Britain, the United States, and African-Americans

[Fire_Unionist]

Looking here roughly at the American revolutionary war and to a lesser extent the war of 1812, what impact would a decisive British victory in either war have had--if any--on the material conditions of black Americans?

On the anti-slavery movement on both sides of the atlantic?

 

[Geriander]

It depends on how much influence Southern slave owners would have in Parliment. As things went it was possible for Britain to abolish slavery during the 1820’s. A defeated American revolution could have been politically diminished as a result of their defeat or they could have surrendered on the condition of greater influence. In the latter case slavery in the British Empire could have lived on for a few more decades.

Edit: Just noticed you emphasis on decisive. In that case an end to slavery during the 1820s is possible.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Looking here roughly at the American revolutionary war and to a lesser extent the war of 1812, what impact would a decisive British victory in either war have had--if any--on the material conditions of black Americans?

On the anti-slavery movement on both sides of the atlantic?

Probably negative. At least for the American Revolutionary war.

The success of the Revolution was actually a boon for anti-slavery sentiment. The slave trade and slavery itself was abolished in Northern states as a result of it, an offshoot of the enthusiastic wave of Enlightenment liberalism that came with success. And the South itself was leaning in that direction until cotton completely changed monetary calculations.

A decisive British victory in the 1780s would be a victory for Toryism and unenlightenment, i.e. hierarchical order. I don't see it helping enslaved blacks anywhere in the British empire.

Keep in mind the new liberal British Whigs - the conduit of the anti-slave trade and abolitionist movement of the early 19th C. - adopted Blue-and-Tan as its party colors in a not-so-concealed-nod to the uniforms of Washington's Continental army.

As to longer-term evolution, I don't see British retaining America being helpful. Once the Lancashire textile mills were up at the turn of the century, backing Southern "slave power" would be a significant factor in British political calculations. Not that that would need Southerners would be represented in parliament. But merely that Northerners wouldn't be either. British retention of America would make the Hamiltonian dream impossible. Who, beyond a bunch of evangelical hippies, would oppose slavery? That is, who would have a vested economic interest in opposing it?

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Pretty much agree with Abdul - there's also the issue that historically the emancipation of slaves in the British empire was only made acceptable by offering large amounts of compensation for former slaveowners for the loss of their "property." The British state could just about manage this for the West Indies and other colonies (with about 800,000 slaves), but compensating slaveowners in the American colonies as well (for around 2 million slaves by the early-1830s) would probably have been financially impossible.

So expect a later end to slavery, and either one that's more economically disruptive to former slaveowners or has slaves "buying" their own freedom through long periods of indentured labour.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Britain has a record of sheer hypocrisy on this matter:

'The air of Britain is so pure that any who stands on her soil is free' is talking out of one side of their mouth.

China, India and South Africa are what England does to minority populations out of view of Picadilly Square.

 

[SirNat]

Just look at the difference in the historical treatment between blacks in Canada vs treatment of blacks in America. The treatment of blacks is very much an American issue.

Historically the situation could not have gone much worse for black Americans. The question of slavery became a question of cultural identity for the south as it entwined in with their desires for autonomy. Slavery became the sacred flag through which southern states could raise to their own independence, the very extent that they would ultimately go to war over the matter. Black Americans ultimately became the tragic casualty of these fractions between the embryonic American states and their struggle for unity.

The success of the Revolution was actually a boon for anti-slavery sentiment. The slave trade and slavery itself was abolished in Northern states as a result of it, an offshoot of the enthusiastic wave of Enlightenment liberalism that came with success. And the South itself was leaning in that direction until cotton completely changed monetary calculations.

A decisive British victory in the 1780s would be a victory for Toryism and unenlightenment, i.e. hierarchical order. I don't see it helping enslaved blacks anywhere in the British empire.

Keep in mind the new liberal British Whigs - the conduit of the anti-slave trade and abolitionist movement of the early 19th C. - adopted Blue-and-Tan as its party colors in a not-so-concealed-nod to the uniforms of Washington's Continental army.

Firstly to dispel the ever going myth that Tory government never implemented changes during the early part of the 19th century- look at Catholic emancipation or the 1844 Factory Act. William Pitt the Younger was a great proponent of parliamentry reforms. Look throughout 19th century British history and you'll quickly realise Tory and Conservative governments were the governments that actually enacted tangible, meaningful reforms (instead of making wild promises and delivering little).

Also what is this nonsense about Lancashire mills putting pressure on a southern anti-slavery movement? Roberts Loom was only patented in 1830. Slavery was outright abolished 1833. The textile revolution only truly got moving in the middle of the 19th century, long after any slavery question was being debated in the Commons.

Who, beyond a bunch of evangelical hippies, would oppose slavery? That is, who would have a vested economic interest in opposing it?

1807 Slave Trade Act: 283 Votes for abolition, 16 Against Abolition. Note pre 1832 Great Reform Act)

If America had still been in the picture I don't think it would have shifted the picture all that much bearing in mind the West Indies still had a huge demand for cheap labour for the sugar plantations and yet the act was still comprehensively enforced. The compensation for slave owners would have simply been smaller than it historically was in 1833 on a pro rata level.

 

[Arilou]

1807 Slave Trade Act: 283 Votes for abolition, 16 Against Abolition. Note pre 1832 Great Reform Act)

Slave trading was far less controversial than abolition of slavery itself. Remember, the US technically banned the slave trade as well.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Just look at the difference in the historical treatment between blacks in Canada vs treatment of blacks in America. The treatment of blacks is very much an American issue.

Historically the situation could not have gone much worse for black Americans. The question of slavery became a question of cultural identity for the south as it entwined in with their desires for autonomy. Slavery became the sacred flag through which southern states could raise to their own independence, the very extent that they would ultimately go to war over the matter. Black Americans ultimately became the tragic casualty of these fractions between the embryonic American states and their struggle for unity.


Firstly to dispel the ever going myth that Tory government never implemented changes during the early part of the 19th century- look at Catholic emancipation or the 1844 Factory Act. William Pitt the Younger was a great proponent of parliamentry reforms. Look throughout 19th century British history and you'll quickly realise Tory and Conservative governments were the governments that actually enacted tangible, meaningful reforms (instead of making wild promises and delivering little).

Also what is this nonsense about Lancashire mills putting pressure on a southern anti-slavery movement? Roberts Loom was only patented in 1830. Slavery was outright abolished 1833. The textile revolution only truly got moving in the middle of the 19th century, long after any slavery question was being debated in the Commons.



1807 Slave Trade Act: 283 Votes for abolition, 16 Against Abolition. Note pre 1832 Great Reform Act)

If America had still been in the picture I don't think it would have shifted the picture all that much bearing in mind the West Indies still had a huge demand for cheap labour for the sugar plantations and yet the act was still comprehensively enforced. The compensation for slave owners would have simply been smaller than it historically was in 1833 on a pro rata level.

So, we should turn a blind eye to Britain's horrible race-based colonial policies lasting deep into the twentieth century because the air of Britain is too pure for a slave and every man who breathes it is free?

We have a word for that over on this side of the pond. I think it is spelled 'hypocrisy'.

 

[Herbert West]

So, we should turn a blind eye to Britain's horrible race-based colonial policies lasting deep into the twentieth century because the air of Britain is too pure for a slave and every man who breathes it is free?

We have a word for that over on this side of the pond. I think it is spelled 'hypocrisy'.

Aw, british and US nationalists trying to call each other hypocrite. Cute.

 

[Yakman]

Slave trading was far less controversial than abolition of slavery itself. Remember, the US technically banned the slave trade as well.

Sure did. And it's eventual ban was presaged in the Constitution - although in the negative, where it was to remain legal for what, 20 years?

 

[Yakman]

Just look at the difference in the historical treatment between blacks in Canada vs treatment of blacks in America. The treatment of blacks is very much an American issue.

Historically the situation could not have gone much worse for black Americans. The question of slavery became a question of cultural identity for the south as it entwined in with their desires for autonomy. Slavery became the sacred flag through which southern states could raise to their own independence, the very extent that they would ultimately go to war over the matter. Black Americans ultimately became the tragic casualty of these fractions between the embryonic American states and their struggle for unity.


Firstly to dispel the ever going myth that Tory government never implemented changes during the early part of the 19th century- look at Catholic emancipation or the 1844 Factory Act. William Pitt the Younger was a great proponent of parliamentry reforms. Look throughout 19th century British history and you'll quickly realise Tory and Conservative governments were the governments that actually enacted tangible, meaningful reforms (instead of making wild promises and delivering little).

Also what is this nonsense about Lancashire mills putting pressure on a southern anti-slavery movement? Roberts Loom was only patented in 1830. Slavery was outright abolished 1833. The textile revolution only truly got moving in the middle of the 19th century, long after any slavery question was being debated in the Commons.



1807 Slave Trade Act: 283 Votes for abolition, 16 Against Abolition. Note pre 1832 Great Reform Act)

If America had still been in the picture I don't think it would have shifted the picture all that much bearing in mind the West Indies still had a huge demand for cheap labour for the sugar plantations and yet the act was still comprehensively enforced. The compensation for slave owners would have simply been smaller than it historically was in 1833 on a pro rata level.

Britain also just imported Indians to work the cane.

It's not like they were going to cut it.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Britain also just imported Indians to work the cane.

It's not like they were going to cut it.

Yes. Any discussion of "Britain ended slavery!" has to be put in the context of Britain immediately coming up with massive new systems of indentured servitude and forced penal labour after abolition.

 

[Yakman]

Yes. Any discussion of "Britain ended slavery!" has to be put in the context of Britain immediately coming up with massive new systems of indentured servitude and forced penal labour after abolition.

Hush now.

 

[SirNat]

So, we should turn a blind eye to Britain's horrible race-based colonial policies lasting deep into the twentieth century because the air of Britain is too pure for a slave and every man who breathes it is free?

We have a word for that over on this side of the pond. I think it is spelled 'hypocrisy'.

Please tell me more about these race based colonial policies.

I doubt anything you claim can touch the astonishing cultural phenomena that occurred in America. It is normal for first wave migrants to form segregated communities. Assimilating does just take time but usually by 2nd or at least the 3rd generation they have settled in and culturally assimilated into their new home.

Now the nature of the blacks migration (not from their own volition) might explain why they might initially struggle to integrate. But in the unique case of America blacks never truly integrated. Instead they ultimately started their own distincty sub-culture which we can see today for example through manifestations of hip hop and basketball.

I will not go into full depth now but blacks most certainly had a tougher time in America than anywhere else in the New World.

 

[SirNat]

Yes. Any discussion of "Britain ended slavery!" has to be put in the context of Britain immediately coming up with massive new systems of indentured servitude and forced penal labour after abolition.

So 99% of humans throughout history have been slaves? What a silly, frivolous thing to say. The only hand that moved those Indians to East Africa and the New World was the invisible one.
Just look at Dubai today, it is simple free market economics.

 

[Geriander]

So 99% of humans throughout history have been slaves? What a silly, frivolous thing to say. The only hand that moved those Indians to East Africa and the New World was the invisible one.
Just look at Dubai today, it is simple free market economics.

While I generally find the statement that ”wage labour is slavery” to be terribly insulting to actual slaves, indentured servitude as practised by the British during the 18th and 19th century comes very close to slavery. The statement you replied to mentioned nothing that occurs due to the invisible hand of free market economics. Both indentured servitude and penal labour were state enforced forms of time limited slavery motivated by a supposed crime.