AHC: A federal ban on slavery (equivalent to 13th amendment) by 1885, without a secession or suppression of secession

[dfl_90]

I'm not sure if I agree with the assessment of Taylor. That's not to say that your overall characterization is wrong, but some of the political points seem misinterpreted.

Taylor's desire to quickly admit free states from the newly acquired Mexican territory supposedly originated not from any particular views on slavery, but instead from a desire to see proper governments set up in these areas. Taylor, having fought in the Mexican-American War, was quite familiar with how disorganized these areas were and was invested in correcting that as quickly as possible, especially as settlers moved westward and infrastructure would be needed. He believed that debating the legality of slavery in these territories would've stalled the process, potentially for years. Establishing a state, with whatever constitution they proposed, was a legal way to bypass Congress' authority and the political squabbling that would've come with it.

Additionally, Taylor was a Whig and seemingly stuck with many of their principles. Whigs were generally against the use of the veto, so it's unlikely Taylor would've exercised that in any scenario where Congress had reached a compromise. That's basically the exact opposite of what we would expect him to do. Additionally, the Whigs had for decades promoted the idea that a president should only serve one term, so Taylor is unlikely to run again in 1852. Not to mention that he'd be around 68 years old at that time. He had had malaria in 1844 and possibly cholera in 1849, which supposedly sapped much of his strength until 1850 when he he caught cholera (again) and died. I'm sure both he and the Whigs would be conscious of that.

Lastly, the Whigs were already starting to fray around this time. Even if Taylor had been around to lead them, the Northern and Southern branches of the party are already politically diverging. And the economic boom that followed the Mexican-American War is still going to happen, perhaps even more so if Taylor quickly organized states in the west. That may seem like a boon, but in reality it undermined the Whig's messaging on the necessity of a proactive government. Having no official stance on slavery and having no economic messages meant the Whigs had little to organize around, which is why the party fractured in OTL. If southern states attempt some form of secession, I agree with you that Taylor would be quick to quash it and the South would probably see its political power dwindle. I expect in such a scenario that Taylor might lead some sort of unionist party rather than specifically reinvigorate the Whigs. However, all that said, such a scenario would violate the premise of this thread which was to avoid conflict over secession.

 

[EWHM]

This was exactly what I was thinking. People often focus their speculation on how the North could've defanged the South, when in reality the question is how do you get the South the abandon the institution themselves. I agree fully that Nat Turner is an interesting POD. Virginia was simultaneously the behemoth of the South and one of the slave states most flirtatious with emancipation. Even the implementation of a gradual plan there probably would've signaled a shift in the national politics and opened the door to other border states following suit. The Deep South by itself can't protect the institution of slavery.

Interestingly, I've found conflicting information on how Nat Turner's rebellion affected political attitudes towards emancipation. Some sources seem to indicate that it hardened views that slaves would massacre their former owners given the chance and therefore couldn't be freed, while other sources have indicated that it only increased the Virginian's desire to reduce the state's slave population, either by shipping them farther south or by returning them to Africa. The former seems to be more in line with what actually happened, although the two aren't mutually exclusive I guess.

I think what's closest to the truth is it did both. It greatly reduced sympathy for emancipation because of the mental association with Nat Turner while at the same time it strengthened a 'we have too many slaves here' sentiment, which was also associated with Nat Turner. If I recall they even made a rule that if you emancipated a slave, that slave had to leave unless the legislature made a dispensation for that particular former slave.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Eli Whitney doesn't invent the Cotton Gin, slavery on cotton plantations is much less profitable, and the South doesn't become as economically dependent on it and socially defined by it. Then the US can do like the British and buy out the owners to manumit the remaining slaves and give them paid apprenticeships to end the institution between the 1830s and 40s.

Other people were inventing cotton gins at around the same time as Whitney. Best case is it gets invented a bit later.

 

[Rufus]

I wonder if it would have been more likely for slavery to be ended peacefully on the back of some kind of ultra-racist, nativist movement, instead of ending it for humanitarian reasons. If, for example, the ‘Know-Nothing’ party had managed to become the third major political party alongside the Republicans and Democrats, with a radical nativist program that was in favor of keeping US demographics as purely WASP as possible and favored emancipation and emigration (or expulsion, if necessary) of slaves to achieve this goal (together with much stricter immigration laws to preserve America’s WASP character), could they achieve some electoral success in the South, and then form an alliance of convenience with abolitionists to push back against slavery?

 

[The Angry Observer]

I'm not sure if I agree with the assessment of Taylor. That's not to say that your overall characterization is wrong, but some of the political points seem misinterpreted.

Taylor's desire to quickly admit free states from the newly acquired Mexican territory supposedly originated not from any particular views on slavery, but instead from a desire to see proper governments set up in these areas. Taylor, having fought in the Mexican-American War, was quite familiar with how disorganized these areas were and was invested in correcting that as quickly as possible, especially as settlers moved westward and infrastructure would be needed. He believed that debating the legality of slavery in these territories would've stalled the process, potentially for years. Establishing a state, with whatever constitution they proposed, was a legal way to bypass Congress' authority and the political squabbling that would've come with it.

Additionally, Taylor was a Whig and seemingly stuck with many of their principles. Whigs were generally against the use of the veto, so it's unlikely Taylor would've exercised that in any scenario where Congress had reached a compromise. That's basically the exact opposite of what we would expect him to do. Additionally, the Whigs had for decades promoted the idea that a president should only serve one term, so Taylor is unlikely to run again in 1852. Not to mention that he'd be around 68 years old at that time. He had had malaria in 1844 and possibly cholera in 1849, which supposedly sapped much of his strength until 1850 when he he caught cholera (again) and died. I'm sure both he and the Whigs would be conscious of that.

Lastly, the Whigs were already starting to fray around this time. Even if Taylor had been around to lead them, the Northern and Southern branches of the party are already politically diverging. And the economic boom that followed the Mexican-American War is still going to happen, perhaps even more so if Taylor quickly organized states in the west. That may seem like a boon, but in reality it undermined the Whig's messaging on the necessity of a proactive government. Having no official stance on slavery and having no economic messages meant the Whigs had little to organize around, which is why the party fractured in OTL. If southern states attempt some form of secession, I agree with you that Taylor would be quick to quash it and the South would probably see its political power dwindle. I expect in such a scenario that Taylor might lead some sort of unionist party rather than specifically reinvigorate the Whigs. However, all that said, such a scenario would violate the premise of this thread which was to avoid conflict over secession.

Those are good points, and you’re right that in my zeal to write about Taylor I completely misread the premise of the thread lol. However, I’d dispute that Taylor would be completely averse to using the veto or running for re-election. Taylor barely had political views. This is why he was chosen. He was a popular general that could use his own personal celebrity to bury the fact that the Whig party was marred with internal contradictions and being destroyed by abolitionism in the north and slave power in the middle. The center was giving out. If Taylor was a super political guy with all sorts of clearly defined convictions, he wouldn’t have become President (like he did). Even if Taylor hadn’t ran, Fillmore or Scott or whoever probably wouldn’t represent that significant of a divergence.

So Taylor can completely veto the Compromise or elements of it, but the truth is he doesn’t even need to. OTL, the Compromise was so big that it imploded in on itself. Clay and his followers weren’t able to put it together, and as a result had to shepherd five bills through Congress with the opposition of a weird coalition that included William Seward and John Calhoun. Fillmore enthusiastically championed it every step of the way. Even if Taylor keeps to his pledge to sign whatever goes to his desk, just his verbal opposition could kill the bill in Congress.

Even a delayed Compromise has the same such effect. Texas was about ready to send the state militia in, and Old Rough and Ready had no intention of taking it lying down. He supported statehood for New Mexico as a free state, not because he opposed slavery (slaveowner) but because he saw slavery there as economically unviable and threatening the Union. This is where I can cheat and say that even if the south doesn’t secede, Taylor will still probably get his way. The federal army will smash Texas and put an end to that one way or another, and the Congressional standoff will continue until New Mexico is admitted as a free state.

Wilmot ALMOST succeeded OTL. A few years of Bleeding New Mexico will have Clay rushing a combined Fugitive Slave Act and New Mexico Admissions Act through the Senate. If that happens, slavery’s path to the west is compromised severely, which puts us on the road to peaceful, gradual abolition.

 

[dfl_90]

Those are good points, and you’re right that in my zeal to write about Taylor I completely misread the premise of the thread lol. However, I’d dispute that Taylor would be completely averse to using the veto or running for re-election. Taylor barely had political views. This is why he was chosen. He was a popular general that could use his own personal celebrity to bury the fact that the Whig party was marred with internal contradictions and being destroyed by abolitionism in the north and slave power in the middle. The center was giving out. If Taylor was a super political guy with all sorts of clearly defined convictions, he wouldn’t have become President (like he did). Even if Taylor hadn’t ran, Fillmore or Scott or whoever probably wouldn’t represent that significant of a divergence.

So Taylor can completely veto the Compromise or elements of it, but the truth is he doesn’t even need to. OTL, the Compromise was so big that it imploded in on itself. Clay and his followers weren’t able to put it together, and as a result had to shepherd five bills through Congress with the opposition of a weird coalition that included William Seward and John Calhoun. Fillmore enthusiastically championed it every step of the way. Even if Taylor keeps to his pledge to sign whatever goes to his desk, just his verbal opposition could kill the bill in Congress.

Even a delayed Compromise has the same such effect. Texas was about ready to send the state militia in, and Old Rough and Ready had no intention of taking it lying down. He supported statehood for New Mexico as a free state, not because he opposed slavery (slaveowner) but because he saw slavery there as economically unviable and threatening the Union. This is where I can cheat and say that even if the south doesn’t secede, Taylor will still probably get his way. The federal army will smash Texas and put an end to that one way or another, and the Congressional standoff will continue until New Mexico is admitted as a free state.

Wilmot ALMOST succeeded OTL. A few years of Bleeding New Mexico will have Clay rushing a combined Fugitive Slave Act and New Mexico Admissions Act through the Senate. If that happens, slavery’s path to the west is compromised severely, which puts us on the road to peaceful, gradual abolition.

I agree with a lot of your conclusions, but I just don't necessarily see Taylor as a likely candidate to enable the premise you're laying out. Taylor may have appeared politically mysterious at the time, but we know retrospectively that he largely supported the Whigs, especially the nationalist, anti-sectional wing of the party. Unfortunately that coalition couldn't really survive long term as slavery was simply too divisive to avoid. Case in point is Taylor's election. He very likely wouldn't have won without Van Buren splitting with the Democrats and running on the Free Soil ticket. Being a nationalist Whig, Taylor was inclined not to take any decisive action for or against slavery as it might fraction the Union. Instead he focused keeping the slavery debate out of national discourse as much as possible and deferred to Congress when it was outside his presidential purview. Hence his reluctance to use the power of the veto. I think your thoughts regarding Texas offer a more plausible POD. If Texas escalates and clashes with Federal troops, there would be shockwaves throughout the nation. The discourse regarding secession might look quite different if there's a successful example of the Federal government putting a rouge state back into line. You might not necessarily need Taylor to flex his political muscles in the slavery debate to achieve your goals. He need only demonstrate Federal authority in an uncompromising way, which is something we know he was willing to do.

 

[The Angry Observer]

I agree with a lot of your conclusions, but I just don't necessarily see Taylor as a likely candidate to enable the premise you're laying out. Taylor may have appeared politically mysterious at the time, but we know retrospectively that he largely supported the Whigs, especially the nationalist, anti-sectional wing of the party. Unfortunately that coalition couldn't really survive long term as slavery was simply too divisive to avoid. Case in point is Taylor's election. He very likely wouldn't have won without Van Buren splitting with the Democrats and running on the Free Soil ticket. Being a nationalist Whig, Taylor was inclined not to take any decisive action for or against slavery as it might fraction the Union. Instead he focused keeping the slavery debate out of national discourse as much as possible and deferred to Congress when it was outside his presidential purview. Hence his reluctance to use the power of the veto. I think your thoughts regarding Texas offer a more plausible POD. If Texas escalates and clashes with Federal troops, there would be shockwaves throughout the nation. The discourse regarding secession might look quite different if there's a successful example of the Federal government putting a rouge state back into line. You might not necessarily need Taylor to flex his political muscles in the slavery debate to achieve your goals. He need only demonstrate Federal authority in an uncompromising way, which is something we know he was willing to do.

That’s a very good post, I generally agree. The issue of slavery in the Mexican cession was going to blow up at some point. Taylor was simply the guy it blew up under, until it didn’t and Fillmore/Clay orchestrated a compromise. They kicked the can down the road, which might’ve worked if it weren’t for Pierce’s Kansas-Nebraska Act.

If, by 1860 or so, slavery is decisively not expanding west in any significant capacity, there won’t be energy for abolition or secession and slave power will be slowly but surely on the way out. Taylor not dying and violently scuttling Texas’s efforts to take New Mexico solves the problem because it goes around Congress. The natural end of this is slavery locked out of the west.

 

[raharris1973]

f, by 1860 or so, slavery is decisively not expanding west in any significant capacity, there won’t be energy for abolition or secession and slave power will be slowly but surely on the way out. Taylor not dying and violently scuttling Texas’s efforts to take New Mexico solves the problem because it goes around Congress. The natural end of this is slavery locked out of the west.

Which, under an *optimistic* theory as you outlined in an earlier post can lead to nationwide emancipation by 1885.

Or in a pessimistic scenario, with multiple recalcitrant states, and a potential hyper federalist judicial that's the equivalent of the Lockner Court for States rights, prevents Congress and the Executive from legislating against the last hold out legal chattel slavery and probably other legal peonage states in the union until 1937.

 

[Wendell]

It's doable. Have Virginia kick off manumission in the 1820's/1830's and go from there.

 

[The Angry Observer]

Which, under an *optimistic* theory as you outlined in an earlier post can lead to nationwide emancipation by 1885.

Or in a pessimistic scenario, with multiple recalcitrant states, and a potential hyper federalist judicial that's the equivalent of the Lockner Court for States rights, prevents Congress and the Executive from legislating against the last hold out legal chattel slavery and probably other legal peonage states in the union until 1937.

If we had slavery into the twentieth century I don’t believe we would be a respected world power.

 

[raharris1973]

If we had slavery into the twentieth century I don’t believe we would be a respected world power.

Yep, we'd be a disrespected world power, and a 'guilty pleasure' of emigrants and merchants the world over.

 

[dcharles]

No. Sharecropping was less profitable than slavery, by a wide margin. Essentially because slavery allowed people to be forced to work harder than without it, in ways they wouldn't have done otherwise.

To pick just one aspect, under slavery the labour force participation rate for both men and women was extremely high, due to both men and women being forced to work on tasks deemed economically important by the slavers (e.g. working on the cotton fields), while children were either forced to work as well, or if very small, were cared for collectively by a few slaves (usually the elderly). Once slavery was abolished, the labour force participation rate declined for both men and women, but particularly for women, because the now-free former slaves opted to care for their own children rather than work on tasks deemed economically important*.

So sharecropping won't be anywhere near as productive (or profitable) as slavery, whether that's in 1865 or 1885.

*Caring for children is of course work, but it's not the sort of work that directly leads to profitability of the kind that slaveowners cared about.

All true. Also important to note that sharecropping came from the capital-poor environment of the postwar era. If the South still had the same access to capital they had prior to the war, it probably would not have been so popular.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

If we had slavery into the twentieth century I don’t believe we would be a respected world power.

Very true

Yep, we'd be a disrespected world power, and a 'guilty pleasure' of emigrants and merchants the world over.

Possibly also true, unfortunately.

However world opinion, especially British, would exert huge and growing pressure on the US to abolish slavery. The US is large enough and self reliant enough to resist that pressure for some time, but I don't see slavery lasting past 1900 or so.

Brazil kept slavery until 1888, so the US probably holds out a bit longer, I'm afraid, but I don't see the US holding out forever.

 

[The Angry Observer]

Very true

Possibly also true, unfortunately.

However world opinion, especially British, would exert huge and growing pressure on the US to abolish slavery. The US is large enough and self reliant enough to resist that pressure for some time, but I don't see slavery lasting past 1900 or so.

Brazil kept slavery until 1888, so the US probably holds out a bit longer, I'm afraid, but I don't see the US holding out forever.

Abolitionists would also start exerting considerable extralegal pressure. We'll have guys like John Brown mounting raids basically every year, and some of them are going to come pretty damned close to working.

 

[triscreen]

There are plenty of ways to do this - almost 50 years of butterflies can give you a lot of room to work with. The challenge also doesn't specify what kind of ban is in place - it seems like this challenge allows for a bill that declares all people born from 1885 on as free and compensates slaveowners for it, which isn't the most bitter of pills to swallow.

One big thing that will help is averting the Mexican-American War, which inflamed tensions on both sides of the aisle, and this is definitely doable with a POD of 1837. The easiest way to go about this would be to simply change who gets elected in 1844 - a Clay victory would probably be the best bet, but Van Buren also almost got the Democratic nomination if not for the Hammett letter. With this, the question of the far western territories isn't one that would be in play as much, and the slave states would be a bit more constrained to act.

Another potential way is to have a party that isn't the OTL Republicans rise into one of the main two party postitions. With twenty years of butterflies, this could be any number of things, but as another post mentioned perhaps the Know Nothing movement could become the challenger to the Democrats - perhaps some European catastrophe spurs on increased immigration to American cities that sets people into a panic.

A more abstract thing would simply be to change who gets into office - political careers are things that can easily be radically affected by random circumstances that don't go into the history books, and cultural trends can be very fickle. Perhaps a surviving Henry Clay Jr. is able to continue the legacy of his father, or perhaps some figure that's been lost to history is able to rise and conclusively settle things. At the same time, perhaps the infamous firebreathers have less success in their political careers for whatever reason.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

One thing to note is that the US will be much weaker if this happens. Foreign investment will be strongly curtailed if the US keeps slavery, as will immigration. Both these things will slow US economic growth. Britain might well also ban imports of slave cotton, which would be a huge blow to the US in general, and the South in particular.

 

[Blair]

A 13th Amendment requires three-fourths of the states to ratify. Some slave slaves need to choose to become free states (or be admitted as free states in the first place) to make ratification happen. Let us look at which slave states considered abolishing slavery IOTL.

Delaware: In 1847, the Delaware House of Representatives voted for an act to abolish slavery--the Senate vetoed it.
Georgia: N/a
Maryland: N/a
South Carolina: N/a
Virginia: In 1831, Virginia declined to act against slavery by a 73-58 vote. A further 65 to 58 vote delayed the issue indefinitely.
North Carolina: In 1860, John Pool missed becoming Governor of North Carolina by six thousand votes. He later headed the Red Strings, which formed black companies to fight the Confederacy. Had he been elected governor, he might have introduced abolition legislation.
Kentucky: In 1792, Kentucky voted against removing slavery from its constitution - the ninth article - by a 16-26 vote.
Tennessee: In 1784, North Carolina offered Tennessee as a cession to Congress to offset its debt. Congress may then have admitted Tennessee as a free state.

A proposal to prohibit slavery in any state admitted after 1800 failed by a single vote. This affects all the states below:

Louisiana: N/a
Mississippi: N/a
Alabama: N/a
Missouri: In 1819, the Tallmadge Amendment would have admitted Missouri as a free state. It passed the house but failed the senate.
Arkansas: N/a
Florida: N/a
Texas: N/a

As seen above, most slave states never even had a vote on abolition. Even the slave states that voted all decided to retain slavery.

Abolishing slavery peacefully with any POD is hard because even if all states admitted after 1800 are free states, and all southern states that considered voting to abolish slavery IOTL do so, and these ex-slave states help pass a 13th Amendment, there would still be several slave states left to fight it (South Carolina and Georgia at a minimum).

Abolishing slavery peacefully with a 1837 POD is even harder because the seven additional slave states admitted post-1800 can fight too. None of these seven states had so much as a single vote on abolishing slavery post-1837. By this time the slave states are also numerous enough to deny the three-fourths of states necessary for a 13th Amendment ratification.

 

[PGSBHurricane]

There were evidentially plans to annex more of Mexico or even Cuba and if this was done, resulting in more slave states, then it’s possible the Compromise of 1850 and/or the Kansas-Nebraska Act don’t come to fruition and the balance between slave and free states occurs with less fanfare than OTL. There’s still some tension over the issue of slavery and how it expands into the west though. Perhaps as mechanization increases alongside industrialization, perhaps the Upper South moves to abolish slavery in the 1870s and 1880s and eventually there is enough states by 1885 where there would be the majority needed to approve an amendment abolishing slavery?

 

[dfl_90]

As seen above, most slave states never even had a vote on abolition. Even the slave states that voted all decided to retain slavery.

Abolishing slavery peacefully with any POD is hard because even if all states admitted after 1800 are free states, and all southern states that considered voting to abolish slavery IOTL do so, and these ex-slave states help pass a 13th Amendment, there would still be several slave states left to fight it (South Carolina and Georgia at a minimum).

Abolishing slavery peacefully with a 1837 POD is even harder because the seven additional slave states admitted post-1800 can fight too. None of these seven states had so much as a single vote on abolishing slavery post-1837. By this time the slave states are also numerous enough to deny the three-fourths of states necessary for a 13th Amendment ratification.

There seems to be some consensus that Virginia was likely to be the first domino in ending slavery peacefully. While the vote in Virginia wasn't razor thin, the state did have a have a strong political wing that favored some form of emancipation and there was serious debate on the topic. Additionally, slavery was in decline there, along with Maryland and Delaware. These areas didn't really didn't experience the cotton boom of the 1820s and 1830s like the rest of the South did and the percentage of slaves in those three states began to shrink. Two reasons for that that I've seen cited are decreasing soil fertility in the wake of decades of overuse and also the increasingly profitability of selling slaves farther south. If Virginia makes a move toward emancipation, there's a strong chance that Delaware and Maryland follow suit. Down the line we're likely to see the cotton bubble burst in the 1860s or 1870s, which not only will reduce the profitability of slavery, but also of slaves themselves. Kentucky, Missouri and maybe even Tennessee may feel that the practice is no longer worth continuing and here they have Virginia's example to follow. Assuming such a trajectory, there's a good chance that slavery is relegated to 9 to 11 states within the Union. That means the US only needs about 40 states before the practice comes under threat from a constitutional standpoint. Based on OTL, that line is likely to be crossed in the 1880s or 1890s, which coincidentally happens to be the same timeframe when the US was emerging as a global player and would simultaneously be facing international pressure from the growing Western consensus that slavery should be illegal, exemplified by the Brussels Conference of 1889.

 

[Blair]

There seems to be some consensus that Virginia was likely to be the first domino in ending slavery peacefully. While the vote in Virginia wasn't razor thin, the state did have a have a strong political wing that favored some form of emancipation and there was serious debate on the topic. Additionally, slavery was in decline there, along with Maryland and Delaware. These areas didn't really didn't experience the cotton boom of the 1820s and 1830s like the rest of the South did and the percentage of slaves in those three states began to shrink. Two reasons for that that I've seen cited are decreasing soil fertility in the wake of decades of overuse and also the increasingly profitability of selling slaves farther south. If Virginia makes a move toward emancipation, there's a strong chance that Delaware and Maryland follow suit. Down the line we're likely to see the cotton bubble burst in the 1860s or 1870s, which not only will reduce the profitability of slavery, but also of slaves themselves. Kentucky, Missouri and maybe even Tennessee may feel that the practice is no longer worth continuing and here they have Virginia's example to follow. Assuming such a trajectory, there's a good chance that slavery is relegated to 9 to 11 states within the Union. That means the US only needs about 40 states before the practice comes under threat from a constitutional standpoint. Based on OTL, that line is likely to be crossed in the 1880s or 1890s, which coincidentally happens to be the same timeframe when the US was emerging as a global player and would simultaneously be facing international pressure from the growing Western consensus that slavery should be illegal, exemplified by the Brussels Conference of 1889.

I broadly agree. However, gradual emancipation is a hard sell even if Virginia does it.

Lincoln pushed gradual emancipation. Delaware, which had the fewest slaves and least economic dependence on slavery, was the only border state not to reject him out of hand. Its state legislature missed approving gradual emancipation plan, that extended slavery to 1893, by a single vote. Maybe ITTL something like this passes. But consider what that means. It means the most minimally acceptable emancipation plan for the least slave dependent state still pushes slavery to 1893. And agreement to that formula was only acceptable to Delaware at the height of the civil war.

With a 1837 POD, I can see the border states accepting emancipation. I can see admission of western free states making the slave states outnumbered to the point of a 13th Amendment passing. What I can't envision is gradual emancipation ending in 1885 (the 1890s are more likely). I also can't envision South Carolina, Georgia, et al. giving up slavery voluntarily. Even if the profitability of slavery declines, emancipation will always be a huge economic hit. South Carolina's population is majority enslaved. This means slavery is as much a control mechanism wielded by a fearful white minority as it is an economic system (not that those two things are entirely separable). South Carolina could deport its emancipated slaves, as Virginia debated in the 1830s, but that's an economic disaster too.

I just don't see how all this ends except the remaining slave states (albeit fewer than OTL) fighting a war to preserve slavery.