WI: American Civil War happened inside the British Empire?

Imagine the ARW was averted due to some degree of autonomy for the American colonies, plus some representation at Westminster. How would abolitionism go? Would the addition of the South to the West India lobby be able to delay Wilberforce's banning of the slave trade? Potentially if the British Empire managed to expand their Caribbean holdings with that extra finance for the lobby also? I've read that the Napoleonic Wars had an influence in the success of the Act, with Britain wanting to take the moral high ground against France - what if the French Revolution was butterflied away?

What about the final banning of the slave trade - would that also be delayed? What if the Southern colonies protested at the abrogation of the initial autonomy deal and declared Independence? Would Jamaica and other islands join them? Could there be military defections from Southerners in the British army, navy? What would a war look like?
 

evb

Banned
One thing I could say is that slave banning has nothing to do with ideology. In places where economy depends on it, the ideology can never hold. And that's why Rome and Athens kept on to their slaves although being more enlightened.
 
Wouldn't the West Indies solution just be applied - pay them off. I believe that there were more slaves in the Indies in 1807 than America though I may be wrong. From 1807 no new slaves would be transported.
 
Do we know how much the pay off was? How much of a financial hit did the slaveowners take?

If it was that easy, why didn't the US do it in the 1830s?
 
Because the slave owners here refused to accept it. They wanted to keep their slaves, and the people proposing it weren't in a position to force the issue.
 
Do we know how much the pay off was? How much of a financial hit did the slaveowners take?

If it was that easy, why didn't the US do it in the 1830s?

The 1833 act set up a fund of £20 million to pay compensation, the average figure was something like £20 a slave. According to the 1830 census, the slave population of the USA was a fraction over 2 million, which would boost the compensation figure somewhat.

It should be borne in mind though that the compensation was less generous than it seems - firstly, abolition was a process not an event, and it took five years to work through, during which period the ex-slaves worked as apprentices. Secondly, compensation was only payable in London, which meant that slave owners who were too poor to either travel to London or employ an agent to act on their behalf had to do without - this was actually one of the major grievances that led to the Great Trek in South Africa.

Still, it's unrealistic to assume that if the American colonies remained in the empire that the compensation payment would not need to be substantially increased. On the other hand the ability of the government to afford the compensation would also be increased, with any luck it would balance out.
 
The 1833 act set up a fund of £20 million to pay compensation, the average figure was something like £20 a slave. According to the 1830 census, the slave population of the USA was a fraction over 2 million, which would boost the compensation figure somewhat.

It should be borne in mind though that the compensation was less generous than it seems - firstly, abolition was a process not an event, and it took five years to work through, during which period the ex-slaves worked as apprentices. Secondly, compensation was only payable in London, which meant that slave owners who were too poor to either travel to London or employ an agent to act on their behalf had to do without - this was actually one of the major grievances that led to the Great Trek in South Africa.

Still, it's unrealistic to assume that if the American colonies remained in the empire that the compensation payment would not need to be substantially increased. On the other hand the ability of the government to afford the compensation would also be increased, with any luck it would balance out.

Well it sounds like you'd have to triple the compensation just on the increase in slaves. Would it be enough to assuage Southern plantation owners if they had to travel to London? Do we think Southern slaveholders are more likely to rebel than Caribbean ones? I guess the Empire in this scenario has the crucial advantage over the USA IOTL in that it's the market for cotton. The South would be screwed if it lost that, so they can't really declare independence. I guess they could start witholding tax though.
 
Well it sounds like you'd have to triple the compensation just on the increase in slaves. Would it be enough to assuage Southern plantation owners if they had to travel to London? Do we think Southern slaveholders are more likely to rebel than Caribbean ones? I guess the Empire in this scenario has the crucial advantage over the USA IOTL in that it's the market for cotton. The South would be screwed if it lost that, so they can't really declare independence. I guess they could start witholding tax though.

Withholding tax might be a pretty idle threat unless British North America undergoes some drastic reforms (I mean on top of what is already likely). It's a fact frequently (and perhaps in some cases deliberately) forgotten that the UK generally earned its tax revenues (as opposed to its tariff and trade revenues) by bleeding the British people dry, relatively at least to the colonists. Unless that changes, which it may but equally may well not, the colonist slaveowners may threaten to withhold taxes and be met by a communal shrug by the British government with a response of "you already pay far less tax than if you lived in the British Isles, we really aren't reliant on your tax money".

Of course, a possible reprisal action after whatever situation this turns into had finished might be that, in response to the refusal to co-operate on emancipation, Westminster decides that it's time that the (former) slaveowners start to bear a more fair share of the tax burden. On the other hand, perhaps not since emancipation already left many plantation owners so short on cash their existence as plantation owners was threatened.
 
Withholding tax might be a pretty idle threat unless British North America undergoes some drastic reforms (I mean on top of what is already likely). It's a fact frequently (and perhaps in some cases deliberately) forgotten that the UK generally earned its tax revenues (as opposed to its tariff and trade revenues) by bleeding the British people dry, relatively at least to the colonists. Unless that changes, which it may but equally may well not, the colonist slaveowners may threaten to withhold taxes and be met by a communal shrug by the British government with a response of "you already pay far less tax than if you lived in the British Isles, we really aren't reliant on your tax money".

Of course, a possible reprisal action after whatever situation this turns into had finished might be that, in response to the refusal to co-operate on emancipation, Westminster decides that it's time that the (former) slaveowners start to bear a more fair share of the tax burden. On the other hand, perhaps not since emancipation already left many plantation owners so short on cash their existence as plantation owners was threatened.

What would happen if the entire South simply refused to unshackle their slaves? It would require a pretty hefty military presence to enforce it wouldn't it?
 
It makes a big difference whether the Revolution was diplomatically averted, defeated, or just hadn't happened yet (with the 18th century status quo limping along). There are, I'm sure, several possible ways British North America could be organized after an 18th century compromise, and each one would probably show different responses to emancipation.
 
Top