What if Canada joined the American Revolution?

[Skallagrim]

That raises the question of a possible American Caribbean empire if they start picking up islands like Guadalupe or Martinique and then possibly latter Haiti, Dominican Republic or Cuba sometime around 1800. Those were very valuable properties at the time and would have boosted the power and influence of slavery in the republic even if as colonies rather than states they wouldn't have come under any 3/5ths rule and hence increased the voting power of the slave states.

A lot depends on the domestic political situation.

1) If the slave states have been assured their institution is safe as of 1789 (in the Constitution), but slavery has been limited to the existing slave state, gaining more slave states will be an issue. Keeping substantial gains as colonies/territories will be an issue, because the Southern planters taking over there will want representation before too long. However, we must note that the Western land cessions of the slave states took place, in OTL, after the Constitution passed. If slavery is limited to existing slave states, and the North is pushing a "no slavery west of the Appalachians" line, there's a good chance that the slave states refuse to cede their Western claims. Thus, after the USA grabs Louisiana and certain Caribbean possessions, "regions West of the Appalachians become free states, but the new Carribean possessions become slave states" is a viable deal that can be made.

2) If no compromise was reached on slavery in the first place, and the slave states went their separate ways in 1789, absolutely nobody up North will want to gain Caribbean islands full of slaves. The independent league of slave states may have ambitions in that direction, but I doubt they can make it happen at this juncture.

3) There is an alternative possibility that I've been thinking about, namely that North and South kind of split the difference in 1789. That is: suppose the slave states choose not to adopt the new Constitution, but remain associated with the USA in a looser bond anyway? It's possible that Quebec might be turned in an "associated Republic" (or whatever) at this juncture as well. In practice, the countries would share a customs union and be allied in all regards, but they'd run their own domestic affairs. The Southern states ("Union of Columbia"?) would have their own Congress et cetera. Again, this would mean that the south keeps everything it owns up to the Mississippi.

Then the war with France & Spain rolls around, the South really wants Caribbean gains, the North doesn't, but the North can help the South conquer whatever it wants. Why? Well, in return for the Trans-Appalachian region, as in scenario (1). The motivations are slightly different. Although allied, the South is now a separate country, and the USA fundamentally wants to control the Mississippi. Removing the French/Spanish from the Caribbean is useful because--

One good side for Britain [as well as obviously the US] of this would be that bases for French privateers would be removed somewhat earlier.

--but afterwards, the USA can just give whatever it conquers there to its Southern slavocratic neighbour, and in return, the USA gets land cessions that are strategically important. Everybody's happy. This outcome is in many ways similar to scenario (1), but a key difference is that all the slavery is now happening in another country, so the USA can just keep on ignoring it as "not my problem". Eventually, moral outrage is going to lead to a deterioration of diplomatic relations, maybe even freezing into an embargo-- but there won't be a civil war over this at any point. It's not some big internal problem that the USA has to fix. The USA proper will have been rid of slavery since 1789.

Although if there's some equivalent of the Peace of Ameins would the US be willing to give up any such gains? If so would they continue to be at war with republican/imperial France when Britain made peace?

The most logical outcome here is that they just hold onto what they've got, and the wars resume before anything is resolved anyway.


...I kind of wonder what a substantial slavocratic-American presence in the Caribbean would mean down the line. For starters, after the whole Napoleonic conflict, they'd be keen to gain literally anything in the region that Britain doesn't want. And then in the subsequent two decades, Britain is moving to get rid of slavery. Public opposition to it is mounting. But at the same time, there's a lot of British financial interests in the plantations of the West Indies. Abolishing slavery will be a financial hit. Compensating planters will be another.

Might it be a viable option to sell the slavocratic Caribbean colonies to the American slavocrats? Maybe that's unlikely after Britain has already lost so much in the Americas in this ATL. On the other hand, maybe that just makes it a more attractitive option. "Just get rid of it, be done with it". If something like the Great Jamaican Slave Revolt still happens, it might prompt such a decision. (Whereas in OTL, it was one of the causes of abolition.)

 

[stevep]

A lot depends on the domestic political situation.

1) If the slave states have been assured their institution is safe as of 1789 (in the Constitution), but slavery has been limited to the existing slave state, gaining more slave states will be an issue. Keeping substantial gains as colonies/territories will be an issue, because the Southern planters taking over there will want representation before too long. However, we must note that the Western land cessions of the slave states took place, in OTL, after the Constitution passed. If slavery is limited to existing slave states, and the North is pushing a "no slavery west of the Appalachians" line, there's a good chance that the slave states refuse to cede their Western claims. Thus, after the USA grabs Louisiana and certain Caribbean possessions, "regions West of the Appalachians become free states, but the new Carribean possessions become slave states" is a viable deal that can be made.

2) If no compromise was reached on slavery in the first place, and the slave states went their separate ways in 1789, absolutely nobody up North will want to gain Caribbean islands full of slaves. The independent league of slave states may have ambitions in that direction, but I doubt they can make it happen at this juncture.

3) There is an alternative possibility that I've been thinking about, namely that North and South kind of split the difference in 1789. That is: suppose the slave states choose not to adopt the new Constitution, but remain associated with the USA in a looser bond anyway? It's possible that Quebec might be turned in an "associated Republic" (or whatever) at this juncture as well. In practice, the countries would share a customs union and be allied in all regards, but they'd run their own domestic affairs. The Southern states ("Union of Columbia"?) would have their own Congress et cetera. Again, this would mean that the south keeps everything it owns up to the Mississippi.

Then the war with France & Spain rolls around, the South really wants Caribbean gains, the North doesn't, but the North can help the South conquer whatever it wants. Why? Well, in return for the Trans-Appalachian region, as in scenario (1). The motivations are slightly different. Although allied, the South is now a separate country, and the USA fundamentally wants to control the Mississippi. Removing the French/Spanish from the Caribbean is useful because--

--but afterwards, the USA can just give whatever it conquers there to its Southern slavocratic neighbour, and in return, the USA gets land cessions that are strategically important. Everybody's happy. This outcome is in many ways similar to scenario (1), but a key difference is that all the slavery is now happening in another country, so the USA can just keep on ignoring it as "not my problem". Eventually, moral outrage is going to lead to a deterioration of diplomatic relations, maybe even freezing into an embargo-- but there won't be a civil war over this at any point. It's not some big internal problem that the USA has to fix. The USA proper will have been rid of slavery since 1789.

Those are possible ways things could develop although how important was slavery to the north at this stage. Note that other than the Maritime provinces the US hasn't gained any real, settled territory so I seem a limited incentive for any greater change than OTL other than the south being more cautious to gain safeguards. Since there seems to have been some suggestion that many thought slavery would die a natural death - until the cotton gin was developed and gave a big demand for new slaves, only in the south, which threw everything back into the mix.

The most logical outcome here is that they just hold onto what they've got, and the wars resume before anything is resolved anyway.


...I kind of wonder what a substantial slavocratic-American presence in the Caribbean would mean down the line. For starters, after the whole Napoleonic conflict, they'd be keen to gain literally anything in the region that Britain doesn't want. And then in the subsequent two decades, Britain is moving to get rid of slavery. Public opposition to it is mounting. But at the same time, there's a lot of British financial interests in the plantations of the West Indies. Abolishing slavery will be a financial hit. Compensating planters will be another.

Might it be a viable option to sell the slavocratic Caribbean colonies to the American slavocrats? Maybe that's unlikely after Britain has already lost so much in the Americas in this ATL. On the other hand, maybe that just makes it a more attractitive option. "Just get rid of it, be done with it". If something like the Great Jamaican Slave Revolt still happens, it might prompt such a decision. (Whereas in OTL, it was one of the causes of abolition.)

My point is that Britain returned many colonial areas to either France or its allies, such as the Dutch with the Cape region and elsewhere. If Britain is willing to make peace on such terms then the US either has to do likewise or face a war with Imperial France without Britain.

If the US, or a separate slave-owning state gains more Caribbean territory I can't see it making a massive difference to the ending of slavery in the British empire. It wasn't willing to sell territories OTL and that would have been seen as a dodging of the duty to end slavery so would have prompted a massive storm. You might see some attempts by private owners to sell slaves to the US - not sure if that happened in any number OTL - but not the selling to territory.

 

[Buba]

What if Canada rebelling alongside the XIII alarms London - the possibility of losing Newfoundland/Nova Scotia and fisheries, the threat to Prince Ruperts Land and its fur trade (members of House Lords have money invested in the HBC, you know) - so that it takes upon even more debt and throws more forces at the Rebels and their Spanish and French financiers and backers?

 

[stevep]

What if Canada rebelling alongside the XIII alarms London - the possibility of losing Newfoundland/Nova Scotia and fisheries, the threat to Prince Ruperts Land and its fur trade (members of House Lords have money invested in the HBC, you know) - so that it takes upon even more debt and throws more forces at the Rebels and their Spanish and French financiers and backers?

Interesting idea. If instead of waffling so long Britain makes a major effort earlier and seeks to stamp down hard on the rebels. Might make for a shorter war and a decisive victory, at least in the short/medium term. Followed probably by a generous peace where Britain relents on the issue of the colonies contributing to their defence. Or could simply be badly handled as OTL with a failure to act efficiently and going much as OTL.

I think the loss of the Maritimes aren't that relevant to the HBC issue as virtually all contact with that region was by Hudson's Bay itself. There was no real capacity for transport links up the St Lawrence and Great Lakes, albeit this option was now a possibility for development with Quebec in British hands. However the Newfoundland fisheries were very rich economically and also seen as a source of experienced sailors and hence important for the navy and merchant marine.