America would not have developed as a populous industrial nation. Sad but alas true
The colonies would be much poorer then, or at least the southern ones. If those colonies did eventually decide to rebel, England might not care as much.
You need to change the US climate in a way that you can't grow cash crops. That way US would be poor and not have slavery.
Why do you all seem to think that Northern colonies would be significantly poorer without Southern slavery? Is Canada poor, agrarian nation? Or was it poor nation even during agrarian phase of its economic development? As far as I know, North-South trade wasn't vital for the Northern economic progress - fishermen sold fish to Britain, sugar Caribbean islands and South; American wheat was welcomed by all major markets; furs were bought by nobles and nouveau riches all over the world. North did well enough without Southern markets in 1861-1865.America would not have developed as a populous industrial nation. Sad but alas true
While the North has much to offer there is the question of cotton. A lot of the industrialization of the North was due to the fabric and garment industries. If cotton is more expensive to produce because you have to pay above subsistence wages to 20 farm hands instead of providing a subsistence level of supplies to 20 slaves how will this effect Northern industry? It may hurt it; the owners now having less money to invest in innovation. On the other hand it may help it by creating a market for Northern manufactured goods including labor saving equipment like cotton pickers.Why do you all seem to think that Northern colonies would be significantly poorer without Southern slavery? Is Canada poor, agrarian nation? Or was it poor nation even during agrarian phase of its economic development? As far as I know, North-South trade wasn't vital for the Northern economic progress - fishermen sold fish to Britain, sugar Caribbean islands and South; American wheat was welcomed by all major markets; furs were bought by nobles and nouveau riches all over the world. North did well enough without Southern markets in 1861-1865.
Of course, without slavery you wouldn't have prosperous planters with hundreds of field hands and luxurious villas. But instead there would be hundreds of thousands of small farmers, growing cotton and sugar (or cereals, flax and sugarbeets - if ASBs would change South's climate, as yourworstnightmare proposes) . They would be worse off than planters from OTL, but at the same time much, much better off than slaves.
Is that in reference to an *America that treated the natives as equals, or to an *America that never had slavery? If the latter, what is your reasoning?
Why would anyone bring Blacks to the USA if not to use them as slaves? The whole scenario you posit really does fall apart at this first hurdle.