Would American colonists fight the British 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?
 
The South could. The North would not have the economic stake in the matter. Slavery was already either abolished or outdated (and soon to be abolished) in the Northern economy by the time this would occur.
 

GarethC

Donor
Either a) after the crushing of the Rebellion, George Palpatine orders his legions of Hanoverian sturmtruppen to eat the daughters and defile the livestock of the colonists, enforcing tea tariffs, a Stamp Tax, a Poll Tax, a Land Tax, and finally a Tax Tax, all the while twirling their moustachioes and cackling with evil merriment, in which case yes, the tighter he closes his grip the more colonies will slip through his fingers, etc.

Or b), noting how much it costs to field Hanoverians three thousand miles away from London (the shipping costs of moustachio wax alone are ruinous!), PM Lord North and his successors aim to make the taxation burden upon the colonists more in line with those in Britain and thus remove the need for a costly occupation. Other complaints are addressed by allowing similar voting rights (i.e. still rigged, but at least consistently so) as in the Home Nations, in which case the abolition of slavery across the Empire, so not just singling out America, will not trigger ACWII. Note that London can clearly imply that Jim Crowesque laws are fine for the colonial assemblies to enact and blunt some of the impact of abolition, which is in part a reflection of the mood of the people, but also in part an economic sabotage to competing producers in the French Caribbean.

Also, note that with possession of the colonies comes a larger tax and industrial base (and no costs from a War of 1812), making for more successfull wars with Napoleon and causing the prospects for revolt to be seen as worse with even fewer challenges to the RN.
Equally, with more arguments for slavery (as Southern cotton and tobacco are now inside the Empire and dependent on that peculiar institution) the various steps on the path to abolition may be delayed compared to OTL.
 
IIRC the American colonists were grossly under taxed compared to their British counterparts but required a navy and army to defend them which came out of the British tax payers pockets. The Revolution went well didn't it. Americans must pay hardly any taxes now as they won..................
 

Deleted member 94680

The South could. The North would not have the economic stake in the matter. Slavery was already either abolished or outdated (and soon to be abolished) in the Northern economy by the time this would occur.

Would that be the case if the Americas are still part of the Empire? Would they not be thirteen (or more) colonies of the Empire and as such (in the 1830s) not set their own laws in regards to such things?
 

ben0628

Banned
It also depends in GB continues to adhere to the proclamation of 1763. If colonists are still forced to live east of the Appalachians when slavery is abolished, then there is only going to be 6 slave states.
 
It also depends in GB continues to adhere to the proclamation of 1763. If colonists are still forced to live east of the Appalachians when slavery is abolished, then there is only going to be 6 slave states.
Oh man, if the British are still trying to keep colonists on one side of the Appalachians, then I could see the North being way more sympathetic to Southern Rebels. North revolts to push west; South revolts for slavery. And I wouldn't be surprised if it turns into a situation much like South Africa in our timeline, with people pushing out west illegally, seating up their own states in a way similar to how Texas formed in our timeline.
 
It also depends in GB continues to adhere to the proclamation of 1763. If colonists are still forced to live east of the Appalachians when slavery is abolished, then there is only going to be 6 slave states.

There is no likelihood of this happening. For a start, the 1763 proclamantion didn't even prevent colonists from living West of the Appalachians. They just required settlement to be done through purchasing land off the natives. The main anger towards it was because lots of people were already West of the line, and the government responded to that by adjusting the line, and the issue ceased to be a major one. It was a classic example of how the British government should have responded to the latest tax issue.

And the proclamation line was never intended to be permanent. The main reason was to encourage settlement to be along the coast in places like Georgia, Florida and Nova Scotia to keep out the French and Spanish out. Once the British were in control of the coast, they would have moved it substantially further west.
 
There is no likelihood of this happening. For a start, the 1763 proclamantion didn't even prevent colonists from living West of the Appalachians. They just required settlement to be done through purchasing land off the natives. The main anger towards it was because lots of people were already West of the line, and the government responded to that by adjusting the line, and the issue ceased to be a major one. It was a classic example of how the British government should have responded to the latest tax issue.

And the proclamation line was never intended to be permanent. The main reason was to encourage settlement to be along the coast in places like Georgia, Florida and Nova Scotia to keep out the French and Spanish out. Once the British were in control of the coast, they would have moved it substantially further west.
Agreed, I don't see the British trying that hard to stop the colonists, they'd have to much to lose by doing so
 
Last edited:

ben0628

Banned
There is no likelihood of this happening. For a start, the 1763 proclamantion didn't even prevent colonists from living West of the Appalachians. They just required settlement to be done through purchasing land off the natives. The main anger towards it was because lots of people were already West of the line, and the government responded to that by adjusting the line, and the issue ceased to be a major one. It was a classic example of how the British government should have responded to the latest tax issue.

And the proclamation line was never intended to be permanent. The main reason was to encourage settlement to be along the coast in places like Georgia, Florida and Nova Scotia to keep out the French and Spanish out. Once the British were in control of the coast, they would have moved it substantially further west.

1) It outlawed the private purchase of Native American land. Basically you had to go through the government to settle west of the Appalachians and after Pontiac's Rebellion and the recent war with the Cherokee, the British would be rather hesitant.

2) Fully settling Georgia, Florida, and Nova Scotia would take a few decades at the least. There is no need to move the line west anytime soon.

3) After Pontiac's Rebellion and the war with the Cherokee that ended in 1761, pretty much every British settler west of the Appalachians had been killed or fled east.

4) In a situation where America loses the Revolution, the Indians (who for the most part were either neutral or sided with the British) would be valuable allies and help dissuade future colonial rebellions. Pissing off the Native Americans would not be in the best interests of the British.

In conclusion, although you are right that the Proclamation of 1763 won't last forever, it will last long enough that by the time the British abolish slavery, the American colonies west of the Appalachians would be sparsely populated, and the Mississippi would be the western boundary which means yo only have 6 prosperous slave colonies (DE, MD, VA, NC, SC, GA) and a couple other colonies that are nothing more than frontier towns that had very little slaves in them.
 
1) It outlawed the private purchase of Native American land. Basically you had to go through the government to settle west of the Appalachians and after Pontiac's Rebellion and the recent war with the Cherokee, the British would be rather hesitant.

2) Fully settling Georgia, Florida, and Nova Scotia would take a few decades at the least. There is no need to move the line west anytime soon.

3) After Pontiac's Rebellion and the war with the Cherokee that ended in 1761, pretty much every British settler west of the Appalachians had been killed or fled east.

4) In a situation where America loses the Revolution, the Indians (who for the most part were either neutral or sided with the British) would be valuable allies and help dissuade future colonial rebellions. Pissing off the Native Americans would not be in the best interests of the British.

In conclusion, although you are right that the Proclamation of 1763 won't last forever, it will last long enough that by the time the British abolish slavery, the American colonies west of the Appalachians would be sparsely populated, and the Mississippi would be the western boundary which means yo only have 6 prosperous slave colonies (DE, MD, VA, NC, SC, GA) and a couple other colonies that are nothing more than frontier towns that had very little slaves in them.

1) Thanks for the correction.

2) I shouldn't have really listed Florida, as it wasn't really capable of settlment, being mainly swampland. Nova Scotia and Georgia were fully settled by about 1800-1810. So well in advance of the 1830s time period.

3) While many settlements had been evacuated, the settlements still existed and people felt they had claims ot them.

4) I simply don't buy this at all. As the colonist population grows, the disparity in strength will become clear to all, and it will make clear that pissing off the colonists is far more a danger to British interests than pissing off the natives.

As for your conclusion, I simply don't believe that the proclamation line will only have been slightly moved in 70 years. If nothing else, the British would be looking to settle the OTL Alabama/Mississippi area to prevent the French coming back.
 

samcster94

Banned
By abolish slavery, do you mean wholesale, or abolish it like "Free the elderly and prevent new slaves from being born slaves", then abolish it when it is more acceptable?
 

ben0628

Banned
By abolish slavery, do you mean wholesale, or abolish it like "Free the elderly and prevent new slaves from being born slaves", then abolish it when it is more acceptable?

I think the op means abolish slavery, but financially compensate the slave owners and have the slaves be required to work for their former masters for a few more years before earning their freedom so that the economy has time to adjust.

That's what the British did in the British Cape Colony
 
1) It outlawed the private purchase of Native American land. Basically you had to go through the government to settle west of the Appalachians and after Pontiac's Rebellion and the recent war with the Cherokee, the British would be rather hesitant.

2) Fully settling Georgia, Florida, and Nova Scotia would take a few decades at the least. There is no need to move the line west anytime soon.

3) After Pontiac's Rebellion and the war with the Cherokee that ended in 1761, pretty much every British settler west of the Appalachians had been killed or fled east.

4) In a situation where America loses the Revolution, the Indians (who for the most part were either neutral or sided with the British) would be valuable allies and help dissuade future colonial rebellions. Pissing off the Native Americans would not be in the best interests of the British.

In conclusion, although you are right that the Proclamation of 1763 won't last forever, it will last long enough that by the time the British abolish slavery, the American colonies west of the Appalachians would be sparsely populated, and the Mississippi would be the western boundary which means yo only have 6 prosperous slave colonies (DE, MD, VA, NC, SC, GA) and a couple other colonies that are nothing more than frontier towns that had very little slaves in them.

Re: 4, if making decisions based on not pissing off native tribes that had previously helped your survival were actually a thing, I'm not sure the Americas would be.
 

ben0628

Banned
Re: 4, if making decisions based on not pissing off native tribes that had previously helped your survival were actually a thing, I'm not sure the Americas would be.

Colonial treatment of natives and British treatment of natives are two totally different things
 
Colonial treatment of natives and British treatment of natives are two totally different things

They were largely the same people at this point. If the British Government had to choose between the natives and its own colonists its colonists would win every time. That is why they moved the line west after complaints were made. They would have kept moving the line ever westward whenever it suited British interests to do so.
 
Colonial treatment of natives and British treatment of natives are two totally different things

Britain was generally much better, it's true. But treating natives better than America or Spain did isn't the highest of bars to surmount, and Britain was certainly capable of forgetting obligations to native tribes *cough 1812* in pursuit of British interests *cough BNA cough*.
 
Britain was generally much better, it's true. But treating natives better than America or Spain did isn't the highest of bars to surmount, and Britain was certainly capable of forgetting obligations to native tribes *cough 1812* in pursuit of British interests *cough BNA cough*.

I'm curious what you think the British did to wrong the natives in 1812, because once Tecumseh died they pretty much evaporated as a force. And even before that they were only really there when the British were winning and had a nasty habit of not hanging around for the losses.
 
Top