What if Virginia votes for gradual emancipation?

Resurgam · Oct 1, 2014

Inspired by posts in https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=329361

I'm basing this on the comments in the thread, but I am curious... what would have happened in Virginia voted to gradually emancipate the slaves in 1831? I would especially be curious about what happens 30 years later... assuming the Civil War isn't butterflied away, Virginia being a free or freeing state would mean it (and with it Robert E. Lee and other would-be Confederates) might remain loyal to the Union...

I freely admit some ignorance about this period in US history, so I'd be curious about some insight.

Johnrankins · Oct 1, 2014

USSManhattan said:
Inspired by posts in https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=329361

I'm basing this on the comments in the thread, but I am curious... what would have happened in Virginia voted to gradually emancipate the slaves in 1831? I would especially be curious about what happens 30 years later... assuming the Civil War isn't butterflied away, Virginia being a free or freeing state would mean it (and with it Robert E. Lee and other would-be Confederates) might remain loyal to the Union...

I freely admit some ignorance about this period in US history, so I'd be curious about some insight.

Virginia would be at worst a Union Slave State at the very end of the emancipation process, if the Civil War happens at all. Other slave states would probably follow Virginia, particularly Kentucky. If a civil war breaks out over slavery in TTL it is quickly squashed due to Virginia's manpower and industry being taken away from the CSA and given to the Union. Almost as important DC can't be threatened which frees up lots of men and ends a distraction.

Lee, Jackson, Stuart and other talented CSA generals fight for the Union which is really bad for the South. The South might be stuck with AS Johnston, Braxton Bragg and Leonidas Polk as army commanders.

Mark E. · Oct 1, 2014

I say there would be no civil war in 1861. One by one, states might grant freedom to children born to slaves. By the 1880's, you might have a thirteenth amendment without war.

Falecius · Oct 1, 2014

Mark E. said:
I say there would be no civil war in 1861. One by one, states might grant freedom to children born to slaves. By the 1880's, you might have a thirteenth amendment without war.

This sounds overly optimistic, but I concur that the effects of a non-slaveocratic Virginia are huge, and probably include no ACW as we know it.
OTOH, the reaction from the remaining slave states (which would likely be even more emphatically committed to slavery as many Viriginian slaves would be sold in the Deep South) could have important effects earlier, most notably on the *Mex-US war (more US territory? or less support for the war leading to an earlier compromise with Mexico retaining more lands?). A *Civil War remains possibile, although the odds would be tilted significantly more to the *Union side.

Thoresby · Oct 1, 2014

I can't imagine South Carolina or the Deep South will be persuaded of the merits of voluntary emancipation at any point.

mrmandias · Oct 1, 2014

Mark E. said:
I say there would be no civil war in 1861. One by one, states might grant freedom to children born to slaves. By the 1880's, you might have a thirteenth amendment without war.

I'm a little skeptical. The aim of the Virginia emancipation movement wasn't to free Virginia slaves. It was to 'denegrify' Virginia by forcing slaveowners to sell their slaves to the deep south, where slavery was much more profitable anyhow. In other words, it was an expressly racist movement, not an abolitionist one.

I can see the northern tier of slave states copying Virginia.

But in the core slave areas, there is nowhere to sell the slaves too, the slaves are too valuable to get rid of, and they make up too large a part of the workforce to get rid of.

CthulhuFhtagn · Oct 1, 2014

mrmandias said:
I'm a little skeptical. The aim of the Virginia emancipation movement wasn't to free Virginia slaves. It was to 'denegrify' Virginia by forcing slaveowners to sell their slaves to the deep south, where slavery was much more profitable anyhow. In other words, it was an expressly racist movement, not an abolitionist one.

I can see the northern tier of slave states copying Virginia.

But in the core slave areas, there is nowhere to sell the slaves too, the slaves are too valuable to get rid of, and they make up too large a part of the workforce to get rid of.

Might lead to an interesting situation over the years as the imbalance between slaves and whites gets larger (especially in states where slaves made up 40%+ of the population in OTL, like South Carolina and Mississippi). If those states try seceding, the slaves might figure out that they vastly outnumber their white "owners"....

Johnrankins · Oct 1, 2014

mrmandias said:
I'm a little skeptical. The aim of the Virginia emancipation movement wasn't to free Virginia slaves. It was to 'denegrify' Virginia by forcing slaveowners to sell their slaves to the deep south, where slavery was much more profitable anyhow. In other words, it was an expressly racist movement, not an abolitionist one.

I can see the northern tier of slave states copying Virginia.

But in the core slave areas, there is nowhere to sell the slaves too, the slaves are too valuable to get rid of, and they make up too large a part of the workforce to get rid of.

That would be how it started out. As time passed it would likely more and more identify itself with the Free States. By the 1860s it is more a Lower North state than an Upper South state.

raharris1973 · Oct 1, 2014

That would be how it started out. As time passed it would likely more and more identify itself with the Free States. By the 1860s it is more a Lower North state than an Upper South state.

bingo on Virginia rather than the whole south (except probably the Upper South & maybe Texas)

DominusNovus · Oct 1, 2014

Lets remember that Virginia was the most prestigious of all the states, let alone the southern slave states. Their example would likely lead the way for others on that alone.

Now, as far the reaction of the remaining slave-holding states that do not adopt emancipation, we should not rule out that the desire for manifest destiny to be extended southward, particularly with the aim of establishing slave states in such locations as Cuba, might be stronger as a result. Particularly if the Civil War is averted, saving those resources for any conflict that might arise with Spain or one of the Latin American countries.

David T · Oct 1, 2014

How close did Virginia come to abolishing slavery in the 1830's? Not really as close as is sometimes thought. A resolution saying that legislative action against slavery was "expedient"--without specifying any particular plan--was defeated by the House of Delegates 73-58. This was partly due to the fact that the 1829 apportionment favored the slaveholding East. (Incidentally, the state Senate was even more malapportioned, so even if the resolution had passed the House, it would not necessarily have been enacted.) If there had been a one-white-man-one-vote apportinment, the "expedient" resolution would still have been defeated--but by only 66-65. http://books.google.com/books?id=OCSL1OEwV6AC&pg=PA188

Even if the "expedient" motion had passed by a razor-thin majority, getting that majority to agree on one particular plan is going to be very difficult. Thomas Jefferson Randolph and William Henry Brodnax both agreed that slavery was a great evil for Virginia but they completely disagreed about how it should be ended. See pp. 182-185 of William W. Freehling's *The Road to Disunion: Volume I: Secessionists at Bay, 1776-1854* on their conflicting plans. http://books.google.com/books?id=OCSL1OEwV6AC&pg=PA182

One gets the feeling that even a more equitably apportioned Virginia legislature would in the end simply pass legislation encouraging the colonization of free blacks--with anti-slavery Virginians hoping it to be a "first step" toward eliminating slavery in Virginia, and their opponents hoping it to be merely a first step toward forcible explusion of all free blacks.

GeographyDude · Oct 2, 2014

mrmandias said:
I'm a little skeptical. The aim of the Virginia emancipation movement wasn't to free Virginia slaves. It was to 'denegrify' Virginia by forcing slaveowners to sell their slaves to the deep south, where slavery was much more profitable anyhow. In other words, it was an expressly racist movement, not an abolitionist one.

So, not at all a progressive policy. Or, even if some people vote for it for progressive reasons, the situation may not turn out that way.

Splitting up families may be the worse part of slavery, as bad as other parts are. I don't know for sure. It would be hard for anyone to know. You'd almost have to live several lifetimes being a slave in different situations and then you could speak authoritatively.

Rich Rostrom · Oct 2, 2014

GeographyDude said:
Splitting up families may be the worse part of slavery...

One of the proposals for ending slavery (and "dengrifying" Virginia) was the forcible "colonization" of free blacks in Africa.

And one objection to this proposal was that many free blacks had slave family members - so the program would break up these families. This was really considered cruel and unfair.

(This from David T.'s second Googlebooks link.)

Johnrankins · Oct 2, 2014

Rich Rostrom said:
One of the proposals for ending slavery (and "dengrifying" Virginia) was the forcible "colonization" of free blacks in Africa.

And one objection to this proposal was that many free blacks had slave family members - so the program would break up these families. This was really considered cruel and unfair.

(This from David T.'s second Googlebooks link.)

Which, in the end. would go nowhere. Virginia simply didn't have enough, money, shipping, and interior transport to do that.

Johnrankins · Oct 2, 2014

David T said:
How close did Virginia come to abolishing slavery in the 1830's? Not really as close as is sometimes thought. A resolution saying that legislative action against slavery was "expedient"--without specifying any particular plan--was defeated by the House of Delegates 73-58. This was partly due to the fact that the 1829 apportionment favored the slaveholding East. (Incidentally, the state Senate was even more malapportioned, so even if the resolution had passed the House, it would not necessarily have been enacted.) If there had been a one-white-man-one-vote apportinment, the "expedient" resolution would still have been defeated--but by only 66-65. http://books.google.com/books?id=OCSL1OEwV6AC&pg=PA188

Even if the "expedient" motion had passed by a razor-thin majority, getting that majority to agree on one particular plan is going to be very difficult. Thomas Jefferson Randolph and William Henry Brodnax both agreed that slavery was a great evil for Virginia but they completely disagreed about how it should be ended. See pp. 182-185 of William W. Freehling's *The Road to Disunion: Volume I: Secessionists at Bay, 1776-1854* on their conflicting plans. http://books.google.com/books?id=OCSL1OEwV6AC&pg=PA182

One gets the feeling that even a more equitably apportioned Virginia legislature would in the end simply pass legislation encouraging the colonization of free blacks--with anti-slavery Virginians hoping it to be a "first step" toward eliminating slavery in Virginia, and their opponents hoping it to be merely a first step toward forcible explusion of all free blacks.

Not necessarily true and certainly not in this TL. There are often arguments on how to do something but that doesn't stop an agreement from coming about. It is certainly not impossible for there to be compromises including promising votes for a bill unrelated to slavery.

Blackfox5 · Oct 2, 2014

Support for secession in any state was contigent on the amount of power the slaveholding elites had in that state. Where it was dominant like the Deep South, secession happened right away. Where there were large areas of the state without plantation slavery, but overall the plantation areas were dominant, secession was initially defeated and then implemented (with the Appalachian areas remaining pro-Union). Where the plantation elites were not dominant, but outnumbered by independent farmers and other business elites (finance, manufacturing), the Border States stayed within the Union.

If Virginia approved gradual emancipation in 1831, the Virginian elites have to transition to a non-slave economy. They'll be getting rid of slaves by selling them down south while investing the proceeds in industrial development. Also most likely they'd adopt more equitable franchisement so poor whites have more of a say in government. It is has to see Virginia seceding in this scenario. There will still be a lot of sympathy for the Confederates, but their interests will lie with the Mid Atlantic states. We may see a scenario like we had in Kentucky and Missouri where a pro-Union legislature eventually defeated a pro-Confederate governor with most of the population fighting for the Union with a significant number joining the Confederates.

With Virginia known to stay in the Union, it is likely North Carolina will stay. That could even affect Tennessee and Arkansas decisions after a Fort Sumter scenario. It might even prevent a Fort Sumter scenario as Confederates never fire upon it. A lot will depend on the choices made by individuals.

That all depends on American politics still developing the same. I don't see Virginia becoming a model for the entire South, although if Virginia votes for gradual emancipation, we may see that adopted by the Border States. If that happens, the Free States in the Senate will have majority votes for most of the political crises in the 1840s and 1850s. Free Soilers will likely get what they want. No Compromise of 1850 or Kansas-Nebraska Act. Good news is no civil war. Bad news is that we won't see end of slavery until a long time after the 1860s. There will probably be some kind of political crisis in the 1890s as the harm to America's international reputation, and the increase of influence among industrialists push for an end to slavery in a very different way than it happened IOTL.

Johnrankins · Oct 2, 2014

Blackfox5 said:
Support for secession in any state was contigent on the amount of power the slaveholding elites had in that state. Where it was dominant like the Deep South, secession happened right away. Where there were large areas of the state without plantation slavery, but overall the plantation areas were dominant, secession was initially defeated and then implemented (with the Appalachian areas remaining pro-Union). Where the plantation elites were not dominant, but outnumbered by independent farmers and other business elites (finance, manufacturing), the Border States stayed within the Union.

If Virginia approved gradual emancipation in 1831, the Virginian elites have to transition to a non-slave economy. They'll be getting rid of slaves by selling them down south while investing the proceeds in industrial development. Also most likely they'd adopt more equitable franchisement so poor whites have more of a say in government. It is has to see Virginia seceding in this scenario. There will still be a lot of sympathy for the Confederates, but their interests will lie with the Mid Atlantic states. We may see a scenario like we had in Kentucky and Missouri where a pro-Union legislature eventually defeated a pro-Confederate governor with most of the population fighting for the Union with a significant number joining the Confederates.

With Virginia known to stay in the Union, it is likely North Carolina will stay. That could even affect Tennessee and Arkansas decisions after a Fort Sumter scenario. It might even prevent a Fort Sumter scenario as Confederates never fire upon it. A lot will depend on the choices made by individuals.

That all depends on American politics still developing the same. I don't see Virginia becoming a model for the entire South, although if Virginia votes for gradual emancipation, we may see that adopted by the Border States. If that happens, the Free States in the Senate will have majority votes for most of the political crises in the 1840s and 1850s. Free Soilers will likely get what they want. No Compromise of 1850 or Kansas-Nebraska Act. Good news is no civil war. Bad news is that we won't see end of slavery until a long time after the 1860s. There will probably be some kind of political crisis in the 1890s as the harm to America's international reputation, and the increase of influence among industrialists push for an end to slavery in a very different way than it happened IOTL.

I think some of the border states might follow it. Maryland and Kentucky both border Virginia. That is likely to have an effect as there will be families which have relatives just across the state border and it will have some effect on them. It is by no means a sure thing but I think it is quite possible.

GeographyDude · Oct 2, 2014

Best bet is to start way early. From the book

Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia, Kathleen M. Brown, University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 was a mess. It was mainly people on the Virginia frontier being more gung-ho about killing Indians. Bacon himself was generally a bum, an ally attacker and hostage taker, as well as primarily interested merely in his own military commission.

The colonial Virginia government responded to this by a series of laws ever more restrictive of the liberties of slaves (in some ways reminds me of the modern Republican party, sorry).

But they could have gone the other way. They could have gone the direction where the watchword was stability, where neither slavery nor longterm indentured servitude was viewed as a stable institution. And thus could have begun a process of gradual emancipation.

mrmandias · Oct 3, 2014

GeographyDude said:
Best bet is to start way early. From the book

Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia, Kathleen M. Brown, University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 was a mess. It was mainly people on the Virginia frontier being more gung-ho about killing Indians. Bacon himself was generally a bum, an ally attacker and hostage taker, as well as primarily interested merely in his own military commission.

The colonial Virginia government responded to this by a series of laws ever more restrictive of the liberties of slaves (in some ways reminds me of the modern Republican party, sorry).

But they could have gone the other way. They could have gone the direction where the watchword was stability, where neither slavery nor longterm indentured servitude was viewed as a stable institution. And thus could have begun a process of gradual emancipation.

Reported. That was a particularly nasty piece of flamebait.

GeographyDude · Oct 4, 2014

You're probably right. I probably got carried away.

Or, if I'm going to put something like that out there, I kind of need to do some of the work of building the bridge so to speak.

*The laws were also ever more restrictive of the liberties of indentured servants, and that part I really don't understand the rationale.