US Politics if the Upper South transitions away from slavery

[Jackson Lennock]

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.

 

[frittering]

Until the 1960s every county in Maryland had the same number of legislative districts, meaning that the General Assembly was dominated by rural interests that were in turn dominated by the landed gentry on the Eastern Shore and in Southern Maryland, so the Old Line State adopting this proposal seems unlikely. If the idea does have broader cultural currency, though, a Bleeding Kansas-type insurgency between them and German Yankee hill people + abolitionists + slave revolts could maybe come about given the strength of Confederate sympathy in the state during the OTL Civil War. The Union army could certainly still have a reason to set up shop on Federal Hill with guns aimed at downtown Baltimore just as they actually did (have been up there and stood by the fake artillery they have pointing north many times, except I don't think they had a playground or the American Visionary Art Museum back then!)

 

[Charles EP M.]

In the immediate term, I imagine Upper South Planters would just sell a great many slaves further south.

With the logistical difficulty of forcibly deporting everyone to Liberia, I could see a lot more slaves being sold downwards before they get to be free, yeah. That changes the long-term demographics of the southern US.

Would freed slaves unwilling to go to Liberia be able to head to other free states, in an earlier Great Migration?

 

[JesterBL]

Would freed slaves unwilling to go to Liberia be able to head to other free states, in an earlier Great Migration?

Almost certainly not. Even post-Reconstruction the large scale movement of free Blacks into the North and West was met with immediate, retributive violence.

Colonization (shipment to Liberia) won't happen, and I think one of the largest questions here is who foots the bill. Manumission was incredibly expensive- Virginia was going to finance it largely with land sales, its hard to see how Delaware or Maryland do the same, to say nothing of Kentucky's fraught land politics.

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

If the Virginia Plan is institutionalized, it seems like at least in the short to medium term that you'd create essentially a peonage system.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

So if I'm getting this right, Maryland is unlikely to adopt a scheme because it would lack the revenue and the rural planter interests are overrepresented in the legislature and would block any emancipation attempt. Delaware is unlikely to adopt a scheme because it would lack the revenue.

Kentucky had fraught land politics. But to me, that seems like a reason why it would be adopted. A lot of the antislavery movement was premised on the yeoman class wanting to keep the planters from grabbing up farmlands.

 

[Japhy]

If the Virginia Plan is institutionalized, it seems like at least in the short to medium term that you'd create essentially a peonage system.

Considering this is broadly what happened IOTL it does make the most sense. The conditions that allowed for the Exodusters to become an option isn't there and yeah, Liberia was as a "solution" an Ideological dead end.

 

[raharris1973]

In the immediate term, I imagine Upper South Planters would just sell a great many slaves further south.

Which I think happened more often than is discussed during the gradual emancipation of the original "free states" of southern New England and the mid-Atlantic (like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island)

I wonder if exodusting to 'southern' non-state territories is possible, like to Florida territory (pre-1845) or Arkansas territory (pre-1836).

 

[Ricardolindo]

Almost certainly not. Even post-Reconstruction the large scale movement of free Blacks into the North and West was met with immediate, retributive violence.

Colonization (shipment to Liberia) won't happen, and I think one of the largest questions here is who foots the bill. Manumission was incredibly expensive- Virginia was going to finance it largely with land sales, its hard to see how Delaware or Maryland do the same, to say nothing of Kentucky's fraught land politics.

So if I'm getting this right, Maryland is unlikely to adopt a scheme because it would lack the revenue and the rural planter interests are overrepresented in the legislature and would block any emancipation attempt. Delaware is unlikely to adopt a scheme because it would lack the revenue.

Kentucky had fraught land politics. But to me, that seems like a reason why it would be adopted. A lot of the antislavery movement was premised on the yeoman class wanting to keep the planters from grabbing up farmlands.

Delaware had very few slaves to begin with. I don't think they would have financial problems emancipating the slaves.

 

[JesterBL]

Delaware had very few slaves to begin with. I don't think they would have financial problems emancipating the slaves.

You're mistaken- Delaware ended up with, at one point, the largest free black population by percentage in the United States precisely because of how many enslaved people they had once had relative to their population. They just happened to be a really small state.

The Delaware example may be instructive here, however- what led to the decline in enslaved persons as a percentage of the population was, in large part, a ban on intrastate sales that, along with the economics of the region, kept slave prices low relative to anywhere else in the South. Delaware banned exportation to Georgia, the Carolinas and the West Indies in 1787 and to Virginia, Maryland and others in 1789. (It was legal to export slaves to other states with a court order later in the era, but the decline had set in by that time).

It's also instructive in that Delaware did not avoid Black Codes- they had a number of restrictions meant to keep black laborers tied to the land prior to Reconstruction (including a vagrancy and forced labor component as early as 1849). There was also dubious legality to many of the state's own voluntary manumissions- enslaved persons were simply released, without the surety bond from former owner proscribed by law, and were vulnerable to reenslavement.

 

[Ricardolindo]

You're mistaken- Delaware ended up with, at one point, the largest free black population by percentage in the United States precisely because of how many enslaved people they had once had relative to their population. They just happened to be a really small state.

The Delaware example may be instructive here, however- what led to the decline in enslaved persons as a percentage of the population was, in large part, a ban on intrastate sales that, along with the economics of the region, kept slave prices low relative to anywhere else in the South. Delaware banned exportation to Georgia, the Carolinas and the West Indies in 1787 and to Virginia, Maryland and others in 1789. (It was legal to export slaves to other states with a court order later in the era, but the decline had set in by that time).

It's also instructive in that Delaware did not avoid Black Codes- they had a number of restrictions meant to keep black laborers tied to the land prior to Reconstruction (including a vagrancy and forced labor component as early as 1849). There was also dubious legality to many of the state's own voluntary manumissions- enslaved persons were simply released, without the surety bond from former owner proscribed by law, and were vulnerable to reenslavement.

See https://billofrightsinstitute.org/activities/chart-slave-population-in-1860. In 1860, slaves were only 1.6% of the population of Delaware, lower than any other slave state. Delaware came close to gradual emancipation twice, once in 1803 and another in 1847, both were defeated by only vote and the second one was by a State Senator who was later found out to actually reside in Pennsylvania.

 

[Japhy]

See https://billofrightsinstitute.org/activities/chart-slave-population-in-1860. In 1860, slaves were only 1.6% of the population of Delaware, lower than any other slave state. Delaware came close to gradual emancipation twice, once in 1803 and another in 1847, both were defeated by only vote and the second one was by a State Senator who was later found out to actually reside in Pennsylvania.

None of that is relevant to Jester's point. Especially because what he laid out is why the slave population was so low by 1860.

 

[Ricardolindo]

You're mistaken- Delaware ended up with, at one point, the largest free black population by percentage in the United States precisely because of how many enslaved people they had once had relative to their population. They just happened to be a really small state.

The Delaware example may be instructive here, however- what led to the decline in enslaved persons as a percentage of the population was, in large part, a ban on intrastate sales that, along with the economics of the region, kept slave prices low relative to anywhere else in the South. Delaware banned exportation to Georgia, the Carolinas and the West Indies in 1787 and to Virginia, Maryland and others in 1789. (It was legal to export slaves to other states with a court order later in the era, but the decline had set in by that time).

It's also instructive in that Delaware did not avoid Black Codes- they had a number of restrictions meant to keep black laborers tied to the land prior to Reconstruction (including a vagrancy and forced labor component as early as 1849). There was also dubious legality to many of the state's own voluntary manumissions- enslaved persons were simply released, without the surety bond from former owner proscribed by law, and were vulnerable to reenslavement.

None of that is relevant to Jester's point. Especially because what he laid out is why the slave population was so low by 1860.

Yes, you are right, my apologies. Meanwhile, I found this article about the history of slavery in Delaware, https://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2008/07/slavery-in-delaware.html. In the decade before the American Revolution, slaves were 20-25% of the population of Delaware.
Still, about the other part of my reply, Delaware did come close to gradual emancipation twice, once in 1803 and another in 1847, both of them were defeated by a single vote and the second one was by a State Senator who was later found out to actually live in Pennsylvania. I should note this wasn't fraud, just poor border survey.

 

[Japhy]

Yes, you are right, my apologies. Meanwhile, I found this article about the history of slavery in Delaware, https://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2008/07/slavery-in-delaware.html. In the decade before the American Revolution, slaves were 20-25% of the population of Delaware.
Still, about the other part of my reply, Delaware did come close to gradual emancipation twice, once in 1803 and another in 1847, both of them were defeated by a single vote and the second one was by a State Senator who was later found out to actually live in Pennsylvania. I should note this wasn't fraud, just poor border survey.

This might be a moment for you to realize that you should stop authoritatively commenting on things you've never read a book about.

 

[Ricardolindo]

This might be a moment for you to realize that you should stop authoritatively commenting on things you've never read a book about.

Are you objecting to the latter part of my reply or thankful that I am apologizing? Anyways, here in Portugal, it's hard to get access to such books and I found the blog a fairly good source. It cites sources, primarily this great website http://www.slavenorth.com/delaware.htm which cites a lot of bibliography. The gradual emancipation bill in 1847 is mentioned.

 

[Japhy]

Are you objecting to the latter part of my reply or thankful that I am apologizing? Anyways, here in Portugal, it's hard to get access to such books and I found the blog a fairly good source. It cites sources, primarily this great website http://www.slavenorth.com/delaware.htm which cites a lot of bibliography. The gradual emancipation bill in 1847 is mentioned.

My point is you should stop pretending you know what you're talking about when you outright don't or think that reading one questionably sourced blog makes you informed.

 

[Torten]

If a state does decide to abolish slavery, perhaps in the 1830's/1840's then wouldn't it start a crisis in the senate as the balance between slave and free states would be off?

 

[Ricardolindo]

If a state does decide to abolish slavery, perhaps in the 1830's/1840's then wouldn't it start a crisis in the senate as the balance between slave and free states would be off?

Delaware was the only realistic one and if they did, it would have had little effect because the Southerners had already written off Delaware as more than nominally Southern. One of its Senators, John Clayton, even voted for the Wilmot Proviso, which would have banned slavery in the Mexican Cession.

 

[Jared]

If a state does decide to abolish slavery, perhaps in the 1830's/1840's then wouldn't it start a crisis in the senate as the balance between slave and free states would be off?

It would certainly change the dynamic leading up to what became the Compromise of 1850. Expect even stronger pushes to create slave states elsewhere - and they were already significant to start with. May even lead to an American Civil War a decade early (give or take a couple of years) if an alternative compromise isn't hammered out.

 

[Ricardolindo]

It would certainly change the dynamic leading up to what became the Compromise of 1850. Expect even stronger pushes to create slave states elsewhere - and they were already significant to start with. May even lead to an American Civil War a decade early (give or take a couple of years) if an alternative compromise isn't hammered out.

An American Civil War a decade earlier would go better for the South because the North had fewer factories and railroads in 1851 than in 1861.