AHC/WI: Law of Free Birth in American South

Many Latin American countries, especially in South America, passed laws which stated that children of slaves were born free. Apparently New York and New Jersey had similar laws too. Could such a law have been passed in the Southern states before the Civil War, or was slavery too entrenched to disappear in even a gradual manner peacefully?
 
I could see it happening at two points; the emancipation campaign in Virginia after Nat Turner (though a bit too much emphasis has been placed on how close the vote was, when it would have been very difficult to win) or some sort of push during the 1790s, I'd say. That was the time when slavery was really being curtailed and banned in the north and when even the south was sort of wondering about this whole deal, mainly because it was declining as an economic institution before the introduction of the cotton gin.
 
I could see it happening at two points; the emancipation campaign in Virginia after Nat Turner (though a bit too much emphasis has been placed on how close the vote was, when it would have been very difficult to win) or some sort of push during the 1790s, I'd say. That was the time when slavery was really being curtailed and banned in the north and when even the south was sort of wondering about this whole deal, mainly because it was declining as an economic institution before the introduction of the cotton gin.

Obligatory Slur, Aimed at Eli Whitney ...

How about as an Alternative to The Emancipation Proclamation ...

Perhaps in a War, Without The Trent Affair?
 
I could see it happening at two points; the emancipation campaign in Virginia after Nat Turner (though a bit too much emphasis has been placed on how close the vote was, when it would have been very difficult to win) or some sort of push during the 1790s, I'd say. That was the time when slavery was really being curtailed and banned in the north and when even the south was sort of wondering about this whole deal, mainly because it was declining as an economic institution before the introduction of the cotton gin.

I second the 1790s. At that point in time, right after the revolution, the possibility of abolition could be openly debated in the southern states. As the decades went on and cotton became king, that was no longer the case; even discussing it privately could get you attacked. I think there was a brief period of time in the 1790s where a few decisive politicians in southern states could have passed bills for gradual emancipation like New York and New Jersey did. It definitely could have happened in Kentucky. But past 1800 or so it was impossible.
 
I second the 1790s. At that point in time, right after the revolution, the possibility of abolition could be openly debated in the southern states. As the decades went on and cotton became king, that was no longer the case; even discussing it privately could get you attacked. I think there was a brief period of time in the 1790s where a few decisive politicians in southern states could have passed bills for gradual emancipation like New York and New Jersey did. It definitely could have happened in Kentucky. But past 1800 or so it was impossible.

This is an interesting counterpoint to the idea of inevitable progress, or at least every generation being more socially liberal than their ancestors. The 1790s Southerners you discuss sound so different from the "positive good" pro-slavery types of the 1850s I remember studying in my college history courses.

Weren't slaves mainly used for growing food and tobacco before Eli Whitney? Was cotton really that much more profitable than other crops at the time?
 
This is an interesting counterpoint to the idea of inevitable progress, or at least every generation being more socially liberal than their ancestors. The 1790s Southerners you discuss sound so different from the "positive good" pro-slavery types of the 1850s I remember studying in my college history courses.

Weren't slaves mainly used for growing food and tobacco before Eli Whitney? Was cotton really that much more profitable than other crops at the time?

It wasn't, no. Most cotton was of the long-haired variety; it could only be grown in areas like the Sea Islands. The Tobacco trade had mostly declined and though rice was important it was not enough to justify slavery- really, had the gin somehow magically not been invented, I wouldn't be surprised if slavery had been phased out.

I suggest you research personalities in the 1790s in the south and look for people who might have been willing to make emancipation or at least a law of free birth happen.
 
Alternatively, you could have the same effect by delaying the invention of the cotton gin for a decade or two...
 
This is an interesting counterpoint to the idea of inevitable progress, or at least every generation being more socially liberal than their ancestors. The 1790s Southerners you discuss sound so different from the "positive good" pro-slavery types of the 1850s I remember studying in my college history courses.

Nothing could be a better example of that phenomenon than this, a record of debates at the University of South Carolina about slavery:


  • 1807—Clariosophic Society debated, “Is the abolition of slavery in this country a thing practical?” (Decided in the affirmative.)
  • 1809—Clariosophic Society debated, “Does justice require the manumission of slaves?” (Decided in the affirmative.)
  • 1809—Clariosophic Society debated, “Has the introduction of slavery been advantageous to South Carolina?” (Decided in the negative.)
  • 1826—Euphradian Society debated, “Is it politic to permit owners of slaves in this country to emancipate them?” (Decided in the negative.)
  • 1827—Euphradian Society debated, “Could South Carolina provide for the emancipation of her slaves in any manner beneficial to them so emancipated?” (Decided in the negative.)
  • 1845—Clariosophic Society debated, “Should restrictions be placed on the education of slaves?” (Decided in the negative.)
  • 1848—Clariosophic Society debated, “Is it likely that slavery will be eventually abolished?” (Decided in the negative.)
  • 1852—Euphradian Society debated, “Should Slaves be allowed to learn trades?” (Decided in the negative.)
  • 1860—Clariosophic Society debated, “Might South Carolina pass a law requiring free negroes to leave the state or become enslaved?” (Decided in the affirmative.)

Bolding mine.
 
Get Virginia to adopt the gradual phase out, preferably before the cotton gin is invented.

Sure, most of the slaves will be sold south to South Carolina and Alabama and Mississippi. But the Slave Power states will be much weaker federally, and won't be able to force so much of the proSouthern agenda.

If Virginia goes to gradual emancipation, North Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee might, as well. Then the slave states would be definitely marginalized. If they try to leave over the issue, they'll be curbstomped, and if they don't, well, there won't be any new slave states joining the Union after (??Texas?).
 
Top