The United States with a British Deep South

[dcharles]

Hmmm.... Maybe something like, say, "The Dominion of Georgia" is in the middle of a planter lead revolt against the crown in the 1830s/40s because of the Empire formerly abolishing slavery and the US ends up intervening in the conflict, which goes predictably rather poorly.

Well, that's certainly a nasty scenario, but any slaveholder's revolt would be.

The problem with the Dominion of Dixie isn't that the Dominion is richer or more powerful (although it could be), it's that it's now infinitely harder to subdue. The kind of power projection it would take to conquer the Dominion is far greater than what the Union had to bring against the Confederacy--I'm not sure that any country had the capacity to do it in 1850 or so, even the UK.

 

[Beatriz]

Maybe there should be a *Dominion of Southern America TL from 1770-1850 with realistic butterflies

 

[SWS]

The domestic slave-trade and movement of persons into cotton and sugar country from the North and upper South of OTL would be rendered international, raising questions of legality.

Virginia and North Carolina might follow the typical mid-Atlantic pattern of industrial development if they achieve manumission by 1830.

Those damn New-Englanders and their cotton-gin. Eli Whitney, Samuel Griswold, Daniel Pratt...

I would love to see Colonel Benjamin Thompson (Count Rumford IOTL) settle at Charleston. He could do much good for the slave in Carolina, considering what he did for the paupers and peasants of Bavaria.

South Carolina indigo cultivation will probably still collapse in the 1790s for OTL reasons. And what of rice? Its market is stagnated by the 1790s, and Britain's control of both Southeast North America and Asia is indeed awkward. Without ginned upland cotton to resuscitate plantation agriculture in the South Atlantic, South Carolina and Georgia will endeavor to promote domestic manufactures and immigration as in 1770-1810, 1840-1855, and after 1865.

 

[dcharles]

I'm not sure what the reason is that we don't think the cotton gin wouldn't be invented on rough schedule, or why it being invented in a neighboring country would affect the spread of it. Patent laws couldn't help Whitney when he was trying to enforce them in one country. I don't see how adding an international border is going to help him.

 

[Analytical Engine]

I'm not sure what the reason is that we don't think the cotton gin wouldn't be invented on rough schedule, or why it being invented in a neighboring country would affect the spread of it. Patent laws couldn't help Whitney when he was trying to enforce them in one country. I don't see how adding an international border is going to help him.

And it's not as if a British engineer couldn't just come up with one anyway. It's not as if there was an industrial revolution going on or anything

 

[Beatriz]

Does this affect British expansion elsewhere?

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

The Spanish conquered West Florida IOTL, and I think it takes a real Britwank for them to hold onto more than of southern colonies other than East Florida, which they held. Keeping Georgia as well is very doable, and I can see South Carolina with a somewhat different strategy, but anything beyond that is hard given how overstretched the British were.

Unless you give the British New Orleans as part of the Britwank, in most timelines the Spanish Bourbons are going to control the lower Mississippi, which means unless you wank them too, the USA will gain control of that area. But if the British keep a southeastern dominion (the Florida peninsula, Georgia, and South Carolina), they will keep it unless the USA is able to conquer the area in another war, some alternative version of the War of 1812 being most likely. The British empire will still be in stronger shape ITTL than the Spanish one, assuming Napoleon and the Peninsular War are not butterflied and I don't see why they would be.

 

[PGSBHurricane]

And it's not as if a British engineer couldn't just come up with one anyway. It's not as if there was an industrial revolution going on or anything

In OTL as of 1796, Hodgen Holmes, Robert Watkins, William Longstreet, and John Murray had all been issued patents for improvements on the cotton gin so it's certainly possible a cotton gin is developed ITTL. However, it's a matter of when and if it's delayed by even a few years then there could be ramifications on slavery in the Deep South.

The Spanish conquered West Florida IOTL, and I think it takes a real Britwank for them to hold onto more than of southern colonies other than East Florida, which they held. Keeping Georgia as well is very doable, and I can see South Carolina with a somewhat different strategy, but anything beyond that is hard given how overstretched the British were.

Unless you give the British New Orleans as part of the Britwank, in most timelines the Spanish Bourbons are going to control the lower Mississippi, which means unless you wank them too, the USA will gain control of that area. But if the British keep a southeastern dominion (the Florida peninsula, Georgia, and South Carolina), they will keep it unless the USA is able to conquer the area in another war, some alternative version of the War of 1812 being most likely. The British empire will still be in stronger shape ITTL than the Spanish one, assuming Napoleon and the Peninsular War are not butterflied and I don't see why they would be.

I also think North Carolina would be hard to hold on to because North Carolina didn't have as many Loyalists as its two neighbors to the South, the Middle Colonies like New Jersey or New York, or even cities like Philadelphia and Boston. It was roughly in the middle in terms of the percentage of colonists being Royalists. The Halifax Resolves in April 1776 further signified that North Carolina was the first colony to upon its delegates in Philadelphia to vote for independence (even if it wasn't the first to push for a vote on independence through Congress), arguably meaning it was the first to authorize independence if the call came.

 

[Umbric Man]

Whatever the exact borders, the less southern colonies the USA holds still ironically means less Francophilia, since the south from Virginia downward adored France while the north, especially New England, were the hotbeds of Anglophilia.

Granted, keeping NC and VA definitely keeps the bulk of Francophilia, but even losing South Carolina down means perhaps less bulked anti-British feeling to overcome and so the USA and Britain will actually get along well enough the Mississippi navigation rights won't be as big an issue as it's being made out to be.

 

[NedStark]

Another thing is that the Loyalists in the Deep South, especially South Carolina, were the backcountry folks who were less dependent on slavery, and the Patriots were the slave plantation owners.

In case of a British victory, the rebels would have been punished - the previous slaveholding faction could have been purged and replaced by backcountry Loyalists in the governing class. This would have had an impact on slavery down the road.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Another thing is that the Loyalists in the Deep South, especially South Carolina, were the backcountry folks who were less dependent on slavery, and the Patriots were the slave plantation owners.

In case of a British victory, the rebels would have been punished - the previous slaveholding faction could have been purged and replaced by backcountry Loyalists in the governing class. This would have had an impact on slavery down the road.

Even considering how many slaveowners were in Parliament at the time? And how massively pro "private property" basically every MP was?

 

[NedStark]

Even considering how many slaveowners were in Parliament at the time? And how massively pro "private property" basically every MP was?

Sure I know. But the convenience here is that these slaveholders would happen to be on the wrong side of the war. So at least they would have lost power for a while.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Sure I know. But the convenience here is that these slaveholders would happen to be on the wrong side of the war. So at least they would have lost power for a while.

Also, their slaves would probably have been encouraged by a "get your freedom if you fight for the British" message

 

[NedStark]

Also, their slaves would probably have been encouraged by a "get your freedom if you fight for the British" message

Thus I can see slavery being handled better both in the Upper South (with Free States gaining majority earlier) and the Deep South under the British ITTL. In the TTL US, peaceful abolition would have been very likely.