|
|
Post by american2006 on Aug 14, 2020 18:59:21 GMT
Pretty much what it says. Would it become like Canada or something else?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,759 
Likes: 45,861
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 14, 2020 19:03:52 GMT
Pretty much what it says. Would it become like Canada or something else? More like British North America . |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Aug 15, 2020 11:44:14 GMT
Pretty much what it says. Would it become like Canada or something else?
Would depend over much on the circumstances, both in terms of what prevents the revolution/results in its defeat and for how things went in the following ~250 years.
I can't see it being 'part' of Britain as a unified state is unlikely to be that popular either side of the Atlantic, plus until say ~1900 technology limitations would make it difficult for it to be governed. Say if the imperial capital is still London and your a representative/MP/whatever who's constituency is in New York, let alone somewhere on the Pacific coast say. Going to be a right pain keeping in touch with your constituents and assorted interests and developments at home while representing them in London. Similarly for Britain if the imperial capital moved to New York say.
Suspect you would have some sort of loose federation like the early US, unless there was some crisis such as the OTL CW which prompted it to increase central power. Most likely that would occur over time as government gets more complex and more demands are made on it. Or given the size as its likely to include OTL Canada and possibly other areas a number of federations. That might be something that Britain would welcome rather than one 'state' that would ultimately dominate the empire and similarly the early colonist who didn't want to be dominated by a bigger or economically more powerful colony alongside them.
I would suspect that it would be one or more kingdoms as many viewed that as the natural form of government with probably assorted younger sons being selected by federations as they gain increasing autonomy rather than one overall monarch. For the same reason as they wouldn't have a single unified government with Britain as the monarch wouldn't really be able to play their role in such a large and diverse set of states.
Quebec might be an exception here because of the French culture as its most likely to want to go its own way to avoid being dominated by a massively larger English speaking state.
This of course assumes that everything goes pretty well. There are bound to be differences and conflicts both between Britain and N American and between elements and groups in the latter. Obvious one is when the imperial parliament bans slavery, which is almost certain to happen before large scale autonomy for the colonies but probably a bit later than OTL [1833] simply because of the presence of the southern mainland colonies boosting pro-slavery interests in Parliament. This is likely to lead to a conflict with the mainland south probably being joined by some elements in the Caribbean colonies - although they would be very vulnerable simply because of the huge disparity between the slaves and the white population which could make a lot of the planter communities there cautious about joining such a rebellion. This is likely to be a short war simply because the rebel areas were so heavily outclassed when Britain is added to the anti-secession movement and given it would have a much larger army and of course navy to be committed against the relative small levees the rebels would be raising. Unless of course we get a larger scale version of what the last states did that joined the confederacy OTL, i.e. supporting their right to leave and/or to maintain slavery. This could be either because they agree on that in itself or because they want to challenge London's right to make such decisions for them. In which case depending on the support for rebellion, plus of course what's happening elsewhere in the world this could be a long war or even a rebel victory that divides BNA permanently.
Another possibility would be if Britain decided to go to free trade sometime as happened in the 1840's. This would, if also imposed on the colonies, mean they had to compete with growing European industrial powers, Even if not they have lost privileged access to the rich British and other imperial markets as they would have to compete with other rivals worldwide. This could be especially important in terms of production of food and other primary products. By this time and especially if a conflict over slavery has been successfully resolved, your likely to see an increase in autonomy among the colonies, possibly with something like dominion status being established after the defeat of the slavers revolt. In that case as OTL with Canada after 1867 the dominions are likely to establish their own tariffs, including against British exports.
Basically its such a huge subject you could see just about anything happen in terms of relationship between Britain and its NA settlements from a close unified state [although I think that unlikely] to bitter hostility, and with the former BNA similarly being a unified, although probably largely federal systems to a number of scattered units that could be anything from best of friends to bitter enemies.
Steve
|
|
mspence
Warrant Officer
Posts: 236
Likes: 204
|
Post by mspence on Aug 23, 2020 0:13:21 GMT
Politically the colonies would be dominated by the loyalists who originally fled in OTL. Any remaining resistance would probably be in New England or out in what was then the frontier. One question would be what happens to someone like Jefferson or Franklin, who had a great deal of respect and admiration on both sides of the Atlantic? Also what role would the Americans play in the Napoleonic Wars?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Aug 23, 2020 10:27:44 GMT
Politically the colonies would be dominated by the loyalists who originally fled in OTL. Any remaining resistance would probably be in New England or out in what was then the frontier. One question would be what happens to someone like Jefferson or Franklin, who had a great deal of respect and admiration on both sides of the Atlantic? Also what role would the Americans play in the Napoleonic Wars?
It would all depend on the circumstances. How much did Britain make in concession, which seems to have been the standard tactic after suppressing a rebellion/unrest in settler colonies and how many hard line fanatics would still be unhappy? Could still be a big problem or if their just a few groups killing people and causing devastation in isolated communities they could have just about everybody turning against them. Plus there is a difference between new unrest in the Revolutionary period and when Napoleon was at his height. It took a while for the revolution to be more than an unpleasant issue [to the assorted ruling dynasties especially] inside France and before it became a massive revolution throwing much western Europe into chaos. As such if there was a major revolt in the colonies in the early 1790's Britain could well end up concentrating on suppressing that with the support of loyalists - plus probably a lot of non-aligned who would take the view "we don't want to go through all that chaos and destruction again" before revolutionary France became a real threat. Something happening later when Napoleon - or some alternative military dictator - comes to power and has a similar level of success and it could be more of a threat. especially since the horror of the 1770's revolt would have faded somewhat by that time.
Plus a new war with France/Spain for a loyalist dominated BNA has attractions with currently Spanish controlled New Orleans and Louisiana being very exposed to British and colonial forces. As well as the desire for RN protection for its trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Aug 25, 2020 21:21:11 GMT
Reactionary Planters as the ruling elite on the model of the Antebellum South but writ large as Slavery would spread across most of the BNA. The UK probably collapses in Republican unrest in the 1840s, with the Monarchy and others fleeing to the BNA, as a result of them refusing to move against slavery in part. If they do, however, then you get a Pan-BNA revolt in, say, the 1830s and it will be successful without question.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Aug 26, 2020 10:39:08 GMT
Reactionary Planters as the ruling elite on the model of the Antebellum South but writ large as Slavery would spread across most of the BNA. The UK probably collapses in Republican unrest in the 1840s, with the Monarchy and others fleeing to the BNA, as a result of them refusing to move against slavery in part. If they do, however, then you get a Pan-BNA revolt in, say, the 1830s and it will be successful without question.
Slavery was declining across most of the new US in this period and in the ATL your likely to have more pressure against it as Britain pushes for its ending. There will be a little more support for it in the American colonies, and their influence in Parliament because it will be boosted by the Caribbean planters. However the move is still against slavery. There could well be a successionist war to sustain slavery but its likely to be defeated a lot quicker as while the slave states might be a little more numerous the north is also larger, as Canadian colonies will definitely oppose it and of course with Britain you have a very large navy and a regular army from day one rather than both sides largely starting from scratch from a very small base as OTL.
As you point out your assuming that a reactionary plantocracy dominate the lower and possibly middle colonies and that's likely to cause a lot of resentment in other groups in the south as well as across much of the northern colonies. Plus while the plantation owners in the Caribbean may want to maintain slavery they will be aware that open revolt against Britain on the issue will leave them very vulnerable to both military action by Britain and by slave revolts. [Which are likely to be suppressed by white forces from either side when they arrive but very likely too late for any planters and their families.
The other factor of course was that Britain was willing to pay compensation for the loss of their property. Would be more complex here assuming slavery still spreads so rapidly across the deep south as there are markedly larger numbers and also the American colonies will have a large [possibly very large] measure of self-rule. However if Britain does it for the Caribbean colonies there might be a move for a combined British/BNA scheme to compensate slave owners for emancipation which could win over many depending on the reaction in the north anti-slavery colonies.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Aug 26, 2020 16:00:59 GMT
Reactionary Planters as the ruling elite on the model of the Antebellum South but writ large as Slavery would spread across most of the BNA. The UK probably collapses in Republican unrest in the 1840s, with the Monarchy and others fleeing to the BNA, as a result of them refusing to move against slavery in part. If they do, however, then you get a Pan-BNA revolt in, say, the 1830s and it will be successful without question.
Slavery was declining across most of the new US in this period and in the ATL your likely to have more pressure against it as Britain pushes for its ending. There will be a little more support for it in the American colonies, and their influence in Parliament because it will be boosted by the Caribbean planters. However the move is still against slavery. There could well be a successionist war to sustain slavery but its likely to be defeated a lot quicker as while the slave states might be a little more numerous the north is also larger, as Canadian colonies will definitely oppose it and of course with Britain you have a very large navy and a regular army from day one rather than both sides largely starting from scratch from a very small base as OTL.
As you point out your assuming that a reactionary plantocracy dominate the lower and possibly middle colonies and that's likely to cause a lot of resentment in other groups in the south as well as across much of the northern colonies. Plus while the plantation owners in the Caribbean may want to maintain slavery they will be aware that open revolt against Britain on the issue will leave them very vulnerable to both military action by Britain and by slave revolts. [Which are likely to be suppressed by white forces from either side when they arrive but very likely too late for any planters and their families.
The other factor of course was that Britain was willing to pay compensation for the loss of their property. Would be more complex here assuming slavery still spreads so rapidly across the deep south as there are markedly larger numbers and also the American colonies will have a large [possibly very large] measure of self-rule. However if Britain does it for the Caribbean colonies there might be a move for a combined British/BNA scheme to compensate slave owners for emancipation which could win over many depending on the reaction in the north anti-slavery colonies.
Post Revolution many State level laws were passed even before the 1807 ban which, due to the continued influence of the same merchants without the body blow of the Revolution, will lead to even greater influx of slaves from the 1770s onwards. Slavery likely becomes entrenched in New Jersey and New York, as well as spreads into what IOTL became the Midwest; it was already pretty heavy on the ground in Illinois and Indiana historically. Slavery and Jeffersonian Virginia by Robert McColley argues that, in the absence of the Cotton Gin or the ban(s) on the importation of slaves, Illinois and Indiana would've become Slave States. Here, with the Royal African Company keeping it open, they will for sure. Compensation won't work because the value of Slaves in the U.S. even IOTL was $3 Billion, and here's it expanded; the UK would literally go broke trying. Attempting to unilaterally do so? Well then the BNA rises up and the British are defeated, as not even New England will be Pro-Slave Power given IOTL the were largely responsible for the building of the shipping and crews needed for said shipping prior to the end of the Slave Trade. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Aug 27, 2020 12:44:56 GMT
Slavery was declining across most of the new US in this period and in the ATL your likely to have more pressure against it as Britain pushes for its ending. There will be a little more support for it in the American colonies, and their influence in Parliament because it will be boosted by the Caribbean planters. However the move is still against slavery. There could well be a successionist war to sustain slavery but its likely to be defeated a lot quicker as while the slave states might be a little more numerous the north is also larger, as Canadian colonies will definitely oppose it and of course with Britain you have a very large navy and a regular army from day one rather than both sides largely starting from scratch from a very small base as OTL.
As you point out your assuming that a reactionary plantocracy dominate the lower and possibly middle colonies and that's likely to cause a lot of resentment in other groups in the south as well as across much of the northern colonies. Plus while the plantation owners in the Caribbean may want to maintain slavery they will be aware that open revolt against Britain on the issue will leave them very vulnerable to both military action by Britain and by slave revolts. [Which are likely to be suppressed by white forces from either side when they arrive but very likely too late for any planters and their families.
The other factor of course was that Britain was willing to pay compensation for the loss of their property. Would be more complex here assuming slavery still spreads so rapidly across the deep south as there are markedly larger numbers and also the American colonies will have a large [possibly very large] measure of self-rule. However if Britain does it for the Caribbean colonies there might be a move for a combined British/BNA scheme to compensate slave owners for emancipation which could win over many depending on the reaction in the north anti-slavery colonies.
Post Revolution many State level laws were passed even before the 1807 ban which, due to the continued influence of the same merchants without the body blow of the Revolution, will lead to even greater influx of slaves from the 1770s onwards. Slavery likely becomes entrenched in New Jersey and New York, as well as spreads into what IOTL became the Midwest; it was already pretty heavy on the ground in Illinois and Indiana historically. Slavery and Jeffersonian Virginia by Robert McColley argues that, in the absence of the Cotton Gin or the ban(s) on the importation of slaves, Illinois and Indiana would've become Slave States. Here, with the Royal African Company keeping it open, they will for sure. Compensation won't work because the value of Slaves in the U.S. even IOTL was $3 Billion, and here's it expanded; the UK would literally go broke trying. Attempting to unilaterally do so? Well then the BNA rises up and the British are defeated, as not even New England will be Pro-Slave Power given IOTL the were largely responsible for the building of the shipping and crews needed for said shipping prior to the end of the Slave Trade.
That link just loops back to this page but some interesting details there. Must admit I've never heard of this before so that might well change things somewhat. However I think its unlikely that support for the slave trade will last much longer than OTL [1807] and a greater number of slaves being imported into the colonies might bring this forward both because those greater numbers, if they still occur would highlight the issue further and because any settlement of differences between London and the colonies is likely to give greater powers to the latter. Plus its obvious that while some elements in the colonies may have wanted to restrict/end the slave trade others supported it as the Royal African Company and others will only be buying slaves and sending them to the colonies as long as there are people eager to buy them. Ditto as you say with the colonial based merchants involved in the trade.
At that point the issue is local support for the continuation of slavery itself which is likely to be largely confined to the south because of the profits possible once the cotton gin is developed and similarly the Caribbean Islands. As OTL, apart from the growing hostility towards the institution from Britain many in the more northern colonies are going to want to restrict it because black slave labour will undercut their own economic interests.
Another possible factor, if say there is fighting between rebels and loyalist, Britain recruits more black troops by offering them freedom in exchange for service. This would provide an [admittedly small] free black element as well as the white groups who would have the interest in limiting/ending both the slave trade and the institution. However this is unlikely to be a major factor.
One other issue is that if Indian rights get more protection, especially the 5 civilised tribes in the south then there will be less room for either a) Slave plantations b) Free white settlement - which would further increase pressure against slaves being brought in.
Not saying that the tribes will keep all of their land but their likely to keep some and for longer which will have an impact. I know some of the southern tribes also engaged in plantation slavery but think this was in relatively small numbers and again such activities would prompt opposition from other tribal members, especially when their lands are already under pressure from white settlers.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Aug 28, 2020 2:25:43 GMT
In the lead-up to the Revolution many of the colonies were attempting to heavily regulate if not outright ban the Slave trade, which was denied by the Crown due to the influence of the merchants involved in the trade:Post Revolution many State level laws were passed even before the 1807 ban which, due to the continued influence of the same merchants without the body blow of the Revolution, will lead to even greater influx of slaves from the 1770s onwards. Slavery likely becomes entrenched in New Jersey and New York, as well as spreads into what IOTL became the Midwest; it was already pretty heavy on the ground in Illinois and Indiana historically. Slavery and Jeffersonian Virginia by Robert McColley argues that, in the absence of the Cotton Gin or the ban(s) on the importation of slaves, Illinois and Indiana would've become Slave States. Here, with the Royal African Company keeping it open, they will for sure. Compensation won't work because the value of Slaves in the U.S. even IOTL was $3 Billion, and here's it expanded; the UK would literally go broke trying. Attempting to unilaterally do so? Well then the BNA rises up and the British are defeated, as not even New England will be Pro-Slave Power given IOTL the were largely responsible for the building of the shipping and crews needed for said shipping prior to the end of the Slave Trade.
That link just loops back to this page but some interesting details there. Must admit I've never heard of this before so that might well change things somewhat. However I think its unlikely that support for the slave trade will last much longer than OTL [1807] and a greater number of slaves being imported into the colonies might bring this forward both because those greater numbers, if they still occur would highlight the issue further and because any settlement of differences between London and the colonies is likely to give greater powers to the latter. Plus its obvious that while some elements in the colonies may have wanted to restrict/end the slave trade others supported it as the Royal African Company and others will only be buying slaves and sending them to the colonies as long as there are people eager to buy them. Ditto as you say with the colonial based merchants involved in the trade.
At that point the issue is local support for the continuation of slavery itself which is likely to be largely confined to the south because of the profits possible once the cotton gin is developed and similarly the Caribbean Islands. As OTL, apart from the growing hostility towards the institution from Britain many in the more northern colonies are going to want to restrict it because black slave labour will undercut their own economic interests.
Another possible factor, if say there is fighting between rebels and loyalist, Britain recruits more black troops by offering them freedom in exchange for service. This would provide an [admittedly small] free black element as well as the white groups who would have the interest in limiting/ending both the slave trade and the institution. However this is unlikely to be a major factor.
One other issue is that if Indian rights get more protection, especially the 5 civilised tribes in the south then there will be less room for either a) Slave plantations b) Free white settlement - which would further increase pressure against slaves being brought in.
Not saying that the tribes will keep all of their land but their likely to keep some and for longer which will have an impact. I know some of the southern tribes also engaged in plantation slavery but think this was in relatively small numbers and again such activities would prompt opposition from other tribal members, especially when their lands are already under pressure from white settlers.
Steve
As for the matter of Slave states, slavery remained profitable in the North and always was; instead of cotton, in New York and New Jersey it was wheat and the ROA was extremely high. Little know fact there is that New Jersey kept slavery until 1846, while New York did so too until 1826. Even if we presume the slave trade still ends in 1807, the lack of state level bans from 1784 onward until then means there would be enough of a supply to ensure what historically was Illinois, Indiana and the aforementioned New York plus New Jersey are firm slave territories. The problem, as Dr. Robert McColley notes, was a lack of Slaves, which meant the Southeast developed a monopoly and that translated into slavery dying out elsewhere due to a lack of "supply". From this base, we can safely conclude that the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade probably will last much longer, given the influence of the Royal African Company and the high demand engendered by the opening up of the Western territories as well as the invention of the Cotton Gin. At some point, they probably will shut it down but by that point slavery is firmly entrenched throughout the BNA, making any effort at compensated emancipation fiscally impossible and attempts to do it without said compensation will trigger a rebellion that Britain will simply be unable to suppress. If they couldn't do it in the 1770s, I fail to see how they could in 1840 when the BNA has surpassed the UK in population and is far more advanced in every category compared to that earlier era. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Aug 28, 2020 10:23:17 GMT
That link just loops back to this page but some interesting details there. Must admit I've never heard of this before so that might well change things somewhat. However I think its unlikely that support for the slave trade will last much longer than OTL [1807] and a greater number of slaves being imported into the colonies might bring this forward both because those greater numbers, if they still occur would highlight the issue further and because any settlement of differences between London and the colonies is likely to give greater powers to the latter. Plus its obvious that while some elements in the colonies may have wanted to restrict/end the slave trade others supported it as the Royal African Company and others will only be buying slaves and sending them to the colonies as long as there are people eager to buy them. Ditto as you say with the colonial based merchants involved in the trade.
At that point the issue is local support for the continuation of slavery itself which is likely to be largely confined to the south because of the profits possible once the cotton gin is developed and similarly the Caribbean Islands. As OTL, apart from the growing hostility towards the institution from Britain many in the more northern colonies are going to want to restrict it because black slave labour will undercut their own economic interests.
Another possible factor, if say there is fighting between rebels and loyalist, Britain recruits more black troops by offering them freedom in exchange for service. This would provide an [admittedly small] free black element as well as the white groups who would have the interest in limiting/ending both the slave trade and the institution. However this is unlikely to be a major factor.
One other issue is that if Indian rights get more protection, especially the 5 civilised tribes in the south then there will be less room for either a) Slave plantations b) Free white settlement - which would further increase pressure against slaves being brought in.
Not saying that the tribes will keep all of their land but their likely to keep some and for longer which will have an impact. I know some of the southern tribes also engaged in plantation slavery but think this was in relatively small numbers and again such activities would prompt opposition from other tribal members, especially when their lands are already under pressure from white settlers.
Steve
As for the matter of Slave states, slavery remained profitable in the North and always was; instead of cotton, in New York and New Jersey it was wheat and the ROA was extremely high. Little know fact there is that New Jersey kept slavery until 1846, while New York did so too until 1826. Even if we presume the slave trade still ends in 1807, the lack of state level bans from 1784 onward until then means there would be enough of a supply to ensure what historically was Illinois, Indiana and the aforementioned New York plus New Jersey are firm slave territories. The problem, as Dr. Robert McColley notes, was a lack of Slaves, which meant the Southeast developed a monopoly and that translated into slavery dying out elsewhere due to a lack of "supply". From this base, we can safely conclude that the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade probably will last much longer, given the influence of the Royal African Company and the high demand engendered by the opening up of the Western territories as well as the invention of the Cotton Gin. At some point, they probably will shut it down but by that point slavery is firmly entrenched throughout the BNA, making any effort at compensated emancipation fiscally impossible and attempts to do it without said compensation will trigger a rebellion that Britain will simply be unable to suppress. If they couldn't do it in the 1770s, I fail to see how they could in 1840 when the BNA has surpassed the UK in population and is far more advanced in every category compared to that earlier era.
Thanks for the link. Interesting split personality in the US after the war. Legal restrictions on the trade but still a lot of illegal imports of slaves before the trade was formally reopened.
The Royal_African_Company influence - or rather its successor the African_Company_of_Merchants, was overcome OTL so I see no great reason why it shouldn't be here as well. The old RAC became bankrupt in 1708 and largely moribund until its replacement but the ACM in 1752, something which your link seems to have failed to understand. By the 1770's there were increasing pressure against the trade in Britain, as well as slavery itself. The pro-slave factions in the colonies may delay this somewhat but that wouldn't be indefinitely. A lot would also depend on how much local power the colonies would have. Expecting it to be more than OTL by ~1800 but would it be enough to stop Britain banning the trade - and later slavery itself - in the colonies. Attempts to import slaves to the US wouldn't in this scenario have the OTL loop-hole that the US insisted that suspected traders flying the US flag could only be searched by one of the few US navy ships that took part in the anti-slavery patrols.
I'm also doubtful that the northern colonies would have massive investments in opening up new territory in the 'old NW' area. For one thing this is going to be bitterly opposed by the bulk of the white population as that would deny them land themselves. For another your assuming that those lands will be opened up to massed settlement. Until their transfer in 1783 they were part of Canada - and I think that transferring those territories was a serious mistake by Britain. For another settlement was restricted by agreement between Britain and the assorted Indian tribes in the aftermath of the Pontiac War. Yes they won't block settlement totally but its likely to delay matters, especially since the Canadian merchants had interests in the fur trade from this region. For another as long as Britain gives more than token support to the agreement the colonists won't be able to crush the Indians by force as they did OTL, which took a lot of fighting and a number of serious defeat.
As I said earlier you could also see reduced market for slaves in the deep south for a similar reason as the Indian tribes there are likely to hold onto more of their land for longer.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Aug 30, 2020 16:16:20 GMT
Here's the link.As for the matter of Slave states, slavery remained profitable in the North and always was; instead of cotton, in New York and New Jersey it was wheat and the ROA was extremely high. Little know fact there is that New Jersey kept slavery until 1846, while New York did so too until 1826. Even if we presume the slave trade still ends in 1807, the lack of state level bans from 1784 onward until then means there would be enough of a supply to ensure what historically was Illinois, Indiana and the aforementioned New York plus New Jersey are firm slave territories. The problem, as Dr. Robert McColley notes, was a lack of Slaves, which meant the Southeast developed a monopoly and that translated into slavery dying out elsewhere due to a lack of "supply". From this base, we can safely conclude that the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade probably will last much longer, given the influence of the Royal African Company and the high demand engendered by the opening up of the Western territories as well as the invention of the Cotton Gin. At some point, they probably will shut it down but by that point slavery is firmly entrenched throughout the BNA, making any effort at compensated emancipation fiscally impossible and attempts to do it without said compensation will trigger a rebellion that Britain will simply be unable to suppress. If they couldn't do it in the 1770s, I fail to see how they could in 1840 when the BNA has surpassed the UK in population and is far more advanced in every category compared to that earlier era.
Thanks for the link. Interesting split personality in the US after the war. Legal restrictions on the trade but still a lot of illegal imports of slaves before the trade was formally reopened.
The Royal_African_Company influence - or rather its successor the African_Company_of_Merchants, was overcome OTL so I see no great reason why it shouldn't be here as well. The old RAC became bankrupt in 1708 and largely moribund until its replacement but the ACM in 1752, something which your link seems to have failed to understand. By the 1770's there were increasing pressure against the trade in Britain, as well as slavery itself. The pro-slave factions in the colonies may delay this somewhat but that wouldn't be indefinitely. A lot would also depend on how much local power the colonies would have. Expecting it to be more than OTL by ~1800 but would it be enough to stop Britain banning the trade - and later slavery itself - in the colonies. Attempts to import slaves to the US wouldn't in this scenario have the OTL loop-hole that the US insisted that suspected traders flying the US flag could only be searched by one of the few US navy ships that took part in the anti-slavery patrols.
I'm also doubtful that the northern colonies would have massive investments in opening up new territory in the 'old NW' area. For one thing this is going to be bitterly opposed by the bulk of the white population as that would deny them land themselves. For another your assuming that those lands will be opened up to massed settlement. Until their transfer in 1783 they were part of Canada - and I think that transferring those territories was a serious mistake by Britain. For another settlement was restricted by agreement between Britain and the assorted Indian tribes in the aftermath of the Pontiac War. Yes they won't block settlement totally but its likely to delay matters, especially since the Canadian merchants had interests in the fur trade from this region. For another as long as Britain gives more than token support to the agreement the colonists won't be able to crush the Indians by force as they did OTL, which took a lot of fighting and a number of serious defeat.
As I said earlier you could also see reduced market for slaves in the deep south for a similar reason as the Indian tribes there are likely to hold onto more of their land for longer.
Steve
The RAC was not overcome politically; the ARW forced its hand by removing its markets. Without said markets, it lost its influence in London-both with the Crown and the Parliament. That situation does not occur here, given the British retain the colonies. Indeed, as late as 1800 only about 11 percent of all slaves lived on cotton plantations while concurrent to this about as many Africans were brought into the United States (from 1780 to 1810) as during the previous 160 years prior. This is explained by the fact that alternatives to cotton existed, such as tobacco still being profitable in Virginia and Maryland, while rice was likewise in the South Carolina lowlands. The aforementioned tobacco was also growing in importance, as cultivation had spread into new regions such as South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Slaves were also used in the production of rice, sugar and grains; that last one in particular is major, as the South produced more corn than the North as late as 1860 and the value of that exceeded the value of the cotton crop:  In short, it's too profitable and becoming more so by this time for the British to be able to do anything against it or, indeed, want to do something against it. I expect the Slave Trade will still be ended, but probably delayed; perhaps 1817 instead of 1807? I do not see Emancipation occurring at all here, given Britain cannot afford compensated, while attempting to force the issue will surely provoke a revolt. With Slavery established in the North and the increasing profitability of it, there can be no doubt the North will join with the South in wanting to open up the Midwest. Why would slave owning Northerners oppose expanding slavery further? The Free Soiler position of OTL was solely a result of slavery failing to get established in the North, not the inevitability of that position. The Southern States historically show this in action, given the widespread support for slavery among all strata of the White population. Finally, even if we take that position of a Free Soiler stance, they still have every cause to hate Britain and this issue gives them something to unite with the majority slave holder position: the British aren't letting them settle in the West. They will unite with the Slave holders in rebellion as a result. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Aug 31, 2020 10:50:24 GMT
Thanks for the link. Interesting split personality in the US after the war. Legal restrictions on the trade but still a lot of illegal imports of slaves before the trade was formally reopened.
The Royal_African_Company influence - or rather its successor the African_Company_of_Merchants, was overcome OTL so I see no great reason why it shouldn't be here as well. The old RAC became bankrupt in 1708 and largely moribund until its replacement but the ACM in 1752, something which your link seems to have failed to understand. By the 1770's there were increasing pressure against the trade in Britain, as well as slavery itself. The pro-slave factions in the colonies may delay this somewhat but that wouldn't be indefinitely. A lot would also depend on how much local power the colonies would have. Expecting it to be more than OTL by ~1800 but would it be enough to stop Britain banning the trade - and later slavery itself - in the colonies. Attempts to import slaves to the US wouldn't in this scenario have the OTL loop-hole that the US insisted that suspected traders flying the US flag could only be searched by one of the few US navy ships that took part in the anti-slavery patrols.
I'm also doubtful that the northern colonies would have massive investments in opening up new territory in the 'old NW' area. For one thing this is going to be bitterly opposed by the bulk of the white population as that would deny them land themselves. For another your assuming that those lands will be opened up to massed settlement. Until their transfer in 1783 they were part of Canada - and I think that transferring those territories was a serious mistake by Britain. For another settlement was restricted by agreement between Britain and the assorted Indian tribes in the aftermath of the Pontiac War. Yes they won't block settlement totally but its likely to delay matters, especially since the Canadian merchants had interests in the fur trade from this region. For another as long as Britain gives more than token support to the agreement the colonists won't be able to crush the Indians by force as they did OTL, which took a lot of fighting and a number of serious defeat.
As I said earlier you could also see reduced market for slaves in the deep south for a similar reason as the Indian tribes there are likely to hold onto more of their land for longer.
Steve
The RAC was not overcome politically; the ARW forced its hand by removing its markets. Without said markets, it lost its influence in London-both with the Crown and the Parliament. That situation does not occur here, given the British retain the colonies. Indeed, as late as 1800 only about 11 percent of all slaves lived on cotton plantations while concurrent to this about as many Africans were brought into the United States (from 1780 to 1810) as during the previous 160 years prior. This is explained by the fact that alternatives to cotton existed, such as tobacco still being profitable in Virginia and Maryland, while rice was likewise in the South Carolina lowlands. The aforementioned tobacco was also growing in importance, as cultivation had spread into new regions such as South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Slaves were also used in the production of rice, sugar and grains; that last one in particular is major, as the South produced more corn than the North as late as 1860 and the value of that exceeded the value of the cotton crop: In short, it's too profitable and becoming more so by this time for the British to be able to do anything against it or, indeed, want to do something against it. I expect the Slave Trade will still be ended, but probably delayed; perhaps 1817 instead of 1807? I do not see Emancipation occurring at all here, given Britain cannot afford compensated, while attempting to force the issue will surely provoke a revolt. With Slavery established in the North and the increasing profitability of it, there can be no doubt the North will join with the South in wanting to open up the Midwest. Why would slave owning Northerners oppose expanding slavery further? The Free Soiler position of OTL was solely a result of slavery failing to get established in the North, not the inevitability of that position. The Southern States historically show this in action, given the widespread support for slavery among all strata of the White population. Finally, even if we take that position of a Free Soiler stance, they still have every cause to hate Britain and this issue gives them something to unite with the majority slave holder position: the British aren't letting them settle in the West. They will unite with the Slave holders in rebellion as a result.
Your contradicting yourself here. Earlier claiming that Britain was forcing slaves on unwilling colonists then pointing out that once independent the Americans greatly increased the purchase of slaves from west Africa. Similarly with your repeating that a largely defunct organisation was so powerful. I suspect the problem might be your sources is unreliable. As admitted it quoted an ardent slaver owner complaining about Britain supporting slavery! It could be like the old myth I complained about in another thread, about the British burning Washington in 1814, which simply never happened. Because their grounds for rebellion were distinctly flawed the rebels took an extreme stance and sought to demonize Britain and its actions and that's a fundamental part of their creation mythology. Which is a different thing from actual history.
Also your ignoring the dynamics as I mentioned. If the colonies stay under imperial control land will be more restricted as the Indians won't be slaughtered/expelled as quickly or completely. This will give even greater impulse to the free soil movement. Slavery will become as unpopular in the north as in Britain, albeit for economic reasons as much as moral. As such while it might well still get embedded in the deep south, although probably not as greatly, its going to face opposition in the north as well as Britain.
The last section demonstrating your failing to understand what's going on. For one thing why should free soilers want to make sure slavery survives to expand into the west and deny them opportunities? That makes no sense at all. For another I clearly stated that the seizure of native lands is still almost certain to occur but its likely to be somewhat more limited and less bloody. Especially if London does what Washington didn't and accepts Indians as citizens. There will still be plenty of land in the west, especially assuming the Mississippi is crossed, which seems pretty certain.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Sept 1, 2020 23:24:56 GMT
The RAC was not overcome politically; the ARW forced its hand by removing its markets. Without said markets, it lost its influence in London-both with the Crown and the Parliament. That situation does not occur here, given the British retain the colonies. Indeed, as late as 1800 only about 11 percent of all slaves lived on cotton plantations while concurrent to this about as many Africans were brought into the United States (from 1780 to 1810) as during the previous 160 years prior. This is explained by the fact that alternatives to cotton existed, such as tobacco still being profitable in Virginia and Maryland, while rice was likewise in the South Carolina lowlands. The aforementioned tobacco was also growing in importance, as cultivation had spread into new regions such as South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Slaves were also used in the production of rice, sugar and grains; that last one in particular is major, as the South produced more corn than the North as late as 1860 and the value of that exceeded the value of the cotton crop: In short, it's too profitable and becoming more so by this time for the British to be able to do anything against it or, indeed, want to do something against it. I expect the Slave Trade will still be ended, but probably delayed; perhaps 1817 instead of 1807? I do not see Emancipation occurring at all here, given Britain cannot afford compensated, while attempting to force the issue will surely provoke a revolt. With Slavery established in the North and the increasing profitability of it, there can be no doubt the North will join with the South in wanting to open up the Midwest. Why would slave owning Northerners oppose expanding slavery further? The Free Soiler position of OTL was solely a result of slavery failing to get established in the North, not the inevitability of that position. The Southern States historically show this in action, given the widespread support for slavery among all strata of the White population. Finally, even if we take that position of a Free Soiler stance, they still have every cause to hate Britain and this issue gives them something to unite with the majority slave holder position: the British aren't letting them settle in the West. They will unite with the Slave holders in rebellion as a result.
Your contradicting yourself here. Earlier claiming that Britain was forcing slaves on unwilling colonists then pointing out that once independent the Americans greatly increased the purchase of slaves from west Africa. Similarly with your repeating that a largely defunct organisation was so powerful. I suspect the problem might be your sources is unreliable. As admitted it quoted an ardent slaver owner complaining about Britain supporting slavery! It could be like the old myth I complained about in another thread, about the British burning Washington in 1814, which simply never happened. Because their grounds for rebellion were distinctly flawed the rebels took an extreme stance and sought to demonize Britain and its actions and that's a fundamental part of their creation mythology. Which is a different thing from actual history.
Also your ignoring the dynamics as I mentioned. If the colonies stay under imperial control land will be more restricted as the Indians won't be slaughtered/expelled as quickly or completely. This will give even greater impulse to the free soil movement. Slavery will become as unpopular in the north as in Britain, albeit for economic reasons as much as moral. As such while it might well still get embedded in the deep south, although probably not as greatly, its going to face opposition in the north as well as Britain.
The last section demonstrating your failing to understand what's going on. For one thing why should free soilers want to make sure slavery survives to expand into the west and deny them opportunities? That makes no sense at all. For another I clearly stated that the seizure of native lands is still almost certain to occur but its likely to be somewhat more limited and less bloody. Especially if London does what Washington didn't and accepts Indians as citizens. There will still be plenty of land in the west, especially assuming the Mississippi is crossed, which seems pretty certain. I'm not; I've provided the source material to prove everything I've said. That political authorities were seeking to limit the slave trade despite the rapid increase in the influx of new slaves is not a contradiction, it's just basic smuggling at play and continued on in limited form after 1807 as you've noted previously. If you believe the source is flawed, the onerous is on you to prove such. With regards to the dynamics at play, I just don't see any. New England won't become Anti-Slavery as long as the Slave trade is active, given they provide the ships and sailors for such while New Jersey and New York will benefit immensely given how profitable slavery was there. Whether we accept the idea the Indians are going to be less genocided or not is pretty irrelevant, as long as the White population is behind it; by 1840, the U.S. IOTL was already at a rough parity with the UK. All financial, political and military levers of power will be firmly ensconced in their hands. This is, again, to concede to the idea the Indians will be better off in a BNA; judging by Canada, that's a no and ignores that IOTL how much slavery proliferated among the "Five Tribes". There is a reason, after all, they largely sided with the Confederates historically. As for the last section, I fully understand what's going on, I'm just saying it's not a valid argument. Why would the Free Soilers side with the British who are limiting movement into the West? Either Britain will have to sacrifice the Indians or Britain will see a totally united White populace against it, for reasons pertaining to both Slavery and Western Expansion. This is, again, to concede to the idea of a large Free Soil movement. If all but Pennsylvania and New England are "Slave States", where exactly are they to come from? It's worth noting at this juncture both New York City and New Jersey IOTL considered seceding from the U.S. and joining the Confederacy given their business ties to the South; here, this would be even stronger given New Jersey, New York, and the Midwest are all already Slave territories with regards to the aforementioned Pennsylvania and New England. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Sept 2, 2020 10:25:27 GMT
Your contradicting yourself here. Earlier claiming that Britain was forcing slaves on unwilling colonists then pointing out that once independent the Americans greatly increased the purchase of slaves from west Africa. Similarly with your repeating that a largely defunct organisation was so powerful. I suspect the problem might be your sources is unreliable. As admitted it quoted an ardent slaver owner complaining about Britain supporting slavery! It could be like the old myth I complained about in another thread, about the British burning Washington in 1814, which simply never happened. Because their grounds for rebellion were distinctly flawed the rebels took an extreme stance and sought to demonize Britain and its actions and that's a fundamental part of their creation mythology. Which is a different thing from actual history.
Also your ignoring the dynamics as I mentioned. If the colonies stay under imperial control land will be more restricted as the Indians won't be slaughtered/expelled as quickly or completely. This will give even greater impulse to the free soil movement. Slavery will become as unpopular in the north as in Britain, albeit for economic reasons as much as moral. As such while it might well still get embedded in the deep south, although probably not as greatly, its going to face opposition in the north as well as Britain.
The last section demonstrating your failing to understand what's going on. For one thing why should free soilers want to make sure slavery survives to expand into the west and deny them opportunities? That makes no sense at all. For another I clearly stated that the seizure of native lands is still almost certain to occur but its likely to be somewhat more limited and less bloody. Especially if London does what Washington didn't and accepts Indians as citizens. There will still be plenty of land in the west, especially assuming the Mississippi is crossed, which seems pretty certain. I'm not; I've provided the source material to prove everything I've said. That political authorities were seeking to limit the slave trade despite the rapid increase in the influx of new slaves is not a contradiction, it's just basic smuggling at play and continued on in limited form after 1807 as you've noted previously. If you believe the source is flawed, the onerous is on you to prove such.
I think you are. Your entire argument is based on the suggestion that the British, because of the influence of the no longer existing RAC prevented the colonists blocking slave imports, despite the fact that slaves could only be imported if there was a demand for them. Then you mention how greatly imports of slaves increased in the 30 years after the US became independent and the UK no longer had any influence over the issue. Its noted that for most of this time the trade was still legal and that even afterwards many in the US government and individual states still turned a blind eye to it.
I believe the source could be flawed simply because of the simple factual error mentioned. If the author doesn't even know that the RAC no longer existed then it suggests a flaw in research at least.
New England became anti-slavery despite a lot of its merchants and seamen being involved in the trade OTL so that's unlikely to change.
The Indians were clearly better treated in Canada than the US with far less slaughter and deportation. This may be in part because of the lower settler population in the north and the fact with an aggressive US to the south internal disputes were best avoided. This could be different in TTL but as I've said repeatedly it would be a matter of degree. Both in the Canadian provinces and the southern OTL US there are going to be a lot of white settlers moving west but its likely to be a bit more restricted than OTL.
As for the last section, I fully understand what's going on, I'm just saying it's not a valid argument. Why would the Free Soilers side with the British who are limiting movement into the West? Either Britain will have to sacrifice the Indians or Britain will see a totally united White populace against it, for reasons pertaining to both Slavery and Western Expansion. This is, again, to concede to the idea of a large Free Soil movement. If all but Pennsylvania and New England are "Slave States", where exactly are they to come from? It's worth noting at this juncture both New York City and New Jersey IOTL considered seceding from the U.S. and joining the Confederacy given their business ties to the South; here, this would be even stronger given New Jersey, New York, and the Midwest are all already Slave territories with regards to the aforementioned Pennsylvania and New England.
Why would Free Soilers side with the people who threaten them most? I.e. the plantation owners pushing the expansion of slavery everywhere. They will come from where they came from OT, i.e. people who felt threatened by slavery. Your arguing that the obsession with importing slaves in the colonies will mean they become overwhelmingly dominated by slave owners which seems less likely than OTL in a world where Britain still has direct influence on the colonies and is moving against both the trade and the institution of slavery.
I have read in the past that the state with the most slaves when the revolution started was in New York but the prominence fairly quickly faded and along with other northern states there was increasing opposition to slavery because of the economic threat to the free white setters. Why this wouldn't occur TTL I don't know. If there is somewhat less land for settlement opened in the west this is likely to intensify the tension between slavers and free soilers.
As I understand it the mayor of New York suggested the city secede from the Union in 1863 because of the citizens hostility to the recent introduction of conscription, which caused some pretty nasty riots as a result. In the midst of a war that was increasingly unpopular to many at that stage. Not heard of any such move in New Jersey but its not a field I'm an expert on.
|
|
