what is needed to get a slavery sunset at the constitutional convention

What would the northern delegates need to give the southern delegates at the constitutional convention in order for there to be a compromise sunsetting slavery. In order for say after 60 years those that would have been born slaves are instead born free.
 
In 1789 the agricultural products of the slave states represented a very large chunk of the USA's GNP. If you wanted a USA that included everything south of Maryland, Virginia potentially being a toss up, any limitations on slavery were simply a n-go. It was a struggle to bargain the south down to the 2/3 clause as opposed to counting slaves as full "persons" for representation in the House (and of course for electors). If it is pushed too hard you could end up with two (or more) polities - one being New England plus NY, NJ, PA, DE the other being NC, SC, GA. Exactly which way Maryland & Virginia might go is a bit of a toss. I can Maryland going north and Virginia south. Further subdivisions are possible. Of course this makes the issue of land claims in the Ohio territory, and west of the Appalachians way more contentious as they are now disputes between nations and not states. Also, since the British were still occupying posts in the Old Northwest and aiding the Indians against the USA this gets even murkier.

Getting states in the north that had a residua of slavery to buy in to this would be easy, where it was a little stronger like Delaware and Maryland still doable. South of that, where slave produced products were a major money earner - no way. Insist on such a clause, or even not counting slaves at all for representation, and you don't get a constitution and the USA breaks up.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The Northern delegates never said anything at the Convention against slavery as an institution. The only generally anti-slavery speech that was made the whole time was made by George Mason, who was possibly the largest slaveholder present.
 
so the south would not have agreed to a 60 year sunset if given full count or even perhaps a count of 1 and 1/2 per slave for representation before the cotton gin came into being
 
Unlikely in the extreme, because slavery was a mainstay of their economy and because racial attitudes meant they were not comfortable having lots of black folks around without a system of control for them.
 

missouribob

Banned
I don't think what I'm about to write is probable at all: Slavery sunsets 100 years from ratification of the constitution, so 1888. In exchange slavery is legalized nationwide, the importation of slaves can not be banned until 1888, all slave owners must be compensated for the value of their slaves at the time of emancipation, and lastly slaves must count as full persons for the purposes of the census. This is a pretty sweet deal for the south but even so...I'm not sure they would take it. If I was a Southern drafter of the constitution I still wouldn't take these terms.
 
I don't think what I'm about to write is probable at all: Slavery sunsets 100 years from ratification of the constitution, so 1888. In exchange slavery is legalized nationwide, the importation of slaves can not be banned until 1888, all slave owners must be compensated for the value of their slaves at the time of emancipation, and lastly slaves must count as full persons for the purposes of the census. This is a pretty sweet deal for the south but even so...I'm not sure they would take it. If I was a Southern drafter of the constitution I still wouldn't take these terms.

The hell with what the south wants, legalizing slavery nationwide, not banning importation of slaves, making slaves full persons as to the census, will be a seeing a civil war starting in the North rather than the south.
 

Jasen777

Donor
I don't think what I'm about to write is probable at all: Slavery sunsets 100 years from ratification of the constitution, so 1888. In exchange slavery is legalized nationwide, the importation of slaves can not be banned until 1888, all slave owners must be compensated for the value of their slaves at the time of emancipation, and lastly slaves must count as full persons for the purposes of the census. This is a pretty sweet deal for the south but even so...I'm not sure they would take it. If I was a Southern drafter of the constitution I still wouldn't take these terms.

I would that's everything they want and more, just for "selling out" their great great grand-kids.
 

missouribob

Banned
I would that's everything they want and more, just for "selling out" their great great grand-kids.
Ehhh. At a certain level many Southerners thought slavery would go on forever. In the 1780s with the first industrial revolution not even really started that wouldn't necessarily be an incorrect view. They understood that slavery was key to preserving not only their way of life economically but for keeping the lower classes of the South divided against each other. Yes rationally they should take the deal...but I don't think they'd take the deal.
 
Another reason you're not going to see this, quite apart from the Southern reaction, is that there were plenty of people in the North who were making money off slavery. There's a reason that the international slave trade was still permitted for twenty years, because a good number of Northern merchants, mostly New Englanders connected with the shipping industry, were making a bunch of money off shipping slaves, too. Expecting staunch antislavery attitudes at the Constitutional Convention from anyone is extremely over-optimistic; except for a very small abolitionist fringe, the idea was that slavery was a matter for individual, sovereign states and it was no-one else's business to tell them what to do.
 
Slavery was legal everywhere in the Colonies. Once you got north of Maryland (in parts) it simply wasn't economically viable. Popular sentiment in many states in the north was not necessarily abolitionist but was not very pro-slavery, and absent positive economics the institution was fading away even at the time of the revolution in many places, with only a few slaves here and there. The problem for the south, in the pre-CW period was the issue of so called freedom statutes, which sadi that not only was slavery illegal in a given state, but any slaves brought in to a state were automatically free. Thus the Dred Scott decision (1857).

In 1860 when the south was well behind the north in population, when industry was well on its way to overtaking plantation products, they were willing to secede to preserve their"way of life" including the "peculiar institution". Why, in 1789, when they were in a much better position vis a vis the north would they make any concessions about ending slavery at any time. One reason they acceded to the end of slave importation was they saw natural increase providing their needs in the long run, and also unlimited importation would decrease the value of the slaves they already owned...
 
@sloreck This could make Napoleon's attempts and aspirations later to create an American empire much more plausible.

Only if

a) the French Revolution happens like OTL
b) he gets Haiti under control
c) he manages to decisively beat Britain (i. e. at sea)
d) accomplishes to encourage French immigreation to Louisiana without weakening the French economy and military in Europe.

Not a given if you ask me.
 
Top