What if Georgia and the Carolinas did not participate in the American Revolution (in this case, because Jefferson's Anti-Slavery Clause in the Declaration of Independence passes?) Could the British Army still have lost the war? How would it have affected U.S. and British history afterwards?
WI: No Georgia or Carolinas due to Anti-Slavery Clause
- Thread starter sampleswift
- Start date
I think Virginia bailing on the revolution with something like that is way more of a threat than Georgia or Carolina. OTL, Georgia was taken back over by the British by the end of the war, and "Georgia" itself was a sliver of territory around the Savannah River. If Georgia and the Carolinas jump ship, Georgia is going to become a very mixed Creek-Spanish Latin American nation with some lingering English influeces, and the Carolinas will probably either unify into a rather weak banana republic or rejoin the US. If Virginia bails, however, the Revolution is simply over.
Really? In the scenario I did, GA, SC, possibly NC bailed due to the anti-slavery clause in the Declaration of Independence. I am also seeing due to Jefferson's actions, slavery gets gradually phased out where it exists if the U.S. remains alive. VA won't bail because historically, the states that threatened to leave over the anti-slavery clause were Georgia and South Carolina, possibly North Carolina as well.
I can also see Britain controlling the weakened GA, SC, and maybe NC but then have trouble holding on to them...
Britain*did* outlaw slavery in 1830. I've heard the argument that the thing that kept the southern States on board was the fact that the infant us had strong slavery protections. The hammer is coming down on slavery, it just would come quicker with the Carolinas and Georgia not in the US. ACW round 2 or an alt War of 1812 would probably crush the US
Deleted member 109224
There'd likely be a stronger lobby against abolition if North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, East Florida, and West Florida were still part of the British Empire. Meanwhile the Americans would likely put gradual manumission into their constitution, likely a couple decades after the end of the slave trade. The Tidewater States were okay with manumission if it was to be done way down the line.
I can see the US ending Slavery in the 1820s or 1830s, and Britain taking another decade to do it if only because it would cost a lot more money to pay off all of those Deep South slaveholders than it cost to just manumit the Caribbean OTL.
Meanwhile there'd likely be a lot of coolies in the South.
Issue is, the Caribbean was always more valuable than the UK than the US. IIRC the island of Jamaica contributed more to the British Empire than the entirety of the colonial US money wise. Georgia + the Carolinas (and probably also eventually Florida or at least a heavily British dependent Hispanic nation of Florida) is barely a drop in the bucket and will most likely be administered as a rather marginal Caribbean area, maybe getting lumped in with the Bahamas or Bermuda in a "Canada but South" as well. Not to mention powerful Native American states in *NEGA, *Alabama and *Mississippi. Racial tension will still exist but the Southeast isnt significant enough to treat differently. It's also important to note that Georgia was a baby colony. It wasnt until the Trail of Tears that Georgia actually took control of all the land in it's possession and until the 1880s for it to become markedly more significant. Most likely, a British Southeast would be white plantation farms near the coasts and important rivers with powerful, centralized native American "princely states" in alliance with the British Crown.
Tl;DR: if the british were gonna end slavery in the Caribbean, the Southeast definitely will have slavery ended for them as well.
Deleted member 109224
I don't completely disagree, but much of the difference here is that in the 19th Century we'd see (1) the rise of King Cotton and (2) the prospect of sugar cultivation in the Floridas with increased settlement. The south, while british, mostly grew Tobacco and Indigo not Cotton and Sugar. Plus, most of the crops were grown in those riverlands and coasts. That's a huge money difference. Jamaica was a sugar colony and that's why there was so much money there.
And the mere presence of more people in the empire lobbying to keep slavery will delay abolition. I don't think it'll stop it, but a 10 year delay doesn't seem wildly unlikely.
Okay, I'll put up a sample timeline on this... stay tuned for more. Thank you.
Speaking of which, what is a "coolie"? I thought that was a (rather offensive) term for a Chinese immigrant in the 1800s?
Deleted member 109224
It could be offensive. I've never heard the word used outside of threads on the subject so I wouldn't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolie
Coolie Workers were pretty much indentured servants (mostly from India and East Asia) who were used as substitutes for slaves following the abolition of slavery. Many people were tricked into these arrangements. It wasn't nice.
Hence the reason why there's a million people of Indian descent in Trinidad today: the British brought people from India over to work Sugar Plantations following the end of slavery.
The issue with King Cotton is that Egyptian Cotton will eventually take off and be far more valuable than Southern Cotton. Plus, with powerful Native American states somewhat dictating their own terms, there will almost definitely be a more varied spread of cultivation and foodstuffs. You do raise an interesting point: colonization is never simple. Iirc Guyana is actually Hindu majority because of Indian workers imported in.
Deleted member 109224
Except it was the American Civil War jacking up the international price of Cotton that made Egyptian Cotton marketable.
And the strain of cotton grown in Egypt is also referred to as ... Sea Island Cotton. Because it was grown in the Sea Islands of the American South.
Also, it isn't as if the Natives didn't get in on the whole slavery thing OTL.
And again, my point isn't that Britain isn't going to abolish slavery. My point is that the COST of abolishing slavery within the British Empire is going to be greater and there will be more POLITICAL OPPOSITION that will have to be overcome. I think this could delay abolition in the British Empire by perhaps a decade, but I don't think it would stop abolition from happening.
I concede, you're right. I just feel like it wouldn't've pushed it back 10 years. Maybe 5?
I will say that the entire culture and history of the Southeast would be absolutely different from OTL.
On the map, what's the difference between Native American and Indian?
Native Americans are the tribes like the Cherokee and Muscogee. Indian is actual Indians, coolies brought over to the South to work in the fields and occupying the niche slaves brought over in the late Slave Trade would Otl.
Deleted member 109224
I agree. I can't see it being more than 10 years. The Moral Case had already more or less been made by the 1830s in the United Kingdom.
I'm not so sure why it'd be much more different than happened in Canada.