Would American colonists fight for slavery?

Imagine for a moment about a timeline where the British won the American Revolutionary War as a result of the French withholding critical aid to the American rebels. The Founding Fathers are either executed for treason or in hiding. But, despite this victory, there is still tension between the free-minded colonists and their faraway monarchs in England.

It is the 19th Century. The British decide to outlaw slavery throughout their Empire. Would the colonists see this attempt to control the American colonies as another excuse to fight the British in a second attempt at Revolution, as they did with taxation and the Stamp Acts?
 
Going to war against both the more populous and industrialised north, in addition to the world's dominant navy, who also happens to be your overwhelming export market, would be extremely stupid.

But the Southern slavocrats were pretty stupid.
 
Imagine for a moment about a timeline where the British won the American Revolutionary War as a result of the French withholding critical aid to the American rebels. The Founding Fathers are either executed for treason or in hiding. But, despite this victory, there is still tension between the free-minded colonists and their faraway monarchs in England.

It is the 19th Century. The British decide to outlaw slavery throughout their Empire. Would the colonists see this attempt to control the American colonies as another excuse to fight the British in a second attempt at Revolution, as they did with taxation and the Stamp Acts?

The Americans did not fight a revolution because of taxation. They fought it because the British were abolishing their representative assemblies, closing down entire cities for collective punishment, and trying to confiscate the weaponry needed to prevent martial law.
 
The Americans did not fight a revolution because of taxation. They fought it because the British were abolishing their representative assemblies, closing down entire cities for collective punishment, and trying to confiscate the weaponry needed to prevent martial law.

Well that's just not true.

However to the OP the problem with a British Victory in the American Revolution is that you would not see a restoration of the pre-1775 situation. Lets say Washington and his Army was destroyed at Long Island and the middle Atlantic campaign saw coastal New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania recaptured with the continental congress fleeing south into Virginia. Now Britain could spend the next ten years supporting a massive army in the colonies and hunting down every last rebel but they aren't. Not least because they can't, Britain simply can't afford or support that sort of force. Instead you will see a repeat of Staten Island Peace Conference with Britain offering political concessions and pardons for all but a limited number of irreconcilables and a large enough minority of the Congress would probably take that offer up. As part of this peace you would see the "differences of opinion" which led to the Revolution resolved and not necessarily all as Lord North might have wanted. The Intolerable Acts for example would almost certainly go and instead you would probably see a system where the BNA colonies have to contribute a certain amount of based on population for the upkeep of the Military forces defending them. Of course as part of this you would see the principle that Westminster has final legislative authority under the principle of Poynings Law cemented. This is basically what happened with the remained of Britain's American possessions post 1783 and if note they did not rebel when slavery was abolished, despite the fact that the Carribean Islands were even more dependent on slavery than the mainland South.
 
Well that's just not true.

It's completely true. They reacted to (what they saw as) unfair taxes with petitions to the government and civil disobedience, similar to Scots in the 1990s with the poll tax. A handful of incidents of violence, like the Burning of the Gaspee and the Boston Tea Party were widely opposed and criticised. What pushed people to the revolution was the Intolerable Acts and, finally, the British acting first by going to seize a colonial arms cachet.
 
The Americans did not fight a revolution because of taxation. They fought it because the British were abolishing their representative assemblies, closing down entire cities for collective punishment, and trying to confiscate the weaponry needed to prevent martial law.

You can forgive me for that mistake because every time I read or watch something about the American Revolution, they're always complaining about 'taxation without representation'.
 
You can forgive me for that mistake because every time I read or watch something about the American Revolution, they're always complaining about 'taxation without representation'.

Yes, in the background to the revolution it was a frequent complaint before 1774, during the period of civil disobedience and protest. You will know that no mention of the Stamp Act, the Sugar Act or the Tea Act among the listed "Intolerable Acts" cited for the first Continental Congress. And taxation was listed as just one of 28 complaints in the Declaration of Independence. It simply wasn't a major issue post 1774.
 
The Intolerable acts were passed as a form of punishment for Massachusetts. And Socrates is correct that the first battles, Lexington and Concord, were results of the British seizing weaponry from the colonists.
 
The Intolerable acts were passed as a form of punishment for Massachusetts. And Socrates is correct that the first battles, Lexington and Concord, were results of the British seizing weaponry from the colonists.

Which weapons included 24pdr cannon supplied by the French - hardly the possession of loyalists.
 
To the OP

It depends, the South is going to fight regardless as slavery is going to be at the bottom of their economy and lifestyle, but the North might or might not join. It depends on what if any concessions they received from London since the Revolution

If none or very few then slavery will just be the spark and the North will join right in, and very quickly try to make the war about the previous grievances (taxation without representation, quartering, suppression of colonial industry and trade etc.), not slavery, though Slavery could result in the North and South ending up cobelligerents and not becoming aiming to become 1 country

If a moderate amount, the North tries to sit things out like the border states in the OTL ACW, they'll keep paying their taxes but will let London deal with its own mess in the South, this could be successful or it could result in them being driven to London or the South by extremists on either side

If a good amount of concessions are given the North will probably be loyal and help put down the South
 
No, probably not, because it won't be abolished in the first place without the concessions and wiggle room in place to essentially preserve the form of slavery without the letter. As is, the Caribbean slave lords had to be compensated for abolition. Since that's essentially impossible on the scale of the American South, instead there is going to be something in the abolition law that keeps ex-slaves tied to the land of their former owners.
 
At the very least, the South would certainly revolt, and they'd be a hot bed of anti-British sentiment for years to come no matter what happens. More complicated would be how the North reacts. I suppose it would depend on how they have been treated, and how the British Empire plays out the slavery debate. Is it even certain the British would abolish slavery as early with such a large population of slaveowners?

Any way, one thing I do know is the fastest way the South became anti-British during the revolutionary war was when news reached people that the British were freeing and arming slaves. If the British had won, they'd have to prove to the Southerners they wouldn't infringe on their rights to own slaves, otherwise you could see an insurgency much like during the reconstruction.

Thats my take on this anyway. Anyone else disagree?
 
Top