What if the USA never adopted slavery

What if the USA abolished slavery upon their declaration of independence and all slaves already in the states were freed? What would be the effects on American and global history?
 
It would be very hard abolish slavery in USA in 18th century if not even impossible. Slavery was so sticked in South that they wouldn't ever accept that.
 
Major Economic Collapse for America?

I don't mean that snarkily either, slavery was still vital to the American economy on independence. This isn't to say that it couldn't adapt, but in the short to medium term the USA is not in a good position. As a result, whilst they have a large number of African-American recruits, they'll be even more economically unstable, with the states less likely to provide payment for the continental army than IOTL.

Oddly, a revolution that is this idealistic would kill the revolution, with a British victory almost assured.

But, since the population would already be free, then the newly restored BNA economy needs to be rebuilt. Likely the South would become a largely black share-cropping region to grow the same goods, with some migrating to other parts of BNA for work, with the North roughly the same. It could even lead to the demographics governing a division of BNA into "Canada", "North" and "South".
 
What if the USA abolished slavery upon their declaration of independence and all slaves already in the states were freed? What would be the effects on American and global history?
I think any POD far back enough to allow this to happen is so far back that the US will probably never form to begin with. Bacon’s Rebellion (a full century before the Declaration) is probably the last chance to prevent the entrenchment of the slave economy.
 
So if the USA were to abolish slavery upon the end of the war in 1783, the southern states would refuse sparking a possible split amongst the states ending with a northern union and a southern one. Maybe a war breaks out between the two with either the north or the south winning. Following this, the USA spends its time repairing its economy but would in the long run benefit due to industrialization taking place within both the south and the north. If the north wins, they might form a black state in Florida to avoid tensions between them and the southern whites.

Would this be a reasonable scenario?
 
Perhaps the abolitionists propose a gradual abolition of slavery with compensation for slaveholders. The Constitution can say something like "No person born after the year 17-- can be held in bondage and all persons held in bondage by the year 18-- shall be emancipated with compensation provided to the holder at a rate to be determined by Congress."
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
So if the USA were to abolish slavery upon the end of the war in 1783, the southern states would refuse sparking a possible split amongst the states ending with a northern union and a southern one. Maybe a war breaks out between the two with either the north or the south winning. Following this, the USA spends its time repairing its economy but would in the long run benefit due to industrialization taking place within both the south and the north. If the north wins, they might form a black state in Florida to avoid tensions between them and the southern whites.

Would this be a reasonable scenario?
A split this early and it's likely you don't get a Union, just a bunc of independent states.
 
Perhaps the abolitionists propose a gradual abolition of slavery with compensation for slaveholders. The Constitution can say something like "No person born after the year 17-- can be held in bondage and all persons held in bondage by the year 18-- shall be emancipated with compensation provided to the holder at a rate to be determined by Congress."


If it does it won't be ratified.

The South insisted on a guarantee that the African Slave Trade wouldn't be interfered with for 20 years. No way will they accept a sunset date on slavery itself.
 
So if the USA were to abolish slavery upon the end of the war in 1783, the southern states would refuse sparking a possible split amongst the states ending with a northern union and a southern one. Maybe a war breaks out between the two with either the north or the south winning. Following this, the USA spends its time repairing its economy but would in the long run benefit due to industrialization taking place within both the south and the north. If the north wins, they might form a black state in Florida to avoid tensions between them and the southern whites.

Would this be a reasonable scenario?

The South was wealthier in the 1780s, they'd win hands down. They might as well ask the British for help too, since they had a substantial loyalist population, and regain their position as part of the British Empire.
 
Seems like the abolishment of slavery from the getgo is close to impossible. What would be the earliest date post-independence for the abolishment of slavery then?
 
Bol weevil ruins cotton and something similar occurs to tobacco making slavery as a business model difficult, expensive and pointless. This happens early on so the bullshit justification of slavery isn't well established allowing for Abolitionist to easily shut the enterprise down. Likely, if this happens racism against African Americans would still occur and their population would be lower due to immigration restrictions
 
I think it may be easier for the union to adopt a general policy of gradual manumission over a, let's say 50 year period. That's lots of time for the states to adapt, plus the current crop of elites will be long dead.
 

Vuu

Banned
You gotta have a massive population boost in the south first. Then slaves become less necessary, fields are smaller and people can farm personally
 
You gotta have a massive population boost in the south first. Then slaves become less necessary, fields are smaller and people can farm personally

More people does not mean slavery becomes less necessary. And remember economies of scale, where one landowner with fifty slaves can outcompete the landowner with a few or no slaves. And why would anyone want to farm tobacco or cotton when slaves can do the job instead? It's godawful work even by the standards of the day.
 
The more time that passes after Bacon's Rebellion, the less likely the American states are to voluntarily give way on slavery.
In some ways, we got the very best constitution that was possible in 1787. It was one that all of the states were willing to adopt. A constitution that sunsets slavery in 1787 can't muster the 9 states needed to take effect.

if we move the POD to Bacon's Rebellion, and it results in the banning of the african slave trade, it would create an entirely different America. It might be that indentured servitude might have lasted longer without the cheaper cost of slaves in the 17th century. The only sure thing is that history would certainly be different.
 
Bol weevil ruins cotton and something similar occurs to tobacco making slavery as a business model difficult, expensive and pointless. This happens early on so the bullshit justification of slavery isn't well established allowing for Abolitionist to easily shut the enterprise down. Likely, if this happens racism against African Americans would still occur and their population would be lower due to immigration restrictions

Yet the South would still be mainly agricultural, and agriculture was labour-intensive. A farmhand who had to work for nothing would still be cheaper than one who had to be paid.

And if a decline in the cotton industry causes the price of slaves to fall, then more people can afford them, so the number of slaveholders would increase.
 
Yet the South would still be mainly agricultural, and agriculture was labour-intensive. A farmhand who had to work for nothing would still be cheaper than one who had to be paid.

And if a decline in the cotton industry causes the price of slaves to fall, then more people can afford them, so the number of slaveholders would increase.
Sure the South would still be agricultural but that doesn't expressly mean that the South would still be infatuated with Slavery, there are agricultural societies that don't rely on Slavery.

The reason why slavery was so difficult to abolish was because of Southern aristocracy who knew the prosperity of the South was tied to the growing of cotton, hell alot of them own led slaves themselves and this group of Southern Senators moved in lockstep to deny abolition. Remove cash crops like cotton and tobacco from the South and the profitability of Slavery drops dramatically. This would give abolition the power it needs to succeed in the South.

And really, if agriculture was so labour intensive why didn't it persist in the north which was still fairly agrarian in the 1800s.
 
Top