Peaceful Abolition in the USA?

Would it have been at all possible to counteract the gag laws and what not, and ultimately peacefully outlaw slavery? Thoughts? If not, what would this have required from an alternate US?
 
I believe that there was some serious talk about gradual emancipation in Upper South states like Virginia before the invention of the cotton gin which could have peacefully reduced the extent of slavery had said invention come later than IOTL, but peaceful abolition in the entire US probably requires the US to somehow shed at least the Deep South peacefully.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
No.

Would it have been at all possible to counteract the gag laws and what not, and ultimately peacefully outlaw slavery? Thoughts? If not, what would this have required from an alternate US?

No. Slavery is what made plantation agriculture profitable in the US in the antebellum period, and plantation agriculture is what made the slave states - and slave holders - rich.

Very rich, in fact.

Abolition was as much an economic revolution as a political one; the American Civil War was fought because those with power in antebellum America were unwilling to give it up peacefully.

Best,
 
No. Slavery is what made plantation agriculture profitable in the US in the antebellum period, and plantation agriculture is what made the slave states - and slave holders - rich.

Very rich, in fact.

Abolition was as much an economic revolution as a political one; the American Civil War was fought because those with power in antebellum America were unwilling to give it up peacefully.

Best,

Yes, that's true. All right. I was trying to do a plausible American monarchy TL, (which is a bit of an oxymoron), and I was trying to do something else with the 1860s, other than your average CSA. I had something writhed about peaceful, gradual manumission; is that at all possible?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Need to know your monarch and how that came about...

Yes, that's true. All right. I was trying to do a plausible American monarchy TL, (which is a bit of an oxymoron), and I was trying to do something else with the 1860s, other than your average CSA. I had something writhed about peaceful, gradual manumission; is that at all possible?

Need to know your monarch and how that came about, but unless you arer somehow going to dispose of cotton as a cash crop, seems pretty doubtful.

Best,
 
Emperor Washington, or How I Learned to Stop Republicanism and Love the Monarchy

A more successful Shays' Rebellion leads to an abortive Constitutional Convention, which ultimately ends in the reinstatement of the Articles of Confederation. Washington, and Hamilton, his new ally, believe that America needs more centralized leadership, and thus, the Federal (Empire?) of America is created, with a Jefferson-led Republic of America seceding soon afterwards.

I'm perfectly aware that this is ridiculous, but the idea of a pseudo-Roman (ITTL, Washington DC is called New Rome) empire in North America is really appealing to me. Anyway, I had an idea that the 1864 Consulate (a legislative committee, elected every 4 years), led by John C. Frémont pass a Manumission Act, freeing the slaves by 1864. By this point, much of North America has been annexed, since *America assisted in the Mexican Rebellion, and the alternate War of 1812, called the First War of Dominion, is far more successful.

I have a lot of notes, if you're interested.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
That's quite a departure point (or points)...

A more successful Shays' Rebellion leads to an abortive Constitutional Convention, which ultimately ends in the reinstatement of the Articles of Confederation. Washington, and Hamilton, his new ally, believe that America needs more centralized leadership, and thus, the Federal (Empire?) of America is created, with a Jefferson-led Republic of America seceding soon afterwards.

I'm perfectly aware that this is ridiculous, but the idea of a pseudo-Roman (ITTL, Washington DC is called New Rome) empire in North America is really appealing to me. Anyway, I had an idea that the 1864 Consulate (a legislative committee, elected every 4 years), led by John C. Frémont pass a Manumission Act, freeing the slaves by 1864. By this point, much of North America has been annexed, since *America assisted in the Mexican Rebellion, and the alternate War of 1812, called the First War of Dominion, is far more successful.

I have a lot of notes, if you're interested.

That's quite a departure point (or points)...;)

You can basically do whatever you want by 1860, considering the ripples. As obvious one is anyone even remotely close to Fremont being in existence.

You could have some fun with it, and have Joan Fremont (female) marry Jesse Benton (male).

Good luck.

Best,
 
No. Slavery is what made plantation agriculture profitable in the US in the antebellum period, and plantation agriculture is what made the slave states - and slave holders - rich.

Very rich, in fact.

Abolition was as much an economic revolution as a political one; the American Civil War was fought because those with power in antebellum America were unwilling to give it up peacefully.

Best,

This is all true.

But that does not mean abolition couldn't occur peacefully as technologies developed that made intensive un-skilled human farm labor inefficient and expensive. Put yourself in the mind of a relatively humane plantation owner in the early 1900's. Slaves are a very expensive type of domestic animal. As your operations become more and more mechanized it becomes less and less efficient to base your enterprise on the intensive use of animal and human labor. You can slaughter your draft and work cattle and horses, but even most inhumane slave owners would probably have a few qualms about massacring several hundred humans. So, they use their political clout to support manumission laws that offer them compensation, and church-based freedman relocation societies and state agencies are established to facilitate the emigration of freed slaves out of the USA (or at least out of the majority of US states that would probably be unwilling to grant them full citizenship status).

Bottom line. My opinion is that gradual emancipation would probably occur, but it would not be accompanied by anything remotely related to the 14th Amendment.
 
I believe that there was some serious talk about gradual emancipation in Upper South states like Virginia before the invention of the cotton gin which could have peacefully reduced the extent of slavery had said invention come later than IOTL, but peaceful abolition in the entire US probably requires the US to somehow shed at least the Deep South peacefully.

a delayed/no cotton gin might end slavery on cotton fields, but it doesn't do anything about tobacco plantations... AFAIK, there was no 'magic invention' there that suddenly made it profitable... it was always profitable with slave run labor. Still, if there is no 'cotton slavery', the impetus to end the rest of it might be stronger...
 
a delayed/no cotton gin might end slavery on cotton fields, but it doesn't do anything about tobacco plantations... AFAIK, there was no 'magic invention' there that suddenly made it profitable... it was always profitable with slave run labor. Still, if there is no 'cotton slavery', the impetus to end the rest of it might be stronger...

But the point is, despite the profits of tobacco, there WAS serious discussion of emancipation in e.g. Virginia before the arrival of the cotton gin. It might well have gotten to the point of gradual emancipation there.

Once the South loses Virginia, they have lost half their strength. Also, Alabama and Mississippi would be much less populous if they weren't settled largely by cotton growers.

So. Ya. If emancipation can get a good start in Virginia, and probably Kentucky, gradual emancipation might very well spread.
 
Top