PC: Thomas Jefferson Abolishes Slavery

In 1787 Congress prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory, after a proposal by Thomas Jefferson to abolish it in all the territories failed by one vote. So what if they had gotten that vote? What would be the repercussions of such an action, since slavery wouldn't spread into the territories would it become the issue it was OTL, what are potential butterflies?
 
Last edited:
In 1787 Congress prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory, after a proposal by Thomas Jefferson to abolish it in all the territories failed by one vote. So what if they had gotten that vote? What would be the repercussions of such an action, would slavery become the issue it was OTL, what are potential butterflies?

An earlier Civil War could possibly develop, I suppose. The richest landowners wouldn't be too happy about their losses, I think.
 
An earlier Civil War could possibly develop, I suppose. The richest landowners wouldn't be too happy about their losses, I think.

Hang on, wasn't planatation slavery dying out before the invention of the cotton jenny and so forth? And I'm pretty sure that it only really became profitable when in Alabama and Mississippi (possibly Georgia to a lesser extent). If it's never established there, it could end up as a 'don't know what your missing' situation, and so we get less strife.
 
In 1787 Congress prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory, after a proposal by Thomas Jefferson to abolish it in all the territories failed by one vote. So what if they had gotten that vote? What would be the repercussions of such an action, since slavery wouldn't spread into the territories would it become the issue it was OTL, what are potential butterflies?

Probably not much at first.

Kentucky is unaffected because she was never a Territory, but remained a part of Virginia until her admission as a state in 1792.

OTL, Tennessee was briefly a Territory after her cession by NC, but TTL this probably won't happen, and TN will pass directly to statehood as KY did.

That only leaves the areas which later became Al and MS. However, in 1787 these still belonged to Georgia, and weren't ceded until 1802. Personally, I'd be very surprised if this cession weren't made conditional on the continued legalisation of slavery there.

The $64,000 question is what happens in Louisiana. The French will want some guarantee for the slave property of their nationals, but those are mostly in and around New Orleans. So there's at least a chance that the rest of the Purchase, including the future State of Missouri, may remain free.
 
The failed vote has to apply to something outside the northwest territories, otherwise what's the difference?

Louisiana isnt even part of the US at the time.
 

fi11222

Banned
In 1787 Congress prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory, after a proposal by Thomas Jefferson to abolish it in all the territories failed by one vote. So what if they had gotten that vote? What would be the repercussions of such an action, since slavery wouldn't spread into the territories would it become the issue it was OTL, what are potential butterflies?
Maybe the US would loses the war of 1812 ? The southern states might be weaker economically and disgruntled. Some might secede back to Britain during the war if they were promised a return to slavery ?

That could result into a weaker US and thus a more fragmented North America: continued French presence, more Spanish presence, more British presence.
 
Doubtful. The south were the ones chomping at the bit for war with the UK, because of british involvement in the west. Plus the UK was THE leading force of abolition so very unlikely the pissed off slavers look to them for support.
 
Enforcement would be questionable. Despite the anti-slavery provisions of the Northwest Ordinance, the 1820 Census reported 917 slaves in Illinois (1.6% of the population) and 190 slaves in Indiana (0.1% of the population), and that's in areas with relatively unfavorable climates for plantation agriculture. An anti-slavery Southwest Ordinance might keep slavery from getting a firm foothold in the OTL border south, but it'd probably take a strong and ongoing federal commitment to enforcement (much more than ever existed OTL) to keep slavery out of OTL Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana.
 
Probably not much at first.

Kentucky is unaffected because she was never a Territory, but remained a part of Virginia until her admission as a state in 1792.

OTL, Tennessee was briefly a Territory after her cession by NC, but TTL this probably won't happen, and TN will pass directly to statehood as KY did.

That only leaves the areas which later became Al and MS. However, in 1787 these still belonged to Georgia, and weren't ceded until 1802. Personally, I'd be very surprised if this cession weren't made conditional on the continued legalisation of slavery there.

The $64,000 question is what happens in Louisiana. The French will want some guarantee for the slave property of their nationals, but those are mostly in and around New Orleans. So there's at least a chance that the rest of the Purchase, including the future State of Missouri, may remain free.

These are all good points. However, the precedent has been set to stop the spread of slavery. Furthermore, slavery did not become a real issue threatening constitutional government until the Missouri Compromise. In this scenario, at the very worst, Missouri and Arkansas will never become slave states, and possibly others as well that were part of the slave bloc.

It is also possible that with the push that the forces against slavery are emboldened and have the wind behind their backs. Just as slavery was steadily abolished in the northern states where it is legal, new states that had some slaves - like Kentucky or Tennesee - might end up quickly abolishing them as well since their initial slave populations are likely to be low. Even Virginia might abolish it.

This greatly reduces the ability of slaveowners to dominate national politics and control the agenda on slavery for a long time. There is bound to be blowback at a certain point once the cotton gin revitalizes the importance of slavery, but by then the die will have been cast. I could see a crisis involving South Carolina similar to the nullification crisis of 1832, but threatened secession will be seen as suicidal, and South Carolina will not have the support it eventually did in 1860.

Ultimately, I see slavery becoming more and more restricted, and its concentration in a few southeastern states will be seen as a strange anomaly. At some point abolitionists will seek its outlaw even down there, but after some harsh words, compensated emancipation will likely happen - perhaps by the 1880s.
 
So slavery get restricted to, say, Virginia south, with Kentucky and Tennessee either with or without slaves, and Louisiana does have slaves.

So this brings up the question of Texas. Would some rich southerners decide that it's best to set up their own slave holding republic? And for that matter, is there any incentive to create massive plantations in Texas, outside of possible cattle ranches?
 
So slavery get restricted to, say, Virginia south, with Kentucky and Tennessee either with or without slaves, and Louisiana does have slaves.

So this brings up the question of Texas. Would some rich southerners decide that it's best to set up their own slave holding republic? And for that matter, is there any incentive to create massive plantations in Texas, outside of possible cattle ranches?

Possibly. If I recall correctly, a similar scenario happened in For Want of a Nail, only Jefferson wasn't quite dominated by slaveowners, just had quite a few of them(mainly from the Wilderness Walk).

And eastern Texas might actually be decent plantation land. The rest of the state is iffy though, from Rockwall County, Waco, and Austin going west, especially once you hit Abilene and Wichita Falls.
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
Enforcement would be questionable. Despite the anti-slavery provisions of the Northwest Ordinance, the 1820 Census reported 917 slaves in Illinois (1.6% of the population) and 190 slaves in Indiana (0.1% of the population), and that's in areas with relatively unfavorable climates for plantation agriculture. An anti-slavery Southwest Ordinance might keep slavery from getting a firm foothold in the OTL border south, but it'd probably take a strong and ongoing federal commitment to enforcement (much more than ever existed OTL) to keep slavery out of OTL Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana.

Slavery was illegal in Illinois except a special provision for the salt mines in Gallatin County on the Saline River near the confluence of the Ohio and Wabash Rivers.
 
Possibly. If I recall correctly, a similar scenario happened in For Want of a Nail, only Jefferson wasn't quite dominated by slaveowners, just had quite a few of them(mainly from the Wilderness Walk).

And eastern Texas might actually be decent plantation land. The rest of the state is iffy though, from Rockwall County, Waco, and Austin going west, especially once you hit Abilene and Wichita Falls.

Okay, yeah, I remember that from Want of a Nail. So who would be running the show in this Texas? I want to say that Calhoun would be running the show, especially if a Nullification Crisis occurs as OTL.

This Texas could see the influx of southerners not wanting to bend to the will of the Federal government, but that doesn't mean that their new nation isn't going to face a lot of trouble down the road. The Mexicans might decide that having a little buffer state might be a good way to slow the American advance through the SW.
 
There are a number of ways this may turn out. However, I'm imagining the result to play out as follows:

The bill is passed. Changes nothing. Slave states do not care as there is no plan nor hope to expand at this time while the republic is in its infancy. The Constitution is still adopted on schedual, perhaps with more benefits to the slave states to provide a sense of equality between the north and south in the eyes of federal law.
Georgia keeps its western portion as well; not even considering ceding it to the federal government.
Washington becomes president. Not much changes. Then the election of 1796 happens. More northerners vote for Jefferson, more southerners abstain the vote. Jefferson wins. I can see Jeffeson's first term going way better than Adam's OTL, leading to more faith in the executive branch. * He wins a second terms with some southerners still abstaining to vote. The Louisiana purchase happens in 1803. Now things get interesting.
Southerners want Louisiana as a slave state and thus admits it into the Union directly 9 years earlier than OTL. This sets the precedent of admitting southern states directly, as well as admitting territories with smaller populations.
Jefferson does not retire after his second term and wins a third. After 5-6 years of toying with economic warfare, he uses this term to build up America's navy.

*With TJ as the second president, I'd have to review this period of American history in greater depth to determine what he would do during his first term in TTL.

This is where I stop for now. I plan to either rewrite this or expand on it in the future if it is received well.
 
Since Texas seceded from Mexico because the Southrons who settled there illegally imported slaves and wanted to keep them, I imagine that Texas would go very much as OTL, actually. They avoid the 'territory' issue by going directly from independent nation to state.

But Missouri and Arkansas, for instance might stay free.
 
Jefferson does not retire after his second term and wins a third. After 5-6 years of toying with economic warfare, he uses this term to build up America's navy.

*With TJ as the second president, I'd have to review this period of American history in greater depth to determine what he would do during his first term in TTL.

This is where I stop for now. I plan to either rewrite this or expand on it in the future if it is received well.

I can't see Jefferson running for a third term (it may not have been illegal, but the precedent for two terms had been set by Washington). And Jefferson was anything but a strong supporter of the Navy in his presidency historically.
 
Top