WI: Slavery abolished at the US' founding?

Easily possible with other places in the Americas, not in USA or Brazil though.

Latin American countries except for certain outliers (i.e. Brazil) generally ended slavery within a decade or less of independence.
 
Easily possible with other places in the Americas, not in USA or Brazil though.

Latin American countries except for certain outliers (i.e. Brazil) generally ended slavery within a decade or less of independence.

Not really. The Central American countries did (Mexico, Honduras, Nicaraugua, etc), while the South American countries didn't (Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Venezuela). I'm not sure what the main reason for the difference was.
 
I agree with those who've noted that if immediate abolishment was made a core tenant of the constitution, about half the colonies refuse to ratify. Then, they either walk away and do their own thing or the US stays under the articles of confederation, greatly limiting strength and likely growth. If not otherwise derailed, US eventually evolves toward a constitution, but the strongest take on slavery that would likely be accepted would be gradual phase out (unless it's so much later that slavery has become far less profitable).

I guess there might be some possibility for a gradual phase out being included in the constitution, but the southern colonies would have demanded some other compensation in constitutional structure to accept even that. Whatever that compensatory change was, it would definitely mean more money and/or power for them.

Horrible thought: abolition doesn't appear in the Constitution, but talk of it alarms enough planters for the balance to shift slightly. Britain holds its nose and gives the required reassurance, and the Revolutionary War finally grinds to a halt shortly after the Relief of Yorktown, with the Northern States gaining their independence, and the South proclaiming undying loyalty to Britain, so long as their peculiar institution is maintained. :eek:
 
Horrible thought: abolition doesn't appear in the Constitution, but talk of it alarms enough planters for the balance to shift slightly. Britain holds its nose and gives the required reassurance, and the Revolutionary War finally grinds to a halt shortly after the Relief of Yorktown, with the Northern States gaining their independence, and the South proclaiming undying loyalty to Britain, so long as their peculiar institution is maintained. :eek:

New York hadn't banned slavery yet as of the start of the war. To say it was at all a contentious issue among the American elite or a North vs South issue during the war is going too far. Alot of revisionist history today likes to play up the occasional grumblings about it from certain quarters at the time or see slavery at the start of the war as a North vs South issue, but you would need a POD a few decades before the war for such ideas to come close to approaching reality.
 
In 1776, abolishing slavery probably would break the union, and there would be nothing preventing slaveowners from preserving their slaves by returning to the crown.

But that's not what the premise is. I don't know why people keep arguing that a scenario doesn't make sense by appealing to things happening that are explicitly outside of the idea. It's like criticizing a question about what would have happened if there was no World War I by citing the Somme and Marne as points of no return; well, those aren't going to happen if there's no World War I! Similarly, in the scenario I presented from Faeelin, there is of course no talk of banning slavery in 1776, but the seeds are being planted such that after the war it could be plausible for slavery to be abolished, or a gradual emancipation program put in place, and nothing I said contained the implication of anything different.

The entire point was that although it might not be formally abolished during the war, there are various plausible paths where it could be effectively undermined and destroyed, leading to abolishment after the war--in other words, after victory has been achieved and after there's no possibility of "returning to the Crown" or "serving as a base of operations". Why is that so hard to understand?

As long as most of the southern delegates were against it, the Continental Congress would never pass an anti-slavery resolution, it would be suicide, because the southern delegates would probably walk out altogether, and slaveowners across the country would be flipping to the loyalist side. With the southern colonies as a base for the British that early, the war would probably be unwinnable for the United States.

They might resort to freeing and arming slaves in loyalist territory, but by that point they would have gone in a very radical new direction for the country, and I don't think they would have had any prayer of winning. Even New England would be defeated eventually. Colonial victory was tenuous enough in 1776 as it was.

I was citing othersyde's suggestion that the ARW start with anti-planter uprisings in the South there. In that case, the planters aren't on their side anyways, so there's no reason not to take advantage of every possible tactic. And of course the colonies by themselves can't win, but I have my doubts than the South would be a very tenable base of operations if the British had an active slave/smallholder coalition working against them, and it hardly seems unreasonable to suggest that they could hold out long enough for the rest of Europe to intervene, whether or not the British controlled a few southern ports in addition to Halifax.
 
Horrible thought: abolition doesn't appear in the Constitution, but talk of it alarms enough planters for the balance to shift slightly. Britain holds its nose and gives the required reassurance, and the Revolutionary War finally grinds to a halt shortly after the Relief of Yorktown, with the Northern States gaining their independence, and the South proclaiming undying loyalty to Britain, so long as their peculiar institution is maintained. :eek:

Maybe, although given that one of the colonists' main complaints was that the British didn't listen to them enough, I'd guess that abolitionism would proceed pretty much as IOTL, though perhaps the Slave Trade Act would be delayed till after the Napoleonic Wars if it looked like the South would rebel over it.

Anyway, even if the South did rebel, I'm not sure that the southern states alone would be strong enough to beat great Britain, and they probably wouldn't be able to count on foreign support as in the AWI. The USA probably wouldn't want to help a group of people who (a) had defected from the revolutionary cause and (b) were fighting to keep their chattel slavery, pretty much every European power was too war-weary to welcome the prospect of another major conflict, and the Royal Navy was supreme at sea after Trafalgar.

In fact, such a TL might even see slavery abolished in the South several decades before it was IOTL, and possibly even a less racially-segregated South afterwards (on the assumption that the British government would be more willing to put pressure on colonial legislatures to not pass any Jim Crow laws than the US government was). Which would have a certain pleasing poetic justice vis-à-vis the Southern slave-owners...
 
But that's not what the premise is. I don't know why people keep arguing that a scenario doesn't make sense by appealing to things happening that are explicitly outside of the idea. It's like criticizing a question about what would have happened if there was no World War I by citing the Somme and Marne as points of no return; well, those aren't going to happen if there's no World War I! Similarly, in the scenario I presented from Faeelin, there is of course no talk of banning slavery in 1776, but the seeds are being planted such that after the war it could be plausible for slavery to be abolished, or a gradual emancipation program put in place, and nothing I said contained the implication of anything different.

The entire point was that although it might not be formally abolished during the war, there are various plausible paths where it could be effectively undermined and destroyed, leading to abolishment after the war--in other words, after victory has been achieved and after there's no possibility of "returning to the Crown" or "serving as a base of operations". Why is that so hard to understand?

Alright, alright, sorry, I was mostly misinterpreting your scenario based on this

This is quite an interesting idea but the bit I am having trouble with is how a USA with out slave states can win its independence from the British in the first place?

post and others in reply to your first post.

So what you're saying is that the British offer slaves of rebels their freedom much earlier on, and this is much more successful than OTL, leading the colonists to have to start freeing and arming slaves themselves in enough numbers to have a chance of winning. Ok, that.....seems plausible, actually. Henry Lauren's son did just that, and wanted others to do the same.

What if more planters stay loyal to the crown, the war in the South drags out and gets dirtier, and as a result, the British offer freedom to slaves of rebels, while rebels offer freedom to slaves of loyalists? I see what you're saying, by the end of this, especially if a lot of southern territory changes hands back and forth, there might be too few actual slaves left for there to be much momentum for keeping the institution, even if the subject of abolition is never brought up.

I was citing othersyde's suggestion that the ARW start with anti-planter uprisings in the South there. In that case, the planters aren't on their side anyways, so there's no reason not to take advantage of every possible tactic. And of course the colonies by themselves can't win, but I have my doubts than the South would be a very tenable base of operations if the British had an active slave/smallholder coalition working against them, and it hardly seems unreasonable to suggest that they could hold out long enough for the rest of Europe to intervene, whether or not the British controlled a few southern ports in addition to Halifax.

I would agree, but is it plausible for Regulator revolts to turn into the ARW? Maybe if they happened at the same time as the other events up in Boston. Hmm.
 
Maybe, although given that one of the colonists' main complaints was that the British didn't listen to them enough, I'd guess that abolitionism would proceed pretty much as IOTL, though perhaps the Slave Trade Act would be delayed till after the Napoleonic Wars if it looked like the South would rebel over it.

Anyway, even if the South did rebel, I'm not sure that the southern states alone would be strong enough to beat great Britain, and they probably wouldn't be able to count on foreign support as in the AWI. The USA probably wouldn't want to help a group of people who (a) had defected from the revolutionary cause and (b) were fighting to keep their chattel slavery, pretty much every European power was too war-weary to welcome the prospect of another major conflict, and the Royal Navy was supreme at sea after Trafalgar.

In fact, such a TL might even see slavery abolished in the South several decades before it was IOTL, and possibly even a less racially-segregated South afterwards (on the assumption that the British government would be more willing to put pressure on colonial legislatures to not pass any Jim Crow laws than the US government was). Which would have a certain pleasing poetic justice vis-à-vis the Southern slave-owners...

I think this scenario has come up a couple times before. My question is, if there's a full-scale revolt, can the British ship a large enough army over the Atlantic to put it down? Though, would the South even revolt, if they'd be revolting against their main customer? (Though in that case I guess the United States with its textile industry could take the place of the hoped-for ally, with Britain taking the United States' place as the one trying to put down the revolt)

Also, with the Southern and Caribbean planter lobbies combined, how long do they manage to stall abolition for? OTL it was to 1838, but I think if you throw the entirity of the American cotton producers into that, it might be a few more decades, if they don't just violently revolt at the thought.
 
Alright, alright, sorry, I was mostly misinterpreting your scenario based on this

post and others in reply to your first post.

Yes, and I was confused about where those were coming from. They didn't seem to have anything to do with what I was describing.

So what you're saying is that the British offer slaves of rebels their freedom much earlier on, and this is much more successful than OTL, leading the colonists to have to start freeing and arming slaves themselves in enough numbers to have a chance of winning. Ok, that.....seems plausible, actually. Henry Lauren's son did just that, and wanted others to do the same.

What if more planters stay loyal to the crown, the war in the South drags out and gets dirtier, and as a result, the British offer freedom to slaves of rebels, while rebels offer freedom to slaves of loyalists? I see what you're saying, by the end of this, especially if a lot of southern territory changes hands back and forth, there might be too few actual slaves left for there to be much momentum for keeping the institution, even if the subject of abolition is never brought up.

One of those scenarios was what I was thinking, yes. Or at least what I think Faeelin was thinking would happen (as I mentioned, I didn't come up with the idea). If there are few slaves left, then the better angels of the people framing the Constitution and running the states soon after the ARW are likely to overcome their economic interest, because the latter has been largely destroyed. Additionally, freeing many slaves on both sides is likely to leave a fairly large population of free blacks in the colonies, who will be a political wildcard--they may soon take advantage of the same sorts of opportunities whites did IOTL with backcountry territory and become landholders and voters--and in any case will certainly be more organized than OTL.

It would be interesting to see what the United States in such a situation makes of the Haitian Revolution; I certainly can't imagine that, having abolished slavery, they would have quite the same degree of paranoid fear about it inspiring slave rebellions, so that might evolve towards a more friendly relationship, which might, perhaps, reduce the amount of pressure on Haiti from European countries. On the other hand, Haiti had a number of structural and leadership issues which are not likely to be butterflied away or removed, so I don't see it doing terrifically better than OTL, at least during the 19th century. Sadly :(

Similarly, such a United States would almost certainly be much less hostile to Mexico, given that the slaveocracy and the general desire to expand into the Southwest wouldn't be there. It's quite possible that there would be no Texas rebellion to begin with, and there almost certainly wouldn't be a Mexican-American War, so you might see a United States that's missing most of its OTL southwest. I would be a bit sad in such a world, given how much of my family lives in areas taken during the Mexican-American War or in Texas, but overall Mexico would probably be much better off, and I suspect the United States would not be much worse off given how much more densely populated the East is relative to the West. Oregon and Washington would probably be more developed if California is Mexican, compared to OTL.

You also, presumably, wouldn't see the filibusters trying to take over bits of foreign countries to expand slavery's empire. That can't help but be good.

I would agree, but is it plausible for Regulator revolts to turn into the ARW? Maybe if they happened at the same time as the other events up in Boston. Hmm.
Well, othersyde is participating the thread, after all ;) You could ask her about it.
 
I think this scenario has come up a couple times before. My question is, if there's a full-scale revolt, can the British ship a large enough army over the Atlantic to put it down? Though, would the South even revolt, if they'd be revolting against their main customer? (Though in that case I guess the United States with its textile industry could take the place of the hoped-for ally, with Britain taking the United States' place as the one trying to put down the revolt)

I'd say the British could probably win. At any rate, their situation would be much better than it was in the AWI: British naval dominance was by now so well-established that no European nation would be able to offer the rebels any meaningful assistance, the rebelling area would be smaller and hence easier to control, most people in the South would probably be less than enthusiastic about fighting a war for rich planters' rights, and it would be easier to rally British public opinion behind a war against slavery than behind a war to deprive British subjects of their traditional rights. Given that the Brits would probably have won the AWI anyway were it not for those pesky French, I think they'd end up crushing any Southern rebellion if they stayed at it long enough.

(Incidentally, I don't think cotton-planting really took off until the 1830s, so the plantation system would still be growing tobacco and suchlike instead. I'm not sure how

Also, with the Southern and Caribbean planter lobbies combined, how long do they manage to stall abolition for? OTL it was to 1838, but I think if you throw the entirity of the American cotton producers into that, it might be a few more decades, if they don't just violently revolt at the thought.

Well the reason it took till 1838 was mostly because the government didn't want to get involved in lengthy compensation suits, so they initially settled for abolishing the slave trade (in 1807) on the theory that slavery would then wither on the vine and could be properly abolished with less fuss later on. As for the TTL situation, I suppose the threat of a colonial rebellion might make the British delay passing the bill until after the Napoleonic Wars were over, but other than that it's difficult to say. IOTL one of the American colonists' main complaints was that London didn't listen to them, but then I suppose the shock of losing half their American colonies might make the Brits pay more attention. Then again the abolitionist campaign was quite successful and well-organised, and I don't see this changing ITTL. So it's really quite difficult to say.
 
I'd say the British could probably win. At any rate, their situation would be much better than it was in the AWI: British naval dominance was by now so well-established that no European nation would be able to offer the rebels any meaningful assistance, the rebelling area would be smaller and hence easier to control, most people in the South would probably be less than enthusiastic about fighting a war for rich planters' rights, and it would be easier to rally British public opinion behind a war against slavery than behind a war to deprive British subjects of their traditional rights. Given that the Brits would probably have won the AWI anyway were it not for those pesky French, I think they'd end up crushing any Southern rebellion if they stayed at it long enough.

(Incidentally, I don't think cotton-planting really took off until the 1830s, so the plantation system would still be growing tobacco and suchlike instead. I'm not sure how



Well the reason it took till 1838 was mostly because the government didn't want to get involved in lengthy compensation suits, so they initially settled for abolishing the slave trade (in 1807) on the theory that slavery would then wither on the vine and could be properly abolished with less fuss later on. As for the TTL situation, I suppose the threat of a colonial rebellion might make the British delay passing the bill until after the Napoleonic Wars were over, but other than that it's difficult to say. IOTL one of the American colonists' main complaints was that London didn't listen to them, but then I suppose the shock of losing half their American colonies might make the Brits pay more attention. Then again the abolitionist campaign was quite successful and well-organised, and I don't see this changing ITTL. So it's really quite difficult to say.

It's an interesting scenario to think about, that's for sure. I'm pretty sure I've posted a long post at one time about what would happen to slavery in a no-ARW/colonies lose ARW timeline, but having only the South be British territory changes that scenario a lot.

I didn't even think about the compensation issue. There would be millions more slaves for the British government to pay for in this scenario. Maybe instead of full abolition and compensation, a gradual abolition law would be forcibly put into effect empire-wide, so that current slave-owners would keep their slaves, but slavery would eventually be extinguished (without the imperial government having to shell out the equivalent of billions)

As far as a potential rebellion goes, a lot would depend on British relations with the United States. If they're bad, the US may want to use the opportunity to poke a finger in Britain's eye, slavery or no slavery, and the US would be ideally located to supply a rebellious British South with arms and war material, making the British blockade useless. But then again, if relations are halfway decent, I can't see this Alt-US being any more eager to help establish a state seceding in the name of slavery any more than OTL Britain was.
 
Not really. The Central American countries did (Mexico, Honduras, Nicaraugua, etc), while the South American countries didn't (Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Venezuela). I'm not sure what the main reason for the difference was.

Nears as I can tell, most (but not all) of the South American countries, particularly Brazil, had the large tracts of land and climate that were suitable for the cultivation of the premier cash crops of the day and thus the subsequent development of an exploitative slave-driven plantation economy.

Mexico and much of Central America also had similar arrangements, but IIRC, they pretty much got around slavery with the hacienda system and other holdovers from Spanish rule. So in other words, a Russia situation where a system of feudalism/serfdom develops and supplants slavery as the main economic institution.
 
The OP gives two options. The possibility that the 1776 declaration of independence would explicitly ban slavery would probably doom the US before it even got started. Without a continental strategy, the colonies could be defeated piecemeal...or some would probably just not join the independence movement to begin with.

If the constitutional convention of 1789 ended with explicit language in the US constitution banning slavery, the United States would peacefully break apart into at least two separate republics...and possibly more if the middle atlantic republics don't merge with New England. My own suspicion is that this would have several possible results: (1) the northern mercantile proto-Capitalist republic (New England primarily) might still find itself embroiled in a trade-related conflict with Britain during the Napoleonic Wars and be soundly defeated. (2) The Southern republic(s) would stay out and initially prosper. The north American republics would have less influence and remain a backwater longer...and the possibility exists that they might, as independent states, become protectorates of Britain...who would expand its imperial holdings or protectorates throughout the Americas by taking advantage of independence movements in Latin America, there being no United States of America and "Monroe Doctrine" Britain could support with the Royal Navy.
 
Top