LogFAQs > #925502724

That said, slavery wasn't finally outlawed across British colonies until 1834, fewer than 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation. While I haven't extensively researched a timeline, I kinda expect that America and the UK were having similar debates around the same time... then again, even the founding fathers who criticized slavery were often slaveholders themselves (including Alexander Hamilton, who also bought and sold slaves on behalf of relatives).

First off, slavery in the north was drastically different than it was in the south. This is largely due to the higher industrialization and lack of a serious cash crop. So a slave in the north would likely be about on-par with a maid or servant as opposed to what happened down south. To top it off the North had a massive number of immigrants so there was little point in spending the money to buy and maintain a slave when you could hire an immigrant for pathetic wages. The issue with the south, however, is that it's economy was largely dependent on crops in order to survive. As such outlawing slavery would have meant complete economic ruin for the south. However even in the south there were problems with the quality of the goods grown and, were it not for the invention of the Cotton Gin (which was, sadly, invented to try and make life better for the remaining slaves as opposed to revitalizing the industry) it's likely it would have died out. But with the Cotton Gin revitalizing the industry the south's economy was further tied to the cash crop which required slaves.

In Britain it was illegal to own slaves and even in the colonies it was a grey area. The growing importance of the American colonies meant it wasn't unlikely that England would have outlawed slavery before long which would have ruined the south. The north was no fan of slavery either and desired it gone but it needed the south in order to succeed in the war of independence. They did work to do things like outlaw the import of fresh slaves though.

The Civil War was really sort of inevitable to be honest. There was no way that a centralized government could have continued to permit slavery in the south with the increasing hatred in the north. Likewise a decentalized government would likely have crumbled apart upon this issue and the only way unity could be preserved would be permitting slavery across the nation which would have outraged the North. With the newly-born Republican party running a president on strong anti-slavery agendas it was blatant that, if Lincoln won, the south would have a choice between succession or economic ruin. We can still see this today as the south is notoriously full of things like rednecks which are basically the result of said economic collapse.
---

I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage