British America, 1833: Does the South rebel when slavery is abolished?

[Malthus]

@DrDeth

France or Spain or whoever held the Louisiana territory- or both.

It would be difficult I think for them to credibly and economically blockade-run in the face of the whole British Navy - I assume that would be at least as dominant in this time-line as it was in reality.

My guess is that the slave-owners (a minority of the population in the South, of course) would prove unable to mount the same ‘us against them’ secional propaganda campaign to enlist domestic support; and even if they did, rebellion against the whole British Empire would simply seem absurdly impossible to win. So they would be more likely to accept compensation (however reluctantly), like their sugar-growing Carib counterparts.

[PatrickLondon]

One factor you might need to bear in mind is the highly reactionary trend of British government in the aftermath of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, continuing till well into the 1820s. Surely that alone would have provoked continued unrest in America anyway, not least when the political reform movement in the UK finally won the day, albeit this would not necessarily be related to the slavery question.

Would the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 have made any difference to the slaveowning colonies and provoked a response then?

[puddleglum]

@Claverhouse

Were it more expensive to free the slaves because there were x amount added from North America ( which like every other British colony would be practically self-governing by that point ) wouldn’t the British Exchequer be that much more full from American taxes over the previous 50 years — even if as seems likely there would have continued a lower tax-rate in than Britain and perhaps a lower tax-rate than that which the independent U.S. had to impose — therefore greater able to shell out more to free those x amount of slaves ?

Fighting the French and Indian war had cost the British alot more than they ever made from taxes. The primary reason for the new taxes that helped provoke the Revolution was to try to pay for the colonies military protection. Between the Revolution and 1833 was the Napoleonic wars which might extend to the new world in the hypothetical. So fighting another war in the new world would likely have cost the British even more. See how fast they ended the War of 1812 when they needed the resources to fight Napoleon in europe.
Patrick London the US banned the slave trade at the same time as the British and it did not lead to secession.

[DrDeth]

@Malthus

It would be difficult I think for them to credibly and economically blockade-run in the face of the whole British Navy - I assume that would be at least as dominant in this time-line as it was in reality.

Powerful at the Royal Navy was, blockading the entire Mississippi river is gonna be tough. You do realize that the Louisiana territory is right across the river, right?

[Malthus]

@DrDeth

Powerful at the Royal Navy was, blockading the entire Mississippi river is gonna be tough. You do realize that the Louisiana territory is right across the river, right?

In any concievable future, Louisiana Territory isn’t going to be capable of consuming the entire cotton output of the American South in 1830s. Ultimately, for that cotton to be profitably sold, it will have to be exported to the factories of Europe.

There are a couple of problems with that:

1. In the 1830s, Britian has a more or less lock on the industrial-scale manufacture of textiles - this was what fueled the industrial revolution, which took hold first in Britian and only later elsewhere. No other market could possibly absorb all of that cotton production, as none had the infrastructure to manufacture it into textiles. So in rebellion, the South would be cutting off its pretty well sole source of sales. Of course, it would bady affect Britian as well - but Britian was more diversified than the US South; moreover it could get cotton elsewhere, albeit at a higher price.

2. How would all that cotton get across the Atlantic to be sold, in the face of the British navy - even if the South could find another European market? In the real world, the US was capable of a strangulating blockade on the South. There is no reason to suspect that the British (which would include the Northern States) could not.

Union blockade

Note that the blockade, in reality, was capable of closing off the Mississippi.

The blockade almost totally choked off Southern cotton exports, which the Confederacy depended on for hard currency. Cotton exports fell 95%, from 10 million bales in the three years prior to the war to just 500,000 bales during the blockade period.[1] The blockade also largely reduced imports of food, medicine, war materials, manufactured goods, and luxury items, resulting in severe shortages and inflation. Shortages of bread led to occasional bread riots in Richmond and other cities, showing that patriotism was not sufficient to satisfy the demands of housewives. Land routes remained open for cattle drovers, but after the Union seized control of the Mississippi River in summer 1863, it became impossible to ship horses, cattle and swine from Texas and Arkansas to the eastern Confederacy. The blockade was a triumph of the Union Navy and a major factor in winning the war.

[DrDeth]

@Malthus

In any concievable future, Louisiana Territory isn’t going to be capable of consuming the entire cotton output of the American South in 1830s. Ultimately, for that cotton to be profitably sold, it will have to be exported to the factories of Europe.

There are a couple of problems with that:

1. In the 1830s, Britian has a more or less lock on the industrial-scale manufacture of textiles - this was what fueled the industrial revolution, which took hold first in Britian and only later elsewhere. No other market could possibly absorb all of that cotton production, as none had the infrastructure to manufacture it into textiles. So in rebellion, the South would be cutting off its pretty well sole source of sales. Of course, it would bady affect Britian as well - but Britian was more diversified than the US South; moreover it could get cotton elsewhere, albeit at a higher price.

2. How would all that cotton get across the Atlantic to be sold, in the face of the British navy - even if the South could find another European market? In the real world, the US was capable of a strangulating blockade on the South. There is no reason to suspect that the British (which would include the Northern States) could not.

Union blockade - Wikipedia

Note that the blockade, in reality, was capable of closing off the Mississippi.

Sure, by French and Spanish ships. Or does Britain go to war with them, too?

1. No problem, the Confeds sell to the French who sell to the Brits.

2. See above. Yeah sure the USA was capable of a blockade of the CSA (mostly) but that’s because the CSA didnt border on much in the way of foreign nations. Well, Mexico, yes, and some cotton did go that way, but Mexico was in chaos and the CSA quickly pissed off the Mexican government

Yes- the MOUTH of the Mississippi. Not crossings of that river.

[Malthus]

@DrDeth

Sure, by French and Spanish ships. Or does Britain go to war with them, too?

Doesn’t have to - simply does to them what it did to the US, which sparked the War of 1812.

The difference being, of course, that the Brits whipped the French and Spanish fleets into kindling in the Napoleonic Wars, so unlike the US they are hardly likely to go to war with Britian over blockading.

1. No problem, the Confeds sell to the French who sell to the Brits.

This assumes no British interference in this process.

2. See above. Yeah sure the USA was capable of a blockade of the CSA (mostly) but that’s because the CSA didnt border on much in the way of foreign nations. Well, Mexico, yes, and some cotton did go that way, but Mexico was in chaos and the CSA quickly pissed off the Mexican government.

Not seeing that as much of an impediment to British blockading, frankly. Nor, apparently, did the British, in the Napoleonic Wars - they intercepted 3rd party ships happily (which outraged the Americans, arguably leading to the War of 1812, etc.)

Yes- the MOUTH of the Mississippi. Not crossings of that river.

You sure about that?

Vicksburg campaign

My undestanding is that the whole point of the Vicksburg Campaign was to cut the west off from the rest of the Confederacy, by seizing key fortresses and by blockading the river crossings.

Early in the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln, gesturing to a map of the region, declared to his military advisors that “Vicksburg is the key” and that the failure to capture this city meant “hog and hominy without limit, fresh troops from all the states of the far South [for the Confederacy].” For not only would the capture of Vicksburg benefit the commercial interests and military operations of the Union, but Vicksburg was also a vital logistical link to the resource-rich Trans-Mississippi. It was here at Vicksburg that huge quantities of molasses, cane sugar, sheep, oxen, cattle, mules, sweet potatoes, butter, wool, and salt, were transported across the great river and onto every corner of the Confederacy. Some historians have argued that it was the Trans-Mississippi, not the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia that was the true breadbasket of the Confederacy. And it was via Vicksburg that important war material and arms smuggled through Mexican ports could defy the Federal blockade and sustain the military needs of the South.

With no length of the Mississippi River now safe from Union power, the Confederacy was unable to send supplies or communications across its breadth. Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas were cut off from the rest of the rebellious nation. This was doubly damaging, as the Texas-Mexico border was a favorite route of secessionist suppliers and the possibility of French intervention across the border was precluded by the nigh-impassable boundary of a Union-held Mississippi River.

[Emphasis added]

http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/vicksburg/vicksburg-history-articles/10-facts-about-vicksburg.html