AHC: tip the balance of power in favour of Slave States

In a nutshell one of the biggest structural issues that faced the USA was the institution of slavery. In addition to disagreements over the morality of slavery it produced fundamentally different, and antagonistic, political and economic interests between the states that supported it and those opposed to it. Initially the Free and Slave States were largely balanced against each other in terms of political influence, but, over time the balance of power shifted towards the Free States as the issue became more contentious, firstly, as a result of increased migration into the Free States giving them an advantage in the House, and later, as a result of the breakdown in attempts to ensure parity between Free and Slave States allowing Free States to gain control of the Senate. Although the Slave States still had enough power to block constitutional amendments against slavery, the election of Lincoln in 1860 meant that there was now a government committed to stopping the spread of slavery, which would have effectively killed it off in the long-run, had the Slave States not committed suicide by seceding.

The challenge is to prevent this shift in power, either by ensuring that the Slave States maintain a near equal degree of political influence as the Slave States, or, for bonus points, tipping the scales decisively in favour of the Slave States.
 
In a nutshell one of the biggest structural issues that faced the USA was the institution of slavery. In addition to disagreements over the morality of slavery it produced fundamentally different, and antagonistic, political and economic interests between the states that supported it and those opposed to it. Initially the Free and Slave States were largely balanced against each other in terms of political influence, but, over time the balance of power shifted towards the Free States as the issue became more contentious, firstly, as a result of increased migration into the Free States giving them an advantage in the House, and later, as a result of the breakdown in attempts to ensure parity between Free and Slave States allowing Free States to gain control of the Senate. Although the Slave States still had enough power to block constitutional amendments against slavery, the election of Lincoln in 1860 meant that there was now a government committed to stopping the spread of slavery, which would have effectively killed it off in the long-run, had the Slave States not committed suicide by seceding.

The challenge is to prevent this shift in power, either by ensuring that the Slave States maintain a near equal degree of political influence as the Slave States, or, for bonus points, tipping the scales decisively in favour of the Slave States.

Interesting question.

One particularly popular workaround I've seen in this kinda scenario is simply have New England break away in 1812, a la DoD(though two years earlier in that TL).....which sounds easy on paper, but not really. Firstly, how many people have considered that some Yankees might not like living in a seceded New England and move west, anyway? Apart from settling the West(not just Ill. + Ind. + Mich., but also Mo., too, and that's just by 1830), who's to say that a few of these migrants might not end up in Ky., Va., Del., and Maryland as well?

Meeting halfway on this issue, I do think slavery might be able to survive a little while longer than it did IOTL-to about 1880, maybe 1890 without really stretching plausibility, but after that.....still hard to see, barring some more radical changes.
 
The simplest way would be at the constituional convention, insert a clause preventing the federal government from outlawing the import of slaves. Inn OTL this was done in 1809 and destroys the South's ability to keep up with northern immigration
 
One possible way to get things started might be in Illinois. Whilst slavery was forbidden in the Northwest Ordinance and Illinois was admitted as a Free State, slavery was present and semi-legal in the south, as well as south west Indiana to a lesser extent. Apparently Illinois held a referendum on legalising slavery, and, although it was rejected by a 14 point margin, if we could get a stronger presence of pro-slavery settlers in Illinois it might be enough to tip the balance. If this happens and Illinois changes into a Slave State, or, more realistically IMO, gets partitioned between a Free north and Slave south, it could raise potential questions over the effectiveness of trying to pair Free and Slave State admissions as their status is no longer set in stone, and as a result the policy is abandoned in favour of popular sovereignty.

This opens the door to more potential Slave States being admitted without being balanced out.

Given that such a scenario would already presuppose a greater migration of Southern settlers, and with everything up for grabs, it is possible that this could lead to Kansas having a fighting chance of being admitted as a Slave State.

Texas using its constitutional right to divide itself into as many as five States, which was proposed during the 1850 compromise albeit for the purposes of balancing Free States.

Deseret, or something similar, being admitted to the Union and voting to become a Slave State (or at least one that votes alongside their interests) due to the Republicans, who would probably have been formed a bit earlier, taking a hard-line anti-Mormon stance (I believe that opposition to Mormonism was originally party policy).

General Worth avoids being assigned to Texas, thus preventing his death by Cholera in 1849, and therefore being able to lead a successful filibuster expedition to Cuba at the behest of Ambrosio José Gonzales, which adds Cuba as a slave state.

If the Slave States can keep up this momentum, and you still have things like the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott case, it could go a long way to preventing pro-Slavery Americans turning to secessionism as a means of preserving the peculiar institution, whilst Abolitionists and Free-Soilers, seeing the entrenchment of Slave Power throughout the Union, might see it as a potential way to stop the spread of slavery.
 
I think the simplest way to do this would be to get slavery instituted in a big way north of the Mason Dixon lines. Here are a few scattered thoughts on that.

Americans associate slavery with plantain slavery and with enslavement of Africans and African descended peoples. To work outside the cotton, tobacco, and sugar plantations, slavery would probably have to be broader than that; eg slaves in retail businesses and industrial concerns more common.

Maybe you need to turn the IOTL indentured servants into outright slaves or make it easy to become a slave by falling into debt or into prison, though this would have an effect into the institution itself. Plantation slavery was just harsher than non-plantation slavery historically. There are gradations with slavery, for example often slaves had their own property and manumission was both fairly easy and common, for example slaves buying themselves with their own money from their masters. What seems to determine this are how slaves are used -eg plantation vs other types of work such as household slaves, and how easy it is for them to escape, it was much better being a slave in Brazil than in the Antilles. White slaves in the northern states would find escape -often out west- very easy, after all they could blend in easier with the non-slave population. Slaves that had a better option of escaping got better treatment.

One commentator had the idea of opening up the western territories to slavery. This became something of a project among southern elites, so I can see how that came up, but I think a stronger POD is more slavery in New York. After all, IOTL there were a substantial number of slaves in New York, it was one of the last northern states out of the original thirteen to emancipate, and had the closest relations to the South of any northern state IOTL. It helps that New York was a Dutch founded commercial enterprise and not a utopian settlement of English religious dissidents like New England and Pennsylvania. Its historical relation with the Yankeedom is somewhat like that of Texas and Dixie, often aligned historically and its hard for outsiders to tell the difference, but in reality culturally very different.
 
How about this:

During the constitutional convention the 3/5 compromise came about because the southern states were really resentful of the idea of slaves being counted as people for the purposes of taxation and representation, seeing it as an unfair tax burden and not the significant political advantage it later turned out to be. What if they realise the potential value of having slaves count with regards to political representation in the House and EC outweighs the tax burden and so drop their objections to it. For bonus points they do this in exchange for adding a decade or so onto the slave trade clause. As a result they get an extra decade of importing slaves whilst allowing them to maintain a far stronger presence in the House.
 
WI New Hampshire is merged with Massachusetts? OTL they shared the same Governor from 1699 to 1741, but somehow the two legislatures never got merged. So come the Revolution there are only twelve colonies rather than thirteen. In this situation, there may also never be a Vermont. Sandwiched between NY and a much bigger MA, it may well end up as part of one or the other, or maybe split between them.

This removes four Northern Senators, and means that by 1796 the South has eight states out of fourteen. By 1819 it is eleven out of twenty. So there will never have been a time when North and South were equal. Also, in this situation Maine is less likely to split off, as it will be part of a continuous territory rather than being a detached portion of MA. In this situation, the admission of MO may be delayed, but it probably gets in eventually, so that it's now 12 out of 21. Even if admitted w/o slavery, the new State is pretty certain to legalise it before very long.

This doesn't guarantee the South permanent superiority, but certainly puts off the evil day for quite a while. Even the admission of CA still leaves (butterflies permitting) 15 slave states out of 28, and 1860 will still still find the two sides equal at fifteen each. Could this leave the South a bit less jittery, and maybe avert the secession crisis?
 
WI New Hampshire is merged with Massachusetts? OTL they shared the same Governor from 1699 to 1741, but somehow the two legislatures never got merged. So come the Revolution there are only twelve colonies rather than thirteen. In this situation, there may also never be a Vermont. Sandwiched between NY and a much bigger MA, it may well end up as part of one or the other, or maybe split between them.

This removes four Northern Senators, and means that by 1796 the South has eight states out of fourteen. By 1819 it is eleven out of twenty. So there will never have been a time when North and South were equal. Also, in this situation Maine is less likely to split off, as it will be part of a continuous territory rather than being a detached portion of MA. In this situation, the admission of MO may be delayed, but it probably gets in eventually, so that it's now 12 out of 21. Even if admitted w/o slavery, the new State is pretty certain to legalise it before very long.

This doesn't guarantee the South permanent superiority, but certainly puts off the evil day for quite a while. Even the admission of CA still leaves (butterflies permitting) 15 slave states out of 28, and 1860 will still still find the two sides equal at fifteen each. Could this leave the South a bit less jittery, and maybe avert the secession crisis?
It could... Or could lead to a worse crisis, as well...
 
Oddly enough, a delayed invention of the cotton gin might actually have led to more slave states, as I once noted in soc.history.what-if:

***

Robert McColley in *Slavery and Jeffersonian Virginia* (Urbana: University of
Illinois Press 1964) argued that the cotton gin, far from giving slavery "a
new lease on life" (as is so often claimed) may have sealed its doom by
making it so profitable in the Southwest that there was less pressure to
introduce it into the Northwest.

Yes, such pressure could exist despite the Northwest Ordinance. Even in
OTL there was considerable evasion of the Ordinance, and petitions by some
people in the Illinois and Indiana Territories for at least a partial
repeal of its antislavery provisions (one of them was supported
by Indiana Territorial Governor William H. Harrison, a future President
of the United States). And presumably the Ordinance could not prevent
states from adopting slavery *after* they were admitted to the Union [1]
as Illinois seriously considered doing in OTL in the 1820's. With more
southerners moving to the Northwest (because of the lack of an early
cotton boom in the Southwest) the already considerable pro-slavery feeling
in early Illinois and Indiana could be a lot stronger.

[1] Some have argued to the contrary. For example US Supreme Court
Justice John McLean, an Ohioan, suggested that because of the Northwest
Ordinance, Ohio could not allow slavery under its state constitution
"without the consent of the original states." If this were not the case,
then the ordinance's "import has been misconceived by the people of the
state generally. They have looked upon this provision as a security
against the introduction of slavery, even beyond the provisions of the
constitution." Indeed, according to McLean, it was just this provision
that "has drawn masses of population to our state, who now repose under
all the guarantees which are given on this subject by the constitution and
the compact [Northwest Ordinance]." *Spooner v. McConnell*, 22 F.Cas. 939
(1837) This conception of the ordinance was also used as an important
weapon against those who tried to legalize slavery in Illinois and
Indiana. Paul Finkelman, *An Imperfect Union: Slavery, Federalism, and
Comity* (University of North Carolina Press 1977), pp. 83-84.

The point is, though, that this interpretation (a) was ultimately rejected
by the US Supreme Court (in 1850, in *Strader v. Graham*, 10 Howard (51
U.S.) 82 the Court unanimously held that the Northwest Ordinance was no
longer in effect), and (b) would not likely have been accepted by
northwesterners if more of them had been of southern origin than in OTL.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/r17xzhZ4zmg/bBA04dOKHZ4J
 
It could... Or could lead to a worse crisis, as well...

It would have a job to be worse than OTL.

Offhand,about the only way it could be worse would seem to be if the Upper South and Border States secede at the same time as the Lower South, so that Lincoln (or whoever) comes in to find himself facing Confederacy which extends right up to the Ohio River. But I wouldn't think that very likely.
 
Last edited:
Oddly enough, a delayed invention of the cotton gin might actually have led to more slave states, as I once noted in soc.history.what-if:

***

Robert McColley in *Slavery and Jeffersonian Virginia* (Urbana: University of
Illinois Press 1964) argued that the cotton gin, far from giving slavery "a
new lease on life" (as is so often claimed) may have sealed its doom by
making it so profitable in the Southwest that there was less pressure to
introduce it into the Northwest.

Yes, such pressure could exist despite the Northwest Ordinance. Even in
OTL there was considerable evasion of the Ordinance, and petitions by some
people in the Illinois and Indiana Territories for at least a partial
repeal of its antislavery provisions (one of them was supported
by Indiana Territorial Governor William H. Harrison, a future President
of the United States). And presumably the Ordinance could not prevent
states from adopting slavery *after* they were admitted to the Union [1]
as Illinois seriously considered doing in OTL in the 1820's. With more
southerners moving to the Northwest (because of the lack of an early
cotton boom in the Southwest) the already considerable pro-slavery feeling
in early Illinois and Indiana could be a lot stronger.

[1] Some have argued to the contrary. For example US Supreme Court
Justice John McLean, an Ohioan, suggested that because of the Northwest
Ordinance, Ohio could not allow slavery under its state constitution
"without the consent of the original states." If this were not the case,
then the ordinance's "import has been misconceived by the people of the
state generally. They have looked upon this provision as a security
against the introduction of slavery, even beyond the provisions of the
constitution." Indeed, according to McLean, it was just this provision
that "has drawn masses of population to our state, who now repose under
all the guarantees which are given on this subject by the constitution and
the compact [Northwest Ordinance]." *Spooner v. McConnell*, 22 F.Cas. 939
(1837) This conception of the ordinance was also used as an important
weapon against those who tried to legalize slavery in Illinois and
Indiana. Paul Finkelman, *An Imperfect Union: Slavery, Federalism, and
Comity* (University of North Carolina Press 1977), pp. 83-84.

The point is, though, that this interpretation (a) was ultimately rejected
by the US Supreme Court (in 1850, in *Strader v. Graham*, 10 Howard (51
U.S.) 82 the Court unanimously held that the Northwest Ordinance was no
longer in effect), and (b) would not likely have been accepted by
northwesterners if more of them had been of southern origin than in OTL.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/r17xzhZ4zmg/bBA04dOKHZ4J

I've seen that suggested elsewhere, although a lot of people make the argument that the cotton gin was such a simple design in practice that it could only be delayed for so long. An alternative I have seen is that an earlier Boll Weevil outbreak nips King Cotton in the bud (pun unintended), thus preventing its dominance.

It would have a job to be worse than OTL.

Offhand,about the only way it could be worse would seem to be if the Upper South and Border States secede at the same time as the Lower South, so that Lincoln (or whoever) comes in to fins himself facing Confederacy which extends right up to the Ohio River. But I wouldn't think that very likely.

I've seen one well made timeline where, due to Lincoln getting assassinated and Hamlin becoming President and pissing everybody off, Kentucky secedes. There's also another timeline with a similar premise which features numerous West Virginiaesque partitions throughout the border states, as well as California.
 
Preventing the shift in power against the slave states is impossible because slavery is what caused the shift in power. As Hinton Helper noted, slavery was a drag on the southern economy. It also drug down the wages for free workers, which is some of why the vast majority of immigrants went to free states. Internal migration also favored the free states, roughly twice as many people moved from slave states to free states as moved from free states to slave states. Few slaveowners moved to the territories - without the slave patrols and pass systems of the slave states it was a lot easier for slaves to escape. The 1860 Census shows two slaves in Kansas and 15 slaves in Nebraska. Combined, these meant that the territories were going to become free states, shifting the balance of power.
 
How much of an impact could a die-hard fireater like Calhoun do if they were able to win the Presidency for a term or two. They could end up galvanising the abolitionist movement if they push too far, which they likely would. Is there a particular time when such a Presidency would be a net positive for the Slave States?
 
One of the reason that slavery did not extend further than OTL went beyond the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise. At the time of the ACW slavery was fading in many states where it was still legal, not only border states but also the Upper South. IMHO had Kansas continued for a time under the Lecompton Constitution and been admitted as a slave state, it would not have been long before slavery would have been legislated away as Kansas was not suitable for the sort of agrarian economy of the sort that kept slavery going in the south. The problem with slaves as clerks and working in shops, as an example, is this now need to be literate and numerate - something that was anathema to slave owners. Furthermore educating slaves to this level was an expense the slave economy did not want to undertake - OTL the slave states did not want to spend state money to educate whites.

Even absent New England, the reality is that slavery is not going to be long term in most of the USA. If you have the sort of slavery the Draka had, well maybe, but that was not what was in the USA.
 
What if the Indian Removal Act and the subsequent trait of tears could have been prevented. The Native American tribes that were uprooted were all in the South and their lands opened up to white settlement. If that never happens then it could be possible that at least some of the settlers who colonised their lands IOTL might move to other territories or Northern Mexico instead? As a result could there be a stronger pro-slave presence in the Border States, South Illinois, the various US territories and the Northern parts of Mexico that may end up getting Manifest Destinied down the line?
 
What if the Indian Removal Act and the subsequent trait of tears could have been prevented. The Native American tribes that were uprooted were all in the South and their lands opened up to white settlement. If that never happens then it could be possible that at least some of the settlers who colonised their lands IOTL might move to other territories or Northern Mexico instead? As a result could there be a stronger pro-slave presence in the Border States, South Illinois, the various US territories and the Northern parts of Mexico that may end up getting Manifest Destinied down the line?

It might have a minor effect but won't address the root of the problem. The free population is growing much faster than the slave population. This is because the free population grows by births and immigration while slaves have to be born. The slavers need to bring that back into balance. They can either import more slaves or restrict immigrants
 
Would there be any POD that could increase European immigration in places like New Orleans and Charleston so the South has less of gap with the North there?
 
Would there be any POD that could increase European immigration in places like New Orleans and Charleston so the South has less of gap with the North there?

Not sure but that won't help them. More European immigration to the South means fewer on slaves. If the slave owning population falls, support for slavery falls with it. In every rebel state, at least 20% of families owned slaves. In every loyal state, the number is less

Slaves went from being about 18% ofthe US population to just 12% when the Civil War breaks out. This is why slave power was declining
 
Not sure but that won't help them. More European immigration to the South means fewer on slaves. If the slave owning population falls, support for slavery falls with it. In every rebel state, at least 20% of families owned slaves. In every loyal state, the number is less

Slaves went from being about 18% ofthe US population to just 12% when the Civil War breaks out. This is why slave power was declining
Interesting. Seems like that increasing European immigration in the South Could be an interesting POD to make a thread about sometime
 
It might have a minor effect but won't address the root of the problem. The free population is growing much faster than the slave population. This is because the free population grows by births and immigration while slaves have to be born. The slavers need to bring that back into balance. They can either import more slaves or restrict immigrants


Does that have to be bad news for the South? Would poor immigrant communities want free Blacks to be able to move north and compete with them for jobs?
 
Top