DBWI: Jefferson's measure fails to pass?

Now, IOTL 1784, Jefferson passed federal legislation banning Slavery in the Territories after 1800. However, the law, famously, only passed by a single vote, due to a representative from New Jersey. What if that representative had been out that day, and slavery had been allowed to expand throughout the west? How would America have been impacted? There are countless knock-on effects. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Isn't it typical for a DBWI to set some terms?
Key word is some. A better idea might be to just say: "What if Jefferson's measure banning slavery in the territories hadn't passed? From what I can tell it was a pretty near vote." and then let others fill in the rest of the ideas.
 
Key word is some. A better idea might be to just say: "What if Jefferson's measure banning slavery in the territories hadn't passed? From what I can tell it was a pretty near vote." and then let others fill in the rest of the ideas.
Could I edit it?
Edit: Now edited.
 
Now, IOTL 1784, Jefferson passed federal legislation banning Slavery in the Territories after 1800. However, the law, famously, only passed by a single vote, due to a representative from New Jersey. What if that representative had been out that day, and slavery had been allowed to expand throughout the west? How would America have been impacted? There are countless knock-on effects. What do you think?
The slavers were apparently the ones clamoring for more expansion through war. It's notable that once this bill passed the calls for an invasion of British or Spanish territory started dropping quickly. So maybe a more warmongery USA, and a more expansive one too? A US hungry for new slave territory probably wouldn't be content to call it a day at Louisiana (yes, I know there's been expansions since then but those are mostly minor ones).
 
The slavers were apparently the ones clamoring for more expansion through war. It's notable that once this bill passed the calls for an invasion of British or Spanish territory started dropping quickly. So maybe a more warmongery USA, and a more expansive one too? A US hungry for new slave territory probably wouldn't be content to call it a day at Louisiana (yes, I know there's been expansions since then but those are mostly minor ones).
True, true. What about the Carolina Rebellions?
 
The US might have annexed Louisiana and Florida, rather than the American settlers there just declaring independence and setting up separate Republics in which slavery was permitted.

Also, KY, TN, AL and MS might all have gone through a territorial phase rather than remaining parts of VA, NC or GA until they were sufficiently populated for admission as slaveholding states.
 
The US might have annexed Louisiana and Florida, rather than the American settlers there just declaring independence and setting up separate Republics in which slavery was permitted.
We did annex Louisiana... Oh, you mean The Republic of Louisiana, the one set up south of the border by filibusters fleeing repercussions after the Carolina Rebellion and French slavers who wanted to keep their slaves, don't you? Yeah, I'm not sure the US would even bother with that scrap of desert and swampland, but if it did there'd probably be a lot of tension with Mexico over it. Maybe even a war.
 
Probably a race to the Pacific in an effort to create a free/slave balance.
The Carolina rebellions could have expanded into full on civil war maybe
 
Probably a race to the Pacific in an effort to create a free/slave balance.
The Carolina rebellions could have expanded into full on civil war maybe
Yeah, there'd definitely be some tension with Britain, since they'd be descending on the territory from the north, while the US would be expanding from the east. IIRC, there was some talk about combining the British territories in North America to counteract America, but the proposal never got far. Maybe in this timeline we see one giant country on America's northern border instead of the four we have today?
 
Top