Why didn't the British Caribbean, Brazil, and others take emancipation as badly as the South did?

Not that they necessarily took it well, but it seems like the South was the only place to secede and to fight a war with even the possibility of emancipation happening. Why didn't other places similarly react as angrily? Granted, most of those localities were much smaller and less belligerent and less politically entitled than the South, and had less power (imagine some governor of Jamaica making war against the British empire), but we don't even hear about localized rebellions. Was slavery just so far gone economically speaking in those places? Did the governments compensate the slaveowners?
 
And the planters in Jamaica and the Bahamas were hardly accustomed to running the British government like Southern planters were in the US. And with the actually dangerous slave revolts that broke out, they could hardly pretend they'd be able to hang on as independent polities.
 
Compensating the slaveholders made all the difference. If you offer a reasonable buyout when you change the rules, most will accept it. Those who aren't inclined to accept it will be a small enough rump that you can ignore them. But based on national temperament, this option was nearly ASB in the US.
 
Compensating the slaveholders made all the difference. If you offer a reasonable buyout when you change the rules, most will accept it. Those who aren't inclined to accept it will be a small enough rump that you can ignore them. But based on national temperament, this option was nearly ASB in the US.

That was tried and failed even in Delaware. Although that was a really close vote, and the decider was ineligible to hold his state senate seat, so yeah. POD.
 
Right or wrong many of the US planter/slave owning class had doubts about their economic viability without slavery. Many also had a social theory tied up in it as well. Necessary for order and prosperity. Freeing 'Negros' would certainly result in chaos, disorder, white virgins raped ect... The ugly little secret of southern society is this upper class had little respect for the white laborer. White trash, Rednecks, day laborers in the towns, and grubby little tradesmen had to be kept in line with the natural social order.
 
Right or wrong many of the US planter/slave owning class had doubts about their economic viability without slavery. Many also had a social theory tied up in it as well. Necessary for order and prosperity. Freeing 'Negros' would certainly result in chaos, disorder, white virgins raped ect... The ugly little secret of southern society is this upper class had little respect for the white laborer. White trash, Rednecks, day laborers in the towns, and grubby little tradesmen had to be kept in line with the natural social order.

I suspect the precedent of Haiti heavily informed the siege mentality.
 
That was tried and failed even in Delaware. Although that was a really close vote, and the decider was ineligible to hold his state senate seat, so yeah. POD.
Yes, Delaware by the start of the civil war had less than a couple thousand slaves, and Lincoln tried to push a proposal once the civil war had already begun to buyout slaves in the slave states that remained in the Union, but nothing ever came of it.
 
Yes, Delaware by the start of the civil war had less than a couple thousand slaves, and Lincoln tried to push a proposal once the civil war had already begun to buyout slaves in the slave states that remained in the Union, but nothing ever came of it.

There was that, but I was mainly thinking of a proposal from 1847 that passed the state assembly and lost in the senate by one vote.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
But based on national temperament, this option was nearly ASB in the US.

Well national temperament was divided. Does this objection to compensation as a solution apply to just the pro-slavery segment or to the anti-slavery as well.

Brazil launch coup and overthrow their monarchy.

Was the legal status of freed persons revised in any way for the worse with the ushering in of the republic. Or was overthrow of the republic really just a last act of vengeance that did nothing to recover ex-slaveowners economic power?
 
Elements of the British planter class did consider joining the US.

Also, the Caribbean are a bunch of islands that weren't particularly well developed industrially. The Royal Navy could strangle their trade routes if they tried to revolt.

Ultimately, the British government decided to compensate the planters, since the slaves were legally property and the British establishment was 500% on board with respecting property rights, since they had huge estates and vast pots of money (or were bankrolled by people with huge estates and vast pots of money), and a fair few of them owned plantations as well.
 
Well national temperament was divided. Does this objection to compensation as a solution apply to just the pro-slavery segment or to the anti-slavery as well.

As I alluded to earlier, it's not exactly true. Compensation was discussed at times, it just didn't make a difference.
 
Well national temperament was divided. Does this objection to compensation as a solution apply to just the pro-slavery segment or to the anti-slavery as well.

Objection to compensation is mostly from the anti-slavery side, as well as the middle who really doesn't care about the issue. If you're an abolitionist and pushing abolition as a moral crusade, which was the abolitionist norm in the US in the 1850s, the idea of large slaveowners still being rich after abolition is repugnant to you. The middle that didn't care much about the issue would also object to paying more taxes to buy the slaves of the wealthy slave owners. There's not much room for a sane statesman to come in and say---this is clearly going to end in blood AND be way more expensive than a slave buyback by the government, so lets pay the silver to the plantation owners and end slavery without bloodshed and at a bargain price.
There's a lesson in this, IMO, if you want War, then call what you want Justice. It's equally true whether what you want really is just or not.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If you're an abolitionist and pushing abolition as a moral crusade, which was the abolitionist norm in the US in the 1850s

So abolition was not pushed as a moral crusade in Britain, its empire, Spanish America, Brazil and Cuba?
 
So abolition was not pushed as a moral crusade in Britain, its empire, Spanish America, Brazil and Cuba?
Not to anywhere the same degree. For the British, it was more of a moral issue than a moral crusade. Notice the distinct absence of John Browns (and their bodies moldering in the grave) in said places. Absent the crusading fervor calmer heads can reach decisions with prices in Pounds of gold or silver, as opposed to tons of flesh and gallons of blood.
 
Unfortunately calmer heads were a very small minority in the South- compensated emancipation was rejected with scorn by Southern elites who 'knew' the South had a superior way of life.
 
Elements of the British planter class did consider joining the US.

Also, the Caribbean are a bunch of islands that weren't particularly well developed industrially. The Royal Navy could strangle their trade routes if they tried to revolt.

Ultimately, the British government decided to compensate the planters, since the slaves were legally property and the British establishment was 500% on board with respecting property rights, since they had huge estates and vast pots of money (or were bankrolled by people with huge estates and vast pots of money), and a fair few of them owned plantations as well.

The compensation fund wasn't about respecting property rights, it was about ending slavery as quickly as possible. The logic was straightforward enough, although the act phased out slavery over a transition period of five years, the compensation fund of £20M represented only a fraction of the total value of slaves in the Empire (between a sixth and a quarter, IIRC) and if you didn't get your claim for compensation in in time then you were out of luck, thereby creating a major incentive for owners to liberate their slaves ASAP instead of running down the clock.
 
Last edited:
Was the legal status of freed persons revised in any way for the worse with the ushering in of the republic. Or was overthrow of the republic really just a last act of vengeance that did nothing to recover ex-slaveowners economic power?
the planter oligarchy class seized power and ran the country into the ground furthering their own interests. returning to slavery wasn't really an option, so the planters simply abused the freed persons in alternate manners. As in the US and all over the world for the next century or more, the barons adapted and found that they were free to abuse the masses, just don't call them slaves.
 
Top