Yes! And it would have led to the US rebellion!
They stopped it because it was no longer profitable for them as they didn't need as much slaves as when they controlled the Southern USA.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yes! And it would have led to the US rebellion!
They stopped it because it was no longer profitable for them as they didn't need as much slaves as when they controlled the Southern USA.
Re: Re: Re: What if there was No american revoltion?
And what about that Ohio company formed by Virginian traders who intended to build a fort right in French territory? And what about Virginian claims to a territory that overlapped the French one?
Now please. The British colonist did want to expand, and the British government was eager to let them do, as long as it would create trouble to the French. That's how the Seven Years War started.
And what about that Ohio company formed by Virginian traders who intended to build a fort right in French territory? And what about Virginian claims to a territory that overlapped the French one?
Now please. The British colonist did want to expand, and the British government was eager to let them do, as long as it would create trouble to the French. That's how the Seven Years War started.
Britain didn't decide to stop the slave trade because it was no longer profitable them. Not only were the Americas still importing lots of slaves, but the expense of hunting down slave ships with the Royal Navy was hardly insignificant. Rather, the anti-Slave-trade campaign was a result of the domestic anti-slavery movement in Britain, which around the turn of the century gained enough political influence to affect foreign policy.
I agree with you that Britain attempting to abolish slavery in the US would have triggered a war of independance.
That's how the French and Indian war started (1754-60/63), not the Seven Years' War (1756-63).
Originally posted by Dark Knight
That's how the French and Indian war started (1754-60/63), not the Seven Years' War (1756-63).
bah! mostly the same. It's just that colonials weren't as educated as their european brothers and had trouble with their numbers
We started earlier and finished later 
Originally posted by viper37
Yes! And it would have led to the US rebellion!
They stopped it because it was no longer profitable for them as they didn't need as much slaves as when they controlled the Southern USA.
Heh heh heh. Imagine the US seceding from Britain over the slavery issue. Hello, South Africa II...
eF
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What if there was No american revoltion?
Originally posted by Pwyll
Yes it was the colonials, but on orders from Great Britain. I'll dig up the exact quote and I'll come back later.
And about British and slaves. They were against it, but they still traded slaves IIRC. South Africa was a British colony and many slaves were coming from there up till the early 1800s at least; but I could be mistaken. I seem to remember that a the time of Shaka Zulu, Great Britain was still engaged in the slave trading as many refugees from Shaka's expansion were "transformed" into slaves by the British...
And about expansion, yes, 150 years without expansion because they didn't need it then
French were more respectful of indians because they needed them. Had we been over 1 million colonists in New France, I think it would have been very different. Same goes for Great Britain. They realized they needed the indians and started treating them as equals when the Americans started to talk about open rebellion.
The closest French Settlements from the Ohio valley would have been le Détroit, Fort Saint-Joseph and the Illinois settlements (Sainte-Genevière, Fort de Chartres, Cahokia, Kaskaskia), which, by 1750, numbered 768 white settlers (natives and black slaves excluded). I do not have the numbers for Détroit, but I believe it was a bit more populated. Other places would have been mainly military outposts, but the presence of a few families (that of soldiers or officers) is not excluded. At any rate, they would have been few, fewer than those military outposts of Louisiana (Fort Toulouse (Alabama) had nearly 100 civilians living around the garrison).
Very true, viper, concerning the different goals and conditions of French and British policy. The Saint-Lawrence valley settlement had the advantage of being a native "no man's land", hence no early dispute about land possession. The same is true, if a bit more complicated, in the case of Louisiana, where the Lower Mississipi Valley Nations had formerly been weakened by Spanish firts contact (diseases).
As for British native policy, one must not forget the experience of the Pontiac Rebellion, which clearly showed to the British they had to continue for themselves the former French policy. "Treated them as equals" seems to me, however, an exageration, both for the French and British (and certainly for the Americans...).
Very true, viper, concerning the different goals and conditions of French and British policy. The Saint-Lawrence valley settlement had the advantage of being a native "no man's land", hence no early dispute about land possession. The same is true, if a bit more complicated, in the case of Louisiana, where the Lower Mississipi Valley Nations had formerly been weakened by Spanish firts contact (diseases).
As for British native policy, one must not forget the experience of the Pontiac Rebellion, which clearly showed to the British they had to continue for themselves the former French policy. "Treated them as equals" seems to me, however, an exageration, both for the French and British (and certainly for the Americans...).
In 1774 Britain made The Ohio valley part of Canada....some people say this precipitated the American Revolution. They did this because they wanted to remain as a trading zone for the lucrative fur trade. If you open this territory up for settlement obviously your trade is going to suffer, just as it does in EU. The Ohio compny was reformed in 1786 to develop the Ohio valley after they had won it from Britain in the Revolution. The first authorized permanent settlement was founded in 1788 at Marietta.
Denark was the first European power to ban the slave trade in 1792.Britain and the US didnt ban the slave trade till 1807 or so....It doesn't surprise me in the least but it does tell us that public pressure had been mounting for it. the Brirish were never really involved in South Africa till later in the later 19th century...It was more the property of the Dutch Boers....until the English took it off of them when they discovered gold and Diamonds there. they had interests there of course but they were fairly minor....Rorke's Drift and Islandwana was 1879 and it was in the Boer territorial sphere.
emancipation of slaves France 1848
Netherlands 1863
Brazil 1888
USA 1865
Denark was the first European power to ban the slave trade in 1792.Britain and the US didnt ban the slave trade till 1807 or so....It doesn't surprise me in the least but it does tell us that public pressure had been mounting for it. the Brirish were never really involved in South Africa till later in the later 19th century...It was more the property of the Dutch Boers....until the English took it off of them when they discovered gold and Diamonds there. they had interests there of course but they were fairly minor....Rorke's Drift and Islandwana was 1879 and it was in the Boer territorial sphere.
emancipation of slaves France 1848
Netherlands 1863
Brazil 1888
USA 1865
Last edited:
I do not know exactly what you mean by "emancîpation", but the slave trade in France was abolished during the Revolution (1794), reestablished by Napoléon in 1802. Slave trade is again officially banned in 1817, but strictly enforced only beginning in 1823-1826 (Commission extraordinaire de Nantes) and in 1831 (third law), trader are facing 10-20 years of prison work if convicted of slave trading.
Emancipation is the actual act of freeing all slaves in French controlled Territories. Therefore the motherland and all colonies slaves are set free.
They outlawed the slave trade ( the trade of goods in slaves ) and in 1845 France and Britain had small squadrons patrolling the African coast for slave traders.