Jackson Lennock
Well-known member
Until the 1830s, the antislavery movement was centered in the American Upper South. Virginia had a vote on adopting a gradual manumission scheme in 1831-1832 just before the Nat Turner rebellion. Henry Clay, though a slaveholder himself, also supported gradual abolition. Antislavery forces hoped to succeed at the 1850 Kentucky Constitutional convention, but that backfired on them. A lot of antislavery politics was tied to the upland south (eastern Kentucky, Eastern Tennessee, West Virginia) having a class opposition to the wealthy lowlanders, and a concern that slavery promoted an american gentocracy and concentrated wealth. Antislavery politics was often coupled with opposition to primogeniture, for example.
Let's say Virginia votes to adopt a gradual manumission scheme in 1831 or 1832. Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri adopt similar measures by the 1850s.
The Upper South approach towards abolition tended to involve deportation/colonization schemes though. The Virginia proposal would have deported all of the slaves in the State to Liberia, and required the newly freed to work to cover the costs of their being ferried abroad. But only 4,561 people went to Liberia from 1820 to 1843. It'd require a lot of effort to actually enforce a mass deportation of over half a million people, and a lot of Freedmen and White Abolitionists basically viewed deportation schemes as abhorrent for obvious reasons.
There'd probably be more pressure to expand the country for slavery's benefit, but I imagine the planters wouldn't have the political heft to make demands without the Upper South states firmly behind them. Texas and Florida might be admitted as multiple states though.
In the immediate term, I imagine Upper South Planters would just sell a great many slaves further south. My guess is there's be a number of "doughface" states which are antislavery themselves but also opposed to broader antislavery politics. Think of New York financiers who OTL financed much southern economy development, the attempted creation of "Colorado" in Southern California via the Californias and Southern-arrivals forming an anti-Yankee bloc, and the TTL Upper South States which are transitioning away from slavery.
As a separate matter, Dred Scott might not happen TTL. The Supreme Court might just rule the issue more narrowly (Scott wasn't a citizen and couldn't bring suit in Federal Court) because with the Deep South unable to pick a fight on its own, the Court might not feel the need to try and "solve" a big national problem.
Let's say Virginia votes to adopt a gradual manumission scheme in 1831 or 1832. Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri adopt similar measures by the 1850s.
The Upper South approach towards abolition tended to involve deportation/colonization schemes though. The Virginia proposal would have deported all of the slaves in the State to Liberia, and required the newly freed to work to cover the costs of their being ferried abroad. But only 4,561 people went to Liberia from 1820 to 1843. It'd require a lot of effort to actually enforce a mass deportation of over half a million people, and a lot of Freedmen and White Abolitionists basically viewed deportation schemes as abhorrent for obvious reasons.
There'd probably be more pressure to expand the country for slavery's benefit, but I imagine the planters wouldn't have the political heft to make demands without the Upper South states firmly behind them. Texas and Florida might be admitted as multiple states though.
In the immediate term, I imagine Upper South Planters would just sell a great many slaves further south. My guess is there's be a number of "doughface" states which are antislavery themselves but also opposed to broader antislavery politics. Think of New York financiers who OTL financed much southern economy development, the attempted creation of "Colorado" in Southern California via the Californias and Southern-arrivals forming an anti-Yankee bloc, and the TTL Upper South States which are transitioning away from slavery.
As a separate matter, Dred Scott might not happen TTL. The Supreme Court might just rule the issue more narrowly (Scott wasn't a citizen and couldn't bring suit in Federal Court) because with the Deep South unable to pick a fight on its own, the Court might not feel the need to try and "solve" a big national problem.