AH Challenge: The Land of the Free

OK, I'm new here, but I've been reading a few threads on the American Civil War, and it's got me thinking, what if the US had constitutionally banned anyone from holding anyone else as a slave while in the process of becoming a nation, or very soon after. Could it have been a good propaganda piece in the war for independence? Remotely possible? ASB? I apologies if it is, as I said I'm not very experienced in these matters.

So, with a POD no later than, let's say, 1600, make the USA abolish slavery early.
 
I think Robert had a good a POD, from his Guns of the Tawantinsuya TL, with a more violent and successful revolt of the Slave Quilombo Palmares in Colonial Brazil causes Parliament to really consider if it was worth keeping the Slaves over good British Citizens and to much dismay to the slave owners in the carribean abolish Slavery. He thought it was more plausible to have it around the 1690's or so since the overal african to white Indentured Servants/Slave ratio was realtivley equall and small.
 
OK, I'm new here, but I've been reading a few threads on the American Civil War, and it's got me thinking, what if the US had constitutionally banned anyone from holding anyone else as a slave while in the process of becoming a nation, or very soon after. Could it have been a good propaganda piece in the war for independence? Remotely possible? ASB? I apologies if it is, as I said I'm not very experienced in these matters.

So, with a POD no later than, let's say, 1600, make the USA abolish slavery early.

I meant earlier:eek::eek:

How do you edit posts?
 
Damn. I went out after I posted. :(

Anyway, anyone have any thoughts as to how this is possible?

Well, they did plan on banning slavery in the constitution, but influential figures from the slave states objected, and so the plan was scrapped. Get northern leaders into a position of power by the time the Constitution is written, and you'll get a US free of slavery.
 
OK, I'm new here, but I've been reading a few threads on the American Civil War, and it's got me thinking, what if the US had constitutionally banned anyone from holding anyone else as a slave while in the process of becoming a nation, or very soon after. Could it have been a good propaganda piece in the war for independence? Remotely possible? ASB? I apologies if it is, as I said I'm not very experienced in these matters.

So, with a POD no later than, let's say, 1600, make the USA abolish slavery early.

Eh...I just can't see it happening without coming about much earlier. The slave states were much too powerful in their position as the agrarian heart of the Colonies (later the States). Unless you block slavery from ever reaching the colonies, there's no way to stop it short of major slave rebellions setting most of the South ablaze, and that could go any which way. Either shock us out of our idiocy or go on a hunt for our slaves.
 
Reported.

Roberto, that is very interesting, all you need is a few butterflies to stop the slave states becoming quite so powerful...very nice.

Well, they won't be happy about having the staple of their economy outlawed, but they won't protest so soon after the ARW. However, they might refuse to completely centralize, so the southern states will be a sort of mini-confederation within the US.
 
Roberto, that is very interesting, all you need is a few butterflies to stop the slave states becoming quite so powerful...very nice.

Difficult. Virginia, at this time, was far and away the most populace state.
Not the richest, IIRC, that would be Massachusetts.

Of course, slavery in this time period was on the way out. Some form of manumission might be possible, but the problem is that the Congress in this time was flat broke and deeply in debt. By the time it had the money to try something like manumission the cotton gin had already been invented and the slave states were experiencing an economic boom.
 
1) Increase the power of the Northern states / shift the make-up of the Congress just enough to allow the Convention to make a compromise which allows the Federal government to address the question of slavery at a certain time, similar to the 1808 importation provision. I'm thinking that you can add a sentence to Article V which allows for a special convention to be held after 1818 to consider the question of slavery.

2) Between the adoption of the Constitution and that convention, a Bank of the US is proposed and instituted. Unlike OTL, it's officially headquartered in DC. Because DC isn't central to the Banking system, the BOUS also has 4 "subsidiary / regional HQs." One in Philly, One in NY or Boston, One in Richmond or elsewhere in VA, One in Charleston. These changes make the BOUS a little more like the Federal Reserve.

4) The changes to the Bank's structure make it a little less unpopular in the South and less the domain of northern businessmen. It's a close call, but Madison does not allow the Bank to lapse in 1811; some say that letters from other former members of the Continental Army (not the least of which is Chief Justice John Marshall) pointing out how much they'd have like to have had a Bank in 1776. The support of the War Hawks goes a long way, too.

5) A Convention to Consider Slavery is called in 1820, due to the Missouri Crisis. The Convention is chaired by Henry Clay. The convention allows for the creation of "Manumission Bonds." At first, only slaves subject to the bonds will be freed, once the bonds are paid. At some future date or by some schedule, all slaves will be subject to the Bonds. If a slave is subject to the bond, work that he or she performs counts toward paying the bond off. The holder of the Bonds is owner of the slaves; the holder may sell the bonds while retaining the slaves as the "factor" for the Bonds. He then collects a payment which he can use as he sees fit. At the convention a schedule of face values for slaves is agreed to; in general, a Manumission Bond will pay approximately two to three times the value of a slave. Also, after a certain date, the amount of the principal of the bond is fixed; rather than creating a new slave / asset when a new slave is born, the amount of the bond is divided between the slave mother and her children. This makes it successively easier for slaves to achieve their freedom and offsets the effect of compounding interest. And of course the BOUS makes a nice business out of overseeing the implementation of these Bonds (there are fees, of course).

6) The next time a Panic rolls around, many slave owners decide to convert their assets using Manumission Bonds. This allows them a ready source of cash and supplies investors with a very credit-worthy investment. This means all slaves are covered by the bonds a full five years before the deadline.

7) Some abolitionists take issue with the extreme length of the process. Enterprising critics, however, simply ensure that every slave is subject to a Manumission Bond by buying them up and then paying off the debt themselves. At some point, pressure may mount to abolishing the 3/5s clause.

8) The process of Manumission takes until the 1870 or so, but is complete by 1876. In the meantime, it has taught Southern planters about how they can get work out of their former property, employing a variety of sharecropping and loan agreements to get work out of freedmen.

9) By 1900, some poor whites are also subject to sharecropping loans. This prompts the TTL equivalent of the Populists to put an end to the practice. The movement is successful because it depends on the cooperation of poor whites and freedmen; the domination of Populists politics in the South thus usually hinged on enfranchising black populations to overturn Planter politics. While there's no real integration, civil rights do take hold as a result.
 
Last edited:
Top