The United States with a British Deep South

[the Imperium of Canada]

So I've seen a couple of threads discussing this type of scenario, but I'm specifically curious how this would affect the development of the young United States.

So suppose that for whatever reason the British just do better in the southern front of the Revolutionary War and by the end of things they hold on to what would have been considered the US Deep South in OTL- Georgia, South Carolina and East Florida.

Borders end up looking something like this:

So in TTL 1783 it's OTL USA minus Georgia, SC, and the Yazoo lands?

View attachment 664142

So I'll reiterate, how does this likely affect the development of the young United States. It's government, expansionist ambitions, presumably more northern dominated politics, and of course absence of a lot of the slave states.

 

[dcharles]

There's no guarantees, but this could be the entry point to The Good Timeline, the one where slavery in North America is abolished earlier and more peacefully.

But there's lots of ways that could take a left, too.

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

There's no guarantees, but this could be the entry point to The Good Timeline, the one where slavery in North America is abolished earlier and more peacefully.

But there's lots of ways that could take a left, too.

Yeah I'd assume (gradual) emancipation would be a lot more plausible.

Though in some ways I could see African Americans being worse off without the rights they got during the Reconstruction Era in OTL.

 

[sampleswift]

Yeah I'd assume (gradual) emancipation would be a lot more plausible.

Though in some ways I could see African Americans being worse off without the rights they got during the Reconstruction Era in OTL.

Reconstruction era, I'd say, was too ephemeral for the civil rights of the African Americans. Most of the gains for them were erased with the Post-Reconstruction era, even in areas that were not the South. Jim Crow was not restricted to the American South. If anything, the big boon was the Civil Rights era.

 

[Dan1988]

Well, at least we know which areas will be going on a hybrid South Africa + generic LatAm historical trajectory. But since the 13 in general had overwhemlingly become prosperous through the slave trade (how else did that cotton make it to New England's textile mills?), one has to temper it with some caution there, as racism would still be a major issue. So I wouldn't call it the good TL just yet, because it depends on a lot going overwhelmingly right - including resolving the shouting match between Massachusetts and Virginia over all sorts of issues.

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

But there's lots of ways that could take a left, too.

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.

 

[Dan1988]

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.

Except that similar sentiments were not unusual throughout the Anglophone Caribbean - hence compensation plus a six-year period of apprenticeship for the ex-slaves as the price for abolition, so it's a gradual process that doesn't change much in terms of the social structure, as racialist and class-ridden as it was. So that would basically mean an earlier shift to Jim Crow-like laws, plus convict leasing, sharecropping, and the like.

 

[Gabingston]

Except that similar sentiments were not unusual throughout the Anglophone Caribbean - hence compensation plus a six-year period of apprenticeship for the ex-slaves as the price for abolition, so it's a gradual process that doesn't change much in terms of the social structure, as racialist and class-ridden as it was. So that would basically mean an earlier shift to Jim Crow-like laws, plus convict leasing, sharecropping, and the like.

Would gradual abolition still happen in the British Empire with the added slave population of the Deep South? It'd certainly be a lot harder and more expensive, especially with slavery in the British South booming thanks to the cotton gin and industrialization.

 

[Dan1988]

Would gradual abolition still happen in the British Empire with the added slave population of the Deep South? It'd certainly be a lot harder and more expensive, especially with slavery in the British South booming thanks to the cotton gin and industrialization.

The anti-slavery lobby in Britain was still a thing; it could be delayed from OTL, but at some point it was going to happen as a compromise between the slaveholding interests and the anti-slavery lobby. Of course, what made the difference was that a lot of the Caribbean colonies based their slavery around sugar and other similar cash crops, which IOTL the US abandoned more or less in favor of going all out on cotton - creating a bubble that would inevitably burst.

 

[Gabingston]

The anti-slavery lobby in Britain was still a thing; it could be delayed from OTL, but at some point it was going to happen as a compromise between the slaveholding interests and the anti-slavery lobby. Of course, what made the difference was that a lot of the Caribbean colonies based their slavery around sugar and other similar cash crops, which IOTL the US abandoned more or less in favor of going all out on cotton - creating a bubble that would inevitably burst.

Would the slavocrats in the British South go all in on cotton, or would their crop package remain more varied?

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

Except that similar sentiments were not unusual throughout the Anglophone Caribbean - hence compensation plus a six-year period of apprenticeship for the ex-slaves as the price for abolition, so it's a gradual process that doesn't change much in terms of the social structure, as racialist and class-ridden as it was. So that would basically mean an earlier shift to Jim Crow-like laws, plus convict leasing, sharecropping, and the like.

Perhaps there are revolts, but it isn't the entirety of "Georgia" trying to break off immediately, beginning as relatively small scale rebellions until the US gets involved and things escalate from there.

Turn the entire thing into some hellish mix of the War of 1812, ACW, and for extra chaos maybe throw in an equivalent of Nat Turner's Rebellion in Virginia for good measure.

 

[PGSBHurricane]

Would gradual abolition still happen in the British Empire with the added slave population of the Deep South? It'd certainly be a lot harder and more expensive, especially with slavery in the British South booming thanks to the cotton gin and industrialization.

I think it would be delayed in the Deep South by a few decades. For reference, it was only criminalized in India in 1862 under the British Raj and even then indentured servitude was still a thing until the 1920s there (much like convict leasing was in the southern states until the late 1800s/early 1900s). Of course, this assumes the cotton gin as we know it is still invented on schedule. Without the North, from where Eli Whitney is from, delaying it by several years could also mean that slavery died off as it was starting to in the South before the cotton gin came along. On a separate note, though, I think a British Deep South would be harder than it seems to be. Sure, there was Georgia which didn't really flip to the Revolutionary cause until the Second Continental Congress and there was East Florida too but the Carolinas are a lot more complicated, especially North Carolina.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Without the North, from where Eli Whitney is from, delaying it by several years could also mean that slavery died off as it was starting to in the South before the cotton gin came along.

Eli Whitney was not the only person working on a cotton gin at the time. Someone will patent one eventually

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

"On a separate note, though, I think a British Deep South would be harder than it seems to be. Sure, there was Georgia which didn't really flip to the Revolutionary cause until the Second Continental Congress and there was East Florida too but the Carolinas are a lot more complicated, especially North Carolina."

The OP has South Carolina in the British Deep South, but not North Carolina.

This is completely doable. You might just have to remove Nathaniel Greene from the timeline. You could have Cornwallis or a different British commander follow a different strategy to secure South Carolina. You don't need Cornwallis to take Charleston, since Clinton handled that himself. Cornwallis won at Camden, but you either have the alternative British commander (their senior officers in the war were all at least fairly competent) or Cornwallis decide on a different strategy. The British don't try to move into North Carolina, and just stay in South Carolina and play whack a mole with any American incursions.

This means Cornwallis doesn't go to Virginia. The Yorktown campaign is butterflied. It works better if the troops under Arnold are sent to to South Carolina instead of raiding into Virginia. Washington's only real option offensively is to try to capture New York, and this doesn't go well. You still get something like the Treaty of Paris, because at some point the British government is going to realize there is no way they can salvage more colonies in North America AND take over the Dutch colonies AND hold of the Spanish and French AND deal with Mysore, and even without Yorktown one of the balls they are juggling will drop. But they have done better enough that they can hold onto South Carolina, Georgia, and East Florida.

I think the other eleven states still form a USA and constitution very similar to IOTL. The first big divergence in the timeline will come with the War of 1812. But if the British hold onto the Deep South, abolition of slavery will be more contentious and will probably be more gradual, but it will still happen in the British empire, and there is a good chance it will happen peacefully in the USA as well.

Late twentieth century development of Florida and northern Georgia is going to be completely different.

 

[Aichi72]

Eli Whitney was not the only person working on a cotton gin at the time. Someone will patent one eventually

I guess that depends on when this alt-cotton gin is invented. If its delayed enough, it could end up being too little and/or too late to give slavery the boost it did IOTL.

 

[Gabingston]

Do the British still have Canada, or has the U.S. (or France) taken it? If it's the former, I imagine the Americans won't feel very comfortable being boxed in by the British.

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

Do the British still have Canada, or has the U.S. (or France) taken it? If it's the former, I imagine the Americans won't feel very comfortable being boxed in by the British.

The British still have the Canadian colonies, albeit probably with a notably smaller population given a lot of the Loyalists presumably went south instead of north.

 

[Gabingston]

The British still have the Canadian colonies, albeit probably with a notably smaller population given a lot of the Loyalists presumably went south instead of north.

Might the U.S. consider buying it in the future, at least from OTL's Ontario westward?

 

[PGSBHurricane]

Eli Whitney was not the only person working on a cotton gin at the time. Someone will patent one eventually

Yes, other people were starting to work on it at the same time but if it's patented as little as 5-10 years later than the future of slavery in the South could still be different. By then, I can imagine that if the cotton gin isn't patented yet then slaves will start being freed and perhaps reach a point of no return.

The OP has South Carolina in the British Deep South, but not North Carolina.

To be fair, many if not most British Deep South scenarios I've seen include North Carolina so I think they're fair game here too. I honestly agree that South Carolina wouldn't be as difficult as North Carolina although I don't know if it would be as easy as Georgia to keep British. I guess you're right that the British could decide to end up playing whack-a-mole in South Carolina instead of advancing towards Virginia.

 

[LordVorKon]

So I've seen a couple of threads discussing this type of scenario, but I'm specifically curious how this would affect the development of the young United States.

So suppose that for whatever reason the British just do better in the southern front of the Revolutionary War and by the end of things they hold on to what would have been considered the US Deep South in OTL- Georgia, South Carolina and East Florida.

Borders end up looking something like this:


So I'll reiterate, how does this likely affect the development of the young United States. It's government, expansionist ambitions, presumably more northern dominated politics, and of course absence of a lot of the slave states.

Not having control of the east bank of the Mississippi River south of Memphis could have a big impact on westward expansion of the US. Presumably, rights of navigation would be an issue that would be covered in the treaty ending the war, but there's still a certain amount of awkwardness involved when the river is entirely within foreign territory, and forms a boundary between two different foreign empires at that.

If the British hold on to East Florida in 1783, I'm not convinced they would cede West Florida back to Spain, but obviously we don't really know what the rest of the war looked like and how it might have changed due to Great Britain doing better in GA/SC, so maybe. Any of the following could be plausible outcomes:
a) West Florida remains British in 1783 along with East Florida (in exchange for concessions in other parts of the world? Belize, perhaps?)
b) West Florida returns to Spanish rule per the quoted map and Spain keeps it for an indeterminate period of time.
c) WF returns to Spanish rule in 1783, but is later acquired by Great Britain, the US, or split between the two.

Either westward expansion of the US is greatly curtailed, or access to the Gulf of Mexico via the lower Mississippi will be a high priority. If, for example, Americans who wish to ship goods via the Ohio/Mississippi are compelled to sell their goods to Spanish or British middlemen, that would likely reduce the appeal of developing the Ohio valley. I can't imagine that the US has the resources to buy Louisiana much earlier than OTL, and I'm not convinced it'd be for sale earlier anyway, so westward expansion may be significantly slowed.

Assuming that despite all butterflies in the meantime Louisiana comes up for sale at some point in the 1800-1810 period, does Great Britain decide they want it bad enough to take it by force (maybe not unreasonable if they're at war with whomever happens to control it at the time) or outbid whatever the Americans can pay? British Louisiana probably constrains the US to their c.1799 borders.

If Great Britain either decides they don't want it or decides that it's safer in American hands, this still does not give the US full control of the Mississippi River like it did in OTL. Certainly Georgia having the OTL state of Mississippi means that some agreement must be made between the US and Britain concerning navigation rights on the river, even if the US gains control of the west bank of the river.

Regardless of what happens with regard to Louisiana, without the OTL states in British Georgia, there should never be a situation where slave states can successfully block admission of free states. In OTL, Alabama (#22) was the last state admitted before the Missouri Compromise of 1820. In TTL, Alabama -- along with Mississippi, Georgia, and South Carolina -- is still British so there are only 18 states (17 if Louisiana doesn't happen), of which only 7 (or 6) are slave states. Slavery probably pretty much dies out in the US by about 1840 or so, cotton gin or no cotton gin.

I am uncertain how any of this affects Texas. Could be anything from "basically just like OTL except a significant percentage of the slave-holding Anglo settlers are British subjects" to almost no Anglo settlement in Texas. Either way, I think there's a pretty good chance that Texas never becomes American. And I'm really not going to project beyond 1850ish, just because the accumulation of 70ish years of butterflies means I could plausibly justify a whole bunch of different outcomes.