WI: Britan never abolishes slavery?

180px-Am_I_not_a_man.jpg


The POD here is that in Somerset v Stewart, Lord Mansfield rules that slavery is supported by English common law. (As for the personality shift, say he has a stroke prior to completing his ruling)

With this judicial precedent set, how might this effect attitudes toward slavery throughout the empire and what sort of political effect might this have on British diplomacy and colonialism in general?

Maybe the southern half of the Thirteen Colonies don't endorse independence?
 
180px-Am_I_not_a_man.jpg


The POD here is that in Somerset v Stewart, Lord Mansfield rules that slavery is supported by English common law. (As for the personality shift, say he has a stroke prior to completing his ruling)

With this judicial precedent set, how might this effect attitudes toward slavery throughout the empire and what sort of political effect might this have on British diplomacy and colonialism in general?

Maybe the southern half of the Thirteen Colonies don't endorse independence?
I think you would need more than that as a POD. Probably the non creation of several Christian denominations including Quakerism would be needed to prevent abolition, along with the failure of the extension of the Franchise, which was a significant factor in both the UK and elsewhere. It would probably also in the long term prove to be necessary to prevent the French Revolution and the ideas arising from it. Abolition was the triumph of economic and political interests allied to cultural and religious ideals not the decision, except very temporarily, of one man
 
While this POD may not prevent the abolishing of slavery in the long run it may cause butterflies in the ARW as slave owners in the colonies will no longer be as fearful of losing their 'property'.
 
Top