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

After the British prepared for war, declared war was inevitable, agreed to finance the coalition and expelled the french ambassador. It was not like Britain was a peaceful country suddenly attacked by bloodthirsty Revolutionaries.
No, that would be Venice, or Switzerland, or the Rhineland states, or American shipping...
 
No, that would be Venice, or Switzerland, or the Rhineland states, or American shipping...

Harbouring an army with the explicit goal of invading France is hardly peaceful. As for the Bonaparte game with the neutrals, well that is a sign of the Revolution’s end...
 
After the British prepared for war, declared war was inevitable, agreed to finance the coalition and expelled the french ambassador. It was not like Britain was a peaceful country suddenly attacked by bloodthirsty Revolutionaries.

After the French had already invaded the Netherlands, declared war on Austria, and proceeded to declare war on everyone.

Si Vis Pace, Para Bellum

The fact Britain was prepared for war with Revolutionary France that was declaring war on most of Europe, and completely disregarding diplomatic norms isn't a surprise.

The fact that after France declared war, it chose to partner with those who would work within their system is not surprising or particularly incriminating either. So lets not try and paint that France wasn't the one who chose to invade most of its neighbours.

It also bares no impact as @Derek Pullem demonstrated that the Whites were already being killed, so blaming those deaths on the British, rather than say, those who murdered them, stinks at an attempt to pass the buck. It also doesn't explain why families friendly to the cause of freeing the slaves were killed - or why children were killed.

In fact, it doesn't explain why any were killed, instead of exiled, or imprisoned.

No, the British may have involved themselves, and slaveholders did work with them - but @Maoistic . Again you go with personal attacks on other forum members.
 
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."

Emancipation has the clear purpose of abolition. You are making a distinction without a difference in defense of an indefensible position. Saying the Haitians beat most of the Northern states to total abolition is simple and easily verified in the history record. Saying that their abolition inspired the Northern abolitions is nonsense not similarly verifiable. It utterly fails to explain why the gradual emancipation plans came about in the first place.
 
Both revolutions became mired in blood because of British intervention, and what proof is there that Wilberforce and the abolitionists would have been successful in the parliament without both revolutions? Again, the contrary seems true since the abolition of slavery took place when they started citing the example of Haiti. And those "some" that moved into straight abolition include Mexico, Central America and Chile, a good majority of the Spanish colonial holdings. Moreover, just because abolition was gradual, doesn't mean that the Haitian Revolution wasn't the catalyst of it.

The French revolution was never stable to begin whith ( see that fact that nether the radical or the conservatives like the new government , and the fact that it desided to play brinkminship whith Germany (both austrea and prussa) which lead to war don't help matters.

And the revolution was actually fairly popular in egland, and it was only after France stared threatening English interest that they decided to join in ("...Antwerp is a pistal held at the heart of egland") so saying egland caused the french revolution to get so bloody is only really true to the extent that they helped the coalition beate France which is wate coused the terror , and even then that was mostly in its navy blockading french ports, supporting roalist rebles, and help fund the other nations ( Austria and Prussia did most of the work anyway ;)).
 
Top