Abolishing slavery by force if the South hadn't seceded, and in Brazil.

Let us assume for the sake of discussion that the South would not at any point independently abandon slavery(certain states might, but not the whole lot). Let us further assume that if/when the North attempted to force abolition on them, the South doesn't cooperate- making it quite clear that if the North persists a civil war will occur, but if they halt their efforts then the South will stay within the union.

I think the historical consensus regarding Lincoln(or pretty much any other plausible Republican president at the time) is that they would have acted to limit slavery in new territories, but wouldn't have been willing(or able) to start an actual war to abolish it where it already existed. Rather the war was about preserving the union.

I doubt that would be the case today. If "magically" some Southern states still had slavery in 2013, their would without a doubt be a war to abolish it.

My point being: at what point did this shift occur*? Even in the 1930's their was reluctance to impose anti-lynching laws on the South, but by the 1960's they were willing to impose civil rights. Slavery of course provokes a stronger moral reaction then lynching does, but I'm having a hard time seeing the North willing to use force for the sole purpose of liberating slaves until some time into the 20th century.

*Of course I'm making a false assumption here that history and free state cultural/moral attitudes would progress as they did OTL, despite no civil war taking place. Needless to say the trajectory would be completely different- it might even speed up racial enlightenment in the North if the continuation of slavery radicalizes the anti-slave movement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a related note, what about slavery in Brazil? It's easy enough to see slavery continue there- the revolution against the emperor was in part sparked by the landed elite's resentment against him for abolishing slavery. So let's say that he dies before his abolition of slavery. In his absence the abolition either doesn't happen, or leads to a coup before it can be enforced(since the politician responsible would lack the emperors popular support and moral authority).

After said coup the land owning/military elite holds persistent dominance in Brazil as per OTL. For the sake of discussion assume that internal revolution does not succeed in abolishing slavery, and Brazil doesn't get into any stupid/avoidable wars. At what point would international powers be willing to use military force to abolish slavery in Brazil? I don't mean sanctions either, I mean an actual invasion.
 
Last edited:
Timeline of slavery's death

It's clear to me that slavery would have died out eventually. Let's assume that the Civil War never happened (as opposed to being delayed). The federal government almost certainly would not have ended slavery at a stroke. There's no way they could have gotten the 14th amendment through with the South blocking it, and creating a federal law to end slavery probably would have died in the courts.

Instead, the US Government would presumably have pushed anti-slavery measures as far as they could without alienating the south entirely. New states probably would have been admitted only if they didn't allow slavery. Slaves who escaped to the North would be allowed freedoms, and trackers pursing slaves would have no rights to bring them back. As time passed, and slavery seemed more and more barbaric, the Federal government would probably have passed measures granting slaves some rights, and imposing limits on how they were treated. Possibly states themselves would have passed such measures to make themselves look better and head of Federal legislation. In any case, those measures would probably be pretty toothless, as many plantations were so completely under the control of the owner that proving wrongdoing would be almost impossible, but it would establish a legal precedent.

The war over slavery would then probably be fought in the court system, with slaves receiving and having enforced, progressively more rights. R.B. Bernstein points out that the southern senators and congressmen would have likely become increasingly obstructionist against the Republican Party, more or less tying the government into gridlock.

But the arc of history is clear. The end of the Atlantic slave trade, coupled with the trend of laws making slave owning more difficult, as well as the growth of technology, would make slavery less and less economically viable. At the same time, international trends would make America look more and more barbaric for holding and keeping slaves. International and political pressure would drive changes, if nothing else did. By around the turn of the 20th century, at the latest, I suspect that slavery would be abolished by law. The government might have agreed to some recompense to slave-owners, who would complain about it, but ultimately realize that it was as good a deal as they could get.

After that, I think history would proceed much as it did. Decades of segregation and institutionalized racism. Federal law and Supreme Court decisions would eventually force integration. The Civil Rights movement would need to grow up and push changes, and eventually you'd have equal rights before the law, but the legacy of racism would take much longer to die out.

Slavery as a system is quite simply unworkable in a modern context. If the Civil War hadn't happened, the south might have held out a few more decades, but they were on the wrong side of history.
 
In the deep south it was very difficult to free one's own slaves. In Delaware on the other hand it was very easy, so that by 1860 slavery was almost dead there though fully legal. Perhaps over time southern states would have made emancipation laws easy so gradually more and more states would develop Delaware style conditions where slavery still lingered on legally but hardly in reality.
 
In the deep south it was very difficult to free one's own slaves. In Delaware on the other hand it was very easy, so that by 1860 slavery was almost dead there though fully legal. Perhaps over time southern states would have made emancipation laws easy so gradually more and more states would develop Delaware style conditions where slavery still lingered on legally but hardly in reality.

Considering how African Americans were treated in the South well into the mid 20th century I doubt that very much.
 
Top