AHC: Contain Slave Power in US

With no PoDs prior to 1808, how can the spread of slavery in the country be prevented as much as possible, and the cumulative anti-slavery movement be as influential as possible (potentially including, but not limited to, an earlier abolition)? To start with, would it help if the War of 1812 was prevented?

And once we have (a) PoD(s) to consider, what would be the effects?
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
This is borderline ASB but:

Fight the War of 1812 a bit earlier.
Have Nappy do a bit better the first time around.
Brits settle the War of1912 to US liking in about 1813
Settle with Nappy about then
Blame US for losses...Stab in Back by $%^&% cousins
Find sources of cotton and tobacco outside US: Egypt?
Europe uses those sources also to drive down US crop values
Slave economy collapses.
 
This is borderline ASB but:

Fight the War of 1812 a bit earlier.
Have Nappy do a bit better the first time around.
Brits settle the War of1912 to US liking in about 1813
Settle with Nappy about then
Blame US for losses...Stab in Back by $%^&% cousins
Find sources of cotton and tobacco outside US: Egypt?
Europe uses those sources also to drive down US crop values
Slave economy collapses.

I think Britain would be pretty angry about a loss to Napoleon, but the War of 1812 was more or less a sideshow to them--I don't know if they'd focus their ire on the USA unless either:

A) America hands them their asses in a major, resounding defeat that contributes to said loss to Napoleon (which is unlikely in the extreme), or

B) The War of 1812 devolves into a bloody stalemate that draws off British resources and manpower, essentially becoming Britain's Vietnam.

That said, if Option B happens, there are plenty of opportunities to screw American slavery outside of "fuck them, we'll buy our cotton somewhere else"--the Brits could encourage slave uprisings; the South could become a major theater of war and be devastated in the fighting, destroying many plantations; a British blockade could prevent cotton sales to anyone, not just Britain itself; and so on.

But the downside to all this is that the longer the War of 1812 goes on, the higher the risk of a New England secession gets, and if that happens the US is lost to the slaveholders forever. You'd need some kind of POD that makes the US either stronger as a whole, more anti-British, or both.
 
Just throwing an idea out:

Virginia abolishes slavery in the late 1820s/early 1830s, as they considered doing. If they do, I don't see how Maryland or Delaware possibly keep slavery for much longer, and North Carolina is a reasonable bet to abolish it as well. Without those states, the South doesn't have the Senate parity they did OTL up to the 1850s, and are at even more of a disadvantage in the House. Expansion of slavery goes from a prospect to be debated to more or less a pipe dream (with no constituency for it), no one is quite crazy enough to listen to the more extreme secessionists, and slavery eventually withers on the vine (although it probably survives in the Deep South significantly longer than it did OTL).
 
Just throwing an idea out:

Virginia abolishes slavery in the late 1820s/early 1830s, as they considered doing. If they do, I don't see how Maryland or Delaware possibly keep slavery for much longer, and North Carolina is a reasonable bet to abolish it as well. Without those states, the South doesn't have the Senate parity they did OTL up to the 1850s, and are at even more of a disadvantage in the House. Expansion of slavery goes from a prospect to be debated to more or less a pipe dream (with no constituency for it), no one is quite crazy enough to listen to the more extreme secessionists, and slavery eventually withers on the vine (although it probably survives in the Deep South significantly longer than it did OTL).

If that happens (how close was Virginia to doing that?) then there'll likely be a bit more of a chain reaction. Most of the Upper South will see it fade away in a general "follow the leader" action. Of course, that might alter the western expansion dramatically as well.
 
If that happens (how close was Virginia to doing that?) then there'll likely be a bit more of a chain reaction. Most of the Upper South will see it fade away in a general "follow the leader" action. Of course, that might alter the western expansion dramatically as well.
I think if it's just the Deep South practicing it, there won't be much of a will to keep it around. It might get abolished, probably sometime between the 1840s and 70s.
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
If Virginia abolishes slavery before 1820 then Maryland and Delaware follow with NC not far behind. Arkansas and Missouri come in as free states. Kentucky and Tennessee follow. That leaves the "South" as SC, Georgia , Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. They are stuck. Too small to win a civil war. Slavery ends with compensation by 1880. The million Americans who died in the WBTS do something else with their lives.
 
Would it help or hurt if, in lieu of fighting a war with Britain in 1812, the US fought a war with Spain circa 1818 (allying with independence armies of Mexico, etc)?

Particularly if it meant the U.S. picking up more territory earlier (possibly adding not only Florida, but Texas and one or more Caribbean islands)? On the one hand, some of this territory could be adding to slave power; on the other, it makes giveaways like the Missouri Compromise less likely, and could even possibly mean further westward gains are free soil. Plus, there's the Federalist Party having a shot of surviving.
 
If that happens (how close was Virginia to doing that?) then there'll likely be a bit more of a chain reaction. Most of the Upper South will see it fade away in a general "follow the leader" action. Of course, that might alter the western expansion dramatically as well.

Jefferson's son in law was elected Governor and put up a bill with Jefferson's fingerprints all over that that would have drained the VA treasury as a slave buy back program/debt shield in exchange for ending slavery in the state. It would have solved Jefferson's and many a slave holders problem of not wanting to lose everything in the process.

But, it was still a tough sell in bad economic times and didn't make it. I really think it needed to be coordinated with cash or assurance from the federal government somehow as we were talking too much for the VA Treasury alone.
 
Last edited:
Would it help or hurt if, in lieu of fighting a war with Britain in 1812, the US fought a war with Spain circa 1818 (allying with independence armies of Mexico, etc)?

Particularly if it meant the U.S. picking up more territory earlier (possibly adding not only Florida, but Texas and one or more Caribbean islands)? On the one hand, some of this territory could be adding to slave power; on the other, it makes giveaways like the Missouri Compromise less likely, and could even possibly mean further westward gains are free soil. Plus, there's the Federalist Party having a shot of surviving.

I think by 1818 Spain was in no desire to get into a war with the US (considering the Peninsular War, the Independence movement in the Americas, and having already fought the US in the War of 1812 itself as well and having lost Mobile, Alabama to them in said war). That's why they sold Florida instead than fight for it, so they could gain something out of loosing it. It depends if the US would want to wage that war instead of accepting just gaining Florida through other means.
 
Top