WI: ARW averted, Slave Trade ban prevents slaves being sold between American colonies

Imagine the following scenario:
- the Brits avoid the Revolution by giving proto-dominion style autonomy to the individual colonies, while maintaining control over imperial commerce
- they continue to create new colonies east of the Mississippi, albeit at a slightly slower pace of settlement than OTL USA
- circa 1810-1820, they implement an international slave trade ban, which includes banning sales between colonies

How does this affect the development of the Deep South? Is plantation agriculture still going to be the main economic activity when slave importation is impossible? Will they get more white immigration as a result? Could New Orleans be the New York of the south for immigrants? What share of the population would be black by the 20th Cebtury? Is the south likely to be a less conservative part of North America?
 
I'd be amazed if that gets through Parliament, TBH.

Hm. I wonder if the Parliamentary reform feeds into abolitionism in OTL, leading to a cross-Atlantic birth of liberty against the rotten borous and planters?
 
Imagine the following scenario:
- the Brits avoid the Revolution by giving proto-dominion style autonomy to the individual colonies, while maintaining control over imperial commerce
- they continue to create new colonies east of the Mississippi, albeit at a slightly slower pace of settlement than OTL USA
- circa 1810-1820, they implement an international slave trade ban, which includes banning sales between colonies

How does this affect the development of the Deep South? Is plantation agriculture still going to be the main economic activity when slave importation is impossible? Will they get more white immigration as a result? Could New Orleans be the New York of the south for immigrants? What share of the population would be black by the 20th Cebtury? Is the south likely to be a less conservative part of North America?


I hate to say it but I have to wonder if banning the slave trade between southern
colonies ITTL would spark the revolution-
just later than it did IOTL(in other words, the
South would already be so attached to "the
peculiar institution" that- as repugnant as
we would find this attitude- they'd fight
rather than give it up)(which of course did
happen IOTL in 1861)
 
The initial ban on slave trading only involved sea-borne trade, iirc.
Certainly, until slavery was abolished, slave-owners in e.g. Jamaica could sell to other owners on the island.

I suspect that the land borders in North America would, initially, at least, be ignored, so slave trades could happen across them.

I've not actually run across any info on when slave trade between British colonies (individual islands in the Caribbean) was stopped, as the initial rules were about trade from Africa (and, iirc, other empires). I THINK trade between colonies was legal for some time.

So, IF that's the case, the US colonies are fine for as long as that holds.
 
If the US stayed in the British Empire,the slave owners in the south would have formed a powerful lobbygroup along with the Liverpool slavetraders.

It would have been substantially smaller than the sugar planters of Jamaica in OTL, who were much richer.
 
Top