What if Thomas Jefferson Abolished Slavery in 1787?

Reader mode
Constitution
  • Index

    • Otto von Jenkins

    Hello!

    Earlier today a thought crossed my mind about Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Of course, you read the title so you already know exactly what I was thinking about. In terms of the situation itself; you don't need to do much digging to. find out Jefferson wasn't a fan of slavery, describing it as a, "moral depravity" and a, "hideous blot". He did, of course, profit off its institution as he owned 600 slaves himself, but he always advocated for its abolition anyway. He didn't abolish slavery in the original Constitution though because, at least according to one website, he feared it would lead to a violent race war.

    Assuming he did actually (attempt to) abolish slavery right then and there, I doubt it would be successful, especially how a Bill of Rights had to be written in order to appease representatives who voted against the Constitution that didn't ban slavery. Imagine how many representatives livelihoods would be on the line if the Constitution passed, so of course many more would say no, probably enough to stop it from passing at all. But that's not interesting in my opinion, so let's say that, somehow, the Constitution passes and slavery in America is abolished, what would that mean for the culture of America? Would there be civil war? Would there be a reconstruction of the southern economy? What would the culture of this America be? What would the culture of the Cotton Belt be like? I'm curious to know what you think about this topic!


    Sorry if this isn't very good, this is my first post.
     
  • Index

    • jmc247

    Jefferson was reading about the Constitutional Convention from letters from James Madison while he was hanging out with Ms. Hemings in Paris. His ability to influence events there was very minimal as it was hard in that era to cross the ocean in a timely manner. Also, the deep South would have never signed onto the immediate abolition of slavery at that point nor would the upper South.

    The upper South meaning Virginia, NC, etc. very well might have been amenable at that point to a date for ending slavery a half century in the future, but the Cotton states wouldn't have been.

    The Constitution itself was far from universally accepted. If they had decided to answer for instance to put to bed the question of if states could leave the Union as definitively no by that point quite a few states wouldn't have signed on.
     
    Last edited:

    Scott Washburn

    Jefferson could do very little on his own to abolish slavery. It would have taken a Constitutional Amendment to do it and there was little chance of that happening. His best bet would have been to free his own slaves near the end of his life and make a dying declaration begging his countrymen to abolish the institution. After the Nat Turner rebellion in 1831, Virginia debated abolishing slavery and came within a hair of doing so. Only the fact that the 3/5 rule existed at the state level, too, prevented it. If Jefferson had made a major push, perhaps his ghost could have made it happen in Virginia. With Virginia becoming a free state, the whole Slave Power house comes tumbling down. Maryland and Delaware probably would have followed suit and perhaps North Carolina and Kentucky, too. The Slave States would have lost their hold on Congress and with only the Deep South still having slaves even secession becomes an empty threat. Old Tom might have pulled it off if he'd had the backbone.
     

    Otto von Jenkins

    jmc247 said:
    Jefferson was reading about the Constitutional Convention from letters from James Madison while he was hanging out with Ms. Hemings in Paris. His ability to influence events there was very minimal as it was hard in that era to cross the ocean in a timely manner. Also, the deep South would have never signed onto the immediate abolition of slavery at that point nor would the upper South.

    The upper South meaning Virginia, NC, etc. very well might have been amenable at that point to a date for ending slavery a half century in the future, but the Cotton states wouldn't have been.

    The Constitution itself was far from universally accepted. If they had decided to answer for instance to put to bed the question of if states could leave the Union as definitively no by that point quite a few states wouldn't have signed on.
    Click to expand...
    Yeah, I was pretty certain that it was impossible for it to pass if it included the abolition of slavery, I just thought it was an interesting concept.
     

    kholieken

    Banned
    Modern Historian is more doubtful about Jefferson and his allegedly anti- slavery position. He didn't free his slaves even when other Virginians do. Etc.
     

    jmc247

    Gabingston said:
    Wasn't he (and some other Virginia planters for that matter) in a lot of debt?
    Click to expand...

    Yes, he died in a hundred thousand dollars in debt. That would be tens of millions today. He had to sell his beloved books to stock the Library of Congress. Because the estate was in debt the slaves were by Virginia law considered jointly owned by the bank. He asked the Virginia legislature for special dispensation for his butler and his own sons for their freedom and some property to be deeded to them from his estate which was granted.

    Most plantation owners lived either moderately or heavily underwater financially. The banks were happy with the arrangement as they always won. The financially very smart and motivated ones like Washington did live with their heads above water and his wife after his death was able to stage a large emancipation.
     
    Last edited:

    Dathi THorfinnsson

    Given that the constitution
    - prevented any abolition of the transatlantic slave trade for 20 years, iirc,
    - and compromised with the South on extra representation for slaves
    they sure as heck won't go for any abolition then.
     
    BELFAST

    BELFAST

    I do not think Jefferson could even afford to free his own slaves.
    Jefferson had approximately $100,000 of debt at the time of his death.
    The US did not have the money at the time to-do compensated emancipation.
    You could have a right for slaves to buy their own freedom. This would mean fewer escapes and slave rebellions and not cost the government anything.
    It would take long enough to happen that not to cause too much disruption to the labour market.
    As for the cotton states, there will be too much money to be made from growing cotton be it with sharecroppers/bond labour/convict labour or tenant farmers for it not to continue. If all that fails there is always blackbirding or illegal immigrants.
    en.wikipedia.org

    Blackbirding - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
     
    Last edited:

    FALightFighter

    BELFAST said:
    No.
    3/5 was to limit the voting power of southern states.
    Click to expand...
    3/5 was a compromise to limit the extra representation of enslaved people that couldn't vote and thus were not represented- the slaveholders wanted enslaved people to be fully counted, since that would increase their political power. They would have the political weight of the enslaved population without actually counting their votes.

    If slavery had been abolished, then the formerly enslaved people would no longer be enslaved, and thus counted fully (or 5/5), increasing the representation of the states with large numbers of formerly enslaved people. Whether they would have actually gained suffrage and been represented, or whether something like Jim Crow that limited the ability of the formerly enslaved to participate fully in the political process would have been implemented to limit their representation, is an open question that can go either way in an alternate history.
     

    Legofan4

    FALightFighter said:
    3/5 was a compromise to limit the extra representation of enslaved people that couldn't vote and thus were not represented- the slaveholders wanted enslaved people to be fully counted, since that would increase their political power. They would have the political weight of the enslaved population without actually counting their votes.

    If slavery had been abolished, then the formerly enslaved people would no longer be enslaved, and thus counted fully (or 5/5), increasing the representation of the states with large numbers of formerly enslaved people. Whether they would have actually gained suffrage and been represented, or whether something like Jim Crow that limited the ability of the formerly enslaved to participate fully in the political process would have been implemented to limit their representation, is an open question that can go either way in an alternate history.
    Click to expand...
    It's not like the U.S. at the time even gave representation to poor whites either so why would it give representation to landless former slaves.
     

    Mikestone8

    Legofan4 said:
    It's not like the U.S. at the time even gave representation to poor whites either so why would it give representation to landless former slaves.
    Click to expand...

    Yes it did. Representatives were allotted according to population, counting all "free persons" ie whites and free blacks, and three fifths of all "other persons", ie slaves.
     

    Legofan4

    Mikestone8 said:
    Yes it did. Representatives were allotted according to population, counting all "free persons" ie whites and free blacks, and three fifths of all "other persons", ie slaves.
    Click to expand...
    Did they have the ability to vote though? That is what I would count as representation. If I can't vote but because I exist someone and the state capital gets slightly more influence at the federal level I wouldn't exactly be represented now would I. Any theoretical representative wouldn't even have to pay lip service to my interests to get my vote.
     

    Mikestone8

    Legofan4 said:
    Did they have the ability to vote though? That is what I would count as representation. If I can't vote but because I exist someone and the state capital gets slightly more influence at the federal level I wouldn't exactly be represented now would I. Any theoretical representative wouldn't even have to pay lip service to my interests to get my vote.
    Click to expand...

    The franchise laws varied from state to state. The point is, though, that all free persons (whether t hey could vote or not) and three-fifths of slaves were counted in determining the number of Congressmen (and indirectly of electoral votes) that a state was entitled to. So if the slaves were emancipated they would *all* count for this purpose, and the South's representation would increase accordingly.
     

    David T

    To quote an old post of mine:

    "If anything short of outlawing slavery is considered compromise, not only wouldn't any southern states ratify the new Constitution, but probably some northern states as well. 'Planters in eastern New Jersey and along New York's Hudson River, where slaves in some spots comprised as much as 30% of the population, were tolerably pleased with their profits and intolerably outraged that slaves could be seized when each was worth several hundred dollars. Our strongest opponents, a New York proponent of black freedom later remembered 'were chiefly Dutch. They raved and swore by *dunder* and *blixen* that we were robbing them of their property.'" William W. Freehling, *The Road to Disunion: Volume I: Secessionists at Bay, 1776-1854,* p. 132. https://books.google.com/books?id=OCSL1OEwV6AC&pg=PA132 New York did not pass a gradual emancipation law until 1799, New Jersey until 1804."

    (BTW, Jefferson took no part in the drafting of the new Constitution anyway, but that's another matter.)
     
    Last edited:

    Otto von Jenkins

    David T said:
    To quote an old post of mine:

    "If anything short of outlawing slavery is considered compromise, not only wouldn't any southern states ratify the new Constitution, but probably some northern states as well. 'Planters in eastern New Jersey and along New York's Hudson River, where slaves in some spots comprised as much as 30% of the population, were tolerably pleased with their profits and intolerably outraged that slaves could be seized when each was worth several hundred dollars. Our strongest opponents, a New York proponent of black freedom later remembered 'were chiefly Dutch. They raved and swore by *dunder* and *blixen* that we were robbing them of their property.'" William W. Freehling, *The Road to Disunion: Volume I: Secessionists at Bay, 1776-1854,* p. 132. https://books.google.com/books?id=OCSL1OEwV6AC&pg=PA132 New York did not pass a gradual emancipation law until 1799, New Jersey until 1804."

    (BTW, Jefferson took no part in the drafting of the new Constitution anyway, but that's another matter.)
    Click to expand...
    Oh, he didn't... oops, sorry.
     
    Reader mode
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Top
    Top