More important than the point of Washington personally owning slaves, the US was two generations behind the UK in banning slavery. A counterfactual where the US didn’t leave Britain (or seceded peacefully later on in a manner similar to Canada, Australia, etc) likely means emancipation of slaves much earlier. So at least contemporaneously the “machinery of freedom” argument is implausible; you’d basically need the World Wars/maybe the Cold War before the argument becomes plausible.
Would UK have banned slavery if the US where still a British colony? Moreover, with a large un represented colonial empire of people of English descent, would the UK keep its parliamentarian path? Many British Whig took a pro colonial position for some reason…
More important than the point of Washington personally owning slaves, the US was two generations behind the UK in banning slavery. A counterfactual where the US didn’t leave Britain (or seceded peacefully later on in a manner similar to Canada, Australia, etc) likely means emancipation of slaves much earlier. So at least contemporaneously the “machinery of freedom” argument is implausible; you’d basically need the World Wars/maybe the Cold War before the argument becomes plausible.
Would UK have banned slavery if the US where still a British colony? Moreover, with a large un represented colonial empire of people of English descent, would the UK keep its parliamentarian path? Many British Whig took a pro colonial position for some reason…