WI: British Emancipation Proclamation in ARW/ACW

Crap I wrote ACW instead of War of 1812, and I can't edit the title.

Could the British use the emancipation of American slaves to change the outcome of the American Revolutionary War or the War of 1812? Doing so could cause general chaos in the plantation economies. The British did promise freedom to slaves as a means of recruiting men for the ARW, but it puzzles me why they didn't take it a step further, especialy since they stood to lose nothing.
 
Could the British use the emancipation of American slaves to change the outcome of the American Revolutionary War or the American Civil War? Doing so could cause general chaos in the plantation economies. The British did promise freedom to slaves as a means of recruiting men for the ARW, but it puzzles me why they didn't take it a step further, especialy since they stood to lose nothing.

Because, if we (the Brits) had won, it would have meant less money...

Britain was in its Mercantilist Empire mode at that point...
 
Yes but wouldn't the British rather have a slaveless colony than no colony at all?

Yes, but the south were plantation economies... That's an important issue. Not to mention all of the slave-using colonies in the Caribbean...

And that doesn't explain 1812, since the British had no chance of getting the colonies back by then.

That war was in defence of Canada, rather than trying to re-conquer the United States...

Though some territory could have been exchanged with a more convincing victory, ... or if we actually cared at that point... :p
 

Neroon

Banned
Yes but wouldn't the British rather have a slaveless colony than no colony at all? And that doesn't explain 1812, since the British had no chance of getting the colonies back by then.
I'm guessing they didn't want to risk alienating the Loyalist forces.
 

Philip

Donor
I'm guessing they didn't want to risk alienating the Loyalist forces.

This seems quite likely. The British were hoping that Loyalists would rise up an join them after the capture of Savannah. This never materialized. Had there been an emancipation, there would have no chance for Loyalist support.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
This seems quite likely. The British were hoping that Loyalists would rise up an join them after the capture of Savannah. This never materialized. Had there been an emancipation, there would have no chance for Loyalist support.


Heh, true. Same reasons Lincoln didn't emancipate the slaves immediately as well. Although Lincoln was able to use the victory of Anteitam to claim momentum was on the Union's side and play the emancipation proclomation as comming from a position of strength.

Maybe its because without any significant victories against the rebellion, everyone in the world would have seen a similar British proclomation as a last desperate gasp instead.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
This seems quite likely. The British were hoping that Loyalists would rise up an join them after the capture of Savannah. This never materialized. Had there been an emancipation, there would have no chance for Loyalist support.

Well, no more than about an extra 10,000......

It's interesting to note that at the time of Yorktown, there were more Americans fighting for the crown than for congress....
 
If the British had issued Emancipation in the late 70s, would this have led to rebellion in the West Indies? Their economies depended heavily on slaves, much more than even the southern colonies.
 
If the British had issued Emancipation in the late 70s, would this have led to rebellion in the West Indies? Their economies depended heavily on slaves, much more than even the southern colonies.

I saw on a documentary on the BBC a few years ago that mentioned that the colonists in the British West Indies considered becoming independent of Britain in the 1830's and joining the US...
 
Top