AHC: No New Slave States

With a POD after 1783, ensure that no further slave states are added to the USA. At a minimum, no slavery West of the Mississippi. Bonus points for every territory claimed by the Southern States that comes in as a free state. Points deducted for coercion and cecession.
 
President John Adams outlaws slavery in the Louisiana Purchase, based on the precedence of the Northwest Territory.

Yup, not much of a challenge.
 
I had an idea for such a TL years back:
1787
* Northwest Ordinance passes, banning slavery in the US territories (essentially the Northwest) and in all Federal territory acquired in the next ten years [OTL only had first part]
* Constitutional Convention finishes document for ratification [same as OTL, only without clause regarding slave trade]

1790-92
* a bill imposing high tariffs on imported slaves
* NC cedes Tennessee District (as OTL), Georgia cedes the Yazoo lands (earlier than OTL) and, under immense pressure, VA cedes Kentucky County (unlike OTL where they were never a Federal territory)

1792
* Kentucky becomes 15th state, without slavery
* a young Eli Whitney takes a tutoring job in New York [in South Carolina OTL, invents cotton gin]

1795
* Tennesse, following Kentucky's lead, becomes 16th state

1798
* President Adams signs a law banning the importation of slaves to the United States

1804
* following Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson issues an executive order restricting slavery in the territory north of the 33rd Parallel; later withdraws it on constitutional grounds, and as Congress is presenting him with legislation to the same effect

1808
* invention of the Cotton Gin

Now, to reiterate, this means that slavery, when the gin is invented, is only legal in the south coastal states from Maryland to South Carolina and in South Louisiana Territory (LA state OTL). (Also, IIANM, most plantation owners would be former Frenchmen.) Most else is the same or roughly similar to OTL.
 
President John Adams outlaws slavery in the Louisiana Purchase, based on the precedence of the Northwest Territory.

Yup, not much of a challenge.


Except that Illinois came close to legalising slavery in the 1820s, after becoming a state. If located a few degrees further south, it would almost certainly have done so.

What prevents states carved out from the LA Purchase from doing this?
 
All OTL:

On March 1, 1784, in defiance of southern slave society, Jefferson submitted to the Continental Congress the Report of a Plan of Government for the Western Territory. "The provision would have prohibited slavery in all new states carved out of the western territories ceded to the national government established under the Articles of Confederation." Slavery would have been prohibited extensively in both the North and South territories, including what would become Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. His 1784 Ordinance would have prohibited slavery completely by 1800 in all territories. Congress, however, rejected Jefferson's original 1784 Ordinance prohibiting slavery by only one vote, due to an absent representative from New Jersey (who planed to vote in favor but was sick in bed)

POD: Slap some health into the representative and bingo you got no new slave states and southern planters frothing at the mouth.
 
Last edited:
All OTL:

On March 1, 1784, in defiance of southern slave society, Jefferson submitted to the Continental Congress the Report of a Plan of Government for the Western Territory. "The provision would have prohibited slavery in all new states carved out of the western territories ceded to the national government established under the Articles of Confederation." Slavery would have been prohibited extensively in both the North and South territories, including what would become Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. His 1784 Ordinance would have prohibited slavery completely by 1800 in all territories. Congress, however, rejected Jefferson's original 1784 Ordinance prohibiting slavery by only one vote, due to an absent representative from New Jersey (who planed to vote in favor but was sick in bed)

POD: Slap some health into the representative and bingo you got no new slave states and southern planters frothing at the mouth.

Pretty much what I was going to say. If you can get slavery out of the territories under the Confederation, I would imagine that it wouldn't be very easy to get slavery back in later.
 
Could you perhaps see a compromise where the southern states agree to not pushing for new slave states in exchange for a constitutional amendment declaring the legality of slavery and a right held only by the current slave states for as long as they desire?
 
Alternatively, might the slave states get more favorable borders as a quid pro quo? This was the period when the western boundaries of the states were being defined (and often still fairly nominal); give them some of the land that they OTL gave up in exchange for not having slavery in the rest of it?
 
All OTL:

On March 1, 1784, in defiance of southern slave society, Jefferson submitted to the Continental Congress the Report of a Plan of Government for the Western Territory. "The provision would have prohibited slavery in all new states carved out of the western territories ceded to the national government established under the Articles of Confederation." Slavery would have been prohibited extensively in both the North and South territories, including what would become Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. His 1784 Ordinance would have prohibited slavery completely by 1800 in all territories. Congress, however, rejected Jefferson's original 1784 Ordinance prohibiting slavery by only one vote, due to an absent representative from New Jersey (who planed to vote in favor but was sick in bed)

POD: Slap some health into the representative and bingo you got no new slave states and southern planters frothing at the mouth.

OK, let's do that. :p

I'd heard about this, but I don't know any details. Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama are still unsettled enough at that time not to be major problems and it will be interesting to see what difference this makes to their development. I have an idea that the whole Slave/Free balance obsession accelerated Westward expansion, so maybe the USA grows more slowly in this timeline.

Is Kentucky part of the deal, or was it considered as simply part of the 800-pound gorilla, Virginia? If they are frothing at the mouth, can we expect extra wackiness from General Wilkinson and his Spanish friends? :eek:
 
Is Kentucky part of the deal, or was it considered as simply part of the 800-pound gorilla, Virginia?


Kentucky was never a Territory, so isn't affected. It stayed part of VA until ready for statehood.

OTL, Tennessee was briefly a Territory, but TTL probably wouldn't be - just stay part of NC until admitted.

In fact, in 1784 the US had no Territories south of the Ohio River. Most of AL and MS remained part of GA until 1802, and would probably remain so a good deal longer in this situation.
 
Kentucky was never a Territory, so isn't affected. It stayed part of VA until ready for statehood.

OTL, Tennessee was briefly a Territory, but TTL probably wouldn't be - just stay part of NC until admitted.

In fact, in 1784 the US had no Territories south of the Ohio River. Most of AL and MS remained part of GA until 1802, and would probably remain so a good deal longer in this situation.

Then, it would be likely that under these circumstances Tennessee would remain part of NC, while Alabama and Mississippi would part of Georgia. Slavery would still be legal, and profitable, in these lands but there would be no new slave states. Georgia and NC would grow into pretty hefty states rather quickly. Slavery might not be such a big issue in TTL, but these states would still be highly influential.

At the same time the because states would be larger on average. The new western states would also be drawn much differently, large on average.
 
Then, it would be likely that under these circumstances Tennessee would remain part of NC, while Alabama and Mississippi would part of Georgia. Slavery would still be legal, and profitable, in these lands but there would be no new slave states.


Actually there probably would. TN would separate from NC as KY did from VA, and in due course MS and AL would probably separate from GA in like manner.

So the first state to be affected by the rule would be LA - admitted 1812 OTL. TTL it may be included in MS and allowed to separate later.

This rule might make a difference in a border area like MO, but further down slavery is a bit too profitable for a scrap of paper to be allowed to bar it. Note that the Convention denied Congress the right even to ablish the African slave trade before 1808, so you can guess what the chances are for an outright ban on slavery itself.
 
This rule might make a difference in a border area like MO, but further down slavery is a bit too profitable for a scrap of paper to be allowed to bar it. Note that the Convention denied Congress the right even to abolish the African slave trade before 1808, so you can guess what the chances are for an outright ban on slavery itself.

They are not banning it though. Just limiting its spread. Perhaps under these conditions, the slave states petition and manage, early on to keep the slave trade alive.
And as a previous post noted, there might be enough small and large print clauses, that prevent the abolishment of slavery. It won't spread but it also won't die till much later.
 
If slavery is not allowed in Alabama and Mississippi then you'll not have a need for any imported slaves (which the USA did without pretty quickly OTL) and the slave economy will decline rapidly. The coastal slave states had some serious declines in soil fertility for crops that required the labor of slaves, as well as some crops like indigo no longer in high demand from the USA. You'll see "weak" slave states like Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Tennessee, "strong" slave states like Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Florida and Louisiana will be in transition in the early 1800's with some sort of gradual emancipation of existing slaves. Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas will never be slave states (Kentucky and Tennessee being formed from parts of existing slave states will be "grandfathered" but neither had a strong slave economy OTL).

The math of the Senate will not allow the southerners to hold the sort of club over the process they did OTL meaning they are politically much weaker. The weak slave states will probably end slavery perhaps with sort sort of compensation sooner or later and note Virginia was exporting slaves to the deep south in the first half of the 1800s as slave crops were less profitable there for a variety of reasons so it too could be a candidate for gradual emancipation.

Given the above scenario, enforced emancipation - probably gradual and with some sort of compensation, can be enforced on the remaining slave states, and especially absent Virginia, what's left simply has no option but to comply, secession too impractical even for the most fervent believers.
 
If slavery is not allowed in Alabama and Mississippi then you'll not have a need for any imported slaves (which the USA did.


But slavery is allowed in most of AL and MS as long as they are part of GA. OTL they were ceded to the Federal government in 1802 and became a Territory, but if that would mean abolition of slavery there, the cession won't take place. At some point they'll most likely do what Kentucky did and split off to become States, without passing through a territorial phase. So slavery never gets banned there.
 
Your likely going to get something like this with Virginia, North/South Carolina and Georgia as Slave States and the rest admitted as Free.

20120330152936!Population_Density_in_the_American_Colonies_1775.gif
 
Your likely going to get something like this with Virginia, North/South Carolina and Georgia as Slave States and the rest admitted as Free.

What stops Kentucky? OTL it was never a Territory so is quite unaffected by any law concerning Territories.
 
Top