What happens to slavery if the British crush the Haitian Revolution?

Maoistic

Banned
Laurent Dubois in his book "Avengers of the New World" basically argues - or at least one can come to the conclusion by reading it - that the Haitian Revolution is what effectively inspired the total abolition of (legal) slavery in the 19th century. Thus the question in the title: what happens to slavery had the British crushed the Haitian Revolution in its invasion of Haiti during the French Revolutionary Wars?
 
I don't see how the British would be any more successful than the French were. They have all the same disadvantages and none of the same advantages (language, cultural familiarity, etc).
 
I don't see how the British would be any more successful than the French were. They have all the same disadvantages and none of the same advantages (language, cultural familiarity, etc).

Besides having firm control of the sea lanes, a stronger presence in the Carribean to provide supplies/forward basing for units and support systems, no large land fronts that require dedicating their land forces to, ect. They have a staying power and war chest, as well as the flexibility to use it, that Paris can only dream of.
 
Besides having firm control of the sea lanes, a stronger presence in the Carribean to provide supplies/forward basing for units and support systems, no large land fronts that require dedicating their land forces to, ect. They have a staying power and war chest, as well as the flexibility to use it, that Paris can only dream of.

I don't think that is much use when you are trying to put 500.000 newly freed people back in chains. It means basically that they could send more of their own troops to go and die than France could. They are only going to lose so many men before they give up.
 
Last edited:
Laurent Dubois in his book "Avengers of the New World" basically argues - or at least one can come to the conclusion by reading it - that the Haitian Revolution is what effectively inspired the total abolition of (legal) slavery in the 19th century. Thus the question in the title: what happens to slavery had the British crushed the Haitian Revolution in its invasion of Haiti during the French Revolutionary Wars?

How does he explain the abolition of slavery in the northern colonies before this point, or the abolitionist movement in England?
 
I imagine the British could have crushed the Haitian Revolution, had they put the entire will of their nation to it. The questions then become, how much would they have had to pour into the endeavor and would anyone else (other states) take advantage of the opportunity costs the British poured into crushing it. I was taught that the final abolition of African Slavery came because of the development of "Beet Sugar" in the late 18th / early 19th century, which made sugar plantations less profitable. The moralist not withstanding, but riding the wave of this reality.

Although aided by Anti-Americanism in the Aftermath of the Revolution, and an increasing association of African Slavery with the American (sic Bad) South's slave system to give British Abolition an extra umph, along with a penchant for the British working classes to identify their condition with African Slavery, see the Anti-Sugar Campaigns.
 
Besides having firm control of the sea lanes, a stronger presence in the Carribean to provide supplies/forward basing for units and support systems, no large land fronts that require dedicating their land forces to, ect. They have a staying power and war chest, as well as the flexibility to use it, that Paris can only dream of.

So then why didn't that help them OTL, where they spent (and lost) ten million pounds and 15,000 men?

Was it physically possible for the British to crush the Haitian Revolution? Sure, but not at a cost any sane statesman would be willing to pay, especially when they have more pressing commitments like a hostile France next door to worry about a constant drain on money and manpower. Hell, even France OTL could have beaten the Haitians IMO had they been irrational enough to put an unreasonable amount of resources to it.

I don't see how the British would be any more successful than the French were. They have all the same disadvantages and none of the same advantages (language, cultural familiarity, etc).

Actually, I'd say what you cite as advantages are actually disadvantages. There's a reason that Haiti has preferred to hop into the British, American, and even German spheres of influence over the past 200 years over associating with France. The "cultural familiarity" the Haitians had with the French was an experience of them being brutal slavemasters. That's why during the 1804 massacre, the only whites spared to my knowledge were non-French European nationals, which summed up to about 100-200 Germans and Poles. The British had much better chances of conquering Haiti because unlike the French, they weren't as universally hated at first. In fact, the white population of Haiti (in 1793, pre massacre) even welcomed the British in, viewing them as preferable to the French. Of course, in the OTL invasion of Haiti, the British started re-instituting slavery in their occupied regions, causing them to become universally hated and driven out, but that doesn't have to be the case ATL. Conversely, even when the French abolished slavery and armed former slaves to drive off the British, they still weren't really trusted by the populace. And post-independence, the Kingdom of Haiti under Henri-Christophe recruited British advisors and tried to drift into the British sphere, with mixed results. It's a complex subject, which I'm paraphrasing a bit for the moment, but I did just want to get the point across that the historical French presence in Haiti mostly serves to their detriment.

As for language, the vast majority of Haitians would have spoken Kreyol at the time, and the variety spoken then may have been even less mutually comprehensible with French than it is today (which is to say, almost not at all).
 
Last edited:
Actually, I'd say what you cite as advantages are actually disadvantages. There's a reason that Haiti has preferred to hop into the British, American, and even German spheres of influence over the past 200 years over associating with France. The "cultural familiarity" the Haitians had with the French was an experience of them being brutal slavemasters. That's why during the 1804 massacre, the only whites spared to my knowledge were non-French European nationals, which summed up to about 100-200 Germans and Poles. The British had much better chances of conquering Haiti because unlike the French, they weren't as universally hated at first. In fact, the white population of Haiti (in 1793, pre massacre) even welcomed the British in, viewing them as preferable to the French. Of course, in the OTL invasion of Haiti, the British started re-instituting slavery in their occupied regions, causing them to become universally hated and driven out, but that doesn't have to be the case ATL. Conversely, even when the French abolished slavery and armed former slaves to drive off the British, they still weren't really trusted by the populace. And post-independence, the Kingdom of Haiti under Henri-Christophe recruited British advisors and tried to drift into the British sphere, with mixed results. It's a complex subject, which I'm paraphrasing a bit for the moment, but I did just want to get the point across that the historical French presence in Haiti mostly serves to their detriment.

As for language, the vast majority of Haitians would have spoken Kreyol at the time, and the variety spoken then may have been even less mutually comprehensible with French than it is today (which is to say, almost not at all).

I don't remember all the details off hand, but the British were pretty good at divide and conquer techniques. One of the reasons the French lost Hispanola is because they lost the support of Creoles (Black/White Admixtures) during the Revolution, who'd traditionally provided the backbone of their local physical strength. The British were only able to hold on to Jamaica against enslaved Africans majorities, as a remember, because of the Maroon and Creole support. I suppose the true answer for British conquest of Haiti is to somehow win over the Creoles, and on top of that create a Maroon like faction on the island among Africans. How likely is that?
 

Maoistic

Banned
How does he explain the abolition of slavery in the northern colonies before this point, or the abolitionist movement in England?
What "northern colonies" abolished slavery? And the English abolitionist movement can pre-exist the Haitian Revolution without the latter being the decisive cause in steering the colonial powers into abolishing slavery completely, as the argument can be made that the English abolitionists like William Wilberforce wouldn't have been successful without the triumph Haitian Revolution.
 
What "northern colonies" abolished slavery? And the English abolitionist movement can pre-exist the Haitian Revolution without the latter being the decisive cause in steering the colonial powers into abolishing slavery completely, as the argument can be made that the English abolitionists like William Wilberforce wouldn't have been successful without the triumph Haitian Revolution.

Massachusetts had pretty much stopped enforcing slave owner rights by the Somerset Decision of 1772 (Which made Slavery in England itself impractical, because the Government stopped enforcing slave owner "rights" in England) Still, plenty of people in the North continued to profit off the slave trade to Southern States itself. Still, I think it is proper to say that the death knell for slavery did begin in the North around the time of the Revolution, mainly because at that time the society advanced to the point where a black person could stand on the corner and shout "Slavery is bad, and I am a Man" without being arrested, imprisoned, tortured, sold away, ect. Even if 90% of whites still didn't listen, the fact that they had (mostly) stopped throwing conniption fits at the sight of a black man or woman asking for their freedom by the 1770s (at least in Massachusetts) is pretty profound. By then, white juries were even "awarding" most blacks who sued for their freedom freedom in court. A far cry from what you saw going on south of the Mason-Dixie.


(Yes, Southerners of the Revolutionary Era tended to discuss slavery as a necessary evil rather than the positive good their grandchildren viewed it as, but they certainly didn't let juries award slaves their freedoms or force slave-catchers to pay their victims resititution, as was going on is some parts (mostly rural) of Massachusetts at the time.

And if no where else, in Massachusetts there was a lot of hand wringing about fighting for "Rights" with slave owners. Of course, practicality won over in the end. But integrated Massachussetts regiments had some epic fights with racist Virginia / Southern regiments when "Masa Washington" showed up to fight in the North, along with white soldiers who couldn't stand the idea of blacks (or Indians) carrying weapons. The Annals of the Continental Congress are full of debate on how to handle the issue.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that is much use when you are trying to put 500.000 newly freed people back in chains. It means basically that they could send more of their own troops to go and die than France could. They are only going to lose so many men before they give up.

... I never assumed they were trying to put half a million people into slavery. I was making these comments in the context of countering the claim that G.B had no relative advantages to their French counterparts in terms of putting down the revolt. Crushing the revolt, in this case, probably involves at least a period of blockading the island and establishing safe, well-supplied coastal bases from which to conduct limited operations into the interior, in which case the British can set themselves up far better.

None of which gives the immunity to Yellow Fever, of course. That's whats ultimately going to doom any large-scale build up.
 
Can they crush the Haitian Revolution for Independance but still allow former slaves to keep their freedom? Technically revolution is crushed, Haiti becomes protectorate/colony of England and Haitians become "subjects of the crown"
 
What "northern colonies" abolished slavery?

By 1791, all of New England and Pennsylvania had either outright abolished slavery (Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire) or passed gradual emancipation bills (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania). In addition, Congress had banned slavery in the Northwest Territory.

Anti-slavery feeling was one of the strands of radicalism in the North during the Revolution and the 1780's. Even in the South, it never came close to success but that was the only time it was spoken of openly by the wealthy and powerful and many of them seemed to look forward to a day when it could be gotten rid of, especially in Virginia. Things were, of course, very different in South Carolina. In a way, the evolution of the discourse on slavery over the next 80 years might be described as the South Carolina attitude slow edging out the Virginia attitude for control of Southern hearts and minds.
 

Maoistic

Banned
By 1791, all of New England and Pennsylvania had either outright abolished slavery (Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire) or passed gradual emancipation bills (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania). In addition, Congress had banned slavery in the Northwest Territory.

Anti-slavery feeling was one of the strands of radicalism in the North during the Revolution and the 1780's. Even in the South, it never came close to success but that was the only time it was spoken of openly by the wealthy and powerful and many of them seemed to look forward to a day when it could be gotten rid of, especially in Virginia. Things were, of course, very different in South Carolina. In a way, the evolution of the discourse on slavery over the next 80 years might be described as the South Carolina attitude slow edging out the Virginia attitude for control of Southern hearts and minds.
Emancipation is not the same as abolition, and it has to be determined whether the three "abolitionist" states actually abolished slavery and didn't just limit it. For comparison, the first constitutions of Haiti categorically abolished the practice completely:

"There cannot exist slaves on this territory, servitude is therein forever abolished. All men are born, live and die free and French."

"Slavery is forever abolished."
 
What time period are we talking of ?

Is the PoD a success of the 1793-1798 British invasion, in which (most) former slaves were allies of the French government, a success of the 1798 British expedition, an expedition in 1800 after the conquest of Spanish Santo Domingo by Toussaint, or another expedition after the French expedition's failure in 1803, in which former salves were co-belligerents with the British ? The timeframe is of essence, because a successful British invasion in 1793 would likely butterfly away the abolition of slavery by the French National Assembly in 1794, the first occurence of an abolition by a Great Power.

On a smaller scale, Toussaint was still allied with the Spanish - and therefore the British - in 1793. If the war is won by his side, he would be gifted an estate, but that would probably not change his mind about Haitian Independence, so a British Saint Domingue could still experience a Haitian Revolution some years later.
 
Laurent Dubois in his book "Avengers of the New World" basically argues - or at least one can come to the conclusion by reading it - that the Haitian Revolution is what effectively inspired the total abolition of (legal) slavery in the 19th century. Thus the question in the title: what happens to slavery had the British crushed the Haitian Revolution in its invasion of Haiti during the French Revolutionary Wars?
Revisionist history.

The Haitian Revolution didn't inspire abolition - that was coming for decades before. And Dessalines may have outlawed slavery but the economic serfdom he introduced was almost indistinguishable.

The slave uprisings in America which some have argued show the spread of the Haitian revolution were suppressed and did not lead to any early abolition of slavery.

The banning of the slave trade in the UK in 1807 was delayed from 1791 primarily because of the association of the Haitian revolution with Jacobinism. You could argue that the Haitian revolution actually delayed the progress of universal abolition by almost two decades.
 
Yeah, I think you're more likely to see Britain extend Protectorate status, probably in an attempt to make boatloads of cash from Haitian sugar. I don't know if it'd be accepted, but invading the island to crush slavery doesn't serve British interests. Invading it to make the Dessalines regime serve British interests would make SOME sense, but probably not worth the effort if you can do so diplomatically
 
Emancipation is not the same as abolition, and it has to be determined whether the three "abolitionist" states actually abolished slavery and didn't just limit it. For comparison, the first constitutions of Haiti categorically abolished the practice completely:

How does emancipation differ from abolition?
 
... I never assumed they were trying to put half a million people into slavery. I was making these comments in the context of countering the claim that G.B had no relative advantages to their French counterparts in terms of putting down the revolt. Crushing the revolt, in this case, probably involves at least a period of blockading the island and establishing safe, well-supplied coastal bases from which to conduct limited operations into the interior, in which case the British can set themselves up far better.p.

It's hard to imagine Britain trying to conquer the island and not trying to re-establish slavery. Its most lucrative colony (Jamaica) is not far away and it certainly doesn't want a slave revolt there, too.
 
Top