Possible negative consequences of an American anti-slavery idea of mine.

I had an idea for a timeline a few months ago where there were more free states during the Constitutional Convention than OTL. It was a bit of an Ameriwank, where Canada, St. John's Island, and Nova Scotia ended up with the new US by the time the Revolution ended. Also, borrowing an idea from another persons timeline, Georgia remained a free state due to an earlier gold rush in the 1740's.

So there were three big provisions dealing with slavery that I wanted in the new Constitution. One is an earlier end to the slave trade, either set for the date of ratification, or maybe a little later like between 1790-1795, but earlier than 1808 in OTL. The second is the banning of slavery in any new state added to the union. I think these two could be done with a greater free/slave state ratio.

The problem comes with the third provision. I wanted it stated in the Constitution that any person born after the date of ratification would be a free person. I thought it would be a good way to phase out slavery in the remaining slave states, but after thinking about it for a while something really sinister came up. Just imagine you were a slave holder in one of the few remaining slave states, and after the Constitution is ratified you realize that any child born from one of your slaves would be free. How would you deal with the possible added cost of raising a child, while losing out on revenue of their future labor? This lead me to thinking that we'd possibly see mass-sterilization of slaves in those states. Is that a realistic possibility as a reaction to my anti-slavery policies, or am I just being too pessimistic in regards to human behavior, and that it would never get that bad?
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
I had an idea for a timeline a few months ago where there were more free states during the Constitutional Convention than OTL. It was a bit of an Ameriwank, where Canada, St. John's Island, and Nova Scotia ended up with the new US by the time the Revolution ended. Also, borrowing an idea from another persons timeline, Georgia remained a free state due to an earlier gold rush in the 1740's.

So there were three big provisions dealing with slavery that I wanted in the new Constitution. One is an earlier end to the slave trade, either set for the date of ratification, or maybe a little later like between 1790-1795, but earlier than 1808 in OTL. The second is the banning of slavery in any new state added to the union. I think these two could be done with a greater free/slave state ratio.

The problem comes with the third provision. I wanted it stated in the Constitution that any person born after the date of ratification would be a free person. I thought it would be a good way to phase out slavery in the remaining slave states, but after thinking about it for a while something really sinister came up. Just imagine you were a slave holder in one of the few remaining slave states, and after the Constitution is ratified you realize that any child born from one of your slaves would be free. How would you deal with the possible added cost of raising a child, while losing out on revenue of their future labor? This lead me to thinking that we'd possibly see mass-sterilization of slaves in those states. Is that a realistic possibility as a reaction to my anti-slavery policies, or am I just being too pessimistic in regards to human behavior, and that it would never get that bad?

I don't know how likely a Free Georgia would be even with a gold rush in the 1740s(and how likely was the gold rush? Where was the gold?), but the rest of it not too bad. You could even have Virginia be a free state as there was the possibility of it in the early 1830s.
 
I don't know how likely a Free Georgia would be even with a gold rush in the 1740s(and how likely was the gold rush? Where was the gold?), but the rest of it not too bad. You could even have Virginia be a free state as there was the possibility of it in the early 1830s.

There were stories of natives telling European explorers of gold in the north Georgia mountains in the 1500s and 1600s, but nothing came of it. The actual Gold Rush took place in 1828, and had slowed down by the early 1840's. All it takes is one person believing in the natives legends and finding gold so word will spread of the discovery. If it's done in the 1740's when slavery wasn't allowed then you get a rush of new settlers who aren't interested in owning slaves, and this could be enough to tip the balance for the state to remain free up to the revolution.

But what about the reaction to my third provision? Would slave owners engage in widespread sterilization of their slaves if they knew any child born of them would be free?
 
I had an idea for a timeline a few months ago where there were more free states during the Constitutional Convention than OTL. It was a bit of an Ameriwank, where Canada, St. John's Island, and Nova Scotia ended up with the new US by the time the Revolution ended. Also, borrowing an idea from another persons timeline, Georgia remained a free state due to an earlier gold rush in the 1740's.

Why would an earlier gold rush in Georgia would lead to the prevention of slavery? Slaves could be used in gold mining; they would be, later, in gold mining in Georgia in OTL. Also, the profitability of slavery in Georgia would be high enough that there would be a strong push for allowing slavery later (i.e. well before the American Revolution), even if it was delayed initially due to a gold rush.

So there were three big provisions dealing with slavery that I wanted in the new Constitution. One is an earlier end to the slave trade, either set for the date of ratification, or maybe a little later like between 1790-1795, but earlier than 1808 in OTL. The second is the banning of slavery in any new state added to the union. I think these two could be done with a greater free/slave state ratio.

I don't think you'd get either. The end to the slave trade was left when it was because both the North and South liked it. The South because they liked the slaves, and the North (well, New England) because guess whose shipping made most of the profits from the slave trade.

For banning slavery in any new state, you need overwhelming support, or the U.S. Constitution won't be ratified. Even having parity in free and slave states (I don't believe that Georgia would be a free state) would not be enough, you'd need something like three-quarters or more of the states as free states.

The problem comes with the third provision. I wanted it stated in the Constitution that any person born after the date of ratification would be a free person.

I don't think you'll get this one either, for the same reasons as above. There's no way that a single current slave state would ratify this, and even if you had 9 free states somehow (all of Canada, NS, not-yet-PEI and Georgia) the other 8 wouldn't have a bar of it.

The situation is even worse that this, come to think of it, because this would be perceived as a direct attack on state's rights, which was a much stronger issue at the time. The idea was that the decision whether to abolish slavery was a state's business, not the federal government's business. Even free states would baulk at this idea.

This lead me to thinking that we'd possibly see mass-sterilization of slaves in those states. Is that a realistic possibility as a reaction to my anti-slavery policies, or am I just being too pessimistic in regards to human behavior, and that it would never get that bad?

No, because even if an ASB waved a magic wand and persuaded the states to introduce a free-birth amendment, the states would still introduce some form of requiring that the soon-to-be-free slaves owed labour to their mother's owner for a period of times (until 21, say).
 
The fact that you are a free person doesn't imply that the slave owner who own your parent must raise you.

So what happens to the children then? Are they abandoned as soon as they are born, who would raise them? Where does the money come from to take care of these children? Does it fall upon the state to do it?

You take that set of problems, and combine it with the racist attitudes of many people at the time, who would know that the children of the slaves in their state would be free people and be comparable in numbers to the white population eventually, and this leads me back to mass-sterilization of slaves as a possible response. It may even be state-sanctioned. And since slaves are considered property at that time, there would be nothing stopping a slave owner from castrating all his male slaves.

That's what I'm worried about with this idea. I wanted a way to phase out slavery in the remaining slave states, but the downside to that policy could be horrific.
 
Why would an earlier gold rush in Georgia would lead to the prevention of slavery? Slaves could be used in gold mining; they would be, later, in gold mining in Georgia in OTL. Also, the profitability of slavery in Georgia would be high enough that there would be a strong push for allowing slavery later (i.e. well before the American Revolution), even if it was delayed initially due to a gold rush.

Slavery was originally not allowed in Georgia due to a combination of the founders idealism, and the worry about free Spanish Florida at their southern border. It was only due to economic pressure that they eventually relented and allowed it in the 1750's. With the economic boom of a gold rush it would push back the perceived necessity of slavery in the state. My hope is that this lasts long enough so that when the enlightenment ideas of freedom and revolution take hold it would be seen as bad form to suddenly turn into a slave state.


I don't think you'd get either. The end to the slave trade was left when it was because both the North and South liked it. The South because they liked the slaves, and the North (well, New England) because guess whose shipping made most of the profits from the slave trade.
So then why end it in 1808? The point is that with a greater free/slave state ratio there would be enough pressure to end it sooner.

For banning slavery in any new state, you need overwhelming support, or the U.S. Constitution won't be ratified. Even having parity in free and slave states (I don't believe that Georgia would be a free state) would not be enough, you'd need something like three-quarters or more of the states as free states.
Yet they did it in the Northwest Ordinance.



I don't think you'll get this one either, for the same reasons as above. There's no way that a single current slave state would ratify this, and even if you had 9 free states somehow (all of Canada, NS, not-yet-PEI and Georgia) the other 8 wouldn't have a bar of it.

The situation is even worse that this, come to think of it, because this would be perceived as a direct attack on state's rights, which was a much stronger issue at the time. The idea was that the decision whether to abolish slavery was a state's business, not the federal government's business. Even free states would baulk at this idea.
That's why I thought this would be the most difficult provision to pass.



No, because even if an ASB waved a magic wand and persuaded the states to introduce a free-birth amendment, the states would still introduce some form of requiring that the soon-to-be-free slaves owed labour to their mother's owner for a period of times (until 21, say).
That would probably come down to a Supreme Court decision as to whether such a thing would be allowed. Based on rulings of the 19th century though it has a good chance of being upheld. So maybe that's how it would play out.
 
Slavery was originally not allowed in Georgia due to a combination of the founders idealism, and the worry about free Spanish Florida at their southern border. It was only due to economic pressure that they eventually relented and allowed it in the 1750's. With the economic boom of a gold rush it would push back the perceived necessity of slavery in the state. My hope is that this lasts long enough so that when the enlightenment ideas of freedom and revolution take hold it would be seen as bad form to suddenly turn into a slave state.

Except that as I pointed out, the economic boom of a gold rush is hardly incompatible with slavery. Slaves could be used in gold mining. And the pressure for profitability of slavery would still be there; a gold rush would last only a handful of years delay.

So then why end it in 1808? The point is that with a greater free/slave state ratio there would be enough pressure to end it sooner.

Because 20 years was comfortably far off that people didn't really worry about it. Three extra free states doesn't change that when it was New England merchants and Southern slave importers who reached the compromise.

Yet they did it in the Northwest Ordinance.

Which had no effect on the western claims of Virginia et al, which were the slave states at the time.

That's why I thought this would be the most difficult provision to pass.

For difficult, read "impossible except with a POD which has much bigger changes than just this". It's not that this could never be done, it's that the required changes would have much more serious consequences than just this.

That would probably come down to a Supreme Court decision as to whether such a thing would be allowed.

No, it's a decision which would be made before passing any amendment, and it would be this question which would be raised as part of the negotiations. The idea of owing labour to their mother's master for a number of years happened in various places in OTL when slavery was abolished.
 
How would you deal with the possible added cost of raising a child, while losing out on revenue of their future labor?

Some northern states that adopted graduated manumission gave custody of the children of slaves to the state, who would then in turn grant a trusteeship back to the owner of their mothers via the county organisations that cared for the indigent. This system paid a modest amount of money on a monthly basis to help defray the cost of raising these children - in addition, the owners would retain custody until the children had grown into their early 20s, which means that they could be used for several years of labor.
 
To abolish slavery, you need to use Congress. The Northwest Ordinance banned salvery in that territory - no reason it couldn't be extended to all new territories. Or, at the least, the NW and anything else gained after that.

That will put a big crimp in it. Then, just have gradual emancipation take off in a few states. George Washington thought salvery would die out, have him live and you might get Virginia passing it earlier, say the 1810s, like I did in "Created Equal."

A bank of the United States could even be used to pay for compensated emancipation in the others, but it's most likely the Southern states would want to do it themselves.
 
After some research I found that Pennsylvania phased out slavery similar to what I was suggesting. But they added the provision that children of slaves would essentially become indentured servants of their mother's master until age 28. So my worst case fears would not be likely to occur. Of course this nationwide manumission would probably not happen in the 18th century.

However, the prohibition of slavery in all new states to the Union was definitely doable. Jefferson proposed it for the territory west of the Appalachias in the mid-1780's, and it barely failed to pass. So with more free states from the start it would pass as well as the prohibition in the Northwest Ordinance.
 
Top