The British had an Empire on that side of the World the Americans didn't. If you want to change the nature of bondage in the American South you'd probably do better to try and create a peonage system but you probaly have to go back to 1676 to do it.
Historically speaking the nature of slavery in the South differed depending on which colony you're talking about. The case of Virginia, for example, where a good portion of the Founding Fathers and some of the first Presidents were from, is a case in point. (Note that I'd be channeling Colin Woodard here, so apologies in advance.) In Virginia, the original aim was not to create the classic slavery system we're all familiar with, but a recreation of life of pre-Civil War England (though one could argue it was an attempt to recreate medieval England). One aspect of recreating England in the New World - and particularly
rural England - is the need to recreate a class system similar to what existed in England at the time (though I'm definitely oversimplifying here), with an aristocracy on top, professionals and gentry in the middle, followed by yeoman and lastly by serfs, servants, and what (to use an anachronistic modern term) we would call "white trash" but at the time of colonization would have been designated with other, more contemporary, terms of abuse, such as lubbers which the colonial authorities railed against bringing to the New World (but which happened anyway). When Africans were brought to Virginia, it was within the serf/servant category that in a Colonial North America context we'd call "indentured servants"; while it resembled slavery on the outside, the devil is in the details because in compliance with the traditional rules of the class system of the time, the plantation owner had obligations to his serfs which needed to be met, and vice versa - much like the classic feudal/manorial model in Europe, where the lord of the manor had feudal obligations to his serfs which the serfs 'repaid' in kind with their labor (i.e. the corvée, agricultural work, etc.).
(There were other things at work to try to recreate life in pre-Civil War England in Virginia, such as for example the House of Burgesses as a partial replica of Parliament and an established church - which invariably meant the Church of England, as it was for England and Wales at this time, and little space for Dissenters who could not preach without a license - but they are tangential to the topic. Yet when one includes them it presents a fuller picture of what Virginia's leaders thought their colony was like and the reality to everyone else.)
It's this archetype of slavery in Virginia that slavery apologists today refer to (even though they don't know it) when they assert "slavery wasn't all that bad", yet what slavery apologists leave out is that because of its unique nature in Virginia, as a result of the Revolution it could have been possible to abolish slavery and transition to something more similar to the contemporary UK (around the time the Industrial Revolution was booming). By contrast, elsewhere in the South where slavery existed, it was more of a Latin American type (and in particular similar to slavery in Brazil) that echoed what had already occurred in the British Caribbean, in places like Barbados in particular where the regime was unusually harsh even by contemporary standards. That is the type of slavery which prospered as a result of the cotton gin and which became emblematic of slavery as Americans understood it - the reality of slavery that modern apologists for slavery hide. This too could be the model where the "Trinidad solution" would work best, though in that case it would have to be after the Civil War if one wanted to perpetuate slavery - but it can't be called slavery, as that was one of the reasons the North and the South fought each other; one would need to use euphemisms like "contract labor" or "peonage" - in the Western Hemisphere peonage was a very Latin American construct that was brought over after the Civil War (though not use the exact term). Thus for anything south of Virginia a Civil War POD would be needed, and in particular a POD during Reconstruction. Alternatively, if one wanted an early abolition of slavery then one would need to treat the South as an inverse of New England, with Virginia proper taking on the role of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and all other areas in the South breaking off from Virginia and/or treating Virginia as a general name covering most of the South as a specific region like New England is for a specific section of the Northeast - and for that a POD in the colonial era is absolutely required since one would need to prevent the establishment of South Carolina for it to work.
TL;DR - a "Trinidad solution" is possible, but only for certain areas and with a Reconstruction POD. The OP could be met only for those colonies/states, apparently, which touch Chesapeake Bay due to peculiar historical circumstances specific to those colonies/states and because Virginia was the epicenter of early abolitionist sentiment during the Revolutionary era and was among the last areas to adopt the cotton gin.
