What if Illinois became a slave state in the 1820s?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
David Tenner has outlined in the past how this was a real possibility. Suppose it happened. What would you project would be the political and economic ramifications through 1875?



Specifically, would Illinois move be an isolated one within the Great Lakes and Ohio River region, or would it have knock-on or domino effects?



If it had knock-on effects favoring slavery in additional states, where would this be most likely to be felt?



States further west, like Iowa, California, Nevada & Kansas, coming into the Union as fully fledged slave states?



Would there be copy-cat behavior in other states of similar latitudes to the east like Indiana or Ohio?



Might there be impetus for Illinois to partition itself?



How would the development of the Second Party system of the United States be affected by such a development in Illinois, which would take place during the one-party Monroe Administration in the “Era of Good Feelings”?
 
David Tenner has outlined in the past how this was a real possibility. Suppose it happened. What would you project would be the political and economic ramifications through 1875?



Specifically, would Illinois move be an isolated one within the Great Lakes and Ohio River region, or would it have knock-on or domino effects?



If it had knock-on effects favoring slavery in additional states, where would this be most likely to be felt?



States further west, like Iowa, California, Nevada & Kansas, coming into the Union as fully fledged slave states?



Would there be copy-cat behavior in other states of similar latitudes to the east like Indiana or Ohio?



Might there be impetus for Illinois to partition itself?



How would the development of the Second Party system of the United States be affected by such a development in Illinois, which would take place during the one-party Monroe Administration in the “Era of Good Feelings”?

If Illinois had somehow become a slave state, it'd be rather unlikely that it would remain that way for more than maybe 25 years at most(Indiana might follow suit, but Ohio almost certainly won't); the possibility does certainly exist that the southern half of the state may simply be cut off into a new state, but you would need three-fourths of the currently existing states to approve-which is possible, but not terribly likely.
 
If Illinois had somehow become a slave state, it'd be rather unlikely that it would remain that way for more than maybe 25 years at most(Indiana might follow suit, but Ohio almost certainly won't); the possibility does certainly exist that the southern half of the state may simply be cut off into a new state, but you would need three-fourths of the currently existing states to approve-which is possible, but not terribly likely.
Would an earlier invention of the cotton gin, say, ten years earlier, make a difference on such attitudes?
 
Would an earlier invention of the cotton gin, say, ten years earlier, make a difference on such attitudes?

Probably not, TBH. As it was, pro-slavery sentiment IOTL didn't actually take off until the 1830s, particularly thanks to the Nat Turner incident.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Look up Illinois on soc.history.what-if. There was apparently either a close vote by the state legislature, or a referendum, to legalize slavery in 1824. If it passed and slavery lasted only 25 or so years, there are actually not to many western states this could serve as an example for, except for California and maybe Iowa.
 
If Illinois had somehow become a slave state, it'd be rather unlikely that it would remain that way for more than maybe 25 years at most(Indiana might follow suit, but Ohio almost certainly won't); the possibility does certainly exist that the southern half of the state may simply be cut off into a new state, but you would need three-fourths of the currently existing states to approve-which is possible, but not terribly likely.


No it wouldn't.

It would need the consent of the Illinois Legislature, and then of Congress - just ordinary laws.

The three-fourths requirement only applies when amending the US Constitution.
 
Could we get a different Missouri Compromise?

Could MO become a Slave State in return for the northern part of Illinois being allowed to split off and become a Free one? Or was the area still too thinly populated for that?
 
IMO it is highly improbable, the Southern part of Illinois was not favorable to plantation crops or other business that would make slave holding profitable. Even in Southern Illinois, the winters are routinely bad enough that slave quarters would have been built as well as non slave holding homes..
 
IMO it is highly improbable, the Southern part of Illinois was not favorable to plantation crops or other business that would make slave holding profitable. Even in Southern Illinois, the winters are routinely bad enough that slave quarters would have been built as well as non slave holding homes..

Is that really true? I struggle to see why southern Illinois would be any less conducive to slave plantations than, say, Missouri and Kentucky. Cotton agriculture might not pick up, but hemp and tobacco could.
 
IMO it is highly improbable, the Southern part of Illinois was not favorable to plantation crops or other business that would make slave holding profitable. Even in Southern Illinois, the winters are routinely bad enough that slave quarters would have been built as well as non slave holding homes..
Didn't stop the border states.
 
IMO it is highly improbable, the Southern part of Illinois was not favorable to plantation crops or other business that would make slave holding profitable. Even in Southern Illinois, the winters are routinely bad enough that slave quarters would have been built as well as non slave holding homes..
Virginia was the largest wheat producing state; I don't see why you couldn't use slave labor for cereal grains, with Illinois being basically the best place on earth to grow them.
 
Top