Where there any prominent anti abolitionist movements outside of the US during its chattel slavery period?

could you clarify what period you mean by chattel slavery? (which decades?)

I wrote my undergrad dissertation on British Suppression, and I heavily contributed to the wiki article the Blockade of Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Africa#United_Kingdom_involvement)

mega post inbound.... this is the bit with US in it, unfortunately it won't completely answer your question but it will give you an idea. The US refused to commit to British searches to their shipping, however many slave traders (being unscrupulous folk) would fly false US flags or get registered in Southern US States. This led to the inevitable result that RN officers started to search US ships, against the permission of their own and also the American government. This lead to diplomatic tensions, and in many ways shamed the US into committing to anti-slavery patrols. In 1842 the US and Britain signed a treaty allowing British ships right of search so long as the action was approved by a US officer, this was a step in the right direction but it didn't fully solve the problem which in the end was only fixed by the US better supporting their own African Squadron.

In this respect you could say that British efforts influenced the US abolitionist movement. In fact there was a certain amount of tit for tat legislating going on between the major powers to see who could protray themselves as the most abolitionist.

Part 2 The role of the Navy and Coercion amidst Diplomatic Stalemate (1820-1840)

Wilson describes the diplomatic situation up to 1839 as “most unsatisfactory” , he is correct in this view between 1817 and 1835 very little progress was made against the Slave Trade, particularly on a diplomatic front. In 1835 the Spanish accepted an equipment clause, however it would take a significant degree of coercion for the same clause to be accepted by Portugal and Brazil. The tidal wave of abolition of the 1810’s had turned to a low ebb. Due to this political stalemate coercion became the only way to force change. Some such as Lord Brougham appear to have become completely disillusioned with the political efforts, in 1838 he said in an impassioned speech;

“from the very nature of the means used to extirpate it, this infernal traffic becomes armed with new horrors, and continues to tear out, year after year, the very bowels of the great African continent—that scene of the greatest sufferings which have ever scourged humanity—the worst of all the crimes ever perpetrated by man!” “we pause and falter, and blanch and quail before the ancient and consecrated monarchy of Brazil, the awful might of Portugal, the compact, consolidated, overwhelming power of Spain.”

In many ways Brougham was correct in his assessment of the situation, the 1820’s had been a period of stalemate. The only real progress against the great slave trading nations in that period was with the limited 1826 Treaty with Brazil (which was the same as the one in place with Portugal) and in 1831 with a right to search convention with France. During the 1820’s the pursuit of further treaties had hit the doldrums, the major powers had already made concessions to Britain and were extremely reluctant to make more. Nonetheless in 1835 an important development was made, the ‘overwhelming power’ that was Spain made a major concession to the British Government. The Spanish Treaty included an equipment clause. Finally the Naval officers on the African Coast now had the tools with which to properly destroy the Slave Trade. Instead of having to wait for ships to be loaded, all Spanish vessels could be subject to search and if equipment was discovered aboard, captured and condemned. However in spite of this moderate success Portugal continued to defy British attempts at a similar agreement in the days of “Palmerstonian methods” of diplomacy this was foolish. For in 1839 a new act for the Suppression of the Slave Trade was signed into British law. It read:

“That it shall be lawful for the High Court of Admiralty of England, and for all Courts of Vice-Admiralty in any Colonies or Dominions of Her, Majesty beyond the Seas, to take cognizance of and try any such Portuguese Vessel which, shall be detained or captured either to the North or to the South of the Equator.”

Frustrated with the lack of progress with Portugal the British government had taken matters into its own hands, making Portuguese vessels subject to British law in an attempt to coerce the Portuguese government to sign a treaty with an equipment clause. The Portuguese government held out until 1842 when a convention was signed with Britain containing an equipment clause. This British government act was highly successful and saw the condemning of 65 Portuguese vessels within a year. Mathieson says these political developments meant “Great Britain was at last in a position to deal more or less effectively with the slave trade.” Unfortunately the lack of multilateral agreements meant that slavers were able to simply fly the flags of nations who had not granted Britain treaties. Efforts against Brazil and the United States were dogged by failure, both were almost completely unwilling to make any compromise. The US was a particular thorn in Britain’s side the large numbers of traders flying the US flag paralyzed the British efforts. The US view was that the freedom of the seas could not be curtailed and that British efforts to police the trade were simply a means with which to control the African continent. American politician John Forsyth following illegal seizures of US vessels wrote “the persistence” of British cruisers was “unwarranted,” “destructive to private interests” and “must inevitably destroy the harmony of the two countries.” Interestingly a similar view would later be adopted by the anti-coercionists of the British parliament. Brazil was another problem for Britain, she had no equipment clause in her 1826 Treaty which would expire in 1845 (which also meant the closure of courts). Brazil however, unlike the United States did not have the naval strength to be immune to coercion and therefore in 1845, Lord Aberdeen, the foreign secretary (1841-1846), reluctantly passed a British Act similar to that which had been made against Portugal in 1839 subjecting Brazilian vessels to Admiralty jurisdiction.

This diplomatic failure, and as Wilson and Mason argue the reluctance and lack of willpower of other nations also filtered into the system of Mixed Commission Courts. The method of prosecuting vessels was done through two courts, Vice Admiralty Courts for prosecutions under British law, and Mixed Commission Courts for those captured under the treaties with foreign powers. Mixed Commission Courts had representation from both the British and the home country of the slaver. However, due to a lack of will from foreign powers many courts had only British representation, their foreign counterparts either arriving late, or never arriving at all. In spite of this arrangement which at first seems to have given the British judges in the courts a free reign, the Brazilians were about to throw a spanner in the works, having not sent representation to the court at Sierra Leone in 1826 upon the signing of their treaty the British judges had sentenced slavers in their absence. However in 1828 the Brazilian Judge arrived, and he promptly reversed all judgements carried out in his absence. Further supporting Mason and Wilson’s argument Shaikh states that the other countries involved in mixed commission courts were rarely as dedicated to anti-slavery as the British. By the 1840’s the Mixed Commission system had almost completely fallen apart with in 1844 the dissolution of the Anglo-Portuguese in Freetown, followed by the Anglo-Brazilian court in 1845. This lead to a rise in the use of coercion and prosecutions under British law. As the period progressed there was a greatly reliance on Vice-Admiralty Courts, this is supported by Huzzey who states that these courts delivered half of the convictions for slave trading after 1837. Unfortunately Admiralty Courts only had power to confiscate ships and cargo of foreigners, therefore allowing the slaver to walk free.