A Different Vote, A Different Nation

[Byz]

This is a look at what a few Alternate Party Systems might have looked like in the United States of America. PoD is Jefferson's 1784 proposal to ban slavery in new states goes through, instead of just in the Northwest. The changes early on are gradual, but eventually this will lead to a completely changed American political landscape and America itself.

The First Republic (1787-1838):

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

1784: Jefferson's proposal to ban slavery in new territories barely passes, much to the chagrin of many in the south.

1788: States ratify the Constitution, largely unchanged from OTL. Many Southerners are unhappy with this legislation, but figure they will be able to get around it in some of the Southern Western territories. George Washington is elected President.

1792: Washington is re-elected. Kentucky enters the Union as a Free State after a vote, despite the fact they should already be free. Besides this, events have proceeded mostly as OTL both abroad and in policy, and will continue to do so unless otherwise states prior to 1800.

1796: Tennessee enters the Union as a Free State after their own vote. Most slave owners leave the state for the new Southern Western territories currently controlled by Georgia, where they believe they have the power to ignore Jefferson's law. They are right, and the Federal Government doesn't press the issue with so many other problems.

John Adams is elected as the first Federalist President, as OTL. However, the second PoD is that Hamilton does not work to have Pinckney elected over Adams, and the two remain uneasy allies. Thus begins the First Party System of the United States. It will not be the last.

1800: Due to the Federalists mostly sticking together, they win New York and therefore the election of 1800. Adams and Pinckney serve another term as President and Vice President.

Disclaimer: States lines on this map do not necessarily represent the State lines the U.S will end up with, though I do intend for the size of the country to remain roughly unchanged.

1801: Adams allows the controversial Seditions Act to expire in 1801, facing fierce Republican opposition in Congress. Alexander Hamilton argues strongly against this, but after his antics in the American Army and general refusal to be subordinate to his own President, Adams is not inclined to listen. It is at this point that the two completely fall apart, and Hamilton resigns as Treasury Secretary in 1802.

1803: The Louisiana Purchase goes right ahead, as OTL.

There is a bit of a kerfuffle over Ohio's entry to the Union, as it enters as a Free State without holding any vote. Even though it would have almost certainly voted to become a free state, southerners argue that they should have held a vote anyways. This is countered by the fact that legally, none of this should be in question, as all new States are supposed to be free. Once assuming they would be able to create new slave states in both the old Southwest and parts of the Louisiana Purchase, proponents of slavery now worry that they may become surrounded and outvoted by the North, threatening the future of the institution of slavery.

1804: Though the controversy with slavery will eventually come to define the Federalist v. Republican Era, neither candidate in 1804 brings up the issue much at all. Different problems are focused upon: for his part, Jefferson highlights the large National debt of almost $100 million, attacking Adams, Hamilton, and a large government that he claims doesn't represent the people. Meanwhile, Hamilton attempts to take over the Federalist Party and nominate a candidate of his choosing. However, he underestimates his unpopularity both among the party and the in the country as a whole, and Adams (who, following Washington's tradition, only chooses to serve for two terms) manages to get his Vice President, Pinckney, selected as the Federalist candidate. Hamilton throws the political equivalent of a temper tantrum, writing and giving speeches bashing Adams, Pinckney, and various other Federalist leaders at every turn. Jefferson wins handily and Republicans seize government without too much difficulty.

 

[Byz]

Thoughts so far?

 

[Baconheimer]

Looks good.

 

[tuxer]

Interesting idea.

 

[Byz]

Jefferson's first term (1805-1809):

"That government is best that governs the least, because its people discipline itself." -Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson gets to work to reduce the National Debt, focusing mainly on reducing the army. This happens simultaneous with a cooling of relations with Britain, who had gotten along quite well with Adams. Foreign policy in general starts to go downhill; although Britain and France had harassed American shipping for years, cordial relations with the former had prevented too many attacks, even though Adams' cooperation with the British Navy had drawn scorn, particularly from Jefferson. The new President refused to allow British ships to search American ones for British deserters under any circumstances, claiming it violated American rights. This might have flown, if not for two factors that had a huge effect on this in: One, Jefferson had reduced the funding and power of the U.S. Navy, meaning it could less adequately defend U.S shipping, and two, the importance of the Naval War was growing in the Napoleonic Wars. The British now refused to allow Americans the ability to trade in Europe except through British ports, and seized American ships and impressed American sailors with impunity. Jefferson enlisted the help of the American Merchant marine to help defend U.S coasts, but this proved ineffective.

The different wings of the Federalist Party, so divided in the election of 1804, came together on this issue, with Hamilton and Adams publicly making up to lambaste Jefferson. They insisted that he was simultaneously driving the United States towards war while reducing its best means of waging war (the Navy). Their criticism started to turn more and more towards the latter as public opinion of Great Britain fell and several tense crisis unfolded.

On April 17th, 1807, the USS Chesapeake was fired upon and boarded by the HMS Leopard. The British boarded the American ship, impressed several American sailors they claimed were British deserters, and then left the Chesapeake to limp back into port. This created a massive uproar among Americans, who demanded British recompense and the defense of national honor. Jefferson, who had been working on concluding some sort of treaty with the British over the impressing of American sailors, demanded just that; to say the British laughed him off may be an overstatement, but they certainly didn't follow his demands. In response, Jefferson banned all British ships from U.S. Waters, and worked to create the Embargo Act.

The Embargo Act of October 1807 did what its name suggested: lay a massive embargo on Great Britain. It was at first well received and passed through Congress with even some Federalist support; however, as time wore on it grew more and more unpopular. The Act didn't restrict British shipping much at all, as there was a loophole that allowed them to trade through Canada, and hurt American merchants, who due to the power of the Royal Navy now couldn't trade at all outside of the U.S. Britain and America were now in an undeclared Naval War, one that America was losing; the only reason the British didn't start to completely destroy American shipping was their focus on the blockade of France.

Almost every state along the Atlantic disproved of the Act in some way, though the Mid-Atlantic States particularly despised it. Federalist stronghold New England surprisingly found positives to it; as local industry grew without much foreign competition. Ironically, Republican policies may then have created the Federalist desire for tariffs that would later arise.

For Federalists, and particularly Alexander Hamilton, this was a dream come true. Hamilton had been locked out of the political limelight for years, with Washington's resignation, then the exposure of the affair with his wife, then the break with Adams, and finally the election of 1804 completely shutting him out of power and influence. But in his opposition to the Embargo Act, he found redemption; writing constant articles attacking it and Jefferson's naivety in foreign policy, and even implying that the President may be in league with the British, Hamilton demonstrated an ability to sway public opinion and force his way into relevance unseen since the Federalist Papers. This time, when the Federalist Party met to decide who their next nominee would be, it was Hamilton's candidate, Rufus King, who would be selected, not Adams' Pinckney.

King, a former ambassador to Britain himself, asserted that he was the candidate with the experience necessary to defend America, and either to reach a good deal with Britain, or defeat them in a war if need be. This was the message a nation already sick of the embargo act wanted to hear. Although they remained popular in the West and parts of the South, the Embargo Act seemed to cost Jefferson and the Republicans control of the United States.

Foreign policy woes aside, Jefferson's Administration did manage several key domestic achievements. For one, he reduced the national debt by $21 million, from $95 million to $74 million in debt. This was done both through reducing the budget when it came to the military and by reducing unnecessary bureaucracy in government, a move that must have been at least decent as Hamilton would never attack him for it. Secondly, he continued Adams' policy of slowly integrating areas from the Louisiana territory, refusing to rush a new state into the Union for political reasons. He also sent several expeditions West to chart territory, both American and beyond. This would prove useful to America as it began to expand West.

Although he is still viewed as a mediocre President, history has been generally kind to Thomas Jefferson. His work in creating the Declaration of Independence, confining slavery despite being a slaveowner himself, and shaping the nation as a Founding Father have caused him to get a good reception among historians in the know, and at least superficial name recognition from the average person.

 

[Byz]

The above is generally the format this timeline will follow: each post will detail major events in a President's term, then detail the election taking place at the end of the term. At the end of each President's time in office, there will be a sort of "obituary" going over their accomplishments and how history ITTL views them.

 

[Byz]

King's First Term (1809-1813):

"This Christian Nation must follow the Laws of God and the Laws of Sense to succeed.... without both, we are lost." -Rufus King

Before even entering office, King appoints Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury, sending a clear message as to how his term will go fiscally. Predictably, he and Hamilton roll back the meager attempts by Jefferson to restrict the First National Bank, restoring it to the power it had held under Adams. They also created a program allocating nearly $25 million towards roads, canals, and other infrastructural projects across many areas of the country, particularly the West. Although Congress was divided nearly evenly between Federalists and Republicans, Hamilton managed to get enough votes to support this from Republicans in states that would benefit from this- Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Tennessee, mainly. It facilitated Western settlement and economic development between these new states and the coast, particularly New England. Southern Republicans decried it as the Federal Government intervening where it shouldn't, but they were outvoted.

The Embargo Act was allowed to expire at the end of Jefferson's term, but the problems with Britain were not going away. The President followed a two-pronged approach: increase the size and power of the Army and Navy, while simultaneously working to come sort of understanding with the British. The former was easy to sell to a nationalistic American populace, the latter would take a lot of work. Meetings with British diplomats dominated King's term in office. Although he was not able to get Britain to end its blockade of France, President King did negotiate an end to British seizure of American ships (the expanded navy doing more to protect American ships played a large part in this).

In addition to the attacks on American shipping, British money armed Native American tribes in the West hostile to American settlement. While the British had always done this to a certain extent, with the British desiring to create a Indian buffer state in the Great Lakes area to protect their own colonies. However, now American settlement was rapidly increasing, and so was the amount of aid given to the Indians. Led by two brothers, Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa, a warrior and a prophet, an increasingly larger group of Indians fought against the encroachment of American settlers onto Native American land. In 1810, they met with the Governor of the Indiana Territory, William Henry Harrison, to try to get him to reject a treaty ceding Indian lands to the Americans. However, the situation escalated and almost resulted in bloodshed, and Tecumseh left by openly stating he would seek an alliance with the British. Back in Washington, President King met with the British while Hamilton organized the parts of the American Army that was still standing. The British diplomats assured the President that of course Britain wasn't funding the Indians. King wasn't fooled, but there wasn't much that could be done at the moment.

At the beginning of 1811, parts of the American Army joined up with militias from Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, creating an army of Regulars and Irregulars about 5,000 strong. They marched on Prophetstown, demanding that Tecumseh recognize the treaties ceding Indian land to the United States. Their offer was firmly rejected, and soon the Native Americans attacked. Although they were far greater in number than the American forces, they were slaughtered, crippling Tecumseh's ability to wage war from the start. From then on the campaign would essentially devolve into guerrilla warfare, with the Americans always having the upper hand.

This put the British in a far worse bargaining position, and by the end of 1811 they had agreed to stop arming the Americans' enemies. Influencing this decision was several factors; including the growing strength of the American Army and Navy, the repeated assurances by President King that the United States had no intention to pick a fight with Britain, and most importantly the war in Europe, which was reaching its highest point with the Peninsular War. However, no move was made to end the embargo of France, which meant American trade was still restricted.

Also taking place during King's term was Louisiana entering the Union. Although not technically covered by the old Western Ordinance that prevented Slavery in the Western territories (as it was purchased in the Louisiana territory), many abolitionists still hoped they could keep slavery out of Louisiana. Included among them was President Rufus King. However, proponents of slavery had not been idle since they lost in Tennessee, and joined with pre-existing French slaveowners in Louisiana to ensure this state would not slip from their grasp. They held a vote in 1811, and the result definitively showed a majority were pro-slavery. This was more or less accepted by abolitionists, who figured that they would have to pick their battles and that this was not one they would win.

The election of 1812 was not a very close affair. President King was popular both among Federalist leaders and among the American public, and the Republicans were divided and without a winning strategy to counter him. The economy was good, the Indians were losing, and tensions with Britain had been resolved. John Breckinridge, U.S. Senator from Virginia, secured the nomination when more popular politicians like Madison refused it. In an unorthodox strategy, Federalists focused on the West, particularly Ohio, in an effort to win them over to the Federalist camp for the future. It was believed that they could be convinced with policies like what King enacted; infrastructure to support Western growth, and a strong military to defeat Indian raids. In the end this strategy did prove advantageous to Federalists, as they won Ohio and came very close in Kentucky, even picking up a Senator (Henry Clay) from there. King was reelected easily.

 

[Byz]

King's Second Term (1813-1817): A threat of war with the British had dominated Rufus King's first term as President. His second term was dominated by a different issue, one every bit as dangerous; tariffs.

One clear affect the Napoleonic Wars had had on the United States was a disruption of trade from Europe. While this, and the Embargo Act of 1807 in particular, was bad for the country as a whole, it benefited American manufacturing immensely. With the reconciliation with Britain, America was now more or less open to the markets of Britain and its allies, where they were being quickly out competed. And thus the idea of tariffs to protect American industry grew into a concrete policy of the Federalists. New England, as the source of most of the country's manufacturing, was the region that most benefited from an increase in tariffs, and they and the Federalists pushed for it hard. The South, on the other hand, recognized tariffs as something that would only benefit the North, and sought to keep them down, so they could cheaply export Cotton and buy European products without having to go through New England.

This issue would quickly incite tensions on an even more poignant issue; slavery. The battle of slave v.s free had always been an undercurrent in American politics, particularly in the settlement of the West. In Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio, Abolitionists had won early victories, and moved to consolidate their support in those States; in the former two this wasn't easy, both had been parts of slave states (Virginia and North Carolina), prior to admission to the Union, and an increasingly vocal minority sought to bring slavery to the two states, which had a good climate for growing cotton. However, Anti-slavery held a slim but stable majority of Federalists, Southern Abolitionists, and small farmers who were concerned with the effects slavery might have on their property and lifestyle.

Further South, the Western Ordinance might as well have never passed. Between Louisiana and Georgia lay an area teeming with slavery, the Mississippi Territory. The Federal government had never pressed the issue here, despite growing abolitionist noises to do so, as any attempt to stop them could very well start a war. Instead, Federalist Presidents had focused on delaying a new State's entry into the Union as long as possible, while preventing any efforts to break up the territory

The Tariff Act of 1815 was a massive endeavor, one that met stiff resistance from the South from the get-go. Despite its name, it did not only concern tariffs- in fact, by the end of it, tariffs was only one of many issues discussed. But it certainly started that way- as a plan by Secretary Hamilton to reduce the National Debt. After nearly 6 months in Congress, however, it turned into a massive compromise between East, West, and South; setting a tariff about where it had been originally asked for (though lower on certain goods, such as cotton and foodstuffs), but also including a commitment to use the money gathered with a tariff on infrastructure and improvements in the West, as well as the agreement that the State of Mississippi would join the Union before the election of 1816 as a Slave State, specifically exempt from the Western Ordinance. Indiana was later confirmed as a Free State in the West, though this was a less contraversial move not part of the Tariff Act. Unsatisfied Federalists also managed to slip in a clause saying that Maine would be split off from Massachusetts to form its own State, however, this would not happen until 1817, after the election. It was a subtle change, but one that certainly helped Republicans.

Because this year, Republicans were sure they could take back the White House. Sure, they had only ever held it for four years since the country's founding, but in all of that time they had managed to remain a powerful political force in Congress, never letting the Federalists get exactly what they want. And now, with a rapidly expanding West, they finally had the Electoral Votes needed to take control, or so they hoped. Still, they took nothing for granted. Simon Snyder, a Pennsylvanian, was chosen as the nominee, in a clear bid for that key State. Republican campaigners focused almost entirely on the West, trying to ensure it was every bit as much a Republican Stronghold as the South.

The Federalists answered with one of their strongest candidates, John Marshall. The Supreme Court Justice had made controversial decisions, establishing Judicial Review, supremacy of Federal Law, and strengthening the Judicial Branch of government. However, he was respected even by his enemies, and with him Federalists hoped to make a play for the Upper South; Maryland and Delaware which had already voted Federalist, and possibly even Virginia, if the Republicans focused too much on the West.

In the end, although the Upper South may have liked Marshall, they did not like the Anti-Slavery Federalist Party. Snyder won his own State, and the West consolidated behind the Republicans, giving them a solid if close victory. 1816 would set the stage for future struggles between Republicans and Federalists: A solid Federalist New England and North and Republican South, with border States Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware swinging different ways depending on the election. In the West, however, things would prove to be far less predictable, as seeming Republican domination would melt away into something completely new....

The Presidency of Rufus King had been a very successful Federalist one. The size and importance of the Federal Government grew, while the country and economy did as well. A potential war with Britain was averted, and tariffs were successfully passed, even if there was a cost. He was also fairly popular, leading to the Federalists doing the best in the Western part of the country they would do for a long time. Although at the time he was far more popular than his predecessor, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers would be far better remembered than King, who is generally not well known by the average person. Still, he represented an era of Federalism in early America; one where compromises could be made with the South, the nation was still open to and focused on the events playing out in Europe, and slavery was not the ruling issue of the day.

~~~~

Next up: Taking a break from the Presidents to talk about the alt-Abolition movement, which has grown a lot more quickly and is a lot more aggressive than OTL! We will also be looking at the response from individuals in the South.

 

[Shevek23]

...Next up: Taking a break from the Presidents to talk about the alt-Abolition movement, which has grown a lot more quickly and is a lot more aggressive than OTL!

Oh, good, I was wondering about precisely that!

 

[Byz]

Abolitionism and Slavery in the United States
With Jefferson's Western Ordinance of 1784, abolitionism had won a great victory, one in which it had only half-won IOTL. Indeed, in the two decades after the Revolution ended, it seemed that Abolitionism was on the rise everywhere; in the North, slavery was gradually being made illegal, at different speeds but nevertheless fairly quickly. Two new Western States had been created, slave free, out of former slave states North Carolina and Virginia. In the South, many slavers had been convinced on moral and economic grounds to give up their slaves of their own free will, particularly in the Upper South. This culminated in 1803, when the Delaware House of Representatives voted to gradually abolish slavery in the State, making it the first State in the Upper South to abolish slavery of its own accord.

But it would be the last. Similar initiatives in Virginia were defeated, and the rest of the South never even let the legislative process send it that far. The enlightened thought of the Revolution was fading, and slavery was rising; with the invention of the Cotton Gin in 1793, it became incredibly profitable to grow cotton and lots of it. Slavers and Southerners were doubling down on their stances in reaction to an Abolitionist movement that attacked the South's economy and culture. Despite becoming a free state, Delaware regularly elected representatives that were against abolitionism, or at least its spread to the rest of the South. It took the personal intervention of Republican President Thomas Jefferson (a Slaver himself) in 1807 to prevent a Southern Filibuster against the banning of the Slave Trade.

Meanwhile in the North, support for Abolitionism grew and grew, outside of where it was just popular in New England. Every State that had abolished slavery (with the exception of Delaware, which remained Southern in its outlook) saw a rise in the popularity of Abolitionism afterwards, continuously growing for decades. One possible factor that influenced this was the rise of regionalism in politics. While Republicans gained an almost complete stranglehold over Southern politics with their bombastic support of slavery, Federalists encouraged the rise of Abolitionism which tied Northern States to them. In short, Federalists found a friend in abolitionism and abolitionism found a friend in the Federalists, creating a positive feedback loop that strengthened both. Federalist early dominance of the White House is the result of this situation, as anti-slavery states simply had more votes than pro-slavery states.

As the older, Eastern parts of the country became entrenched, the battleground moved to the West. Tennessee was the most vulnerable Free State, even moreso than Delaware, as support for or against slavery was often very fluid and difficult to pin down. It had barely voted against slavery, but Republicans controlled the State early on, and pro-slavery Republicans made no less than seven attempts to bring slavery to Tennessee. Rarely were these outright defeated, instead abolitionists buried this legislation in complex legal processes, fearful of a passing vote. Pro and anti slavery advocates spent most of their time in this state and Kentucky, trying to create a decisive majority on the issue. Abolitionists were not afraid to use unorthodox arguments against slavery to win; there was the usual economic one that slavery was just a way for a planting elite to attack the small farmer, which did them many votes, but they also played off racial fears of Black slaves gaining land from Southern whites who deserved it. Eventually it became clear that abolitionists held a thin majority in Tennessee, a slightly more robust one in Kentucky, and a stable majority in Ohio and Indiana.

Unlike OTL, Slavers never deluded themselves by thinking they could achieve perfect parity between slave and free states. Instead, they focused on a much more achievable number: 1/3. If at least 1/3 of the States were pro-slavery, the Constitution ensured it was practically impossible to abolish the practice. Tennessee and Delaware were two targets for slavery, but in the early days the most important spot to secure was the Mississippi Territory, and new lands in the Southwest. Abolitionists, meanwhile, were committed to not allow any new slave states into the Union, while they forced through new states in the West that would, they reasoned, support their agenda. So the admission of Louisiana in 1811 and Mississippi in 1815 were huge blows to this movement and huge boons to the Slave States. Whereas before it seemed like slavery was being strangled in the East, now it was open to Western expansion, and new territories awaited to be carved out and filled with slaves. This galvanized Abolitionists who had perhaps gotten stagnant in the past few years of Federalist control. In 1816, 1818, and 1820, the Federalists Party would be filled with new ranks of ardent abolitionists, and the Republican Party would be filled with enthusiastic defenders of slavery. Congress slowed down and ceased to function or work together.

Meanwhile in the Western territories that the two sides were fighting over, things were ironically much more harmonious. The main political focus in the West was the right to vote for all American men, regardless of property or wealth requirements. They also didn't care much for the elites controlling either party, and all they really wanted from Washington was support against natives and for development of infrastructure, while keeping taxes low and leaving them alone.

 

[Shevek23]

Ah. It seems clear enough that given a stronger Abolitionist movement in the early USA, things might go much as you've indicated.

What I was hoping the update would address first of all is, why and how is it that Abolitionism was a wider and deeper sentiment in the ATL? That slavery and the ideological inspiration of universal manhood democracy on a substrate of a concept of natural human rights form a severe cognitive dissonance is clear enough and indeed before the year 1776 was over there were calls for abolition in the northern states. Opposition to abolition in the South would not be as adamant as it became later OTL when the rise of cotton as a cash crop strengthened the economic advantages of slave plantations. That Thomas Jefferson, despite his personal ownership of slaves and his misgivings as to how well freed African-Americans would mix in the "white" democracy he envisioned, would pen as sweepingly abolitionist a version of the Northwest Ordinance as you have here is not crazy at all; I believe he intended to do this OTL but was forced to drop the abolitionist language in the larger political process.

But Jefferson alone can only propose; it was up to the Continental Congress to ratify it.

To what degree is the stronger Abolitionist position here based on the mere legalism of one ATL law giving people with OTL beliefs and inclinations stronger leverage?

I would think that for the Western ordinance to pass in this form in the first place, then already back in the 1780s the abolitionist position had to be more popular and more deeply held conviction. If it were a fluke of a temporary politics, then in 1786 the Constitutional Convention could have modified things to restore the balance.

Therefore I would think for your TL to hold, there needs to be a substrate of stronger abolitionism and weaker slavocracy in the population in general, not just the a few leaders here or there.

How and why did this happen?

That's what I figured your update would begin by addressing.

 

[Byz]

Ah. It seems clear enough that given a stronger Abolitionist movement in the early USA, things might go much as you've indicated.

What I was hoping the update would address first of all is, why and how is it that Abolitionism was a wider and deeper sentiment in the ATL? That slavery and the ideological inspiration of universal manhood democracy on a substrate of a concept of natural human rights form a severe cognitive dissonance is clear enough and indeed before the year 1776 was over there were calls for abolition in the northern states. Opposition to abolition in the South would not be as adamant as it became later OTL when the rise of cotton as a cash crop strengthened the economic advantages of slave plantations. That Thomas Jefferson, despite his personal ownership of slaves and his misgivings as to how well freed African-Americans would mix in the "white" democracy he envisioned, would pen as sweepingly abolitionist a version of the Northwest Ordinance as you have here is not crazy at all; I believe he intended to do this OTL but was forced to drop the abolitionist language in the larger political process.

But Jefferson alone can only propose; it was up to the Continental Congress to ratify it.

To what degree is the stronger Abolitionist position here based on the mere legalism of one ATL law giving people with OTL beliefs and inclinations stronger leverage?

I would think that for the Western ordinance to pass in this form in the first place, then already back in the 1780s the abolitionist position had to be more popular and more deeply held conviction. If it were a fluke of a temporary politics, then in 1786 the Constitutional Convention could have modified things to restore the balance.

Therefore I would think for your TL to hold, there needs to be a substrate of stronger abolitionism and weaker slavocracy in the population in general, not just the a few leaders here or there.

How and why did this happen?

That's what I figured your update would begin by addressing.

I get what you mean. Part of the problem here is that it's hard to really pinpoint one thing that could make an OTL movement larger. The real PoD here is "What if the Abolitionist movement had been slightly stronger than OTL", which probably means slight changes both before and after the "official" PoD.

Once the major changes of the PoD start taking effect, they themselves become the affect of a greater abolitionist movement; i.e winning inspires. So if abolitionists in 1784 managed to win a great victory (as they almost did IOTL) banning slavery in the West, this change could legitimize their cause just a little bit more, attracting more people and creating more victories.

I want to emphasize just how subtle these changes actually are. In Delaware, for example, slavery was only maintained by one vote OTL:

An attempt to abolish slavery in the new state constitution in 1792 failed. Bills to abolish slavery were introduced in the General Assembly in 1796 and '97. An attempt at gradual emancipation in 1803 was killed by the speaker of the state House of Representatives, who cast the tiebreaking vote. Further attempts were made, but the abolition bills generally were smothered or starved in parliamentary procedure. By this time, the pattern had been established of anti-slavery New Castle County in the north vs. pro-slavery Sussex County in the south.

In Tennessee and Kentucky the votes were likewise close, and with the Western Ordinance to wave around, the abolitionists might have been just that bit more successful and succeeded in banning slavery.

From that point on, more people will be raised in places that don't value slavery, and it creates a positive feedback loop alongside emboldened abolitionism. As I addressed in the above post, too, the survival and dominance of the Federalist Party may have helped with this; by tying slavery to regionalism (which the South was already doing), abolitionists can gain supporters in the North that would have otherwise been silent. And by nature of it being a more important issue than OTL (with the South fighting so hard to keep it spread, for example), more people are going to care and take a side, which further helps abolitionism (though also serves to radicalize slave-supporters).

Essentially, the ripples from this one decision, while small at first, were able to spread outward and lead to slavery being a much more talked about issue. And when you have such an obviously evil institution of slavery in people's minds more often, more people are going to want to do something to end it. I know this isn't a perfect solution, but TLs on here often rely on a fairly similar acceptance of how quickly things could change based off of one thing- it's unlikely that Mitt Romney would have won the 2012 election just by avoiding his 47% comment, for example, but it's been proposed and accepted here and the changes thereafter take on a life of their own.

I hope I somewhat answered your questions and misgivings. Again, a lot of what I talked about was OTL, and after the Revolution there certainly was a lot of anti-slavery feelings on all sides- even the south, where many, many masters voluntarily set all their slaves free out of adherence to liberal ideals. With how close things were already, a small change can make a lot of difference. As for Jefferson's proposal itself, it, like so much else, only failed for want of a single vote.

 

[Shevek23]

So what we are doing here is exploring a TL where just a few coins flipped the other way, and so you are presuming more and earlier Abolitionism as the POD, without giving an explanation beyond mere statistical fluctuation.

Well all right then, as I said at the top of my post--given that, everything else does seem to follow.

So carry on then!

 

[The Chevalier]

This is an interesting timeline and I hope you continue to work on this.

 

[Thothian]

Interesting TL. But, IMO, the Southern states would never have ratified the Constitution with Jefferson's amendment included.

UNLESS

The amendment had a clause stating : " The condition of slavery or involuntary servitude in those states possessing it at the time of this Constitution's ratification can never be altered or abolished by the Federal Government of the United States, but only individually by the States wherein such conditions of servitude exist."

Regardless, interesting premise. Will be watching.

 

[Byz]

This is an interesting timeline and I hope you continue to work on this.

Thanks! I am, but unfortunately my old computer broke and I had to get a new one. That set me behind a few days, as I lost my maps and a bit of progress. I am back now, however.

Interesting TL. But, IMO, the Southern states would never have ratified the Constitution with Jefferson's amendment included.

UNLESS

The amendment had a clause stating : " The condition of slavery or involuntary servitude in those states possessing it at the time of this Constitution's ratification can never be altered or abolished by the Federal Government of the United States, but only individually by the States wherein such conditions of servitude exist."

Regardless, interesting premise. Will be watching.

Of course, every State in this area has either voted on the issue or was so overwhelmingly one way it didn't matter (ITTL, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio are never really in doubt as free states). TN and KY went Free because of the knock-on effects of this more than the legality of it. Hope you enjoy this TL.

Snyder's First Term (1817-1821):

"This talk of tariffs and slavery destroys national harmony. Let us create a sound, fair government that can address the affairs of this nation with moderate action." -Simon Snyder

After 8 years in the political wilderness, the Republicans had recaptured the White House. Not only that, but they now controlled both chambers of Congress, and controlled State governments everywhere outside of New England and parts of New York (the New York Governor was a Republican, though the Legislation was still under the shaky control of Alexander Hamilton's Federalist political machine). It was a massive defeat for Federalists and victory for Democrats, and things obviously began to change quickly after the power shifted. Taxes were cut across the board, and the size of government was reduced at the same time; the moderate sized standing army that had existed under the Federalists was greatly reduced, and military power given over to State Militias; the National Bank was rolled back in favor of private banks, and told to be much more conservative with its actions; many offices in the government were cut altogether in order to save money. The purpose of all of this was to reduce the National Debt, which Republicans had spent a lot of time campaigning on doing.

Of course, not all was well for President Snyder and his party. The South's greatest gripe with Federalists, the Tariffs, couldn't yet be defeated; though they hoped to force it to expire in 1823, Federalists were still more than powerful enough to stop Republicans from ending it early. What was more, many Republicans disagreed on this issue, insisting that tariffs benefited their interests rather than hurt them. This was not the only issue Republicans were split upon; The South and the West acted as almost two different parties in many respects, with the West still seeking an active government to help their growth, one they had benefited under with the Federalists. And that was without even counting Republicans from Northern States that had their own interests in mind.

Still, things seemed to proceed harmoniously for the first two years of Snyder's term. Per the Tariff of 1815, Maine was admitted as a Free State in 1817, giving Federalists a new state to reinforce their New England stronghold. Unsurprisingly, it elected Federalist Senators, which reduced the Republican majority in the Senate to a very thin one. To try to counterbalance this, Republicans admitted Illinois as a new State as soon as possible in early 1818, even though the government banned slavery. Missouri then did the same thing a year later, after a vote revealed a slim majority were against the curious institution, and Snyder accepted it as well. This lack of even trying to force in more slavery made several elements of the Republican Party upset, though for now Snyder was able to keep it together. In the 1818 midterms, Federalists were able to make few gains in any chamber, and Republicans kept control.

Down in the South, problems soon appeared with the Creek and Seminole Indians. They occupied land in modern Georgia, Mississippi, and Florida, land which American settlers desired and much of which the U.S government claimed to own. It was bound to end in bloodshed, and with the more expansionist Republicans in office, nothing remained to prevent a campaign. After local Indians in the area repulsed the attempts by the U.S army to seize their lands, the hammer fell. General Andrew Jackson led a campaign not only to evict these Indians, but also any others in the area that stood in the way of White American settlement. From 1817-1819, he was highly successful, and American settlers could now take this new land unopposed by an Indian population that had either been killed or forced away. There was only one problem: much of the campaign had taken place in Spanish Florida, which was not at all owned by the U.S government and did not want American settlers in their lands. Things escalated from there, and by the end of 1819, Florida had been fully occupied by U.S armed forces, with Spanish forces running without much of a fight.

Both the Spanish and British governments objected to this illegal occupation. The British eventually backed down, agreeing at the same time to establish a border with the U.S along the 49th parallel in the West. But negotiations with the Spanish government were going nowhere, and increasingly it looked like war was the only option. U.S militias took the opportunity to occupy a disputed territory in Western Louisiana, further complicating the crisis. In Congress, War Hawks called for the annexation of not only Florida, but Texas and much of New Spain's Northern territories as well. Secretary of War John C. Calhoun was the most prominent of these hawks, but among them were people of all stripes; Western expansionists, Southerners who saw new territories to spread slavery to, Northern intellectuals who viewed Spain as an oppressive and backwards regime and sought to support the Latin American rebels who fought against them, and many others. President Snyder himself was a tentative supporter of U.S expansion as well, though he first sought a diplomatic course with Spain.

The Spanish themselves were playing a dangerous game; trying to contain the numerous and widespread separatist sentiment in their colonies while holding back the liberals at home was difficult enough already, and now with the United States possibly in the picture, they had no desire to lose more of their power and influence. True, Spain was a much stronger power than the U.S in theory, but the Americans were present at the front lines already, holding Florida and with many motivated men ready to head West to take New Spain. In addition, the Americans, while their economic power was nothing compared to Britain or major European powers, could give quite a lot in financial support to Latin rebels, who were already doing well enough mostly on their own. As such, they hoped to hold Florida over American heads to bring them to the negotiating table from a position of strength, and hopefully salvage some national honor in the process.

National honor was all the American people had on their mind at the moment. The nation had remained at peace with major European powers since the American Revolution, although there had been several close calls with Britain and France. This meant the nation had been able to grow relatively unmolested, true, but it also meant the strength of American arms had never been tested, and many still felt that few in Europe gave these United States the respect it was due. Spain was principle among them; after all, hadn't they just allowed Indian raiders to attack American lands (the common justification for the invasion of Florida).

Under this climate, the Federalists might not have run at all, if not for the fact that in 1820, the economy practically collapsed. The Panic of 1820 came across due to over speculation of Western land, among other factors, and drove the American economy into the ground. In this collapse, many fingers were pointed at several different culprits; many Republicans blamed the National Bank for even existing, while Federalists blamed the Snyder administration for restricting it and allowing the collapse to happen. Westerners blamed Easterners, whose institutions seemed to have failed them, and overall there was a great feeling of frustration after what had seemed to be unending growth.

Still, in this mess, few Federalists actually wanted to run. The primary cause was still the war, which everyone recognized would be politically suicidal to support outside of perhaps some districts in New England. Prominent leaders had several different reasons to run; John Quincy Adams (who had Presidential ambitions of his own) saw it for the doomed enterprise it would be, while John Marshall had already lost an election and was now focused on the supreme court. There were some New Englanders willing to run, but they were against the war, something that would be a disaster for the Federalists if they allowed them to lead. Western and Southern Federalist almost always supported the war, and many potential leaders in the Mid Atlantic area had been cleaned out by Republican successes in the past few elections.

Only one man seemed to be enough of a supporter of the war and willing to run to work; Alexander Hamilton. The controversial and sometimes erratic New Yorker had an odd political career. Though he had up until this point been respected for his financial policies and accepted as Secretary of the Treasury under every Federalist administration, the man was personally unpopular and had failed to secure any political office for himself. After trying in 1816 to secure the Governorship of New York, the office had flipped over to the Republicans. Despite his political failures, he was invaluable in the running and forming of the nation's economy; Snyder's Treasury Secretary even wrote to Hamilton asking for advice on a regular basis. This economic mystique came tumbling down in 1820, when the economy collapsed and many lay the blame directly on Hamilton and his system. Determined to defend it and his life's work, Hamilton launched himself into campaigning, and secured the Federalist nomination thanks to passionate allies and a lethargic and scattered opposition.

Both candidates supported a war if it came down to it, though they emphasized that they would try a diplomatic solution. Hamilton tried to make the election about the economy, writing and even giving speeches blaming Republican mismanagement and emphasizing the virtues of his system. However, while popular on Wall Street, no one outside of the Northeast had any interest in hearing speeches telling them their economic problems were pretty much their fault for electing Republicans, and that they should just listen to a bunch of New York elites figuring the economy out. Most importantly, Snyder was popular, and Hamilton was not. The contest was never really in doubt.

Although Snyder won in a landslide, Federalists mostly managed to hang on to their strong minorities, as they dissociated themselves with Hamilton and campaigned as traditional Federalists. For Snyder, this election meant four more years in the White House and the need to make difficult decisions concerning Spain. For Hamilton, it meant the end of a long and controversial career.

 

[Kirook]

Can the U.S. win an earlier Spanish-American War, or have they bitten off more than they can chew?

 

[Mre64]

Can the U.S. win an earlier Spanish-American War, or have they bitten off more than they can chew?

They can get at least Status Quo Ante Bellum, seeing as that's what they got out of the war of 1812 and Britain even when distracted by Napoleon still had a much more powerful navy than Spain

No idea if they can get anything else, although if they take Texas the Spanish will have a hard time mustering a force capable of taking it back, although taking it in the first place is the hard part.

 

[Minchandre]

Is all of this expansion and then contraction and then expansion of the army every few years creating any kind of class of angry out-of-work soldier?

 

[Byz]

They can get at least Status Quo Ante Bellum, seeing as that's what they got out of the war of 1812 and Britain even when distracted by Napoleon still had a much more powerful navy than Spain

No idea if they can get anything else, although if they take Texas the Spanish will have a hard time mustering a force capable of taking it back, although taking it in the first place is the hard part.

Spain is by no means going to try to attack the U.S over Florida, they have too many other issues to worry about right now. Any war fought between Spain and the U.S would in reality be a war fought between New Spain and the U.S, with Spain providing some help to the former. OTL, this all calmed down and the U.S took Florida and reached a negotiated settlement on points West, but ITTL the U.S hawk faction is far stronger due to no War of 1812, so a possible war could start over Texas. But even in victory, Spain probably isn't getting Florida back, and certainly isn't going to be able to blockade the U.S Coast anywhere close to where Britain did (and besides, the British wouldn't allow it anyways).

Is all of this expansion and then contraction and then expansion of the army every few years creating any kind of class of angry out-of-work soldier?

Not in particular, as A. It isn't actually happening much, only under Jefferson and then sort of Snyder (then reversed because of the war), and B. It isn't as much as it may seems, and C. It doesn't necessarily put soldiers in and out of work so much as decide how much of the army is active. The early army is a small force supplemented by militias on land, and the early navy is a medium sized collection of ships protecting the merchant marine at sea. So when soldiers are told they aren't needed, they go back to farming, and the same with sailors and working on sea privately.

If it happened more or to a much greater extent, this might present a problem. But nothing more happened under Jefferson than happened IOTL, and the army was restored soon after, and now with Snyder war fever has actually grown the army. Republican insistence on cutting army spending is more ideological than practical, and when they can they attack the National Bank or other Federalist institutions instead. So it's not a big deal yet. It may become one after a potential war that happens.