What US states would have started emancipation without the civil war

I'm intrigued by the idea of a US without a civil war. One question that comes to mind is what slave states as of 1860 would have begun the process of emancipation over the next few years.
From what I've read its pretty hard to find much evidence of emancipation about to happen on its own in most of the states. In no states that I'm aware of were there vigorous state legislature debates on ending slavery, since Virginia in the 1830's. Kentucky had a constitutional convention in 1850 to discuss slavery but instead of weakening it, the convention actually strengthened it.
In Delaware however slavery was in fact on its last legs, with only about 2,000 slaves left in the whole state, vs 17,000 or so free blacks. With easy emancipation laws, plus a now decades long experience with a majority free black population, it truly was only a matter of time before slavery was over de facto if not de jure. I believe that sometime by 1870 or so Delaware would have officially abolished slavery, as by that time the amount of slaves left, if current trends continued, would have been only about 1,000 or less.
Missouri was the most significant slave state that would have seen political efforts to end slavery in the 1860's era I believe. There were Republican members of the state legislature, congress, etc. by 1860, and assuming European, predominately German, immigration continued unabated without a civil war, Missouri would have become more and more Republican (or whatever form anti-slavery politics would have taken without a civil war). Also, with Kansas statehood an accomplished fact by 1861, Nebraska coming online in the 1860's as well, Missouri would now have free states to its west, east and north. Its relatively small slave population would have been the perfect laboratory for experimental abolitionism, starting out with liberalization of emancipation laws, compensated emancipation and other measures.
Maryland would have been another finalist, with its 50% free black population, and like Delaware a decades long experience with a mass free black population. While the state legislatures of the 1840's and 1850's hadn't done anything to move toward total emancipation, perhaps with a cooling off of political passions (lets say after the South and slavery had survived an entire term of President Lincoln without the sky falling or the world coming to an end), the gradual dying away of slavery in Maryland would have received new impetus. However, if I had to predict, I'd say Delaware would be the first abolitionist state, followed by Missouri.
 
You've pretty much answered your own question. ;) Those three states, and in that order (Delaware, Missouri, Maryland) are the only real contenders. Had slavery been weakened earlier on, and had Virginia as a result decided to end it in the 1830s, I'd say that would be the start of a gradual abolitionism, to be concluded around 1900. Yeah, that's right. Even with a much weakened institution of slavery, I still reckon the deep south would hold onto it for a good long time. (More of a bad long time, really.)

This is because even if Virginia abolished it in the 1830s, there would be no way that all states would follow within a decade. And here's the thing: cotton prices historically fluctuated, and high prices made slaves more important, economically. And from the mid-1840s though the 1860s IOTL... cotton prices experienced an unpredentedly long-lasting high. Which was a major factor when it came to slavery.

Basically, you need to ditch slavery by the 1840s, or the cotton states are going to hold on to it for a good long while. Because even if the cotton prices crash by the 1860s (which they surely would), by that point, slavery has become so deeply entrenched, and is such a contested issue... they won't give it up willingly.

So if the POD is "no civil war," with a relatively unaltered timeline up to then, expect all slave states bar the three you mentioned to keep slavery for a long time. When cotton prices drop, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkensas, Virginia and North Carolina (likely in that order) can conceivably be persuaded to start getting rid of slavery. But slowly, over years if not decades. Texas might follow their lead.

But the deep south? As I said: even if the aforementioned states follow Virginia's lead and commence abolition in the 1830s, the deep south will not soon be swayed. With an even later POD, I can see the deep south sticking to slavery well into the first half of the 20th century.

Bottom line: to kill slavery... strike early.
 
Last edited:
^The deep south won't be able to hold out all that long once all those other states have emancipated. The Yanks will be all over them about it and they won't have the same solidarity from the other Southern States. Does anyone know when the progressives where big in the South? I can't remember.

Might be a while. Slavery was still profitable in 1860, although it was becoming less and less so. I wouldn't anything before the 1890s most likely, with some early adopters (Texas maybe?) possible in the 1880s. In part it would depend on what pressure and what kind of pressure the North put on them, presumably there would be less, or more subtle pressure in TTL to end slavery. The South would need to be pressured without feeling like they had been backed into a corner, if the ideologues can keep it low key I could see slavery ending before the turn of the century. Jim Crow would still be a problem, but the prevention of the Civil War may or may not cause it to end sooner.

EDIT: Hadn't even thought about Delaware Missouri and Maryland. Those would be far and away the first to emancipate.
 
But the deep south? As I said: even if the aforementioned states follow Virginia's lead and commence abolition in the 1830s, the deep south will not soon be swayed. With an even later POD, I can see the deep south sticking to slavery well into the first half of the 20th century.

I can see the deep south sticking with slavery well into the first half of the 21st century.
 
You've pretty much answered your own question. ;) Those three states, and in that order (Delaware, Missouri, Maryland) are the only real contenders. Had slavery been weakened earlier on, and had Virginia as a result decided to end it in the 1830s, I'd say that would be the start of a gradual abolitionism, to be concluded around 1900. Yeah, that's right. Even with a much weakened institution of slavery, I still reckon the deep south would hold onto it for a good long time. (More of a bad long time, really.)

This is because even if Virginia abolished it in the 1830s, there would be no way that all states would follow within a decade. And here's the thing: cotton prices historically fluctuated, and high prices made slaves more important, economically. And from the mid-1840s though the 1860s IOTL... cotton prices experienced an unpredentedly long-lasting high. Which was a major factor when it came to slavery.

Basically, you need to ditch slavery by the 1840s, or the cotton states are going to hold on to it for a good long while. Because even if the cotton prices crash by the 1860s (which they surely would), by that point, slavery has become so deeply entrenched, and is such a contested issue... they won't give it up willingly.

So if the POD is "no civil war," with a relatively unaltered timeline up to then, expect all slave states bar the three you mentioned to keep slavery for a long time. When cotton prices drop, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkensas, Virginia and North Carolina (likely in that order) can conceivably be persuaded to start getting rid of slavery. But slowly, over years if not decades. Texas might follow their lead.

But the deep south? As I said: even if the aforementioned states follow Virginia's lead and commence abolition in the 1830s, the deep south will not soon be swayed. With an even later POD, I can see the deep south sticking to slavery well into the first half of the 20th century.

Bottom line: to kill slavery... strike early.

This, pretty much. Missouri and Maryland in particular weren't exactly attached to the Perfidious Institution all that much, and in fact, with the right PODs(and the right cards being played), both could have eliminated slavery a couple of years *before* the Civil War had started. Even more so for Delaware.

In the worst case scenario, possibly, slavery might theoretically last as late as the 1950s, maybe(though that's really stretching things); but that's assuming that the Feds adopt a rather hardcore "leave 'em alone" policy in regards to Southern slavery, if slavery manages to diversify enough, and if the remaining slave states choose to make banning slavery illegal within their borders. But even by the '30s or even earlier, there'd be a risk of a total economic implosion.....and one that could take down not just the South, but the whole damn country with it! And if that were to transpire, it'd make the Great Depression look tame in comparison.

I'd say that the absolute middle of the road scenario might be about 1895-1905 or so; depending on just how dependent the Southern elite become on slave labor, there may be some short-term difficulties indeed. But the longer slavery is allowed to fester, the worse the outcome gets, especially in the long term. 1950 or so is about as high as we can go, pretty much. Anymore than that might require a borderline ASB amount of handwavium: even many of the most conservative Yankees would definitely want slavery gone by then.
 
When slavery was ended by force the South switched to share cropping, convict labor, and other methods.

Would they still do that even if they end chattel slavery themselves, and if they did how long would those last?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Only Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri. The other states would only have ended slavery when forced to do so.
 
When slavery was ended by force the South switched to share cropping, convict labor, and other methods.

Slavery by other means, IOW.

Would they still do that even if they end chattel slavery themselves, and if they did how long would those last?

Chattel Slavery yesterday, chattel slavery today, chattel slavery tomorrow, and chattel slavery forever. If such a thing can exist legally under slavery, and prostitution's worst aspects constituting the same today, I can't see the USA ever giving that part of the institution up. Except under "by another name" circumstances.

Though giving women the vote in the 1920s or later MIGHT create a One Issue Vote wave (as it did for Prohibition) regarding Chattel Slavery.

Only Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri. The other states would only have ended slavery when forced to do so.

You have to handwave all the many compromises that locked all the states south of the Mason-Dixon Line for the Border States to even begin to consider altering the institution of Slavery within their state borders.

BTW, Delaware, left to its own devices, would probably have abolished Slavery before the Civil War. OTOH, Kentucky was a "One Drop State", and didn't pass the 13th Amendment until 1976, as part of the Bi-Centennial.

The results of the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott Decision made the entirety of the USA a de facto nation of Slavery anyway. After those two decisions were made, an American Civil War was inevitable. The South was NOT willing to countenance remaining within the Union following the election of an all Northern political party taking the reins in the White House. All 15 previous presidents had been Southerners, Southern sympathizing Northerners, or had fire eating Southern vice-presidents.

Assuming a less intolerant South and more patient North? If nothing else, the arrival of the boll weevil and the introduction of mechanization of farming will make Slavery less profitable. But not so for Chattel Slavery. So Fiver has a point.
 
Last edited:
Gary J. Kornblith's "Rethinking the Coming of the Civil War: A Counterfactual Exercise" in the *Journal of American History* (Volume 90, No. 1, June 2003) (unfortunately, it does not seem to be available online for non-subscribers) argues that

"Yet without the Civil War, it seems highly unlikely that the states of the border South would have acted to abolish slavery anytime soon. Antislavery forces were growing weaker, not stronger, in the region at midcentury. In 1851 Cassius Clay, a gradualist, lost his bid for the governorship of Kentucky by an overwhelming margin. "Even in Delaware," Freehling acknowledged, 'where over fifteen thousand slaves in 1790 had shrunk to under two thousand in 1860, slaveholders resisted final emancipation"--and they did so successfully until 1865. Perhaps most revealing of all was President Lincoln's failure to persuade border South congressmen to support gradual, compensated emancipation. Had the United States followed the Brazilian path to abolition, the South's peculiar institution would almost surely have persisted beyond 1900. It required a war to end American slavery in the nineteenth century...

"On the basis of our counterfactual thought experiment, we can conclude that the Mexican-American War was a necessary, if not sufficient, cause of the Civil War that broke out in 1861, and that the Civil War was a necessary, if not sufficient, cause of American abolition in the nineteenth century..."

As Delaware shows, there is a big difference between (1) slavery being in decline in a state and (2) final abolition of slavery in such a state. (2) was very hard to achieve--Delaware had been "on the verge" of abolishing slavery for decades, and yet it was the *last* state in the Unon actually to do so! (How many people would have bet in 1860 that slavery would have been abolished in South Carolina sooner than in Delaware?) Abolishing slavery in Kentucky and Maryland would be even harder--Lincoln got only a minisucle vote in both states (though I am sure some Bell voters in Maryland would be open to gradual emancipation--even Henry Winter Davis supported Bell in Maryland, because he thought Lincoln had no chance of carrying the state, and would only carry it for Breckinridge--which is exactly what happened).

OTOH, I am not as sure as Kornblith that antislavery forces were actually losing ground in the border slave states in the mid-nineteenth century. In particular, I don't think this is true of Missouri, where Frank Blair had become the first Republican elected to Congress from a slave state, and where in 1857 James S. Rollins almost defeated the pro-slavery Democratic candidate for governor. Rollins, an old Whig, had the backing of Missouri's former Whigs, Know Nothings, Free Soilers, and Benton Democrats--an "Oppositonist" coalition which was to be the foundation of Missouri's Republican Party. He was a slaveholder himself and not an immediate emancipationist, and yet he did openly say that the time might come when Missouri would do away with slavery. Admittedly, northern and foreign (especially German) migration made Missouri a special case. Still, Lincoln only got ten percent of the vote in Missouri in 1860--and that was almost entirely from St. Louis and a few German counties. Converting enough Bell men (and even some Democats) in Missouri into emancipationsts would have been necessary, and this would have been a difficult task.
 
What would have happened if slaveowners were compensated a la the British Empire? Would that have worked to convince the slaveocracy in any state to let it go? They would still have a work force, just pay them lousy wages, cheat them, etc., as happened with sharecropping. I know the taxpayers wouldn't like to pick up the tab; so maybe exempt citizens from slave states from the tax? Is that possible? So you tell the anti-slavery northeners that they gotta put their money where their mouths are, sort of thing. I admit this sounds a bit messy! Probably makes all the abolitionists unpopular, since many Yankees weren't that keen on freeing the slaves anyway.
 
What would have happened if slaveowners were compensated a la the British Empire? Would that have worked to convince the slaveocracy in any state to let it go? They would still have a work force, just pay them lousy wages, cheat them, etc., as happened with sharecropping. I know the taxpayers wouldn't like to pick up the tab; so maybe exempt citizens from slave states from the tax? Is that possible? So you tell the anti-slavery northeners that they gotta put their money where their mouths are, sort of thing. I admit this sounds a bit messy! Probably makes all the abolitionists unpopular, since many Yankees weren't that keen on freeing the slaves anyway.

The most obvious problem with asking slaveholders to accept compensated emancipation is that they themselves would be paying part of the costs of emancipation. A second is that they were familiar with how compensation had not prevented the economic ruin of planters in Jamaica.

I'll quote an old soc.history.what-if post of mine:

***


As for the consequences of emancipation for the planters, I will quote the
1957 Encyclopedia Britannica's article "Jamaica". After noting that the
end of the slave trade in 1807 and the drop in sugar prices after the
Napoleonic wars had already caused problems for the planters (who tended
to be improvident and in debt to their London factors) it adds:

"Emancipation struck a further blow at the planters' prosperity and
security. All slaves were emancipated by an act of the imperial parliament
in 1833. They became free in fact, after a period of so-called
apprenticeship, in 1838. Many of the more enterprising among them left
the plantations and took to the hills, where their descendants live as
small-holding peasants today. The planters received compensation at the
rate of £ 19 per slave, but most of the compensation went into the hands
of their creditors. They were left financially exhausted and with a
scarcity of labour..."

Southerners were very well aware of what had happened in the West Indies:
"Investigation of economic conditions in the West Indies during the 1840s
and 1850s, for example, revealed a withdrawal of labor and sharp declines
in the production of sugar following emancipation. This unfortunate news
was seized upon by southern propagandists" as proof that emancipation in
the US would be economically disastrous. British abolitionists
acknowledged that sugar production had declined to just two-thirds of the
pre-1833 level, though they blamed not emancipation but the inability of
the planters to cope with free labor markets. (American abolitionists
flatly denied that there had been any decline in productivity at all.)
Robert W. Fogel, *Without Consent or Contract*, p. 407. http://books.google.com/books?id=F-KIAOQxKigC&pg=PA407
 
What would have happened if slaveowners were compensated a la the British Empire? Would that have worked to convince the slaveocracy in any state to let it go? They would still have a work force, just pay them lousy wages, cheat them, etc., as happened with sharecropping. I know the taxpayers wouldn't like to pick up the tab; so maybe exempt citizens from slave states from the tax? Is that possible? So you tell the anti-slavery northeners that they gotta put their money where their mouths are, sort of thing. I admit this sounds a bit messy! Probably makes all the abolitionists unpopular, since many Yankees weren't that keen on freeing the slaves anyway.

In truth, neither would the North pay the money nor the South accept it.
 
I think Tennessee would lose it, especially if other states had set a precedent. Only West Tennessee was completely dependent on slavery, and even there poor whites were beginning to hold more and more land. East Tennessee was VERY anti-slavery, and if they continued to industrialize, could swing enough Middle TN votes to abolish it.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
During the war, Lincoln tried to persuade slaveowners

In truth, neither would the North pay the money nor the South accept it.

During the war, Lincoln tried to persuade slaveowners in various US states/liberated territories (Delaware among them) to accept compensated emancipation; basically, this was one of the many policy options regarding reconstruction the Administration tried, in locations as diverse as US-controlled Louisiana and South Carolina to Tennessee and the border states.

Slaveowners were not interested - "not a federal issue" (seriously, that was the argument).


http://www.lib.udel.edu/ud/spec/exhibits/lincolnbicent/01_slave.html#compensated

After all, as early as the 1830s, Calhoun et al were arguing that slavery was a "positive good"....

"...(slavery) has grown up with our society and institutions, and is so interwoven with them that to destroy it would be to destroy us as a people. But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil:–far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually."

See:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/slavery-a-positive-good/

No matter how hard various and sundry individuals have tried to obscure it since 1865, the South seceded over their various elites desire to sustain and grow slavery, and the war occurred because the south seceded.

One can pretend otherwise, and the moonlight and magnolias/lost cause/some of my best friends are enslaved types will continue to do so for ever, but...

It's true.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Top