AH Challenge: Abolish Slavery at the Constitutional Convention

None of the Founders were champions of slavery as a cause - even those that personally owned slaves, such as Washington and Jefferson, characterised it as a temporary, necessary evil. The John Calhouns would come a generation later. The key is to have it happen at some mandated point in the future; slave trade abolished in 1808, and slavery itself abolished - say - 1828 (which all of the founders could merrily agree to because they expected to be dead). In return for this, the southern states need to be thrown an immediate bone - such as counting slaves as full people for the purposes of representation but 1/2 people for the sake of taxation.

There will still be a Gawdawful fight over it as the deadline looms, but your odds of success at that point become high - scream as he might, Calhoun won't be able to ram a Constitutional Amendment through.

I think you have the best way to go, at least at the Constitutional Convention. Slavery phased out over a period of years. I am still wondering if you would still need a POD as I suggested? Greater African-American contribution during the war, leading to more tolerance and sympathy for blacks in recognition of their contribution to independence.
 
They almost did it over a friggin' tariff. Imagine if their "peculiar institution" was under threat. Hell, IOTL, they were the first state to secede and were on their own for the better part of a month.

Yes, but remember you are a few generations past the Revolution when that happened.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Never mind them, I think a majority of the 13 states had slavery still legal in 1787.
Free States as of 1787: Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut.

Slave States as of 1787: New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia.

Five free, eight slave, with two major states (VA and NY) on the side of the slavers.
 
Had a thread last year on the US tackling slavery earlier, starting at the convention -- abolishing entirely in 1787 isn't plausible for the simple reason that the institution is so central to the national economy of the time. That said, they certainly could have laid the groundwork for a decentralized, gradual abolition to begin (and end) sooner.
 
They almost did it over a friggin' tariff. Imagine if their "peculiar institution" was under threat. Hell, IOTL, they were the first state to secede and were on their own for the better part of a month.


IOTL they were fairly certain othe Southern states would follow.
 
abolishing entirely in 1787 isn't plausible for the simple reason that the institution is so central to the national economy of the time.

There is also the issue of what to do with all the former slaves. I suppose slave owners could try to sell them all down river (so to speak) to the sugar islands before the ban goes into effect, but this would crash the slave market.
 
A few ideas.

1) I believe Virginia had a major push to end slavery early on. Playing with the demographics there (perhaps more white small land holders in Appalachia) and a delayed ARW might be able to make it successful. That would change the balance between free and slave states significantly.

2) Have the British maintain control of South Carolina and Georgia.

3) Have Nova Scotia join the revolution.

4) You need to get poor Southern whites to oppose slavery. Perhaps if they were more anti-British, while the planter class was (and was seen as) pro-British, the institution of slavery might be more attacked in anti-British literature. Later rebellions among the poor cause the Southern states to kick out the planters and British ruling class to join the fledgling union to the North.
 
Quite right. We ought not to forget that the Northwest Ordinance banning slavery in the NWT was issued in 1787.

I'm always amazed how easily this went through: does anyone know if this went through without much fuss, or was it a hell of a battle?
 
I'm always amazed how easily this went through: does anyone know if this went through without much fuss, or was it a hell of a battle?

As I understand it the states passed it unanimously.

One possibility is that you get a ban on slavery in territories hereafter acquired by the US, at least until they reach statehood. In tropical states like LA it will be evaded, But it probably gives us a free state in MO and makes the Wilmot Proviso unnecessary in the Mexican Cession.
 
Last edited:
I'm always amazed how easily this went through: does anyone know if this went through without much fuss, or was it a hell of a battle?

From what I've read, there wasn't much of a fuss at the time. However, within a decade there were those wishing to introduce slavery into Indiana and Illinois territories and even later into Wisconsin I believe.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
Quite right. We ought not to forget that the Northwest Ordinance banning slavery in the NWT was issued in 1787.

Not to mention that the Northwest Ordinance's predecessor, the Land Ordinance of 1784, almost included a provision banning slavery in the entire National Domain (the area ceded to the national government during the making of the Articles of Confederation). It was defeated by one vote. As the guy above mentions, this provision would likely be ignored in the deeper South territories (future Alabama and Mississippi), but it's possible the upper South territories (future Kentucky and Tennessee) might end up as free states, forever tipping the balance in Congress towards that end of the spectrum.

The interesting aspects of this are going to include a constitutional crisis of a sorts as Alabama and Mississippi apply for statehood with large populations of slaves, contravening existing national law. Another one might be a more serious abolitionist or gradual manumissionist movement in Virginia itself, with free states populated by Virginians blossoming right next door.

Once Virginia goes, so goes the whole upper South. Eventually slavery might be the peculiar institution of just the Deep South states, depending on how exactly the country handles the accession of Mississippi and Alabama.
 
What were the Southern states thinking? Weren't they worried about getting outvoted by the non-slave states before this point?


It wasn't the explosive issue that it became later. Frex, NY and NJ were both Slave States at this time. And of course the US as yet had no Territories south of the Ohio River - that area all belonged to VA, NC and GA - so there was still a vast hinterland left open to slavery.
 
It wasn't the explosive issue that it became later. Frex, NY and NJ were both Slave States at this time. And of course the US as yet had no Territories south of the Ohio River - that area all belonged to VA, NC and GA - so there was still a vast hinterland left open to slavery.

Fair points, but still surprised they didn't at least push for something in exchange... a concession is still a concession.
 
Top