1784; Slavery Prohibited in the American West
- Thread starter Othniel
- Start date
Slavery was legal almost everywhere before the 1820s... from Canada to Argentina..
Not in Massachusetts, though...
Anyway, it would be interesting to see the effects of this, but did the bill even have a chance of passing? So basically only the coastal South would be allowed to have Slavery?
As I said before it was only one vote short, so I'd say yes, it did, given the right person in one of those that voted against it places.Not in Massachusetts, though...
Anyway, it would be interesting to see the effects of this, but did the bill even have a chance of passing? So basically only the coastal South would be allowed to have Slavery?
Max Sinister
Banned
Sounds like that - and I guess that's the reason it wouldn't win. Unless for I don't know which reasons the Southerners would think that the end of slavery is near anyways.
Up until about the 1830s there had been great opptimism about Slavery dieing out.
These are the points the textbook gives (Its talking about the orgins of Anti-slavery in the US, a good summary if nothing else)
The revolution had also disrupted slavery's hold in the south, albeit for a short time. A nearly a quater of Georgia and South Carolina's Slave Populations had become free, mostly through escape.
Up until the opitimism of slavery dieing out had died out the period between the revolution and the growth of the slave population to over a million it looked like slavery was die off through poltics.
Max Sinister
Banned
"A nearly a quarter of Georgia and South Carolina's Slave Populations had become free, mostly through escape."
Interesting, didn't know that. What happened with them? The free Black population stayed rather small AFAIK, and not all of them will have gone to Liberia.
Interesting, didn't know that. What happened with them? The free Black population stayed rather small AFAIK, and not all of them will have gone to Liberia.
The 5000 that escaped from Georgia and the 20,000 of South Carolina likely fled north... and most of them wouldn't have gone to Liberia, as it wasn't up and running for a few years more and colonization wasn't popular with leaders among freed slaves. Expatriation really didn't start until Jefferson attempt with Gabriel's Revolt, which wasn't until 1800.
My POD takes place in effect in 1784. 16 years difference, during the height of antislavery optimism...and it effectively limits slavery to the South-eastern Seaboard. With the general decline of slavery outside of the cottonbelt (as Slavery was decling in the Northern Tier, and increasing in the Southern tier of slave states when OTL's civil War came up. Thus it is my speculaton that South Carolina and Georgia would be the only ones with slaves naturally.)
My POD takes place in effect in 1784. 16 years difference, during the height of antislavery optimism...and it effectively limits slavery to the South-eastern Seaboard. With the general decline of slavery outside of the cottonbelt (as Slavery was decling in the Northern Tier, and increasing in the Southern tier of slave states when OTL's civil War came up. Thus it is my speculaton that South Carolina and Georgia would be the only ones with slaves naturally.)
One of the reasons that the Indian Territories formed was that land was undesirable to use for slavery-related agriculture. These states might retain their Native American Tribes rather than being pushed out.
The first thread I start here at AH was on this precise subject.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=31629
Very interesting. I find it quite sad that men like Jefferson, Madison, and Washington couldn't find it in themselves too speak publicly about their privately held feelings about slavery and the future of America.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=31629
Very interesting. I find it quite sad that men like Jefferson, Madison, and Washington couldn't find it in themselves too speak publicly about their privately held feelings about slavery and the future of America.
I also believe there would be a purchase, though the Act of Congress might not apply to the Trans-Mississippi West... (One of the stipulations of the treaty which banned slavery from the Old Northwest only had it North of the Ohio and East of the Mississippi.)
Glen
Moderator
I wonder if the 1784 law would be considered to apply to the lands of the Louisiana Purchase automatically, or would it be considered a different case.
By the time of the Louisiana Purchase, even if Slave States stayed such, they would be outnumbered 2 to 1. However, there is no guarantee that there wouldn't be knock-off effects leading to further abolition in the Slave States. Then again, there might be a backlash against the act so narrowly passed.
Perhaps a split decision. The Border States go for gradual abolition, whereas the Lower South goes in for a harder stance, fed even more once the Cotton Gin is invented. I've often thought that in some situation like this, we might very well see proud South Carolina try for its independence, relying on the precedent of the Revolution to justify its actions. Perhaps it pulls in the other slave states as well...only to be rather soundly crushed by the rest of the United States.
Now then, WHEN would things come to a head? The Louisiana Purchase could be just that sort of trigger. Here the US buys all new territory, technically already allowing Slavery. The Free States of course expect the territory beyond the Mississippi to be free soil, just like the rest of the US West. The Slave States, outnumbered and feeling rather unheard, demand that the Louisiana stay Slave, so they can see some chance of equal numbers of Free and Slave states within the Union. However, this will be voted down. South Carolina votes Secession, maybe Georgia and perhaps even North Carolina, though this one is doubtful. I assume here that Virginia had gone gradual abolition before the invention of the Cotton Gin.
By the time of the Louisiana Purchase, even if Slave States stayed such, they would be outnumbered 2 to 1. However, there is no guarantee that there wouldn't be knock-off effects leading to further abolition in the Slave States. Then again, there might be a backlash against the act so narrowly passed.
Perhaps a split decision. The Border States go for gradual abolition, whereas the Lower South goes in for a harder stance, fed even more once the Cotton Gin is invented. I've often thought that in some situation like this, we might very well see proud South Carolina try for its independence, relying on the precedent of the Revolution to justify its actions. Perhaps it pulls in the other slave states as well...only to be rather soundly crushed by the rest of the United States.
Now then, WHEN would things come to a head? The Louisiana Purchase could be just that sort of trigger. Here the US buys all new territory, technically already allowing Slavery. The Free States of course expect the territory beyond the Mississippi to be free soil, just like the rest of the US West. The Slave States, outnumbered and feeling rather unheard, demand that the Louisiana stay Slave, so they can see some chance of equal numbers of Free and Slave states within the Union. However, this will be voted down. South Carolina votes Secession, maybe Georgia and perhaps even North Carolina, though this one is doubtful. I assume here that Virginia had gone gradual abolition before the invention of the Cotton Gin.