Can slavery be ended peacefully?
- Thread starter Blair
- Start date
Not likely, IMO. I mean, obviously, slavery certainly isn't going to last too much longer than, say, the 1940s or 1950s[1] even in the most radical outlier scenarios(primarily DoD and A Looser Union, though indenture in the latter TL doesn't quite seem to be slavery, whereas the former has slavery and more), and in more mainstream scenarios, probably not too much beyond 1880-1900 or so.
But, regardless of the time period, if it doesn't involve an actual civil war, then there will, unfortunately, likely be quite a bit of civil unrest, with plenty of heated political battles, terrorism, and perhaps escalated levels of violence in general; many of the slavers aren't likely to go down without a fight, that much is guaranteed.[2]
One of the biggest, and surprisingly, least addressed, problems that slavery presents, is the fact that wages of white(and other free) workers were quite depressed in the South when slavery was dominant over there; to make a long story very short and to the point, there might be many white workers who wouldn't care at all about the welfare of black workers(free or slave), one way or the other, and some who might actually truly support slavery, for whatever reason. But no worker, with very few exceptions, would be able to stomach working for crap money when he realizes that his lot in life might be better off without this source of nearly-free, or totally free labor sapping his wages, no matter what he might think of blacks, or Mexicans, etc.[3]
[1]TBH, the early 1960s might be barely plausible but you'd really be pushing it then. Anything after the mid '60s without a violent revolution and/or partial or complete collapse of the country might as well involve ASBs.
[2]OTL's Civil Rights struggle wasn't without a bit of bloodshed; here, it could be 100x worse.
[3]It can even be argued that a similar problem is in play in OTL's America today, only with undocumented immigrants and overseas labor taking the place of slaves in the antebellum South. After all, there are a fair number of skinflint CEOs out there, even today, who would rather employ a poor Chinese peasant (or perhaps an undocumented immigrant, from wherever.)and save a few million dollars, than pay American workers a fair wage and have to walk home with slightly lower profits.
Last edited:
The U.S not fighting or losing the Mexican-American War might halt the spread of slavery and give the southern-slave states less power. A more destructive War of 1812, with Britain undermining the American slave system as a way to defeat her (as seen in the ARW, kinda) might do some wonders.
But I guess only one of those is peaceful, and it doesn't really stop slavery, but halts it.
I'm of the mind that slavery is too economically viable and too interwoven into the culture to be done away with without violence.
Or, vice versa, no westward expansion might actually keep slavery alive longer. Remember, California's admission as a free state really started to throw things off balance, and what started the surefire slide to Civil War. Now, it may still be possible for another state like Minnesota or Iowa, or whatever, to tip the balance in favor of the free states but it will likely take quite a bit longer and slavery will likely be harder to dislodge once the tipping point does get reached.
In short, Manifest Destiny may have been one of the things that undid slavery as early as it did. And the pro-slavery Congressmen(not a minute number, but not as many as some would think) who really supported it would not have, had they realized the probable outcome of it.
Not to mention slave revolts, etc.
Of course it could. The US wasn't such a special snowflake as to have to solve the problem with guns and guts.
As to what it would take? Well presuming that slavert in the US plodded along post-1860, the same forces that made other countries abandon slavery could force the hand of the South in the US.
Or perhaps the South wasn't as strong poltically in the early 1800s. Or it was more powerful, and thus slavery didn't stay regionalized.
Dred Scott isn't ever issued (for all sorts of reasons) or is far less radical of a decision.
Perhaps a religious movement arises in the South that is abolitionist tinged and catches fire.
All sorts of things come to mind.
An earlier poster mentioned CA, MN and IA. California's admission in 1850 did upset the apple cart, since there was no equivalent slave state to admit; the other side got Dred Scott; and that just exacerbated the underlying problem. Iowa joined in 1846; it, along with Wisconsin in 1848, balanced out the admission of FL and TX, both of which had come in in '45. Then, in the mid '50s, there was the Kansas-Nebraska act, a last ditch effort to maintain some sort of balance, and we all saw where that went. Minnesota joined in 1858, there was no accompanying slave state to offset this, but by now, things were so far gone, nothing could be done about it.
As for the question of ending slavery peacefully, I wonder how much of an effort the federal govenment made, if any, in emulating what the British did? Plantation owners in Jamaica and other places no doubt thought their world was coming to an end when Parliament passed the abolition bill in 1834, but slave owners were compensated, and the newly freed slaves still had to eat, so they could be kept at their old jobs for shit wages, and the planters kept their lifestyles, for the most part. Why couldn't the same thing happen in the southern states?
As for the question of ending slavery peacefully, I wonder how much of an effort the federal govenment made, if any, in emulating what the British did? Plantation owners in Jamaica and other places no doubt thought their world was coming to an end when Parliament passed the abolition bill in 1834, but slave owners were compensated, and the newly freed slaves still had to eat, so they could be kept at their old jobs for shit wages, and the planters kept their lifestyles, for the most part. Why couldn't the same thing happen in the southern states?
By 1820, the delicate balance between North and South was naturally swaying toward the North as states like Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois were rapidly growing in population, while the new states in the South like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana were growing, but not nearly as much. But even by 1820, Congress went to great lengths to balance the power in the Senate between slave and free state, as seen in the Missouri Compromise.
But say that the Talmadge Amendment of 1819 had passed the Senate as it had passed the House, then Missouri would have been admitted as a slave state that was gradually emancipating its slaves such that no new slaves could be brought into the state, and children of slaves would be free at age 25.
With this as the model, maybe Virginia and Kentucky adopt a similar model of gradual emancipation. At that point a sharecropping system probably develops throughout the upper south. If landowners can be as prosperous utilizing sharecroppers, then sharecropping would likely catch on throughout the South.
While blacks would technically be free, their economic lot would not be much better than when they were slaves. Plus I would imagine there would be defacto and dejure restrictions placed on blacks from migrating away from the plantations and farms to the cities in the North.
However, I could see a widespread sharecropping system throughout the South by 1850, which would last into the 1920s. But without slavery, I do believe we would have seen much more industrialization in the South from 1850 onward. I also think civil rights for blacks would be pushed up by 20 or so years to the 1940s.
But say that the Talmadge Amendment of 1819 had passed the Senate as it had passed the House, then Missouri would have been admitted as a slave state that was gradually emancipating its slaves such that no new slaves could be brought into the state, and children of slaves would be free at age 25.
With this as the model, maybe Virginia and Kentucky adopt a similar model of gradual emancipation. At that point a sharecropping system probably develops throughout the upper south. If landowners can be as prosperous utilizing sharecroppers, then sharecropping would likely catch on throughout the South.
While blacks would technically be free, their economic lot would not be much better than when they were slaves. Plus I would imagine there would be defacto and dejure restrictions placed on blacks from migrating away from the plantations and farms to the cities in the North.
However, I could see a widespread sharecropping system throughout the South by 1850, which would last into the 1920s. But without slavery, I do believe we would have seen much more industrialization in the South from 1850 onward. I also think civil rights for blacks would be pushed up by 20 or so years to the 1940s.
Anyone know if there was a chance of compensated emancipation? That seems to have worked out well enough for some countries.
Which countries are you referring to? Did they give slavery up voluntarily or have gradual emancipation forced upon them?
No realistic chance in a USA resembling the historical one. The collective value of slaves was far too high; it greatly exceeded government revenue over any meaningful period.
In any case, slaveholders in the South were greatly opposed even to compensated emancipation. This was for a variety of reasons ranging from "slaves are my property and no government can force me to free them" to "I've seen what happened to planters in Haiti (first) and the British West Indies (post-1834); no thanks" to "you're using my taxes to buy my property off me? Get bent".
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Not very likely but not impossible. If you mean "free the slaves" by renaming slavery something else, and then claimed it's abolished, slightly more likely.
Could an US defeat in 1848 and Mexico taking on an agressive expansionist policy (into the Soutehrn states) lead to the need of a larger standing army for the US - thus making labor more expensive - meaning that the states (northern) press for "black regiments" and after ending their (10? 20? year) term they and their offspring are freed (owners should be compensated by the gvmt.)
What might work is some combination of gradual emancipation with slave exportation allowed, which in practice works out to telling planters to sell their slaves, with partial compensation financed by bonds. The Whig Party in its Hamiltonian strain would love to have some kind of reason to have a national debt that needing servicing. You might see an abolitionist-financier alliance.
Allowing a peaceable secession (after a failed compromise of 18xx, dealer's choice), technically meets the challenge if the Northern states get to keep the 'United States' name and identity.
And it may also be the key to a non-technical solution as well. An independent, impoverished, and increasingly isolated CSA might not be able to maintain a functional slave society in the long term.
And it may also be the key to a non-technical solution as well. An independent, impoverished, and increasingly isolated CSA might not be able to maintain a functional slave society in the long term.
Well, as I see, the Southerners only fought for slavery because their economic activity was just REALLY profitable. King Cotton, so to speak. Combine a fierce competition (Better India? Egypt?) with a weaker industrialisation in the North (Stronger UK?) and the southern slave-based economy would suffer a tremendous downturn to a point that slaves would naturally become sharecroppers and, mostly, urban unskilled workers.
This broken South would beg for money in the North, that would easily pass an Emacipation Law and any other they want.
This broken South would beg for money in the North, that would easily pass an Emacipation Law and any other they want.