Virginia abolishes slavery in 1831

CaliGuy

Banned
I have read--years ago--that Virginia came within several votes in its legislature from abolishing slavery back in 1831.

Anyway, what if Virginia would have abolished slavery in 1831? Would this have strengthened abolitionism throughout the South? Or would this have only made Southern U.S. states more paranoid about abolitionism and thus more determined to resist this?

Also, would Virginia have been less racist in the late 19th century and beyond had it abolished slavery back in 1831?

Any thoughts on all of this?
 

Jasen777

Donor
I could only find that there was a debate after the Turner's uprising, and calls for abolition were DOA in the legislature.
 
It might be possible if the Turner's Uprising never happened. The Uprising killed any attempt by the Virginian government to improve the conditions of slaves and end slavery there. Even if the vote didn't pass, the Virginian government was already in the process of reforming and changing policies regarding slaves. The Uprising scared the Virginians and basically made the conditions of slavery worse.

If Virginia did abandon slavery, I could potentially see a radically different pre-Civil War era and a completely changed Civil War. If Virginia abandons slavery, then this idea might spread north towards the OTL border states that had slavery during the Civil War. And with slavery no longer an issue in Virginia, Virginia might actually lean towards the United States and stay in the Union. The real question would be this: Would the Civil War even happen with these changes?
 
Would Virginia institute Jim Crow, trying to keep the former slaves in Virginia and controlled? Or would they encourage emigration?

I ask because the portion of the state that became West Virginia was very ambivalent about slavery and its competition with wage labor (IIRC). I don't see racial acceptance occurring among the white population, but there could be a conflict between people wanting to keep the 'benefits' of slavery for them and people wanting to not have to compete with black labor.
 
I would imagine that any law abolishing slavery in Virginia would have to do so in a gradual fashion, as in New Jersey (where an emancipation bill passed in 1804 but there were still some slaves during the Civil War).
 
If I recall, the failed proposal had a grace period whose purpose was to allow slaveowners to sell the slaves south. Partly as a sop to the slaveowners, but mainly as a way of getting the black population out of the state.
 
Virginia didn't really come as close to abolishing slavery as many people think. A resolution saying that legislative action against slavery was "expedient"--without specifying any particular plan--was defeated 73-58. ("Only the East's extra legislative seats prevented nonslaveholder power from truly menacing the Slavepower. The legislative malapportionment of 1829 gave western Virginia seven less, eastern Virginia seven more delegates than a one-white-man, one-vote apportionment would have provided. A shift of seven votes would have narrowed a rather substantial 73-58 vote against the expediency of legislative termination [of slavery] into a razor-thin 66-65 defeat for nonslaveholders." William W. Freehling, *The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854*, p. 188.)

But "without specifying any particular plan" is important here. The devil, as usual, was in the details. There were at least two very different plans. Thomas Jefferson Randolph introduced a proposal to free all slaves born after 1840 (when they became 18 in the case of women, 21 in the case of men) and then deport them to Africa, argued that there was no obligation to pay masters compensation, because no slaves *currently* held would be emancipated without their master's consent. (Indeed, under Randolph's proposal, no slave born in Virginia need *ever* be freed, since even slaves born after 1840 could be sold to the Deep South before their otherwise-emancipating birthdays...)

An alternate plan was proposed by William Henry Brodnax, whose scornful treatment of Randolph's proposal shows one of the crucial weaknesses of the emancipationists--their disagreements about how to accomplish emancipation. Brodnax thought that it was preposterous to combat impending dangers with a plan that would not even begin to go into effect for thirty years. "[W]hat is to become of...our safety...in the meantime[?]" Slaves would become impatient, and those born before 1840 would be angry that they would be held in perpetual bondage, while younger ones would be freed. Virginia legislatures would spend "winter after winter" debating whether to repeal the law, further inflaming passions. Moreover, "Randolph's proposal would give every gentleman 'the strongest temptation to convert himself into a negro-trader.' Owners could 'sell and pocket the value of every one of these post-nati, up to the very hour' of adulthood. Under 'this fanciful' emancipation, where not 'one single negro ever would be liberated,' blacks would rise like madmen when sold down river in the final hour. Randolph's chimera was thus a scheme of liberation destined to free no one, a preservation of domestic peace destined to produce 30 years of domestic warfare, a maturation of Virginia paternalism destined to make every patriarch a child-seller. "William Henry Brodnax proposed instead that deportation be commenced immediately, and emancipation soon. He would begin by exiling 6,000 free blacks a year, at state or federal expense. "Within ten years,' no free black would remain. After this 'process...shall have demonstrated the practicality...of gradual deportation,' Virginia should move on to deporting 10,000 slaves a year, with compensation to masters. 'In less than 80 years,' not one slave would blacken lily-white Virginia. Expensive? Certainly. But less costly and more moral than the alternative: slaughtering domestics during the next insurrection panic, a catastrophe Thomas Jefferson Randolph's proposal would hasten." Freehling, *The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854*, p. 185.

So when you have two such different plans, you have to ask yourself: Even if emancipationists could squeeze out a bare majority for gradual emancipation "in principle," could any particular plan get a majority? Very likely any plan would be defeated by a coalition of anti-emancipationists and emancipationists who desired a different approach...
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Virginia didn't really come as close to abolishing slavery as many people think. A resolution saying that legislative action against slavery was "expedient"--without specifying any particular plan--was defeated 73-58. ("Only the East's extra legislative seats prevented nonslaveholder power from truly menacing the Slavepower. The legislative malapportionment of 1829 gave western Virginia seven less, eastern Virginia seven more delegates than a one-white-man, one-vote apportionment would have provided. A shift of seven votes would have narrowed a rather substantial 73-58 vote against the expediency of legislative termination [of slavery] into a razor-thin 66-65 defeat for nonslaveholders." William W. Freehling, *The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854*, p. 188.)

But "without specifying any particular plan" is important here. The devil, as usual, was in the details. There were at least two very different plans. Thomas Jefferson Randolph introduced a proposal to free all slaves born after 1840 (when they became 18 in the case of women, 21 in the case of men) and then deport them to Africa, argued that there was no obligation to pay masters compensation, because no slaves *currently* held would be emancipated without their master's consent. (Indeed, under Randolph's proposal, no slave born in Virginia need *ever* be freed, since even slaves born after 1840 could be sold to the Deep South before their otherwise-emancipating birthdays...)

An alternate plan was proposed by William Henry Brodnax, whose scornful treatment of Randolph's proposal shows one of the crucial weaknesses of the emancipationists--their disagreements about how to accomplish emancipation. Brodnax thought that it was preposterous to combat impending dangers with a plan that would not even begin to go into effect for thirty years. "[W]hat is to become of...our safety...in the meantime[?]" Slaves would become impatient, and those born before 1840 would be angry that they would be held in perpetual bondage, while younger ones would be freed. Virginia legislatures would spend "winter after winter" debating whether to repeal the law, further inflaming passions. Moreover, "Randolph's proposal would give every gentleman 'the strongest temptation to convert himself into a negro-trader.' Owners could 'sell and pocket the value of every one of these post-nati, up to the very hour' of adulthood. Under 'this fanciful' emancipation, where not 'one single negro ever would be liberated,' blacks would rise like madmen when sold down river in the final hour. Randolph's chimera was thus a scheme of liberation destined to free no one, a preservation of domestic peace destined to produce 30 years of domestic warfare, a maturation of Virginia paternalism destined to make every patriarch a child-seller. "William Henry Brodnax proposed instead that deportation be commenced immediately, and emancipation soon. He would begin by exiling 6,000 free blacks a year, at state or federal expense. "Within ten years,' no free black would remain. After this 'process...shall have demonstrated the practicality...of gradual deportation,' Virginia should move on to deporting 10,000 slaves a year, with compensation to masters. 'In less than 80 years,' not one slave would blacken lily-white Virginia. Expensive? Certainly. But less costly and more moral than the alternative: slaughtering domestics during the next insurrection panic, a catastrophe Thomas Jefferson Randolph's proposal would hasten." Freehling, *The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854*, p. 185.

Thanks for all of this information, David! :)

So when you have two such different plans, you have to ask yourself: Even if emancipationists could squeeze out a bare majority for gradual emancipation "in principle," could any particular plan get a majority? Very likely any plan would be defeated by a coalition of anti-emancipationists and emancipationists who desired a different approach...

Couldn't emancipationists who desired a different approach come to view an alternative emancipation as the lesser evil and thus vote with the other emancipationists, though?
 
Top