Could the USA have ended slavery in the 1780s?

[Kyro92]

Doesn't that presuppose that they got the vote? Since women didn't have the vote, I remain to be convinced that freed slaves would get the vote.

Fair point. OTOH these states will be vastly outnumbered, they won't have the leverage to filibuster amendments or legislation like OTL. All the incentives for the other states to enforce equality that existed IOTL will exist in this scenario as well- plus, with the hypothetical African-American voters representing a majority in some or all of these states, their votes would likely swing those states permanently into the column of whichever party is perceived as responsible for their liberation.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

Doesn't that presuppose that they got the vote? Since women didn't have the vote, I remain to be convinced that freed slaves would get the vote.

I'm not aware of any provision in the Constitution that would prevent free blacks from voting, so if a state is majority black - free slaves or otherwise - there's no reason it couldn't establish the right for blacks to vote in the state. I'm sure that state (or states) would end up being a haven for free blacks, and if slavery is abolished, those who believe the races can't peacefully coexist will probably encourage - if not outright require - blacks to repatriate to those states, ostensibly creating a sort of reservation system for that state. This may also turn Oklahoma into a full-fledged Indian Territory as well with similar reservation-style laws, and the precedent would exist for Amish communities and even Utah if it gets taken that far - several semi-sovereign areas under American jurisdiction.

 

[David Flin]

I'm not aware of any provision in the Constitution that would prevent free blacks from voting, so if a state is majority black - free slaves or otherwise - there's no reason it couldn't establish the right for blacks to vote in the state. I'm sure that state (or states) would end up being a haven for free blacks, and if slavery is abolished, those who believe the races can't peacefully coexist will probably encourage - if not outright require - blacks to repatriate to those states, ostensibly creating a sort of reservation system for that state. This may also turn Oklahoma into a full-fledged Indian Territory as well with similar reservation-style laws, and the precedent would exist for Amish communities and even Utah if it gets taken that far - several semi-sovereign areas under American jurisdiction.

As I understand it, prior to 1870, the Constitution did not define who could and who could not vote, and left it largely up to the individual states.

Most states up until 1870 restricted voting rights to white property-owning males. Women could vote in New Jersey, provided they met the property ownership requirement, but otherwise not, and freed slaves could vote in five states (New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and New Jersey), provided they met the property requirement. North Carolina removed the vote from African Americans in 1835.

It seems that in the period in question, the states could choose who could and could not vote. Most chose to restrict the vote to white property-owning males. The issue, if I recall, was states in the south east with high African American populations, who in OTL chose not to grant the vote to this group.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

As I understand it, prior to 1870, the Constitution did not define who could and who could not vote, and left it largely up to the individual states.

Most states up until 1870 restricted voting rights to white property-owning males. Women could vote in New Jersey, provided they met the property ownership requirement, but otherwise not, and freed slaves could vote in five states (New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and New Jersey), provided they met the property requirement. North Carolina removed the vote from African Americans in 1835.

It seems that in the period in question, the states could choose who could and could not vote. Most chose to restrict the vote to white property-owning males. The issue, if I recall, was states in the south east with high African American populations, who in OTL chose not to grant the vote to this group.

This is true. I can't imagine the remaining slave states granting blacks of any status the right to vote if for no other reason than it could threaten the existence of slavery, their cash cow. However, if, say, Mississippi and Arkansas, to pick two states at random, were majority black, there's no reason we wouldn't start seeing both black voters (especially those who meet the property requirement) and black officials before too long. Granted, there may be some violence involved in ensuring such a right, especially if whites stick around, but this would ultimately force Washington's hand with regards to free blacks.

This could result in a better outcome - white officials in Washington see the blacks who come to DC as...maybe not equals but as people they can work with. It would help if these black folks are likable. Gradually the situation improves for blacks, and slavery is abolished peaceably with compensation to owners. The Civil War is averted and whites and blacks in the South just kind of self-segregate for the most part, with co-mingling of the races seen as something only eccentric rich people and government officials do.

Or it could result in a war based on race, one that blacks are likely to lose. The government, seeing elected blacks as a threat, strips them of their rights, using their numbers advantage to pass Constitutional amendments to disenfranchise and essentially outlaw blacks in America. This again forces the hand of every black American who isn't a slave and creates an underground smuggling ring that gets blacks the hell out of America. As a result, Canada and the Caribbean have pockets of former American blacks, and other smugglers capture American blacks to sell as slaves I the three slave states. Slavery would be outlawed in order to put a stop to the smuggling trade if it gets too out of hand, with human trafficking being the 19th century equivalent of the drug trade today.

Or the middle solution - these states as semi-sovereign entities with laws that prevent co-mingling - happens. Given how America has dealt with race in the past, I see that as the likeliest solution.

 

[CalBear]

There wouldn't have been any need to secede. The country would never have formed. Just that simple. The southern colonies made up (DE, MD, GA, NC, SC, VA) made up almost half the colonies, they would simply not have ratified the Constitution.

It is easy to misunderstand the reality of slavery, based on our well founded disgust at the institution, for those who held slaves. Slaves were wealth, most of the net worth of the southern colonies was in slaves. It is rather horrific to consider it, but asking a slaveholder to free his slave(s) without compensation was like asking a northern ship owner to give his ship away, a dairly farmer his herd, a homeowner his house without any compensation. It was almost literally like asking someone to go from wealth (and ALL the Founders were men of property, both North and South) to poverty at the stroke of a pen. Even a phased emancipation would have represented a steady destruction of wealth that had been built-up over generations. The number and value of slaves was lower than it was to reach by the start of the ACW (when some estimates put the wealth represented by slaves to be as high as 70% of the total wealth of the slave States) but it was still enormous, even before one considers the labor value slaves represented to those who possessed them.

The theory that the Southern States were too weak to secede is also rather odd. By far the wealthiest and most powerful colony was Virginia, without Virginia the U.S. never happens.

The harsh reality is that the only way slavery ends in the United States is at the point of a bayonet.

 

[TRH]

There wouldn't have been any need to secede. The country would never have formed. Just that simple. The southern colonies made up (DE, MD, GA, NC, SC, VA) made up almost half the colonies, they would simply not have ratified the Constitution.

It is easy to misunderstand the reality of slavery, based on our well founded disgust at the institution, for those who held slaves. Slaves were wealth, most of the net worth of the southern colonies was in slaves. It is rather horrific to consider it, but asking a slaveholder to free his slave(s) without compensation was like asking a northern ship owner to give his ship away, a dairly farmer his herd, a homeowner his house without any compensation. It was almost literally like asking someone to go from wealth (and ALL the Founders were men of property, both North and South) to poverty at the stroke of a pen. Even a phased emancipation would have represented a steady destruction of wealth that had been built-up over generations. The number and value of slaves was lower than it was to reach by the start of the ACW (when some estimates put the wealth represented by slaves to be as high as 70% of the total wealth of the slave States) but it was still enormous, even before one considers the labor value slaves represented to those who possessed them.

The theory that the Southern States were too weak to secede is also rather odd. By far the wealthiest and most powerful colony was Virginia, without Virginia the U.S. never happens.

The harsh reality is that the only way slavery ends in the United States is at the point of a bayonet.

This assessment seems like it may have been more true of the 1850's than the 1780's. In the latter period, there was open and apparently relatively serious talk not only of slavery dying a natural death, but of Upper South states going for abolition themselves. 70 years later, they were illegally opening mail to censor abolitionist sentiment and keeping Republicans off of ballots. I don't know enough economic data, but the underlying social dynamics seem impressively different.

 

[cra0422]

I think the best way for this scenario to happen is to delay the invention (or general release) of the cotton gin for about another decade. Prior to the cotton gin, it would take a slave about 10 hours to de-lint a pound of cotton; afterwards you could produce about 50 pounds a day. Slaves in 1790 numbered around 700,000 so without the cotton gin, slavery isn't as necessary because the costs of buying, feeding, housing, and clothing slaves was greater than the profits you made from the crops they raised