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.