Likely butterflies from earlier abolition of slavery

Derek Jackson

As has been mentioned Virginia abolishing slavery in about 1830 was a possibilitye.

If that had happened I could see Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee and perhaps Maryland following suit.

That makes the slave holding section much weaker.

I think that there would be much less support for incorporating the slave holding Texas Republic, That butterflies out the Mexico war.

Can the US be a great power without the South West?

Could Mexico, with California Gold, do better?

HOw long would it take for three quarters of the states to deal with the embarassment of slavery in one small section?

Oh and just how embarassing to Texas look as the only place on the North American continent with legal property in human beings?


I also wonder whether it would be possible for former slave to obtain full civil and voting rights and how long it would take?
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Derek Jackson said:
I also wonder whether it would be possible for former slave to obtain full civil and voting rights and how long it would take?
Click to expand...

My personal view is that Reconstruction is the main reason that race relations in the South were so terrible in the late 19th century and into the 20th century. Now I don't subscribe to the idea of an idealic antebellum period of black and white relations, but I consider it more of a medium point between 'Song of the South' and 'Uncle Tom's Cabin'.

I always suspect that relations in the South would be more progressive (generally) than the Old Northwest, for example.
 

mrmandias

Derek Jackson said:
As has been mentioned Virginia abolishing slavery in about 1830 was a possibilitye.

If that had happened I could see Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee and perhaps Maryland following suit.

That makes the slave holding section much weaker.

I think that there would be much less support for incorporating the slave holding Texas Republic, That butterflies out the Mexico war.
Click to expand...

Texas got in before slave-holding was really an issue. I think your POD actually makes the spread-eagle expansionism party stronger than in OTL, since slavery is less of an issue. Slave states are now in a distinct minority and always are going to be so admitting free states is no big deal and admitting slave states is no big deal. Remember that in Virginia in 1830, most of the abolition sentiment wasn't based on concern for the enslaved, so most of these new free states are going to care less if a Texas or a Cuba gets admitted to the Union.
 

Cylon_Number_14

As robert625 (or whatever his number is :rolleyes:) put forward in his epic tawantinsuya timeline the possibility of a massively successful Slave Rebellion in Brazil prior to 1700 that is so frightening it leads to the English Parliament ending slavery in its mainland territories (via the double-term indentured servitude route) before Slavery was totally ingrained into the economy there.

Is it possible to have something like this without the extreme POD of a surviving Inca?
 

AmIndHistoryAuthor

Banned
Derek Jackson said:
As has been mentioned Virginia abolishing slavery in about 1830 was a possibilitye.

If that had happened I could see Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee and perhaps Maryland following suit.

That makes the slave holding section much weaker....

I think that there would be much less support for incorporating the slave holding Texas Republic, That butterflies out the Mexico war.

Oh and just how embarassing to Texas look as the only place on the North American continent with legal property in human beings?
Click to expand...

Sadly, I think many more slaveowners would try to flee to TX with their slaves. There were extremely few Black slaves in TX when MX voted to abolish slavery. Their numbers exploded esp after TX admission to the US.

But you'd also see an extremely explosive situation that I think would probably see the end of an independent TX after a few years.

The so called TX Republic never was very stable:
1. only holding >1/3 of the territory it claimed
2. several incursions by MX
3. de facto ethnic cleansing of both Indians and Mexicans
4. almost farcical feuding between the branches of govt, leading to things like the entire state bureaucracy being moved in several episodes
5. a navy that was a joke. Ships kept sinking because of the incompetence of its captains. And when ships stayed afloat, the captains hired the crews out as mercenaries.
6. Virtually no recognition by foreign countries. France was the only one to send an ambassador, and he spent his time in New Orleans getting drunk.

One of their laws included a ban on contact between Mexicans or Indians and Black slaves. They feared an alliance leading to uprisings.

There weren't that many Anglos initially in TX. If TX become's a haven mostly for enough slaveowners fleeing w/slaves, the ratio could be even more skewed. You could be looking at a Haiti-like uprising.
 

Sam

Derek Jackson said:
As has been mentioned Virginia abolishing slavery in about 1830 was a possibilitye.

If that had happened I could see Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee and perhaps Maryland following suit.
Click to expand...

We've had this discussion before, and I still think that it is unlikely for other southern states to follow Virginia in abolishing slavery.

David S Poepoe said:
My personal view is that Reconstruction is the main reason that race relations in the South were so terrible in the late 19th century and into the 20th century. Now I don't subscribe to the idea of an idealic antebellum period of black and white relations, but I consider it more of a medium point between 'Song of the South' and 'Uncle Tom's Cabin'.

I always suspect that relations in the South would be more progressive (generally) than the Old Northwest, for example.
Click to expand...

This is absolute nonsense.
 

Kyronea

David S Poepoe said:
My personal view is that Reconstruction is the main reason that race relations in the South were so terrible in the late 19th century and into the 20th century. Now I don't subscribe to the idea of an idealic antebellum period of black and white relations, but I consider it more of a medium point between 'Song of the South' and 'Uncle Tom's Cabin'.
Click to expand...
I have to agree.

One thing that was the same both before and after was that the white Southrons looked down upon the blacks and saw them as either subhuman, or at least not at their level because of their skin color. There's no malice in that view, just that they were at their level, and the blacks were at a lower level, and that's how things should be.

But after Reconstruction, they added something to that. Now blacks weren't just supposed to be below, but they SHOULD be and we'll MAKE them be because they're those DAMNED DARKIES.

Basically, Reconstruction added the level of anger and hatred we see in most racists today. Before, while there was racism, it was racism without malice. Malice was only added after Reconstruction, and that's why relations ended up so bad for so long, and why they're still going to be poor for some time to come.
 

Sam

Kyronea said:
I have to agree.

One thing that was the same both before and after was that the white Southrons looked down upon the blacks and saw them as either subhuman, or at least not at their level because of their skin color. There's no malice in that view, just that they were at their level, and the blacks were at a lower level, and that's how things should be.

But after Reconstruction, they added something to that. Now blacks weren't just supposed to be below, but they SHOULD be and we'll MAKE them be because they're those DAMNED DARKIES.

Basically, Reconstruction added the level of anger and hatred we see in most racists today. Before, while there was racism, it was racism without malice. Malice was only added after Reconstruction, and that's why relations ended up so bad for so long, and why they're still going to be poor for some time to come.
Click to expand...

You are confusing correlation for causation.
 

B_Munro

David S Poepoe said:
My personal view is that Reconstruction is the main reason that race relations in the South were so terrible in the late 19th century and into the 20th century. Now I don't subscribe to the idea of an idealic antebellum period of black and white relations, but I consider it more of a medium point between 'Song of the South' and 'Uncle Tom's Cabin'.
.
Click to expand...

So the south has bad race relationships because the N. tried to force them to treat blacks as equals (an effort that the southern whites reversed quite handily soon enough) rather than allowing them to treat blacks as sub-human for decades longer, which would have led to harmonious race relations nowadays?

Your resoning is full of FAIL.


Bruce
 

Faeelin

Banned
B_Munro said:
So the south has bad race relationships because the N. tried to force them to treat blacks as equals (an effort that the southern whites reversed quite handily soon enough) rather than allowing them to treat blacks as sub-human for decades longer, which would have led to harmonious race relations nowadays?
Click to expand...

There's an astonishing amount of... bias in these statements, isn't there?

"Really, it's the fault of african-americans for demanding equality too fast and too soon."
 

Kyronea

Faeelin said:
There's an astonishing amount of... bias in these statements, isn't there?

"Really, it's the fault of african-americans for demanding equality too fast and too soon."
Click to expand...
Not exactly. It's certain not the fault of blacks for demanding equality "too fast and too soon."

The issue is one of psychology. If you try to force something on someone, in general, they will feel resentful. Human beings are not perfect. We're not always logical, we're not always going to think rationally about every subject.

And an attempt to push full equality too soon on the South was a mistake. A grave mistake, especially given the serious psychological hit the entire South was already suffering from having lost the Civil War to begin with. It's that old human standby...you rarely remember your victories in detail, but you can remember your losses down to the second.

The South was already angry and upset about having lost, and no doubt, many white Southrons were looking for someone to blame, if only unconsciously. You try to thrust equality instantly on the blacks who they'd been fighting to continue to enslave, and bam, you have instant scapegoat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top