more limited

What if in 1785,when Congress banned slavery in the Northwest Territory
( today's Ohio,Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan) they also banned slavery in today's Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama. That eliminates the whole argument of expansion of slavery. So I do not see an ACW.
 
Now that I think this concentrates the African American population on the East coast. It means that the slave labor plantations in Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia have to compete with farmers further west who operating on free labor and have more incentive to look to muse new farming methods.
 
What if in 1785,when Congress banned slavery in the Northwest Territory
( today's Ohio,Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan) they also banned slavery in today's Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama. That eliminates the whole argument of expansion of slavery. So I do not see an ACW.

Why would the south agree to this? They would never let it pass. And even if the North somehow pushed it through, it might make the South angrier. Assuming we still see the creation of the Cotton Gin then the South is cornered and pissed off. If not, slavery might die in the south in the mid-early 1800's. The southern slave holders in these territories won't be happy either, they might rebel and the Federal Army wasn't in happiest stages at this time...
 
Top