that Britain largely just wanted to get back at the Union for past slights, real or imagined, rather than any real love for the Confederacy and it's faux-democratic foundations.
 
More important to the British Treasury?

In the context of abolition, it would be, since it would be the British Treasury paying for emancipation. British West Indian planters were compensated in OTL. How do you think the British Treasury will react to an ATL proposal to abolish North American slavery, which will directly cost four times the price, and will ruin (according to the hype) the British cotton textile industry?
 
The idea of the British getting rid of the plantations, which were what made the americas valuable, seems utterly ASB.

Most likely the damage to Enlightenment values caused by an American failure, along with southern lobbying in Parliaments, delays abolition in the entire empire.

If anything I think plantations would gain even more power since merchantilism will mean the Brits try to keep industrialization in the North to a minimum so as not to compete with British industry. That leaves the plantation South alone as the American colonies with money and political power, especially if the Revolution failed due to Southern loyalism so they retain more political liberty compared to a repressed, rebellious North.
 
A lot of early abolitionist sentiment (which got slavery banned in the north OTL, remember guys?) was a reflection fo the fact that Americans now lived in a republic that was based on the notion of inalienable rights and liberty.

Boom, gone. Instead you've got tories backed by bayonets.

American abolitionist sentiment may have been driven by such factors, but British sentiment, which is what we're talking about here, both predated the ARW and was contemptuous of American hypocrisy on the subject - "why is it we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of negroes?" As Dr Johnson put it. There was certainly no "wow - freedom is amazing, why didn't we think of before?" moment in response to the ARW.

As has already been mentioned, one of the key moment in British abolitionism was the Somersett Case of 1772 not the unpleasantness of 1776.

"The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged." (Lord Mansfield's verdict, R. v Knowles, ex parte Somersett (1772))

In fact, there's a better argument that fear that the precedent of the Somersett Case might be applied to the colonies helped encourage the previously loyal southern colonies to rebel. They certainly took on board lord Mansfield's point about slavery being so odious that only positive law could justify it by putting the right to own slaves in the Constitution.
 
The point is that now the British Parliament would be under the influence of the North American planter lobby, ie "Cotton is King" as well as the OTL West Indian planter lobby (which was bad enough).

The point you're overlooking here is that the ability of colonial planters, etc. to influence parliament was drastically curtailed with the Great Reform Act of 1832 which abolished the pocket boroughs they bought and sold and used to influence parliament. It almost certainly isn't a coincidence that the Abolition of Slavery Act was passed barely a year after the Reform Act.

And its belief that all men are created equal led to several hundred thousand Americans dying in a civil war over the issue while Britain sold guns and ships to plantation owners.

Oh, come on - British manufacturers sold arms to everyone. The 1853 pattern Enfield was probably the most widely used longarm on *both* sides in the ACW - Colonel Chamberlain defended Little Round Top with Enfields, for example. The difference is that whereas arms sales to the Union were official, the Confederacy had to rely on smugglers and gun runners as they'd been blacklisted by the British government.

In the context of abolition, it would be, since it would be the British Treasury paying for emancipation. British West Indian planters were compensated in OTL. How do you think the British Treasury will react to an ATL proposal to abolish North American slavery, which will directly cost four times the price, and will ruin (according to the hype) the British cotton textile industry?

Except that the compensation scheme didn't work that way. You seem to be operating under the assumption that it was an open ended commitment to pay slave owners the market value of their slaves, and the more slaves the greater the amount of money needed. Sorry, not true. The way it worked was that the compensation fund was capped at £20 million, and the way payments were calculated was as follows -

Number of slaves in each colony (eligible colonies listed in the act) x average market price of slaves in each colony over the 8 years prior to 1830 = X
Add X for each colony to get a total value of slaves in the British Empire = Y
X/Y is share of the compensation fund each colony is entitled to.

so if forex the total value of slaves in the Empire is £70 Million and Jamaica has £8 million worth of slaves, then the compensation fund for Jamaica is (8/70 x 20=) £2.3Million. Note too that both the size of the compensation fund and the formula for distributing it were set in the Act, before any values for X and Y had been calculated. All that adding more colonies and slaves will do is increase the size of the bath the slave owners take and thereby increase the incentive on them to get their claims for compensation in early before the fund is exhausted.

Oh and there are a couple of other wrinkles that helped depress the size of the compensation payment further. Firstly, only slaves registered in accordance with the Registry Act of 1819 qualified for a compensation payment. If a plantation owner in rural Georgia buys a dozen or so slaves from his neighbour and never gets around to properly registering them, he's out of luck, sorry. And did I mention that the Register is kept in London? Your rural Georgian planter either has to travel to London himself to register the slaves or (probably rather more likely) pay a fancy lawyer in Atlanta a considerable fee to register them on his behalf via a fancy lawyer in London. I suspect many slave owners simply wouldn't bother and would keep their slaves off-register and hence lose out on compensation claims.

And secondly, claims for compensation had to be presented in London. Not such a problem for the major West Indian planters who retained London lawyers and agents, probably slightly more of a problem for our rural Georgian. In fact, this was such a big problem for one group of colonial slave holders - rural farmers in South Africa - that they chose to up sticks and trek into the interior to put themselves (and their slaves) out of reach of the act, with consequences that would be noted at the end of the 19th century. I suspect this might look like an attractive option to some of our rural Georgians too.

As for the idea that the textile trade will provide irrestible pressure in opposition to the abolition of slavery -

"Since we have discerned, however, that the victory of the free north, in the war which has so sorely distressed us as well as afflicted you, will strike off the fetters of the slave, you have attracted our warm and earnest sympathy. We joyfully honor you, as the President, and the Congress with you, for many decisive steps toward practically exemplifying your belief in the words of your great founders: ‘All men are created free and equal.'" - Petition of the mill workers of Lancashire assembled at the Manchester Free Trade Hall in December 1862 to President Abraham Lincoln.

There was a famine in Lancashire at the time, and most of those mill workers were unemployed and reliant on poor relief.
 
The point you're overlooking here is that the ability of colonial planters, etc. to influence parliament was drastically curtailed with the Great Reform Act of 1832 which abolished the pocket boroughs they bought and sold and used to influence parliament. It almost certainly isn't a coincidence that the Abolition of Slavery Act was passed barely a year after the Reform Act.

The Reform Act probably helped get a few more abolitionist votes in the House of Commons, but it wasn't the deal-breaker. Discussion of various forms of emancipation had been on the table for years. The key driver for immediate emancipation was the major slave uprising in Jamaica which started in Christmas in 1831, and which led to a huge upswing in British support for immediate emancipation.

The thing to remember is that the abolition of British slavery was a political deal struck which all sides could live with, both the abolitionists and the West Indian lobby. Whether the voting power of the Commons swung more to the abolitionists was irrelevant, because Wellington had let it be known that the House of Lords would block any bill which was not acceptable to the West Indian lobby.

So the abolition of slavery bill was worked out in a form, including compensation, which the West Indian lobby could accept. The vote in the Commons was so overwhelming that it passed on a voice vote.

Except that the compensation scheme didn't work that way. You seem to be operating under the assumption that it was an open ended commitment to pay slave owners the market value of their slaves, and the more slaves the greater the amount of money needed. Sorry, not true. The way it worked was that the compensation fund was capped at £20 million, and the way payments were calculated was as follows -

What matters is that the West Indian lobby were happy with the overall deal. They got what they saw as adequate compensation, from a combination of cash payments, receiving the services of the ex-slaves as "apprentices" for six years, and (IIRC) various preferential deals for sugar imports to Britain after emancipation.

Note too that both the size of the compensation fund and the formula for distributing it were set in the Act, before any values for X and Y had been calculated. All that adding more colonies and slaves will do is increase the size of the bath the slave owners take and thereby increase the incentive on them to get their claims for compensation in early before the fund is exhausted.

Yes, it's quite true that the value of compensation was set in the Act, but that value was the amount that the West Indian lobby were happy with (or at least, could live with). Perhaps it may not be quite as high as four times - depending on the details of ATL British North American administration as to whether small slaveholders get left out.

But there are plenty of big planters. If an ATL British Empire is going to free slaves with a Big Sugar lobby and an even larger Big Cotton lobby, then the compensation bill is going to be a lot higher, or it won't be voted through.

Oh and there are a couple of other wrinkles that helped depress the size of the compensation payment further. Firstly, only slaves registered in accordance with the Registry Act of 1819 qualified for a compensation payment. If a plantation owner in rural Georgia buys a dozen or so slaves from his neighbour and never gets around to properly registering them, he's out of luck, sorry.

Someone who owns a dozen or so slaves doesn't really qualify as a cotton plantation owner. The definition of what counts as a "planter" varied, but there were plenty of cotton plantations with a hell of a lot more than a dozen slaves.

Yes, some ATL North American small cotton farmers may have been out of luck. But there would be no shortage of big cotton planters (and rice, sugar and tobacco planters) who would make damn sure that they were eligible for compensation. And that there was enough money to pay them.

And did I mention that the Register is kept in London? Your rural Georgian planter either has to travel to London himself to register the slaves or (probably rather more likely) pay a fancy lawyer in Atlanta a considerable fee to register them on his behalf via a fancy lawyer in London. I suspect many slave owners simply wouldn't bother and would keep their slaves off-register and hence lose out on compensation claims.

Smaller slaveholders may or may not be registered - it depends on how things run in the ATL British Empire. But it's a very safe bet that the big planters would be. And there would be more than enough of them to raise the compensation bill to a much higher value.

And secondly, claims for compensation had to be presented in London. Not such a problem for the major West Indian planters who retained London lawyers and agents, probably slightly more of a problem for our rural Georgian. In fact, this was such a big problem for one group of colonial slave holders - rural farmers in South Africa - that they chose to up sticks and trek into the interior to put themselves (and their slaves) out of reach of the act, with consequences that would be noted at the end of the 19th century. I suspect this might look like an attractive option to some of our rural Georgians too.

The idea of a mass exodus of small slaveholders is an intriguing one in itself, and would be worth exploring if this topic were to be fleshed out into a TL.

But for the purposes of working out whether the compensation bill is going to be higher, it's not really relevant. Big North American planters are what mattered - and there were plenty of those, even if the average plantation size was not as high as West Indian sugar plantations.

As for the idea that the textile trade will provide irrestible pressure in opposition to the abolition of slavery -

Irresistible, no. Strong additional disincentive, yes.

"Since we have discerned, however, that the victory of the free north, in the war which has so sorely distressed us as well as afflicted you, will strike off the fetters of the slave, you have attracted our warm and earnest sympathy. We joyfully honor you, as the President, and the Congress with you, for many decisive steps toward practically exemplifying your belief in the words of your great founders: ‘All men are created free and equal.'" - Petition of the mill workers of Lancashire assembled at the Manchester Free Trade Hall in December 1862 to President Abraham Lincoln.

What mill workers though in 1862 is hardly relevant to what the wealthy landed gentry thought in the mid-1830s. Even if mill workers in 1832 had similar attitudes - which is entirely possible, although I'm not aware of any representative quotes one way or the other - the landed gentry were a whole other story. Even after the Great Reform Act, the landed gentry still dominated the Commons. Their attitudes were not so abolitionist, by any means.
 
First of all, I'd just like to say that this thread is really an example of AH.com at its best. There's some fantastically interesting and well argued points on both sides.

Just to add a few of my own:

1. The PoD matters. While the Somersett case did kick off the abolitionist movement, the ARW gave it a bigger one. The rhetoric of freedom forced America to look at itself in terms of slavery, while the accusations of hypocrisy towards the colonists made the Britons feel more self-righteous and abolitionist. Thus an averted ARW probably prolongs slavery more than a failed ARW.

2. Yes, the cotton lobby would bring extra firepower to the pro-slavery side. But the Northern states would also bring a huge amount of firepower to the abolitionist side. At first, the money of the South would count for more than the campaigners of the North, but once the Great Reform Act passes that will probably switch.

3. Someone mentioned that Britain would enforce long term its mercantilist policies to hold back American industry. While possible, I don't think that such a policy is consistent with the timeline, as if they did that, another (stronger) revolt is highly likely before the 1830s. For the colonies to stay British, the mercantilism would have to be eased (or have the Americans included on the positive side of it, akin to Ireland after 1801 in our timeline - yes, I know that was because of union, but something could be worked out.) That said, American industry won't benefit from protective tariffs.

4. Wellington may well have insisted on a deal that was acceptable to the planter lobby. But he was a Tory, and if an agreement didn't emerge, the next Whig administration wouldn't be so understanding. The Whigs would also be strengthened if the colonists got some representation in parliament.

5. The British Treasury would have to pay out more, yes, but it would have more money from the extra trade falling under its jurisdiction due to continued ownership of colonies.

6. The primary purpose of the Proclamation line was actually to preference settlement along the coasts (to lock out other European powers) over settling the interior. That likely means more settlement in the Deep South over the Midwest.

7. Continued connection with the American colonies and their religious revivals would likely expand the evangelical movement in Britain, increasing supporting for abolitionism.
 
First of all, I'd just like to say that this thread is really an example of AH.com at its best. There's some fantastically interesting and well argued points on both sides.

Just to add a few of my own:

1. The PoD matters. While the Somersett case did kick off the abolitionist movement, the ARW gave it a bigger one. The rhetoric of freedom forced America to look at itself in terms of slavery, while the accusations of hypocrisy towards the colonists made the Britons feel more self-righteous and abolitionist. Thus an averted ARW probably prolongs slavery more than a failed ARW.

2. Yes, the cotton lobby would bring extra firepower to the pro-slavery side. But the Northern states would also bring a huge amount of firepower to the abolitionist side. At first, the money of the South would count for more than the campaigners of the North, but once the Great Reform Act passes that will probably switch.

3. Someone mentioned that Britain would enforce long term its mercantilist policies to hold back American industry. While possible, I don't think that such a policy is consistent with the timeline, as if they did that, another (stronger) revolt is highly likely before the 1830s. For the colonies to stay British, the mercantilism would have to be eased (or have the Americans included on the positive side of it, akin to Ireland after 1801 in our timeline - yes, I know that was because of union, but something could be worked out.) That said, American industry won't benefit from protective tariffs.

4. Wellington may well have insisted on a deal that was acceptable to the planter lobby. But he was a Tory, and if an agreement didn't emerge, the next Whig administration wouldn't be so understanding. The Whigs would also be strengthened if the colonists got some representation in parliament.

5. The British Treasury would have to pay out more, yes, but it would have more money from the extra trade falling under its jurisdiction due to continued ownership of colonies.

6. The primary purpose of the Proclamation line was actually to preference settlement along the coasts (to lock out other European powers) over settling the interior. That likely means more settlement in the Deep South over the Midwest.

7. Continued connection with the American colonies and their religious revivals would likely expand the evangelical movement in Britain, increasing supporting for abolitionism.

I feel so honored for starting the thread in question.:eek:
 
Top