What would be economic effect of America liberating slaves by...say...1810ish?

What would happen? The Constitution would never get ratified. The provision for abolishing the slave trade was not that. What it was was a guarantee that it would be EVEN CONSIDERED until then. And they knew that they'd very likely have to move on that eventually, given the way Britain was moving towards abolitionism, and the RN command of the sea.



Err... No... Not exactly.

In the Trail of Tears, the US government didn't provide wagons or food or encampments, as far as I know. If they didn't do it for the "Civilized" Indians (members of the 5 Civilized Tribes), why would they do it for "uncivilized" blacks?

Still, the cost of rounding up that many people, providing armed escorts to force them to the coast, and providing shipping, all that would still be prohibitive. The US government had an INCREDIBLY small budget at that point.


Actually when Liberia was colonized they had to be continually supplied by ships for quite a while because the colonists didn't know how to live in Africa as Africa is quite different from the American South. They were given supplies, if they weren't they would have rapidly died out and that isn't what happened. In fact the American settlers pushed aside the natives and they couldn't have done that if they were starving on the shores of Liberia. Liberia is still dominated by African-American settler descendants .
 
Actually when Liberia was colonized they had to be continually supplied by ships for quite a while because the colonists didn't know how to live in Africa as Africa is quite different from the American South. They were given supplies, if they weren't they would have rapidly died out and that isn't what happened. In fact the American settlers pushed aside the natives and they couldn't have done that if they were starving on the shores of Liberia. Liberia is still dominated by African-American settler descendants .

Well, was. A lot of the Americo-Liberian ruling class has fled since the 1980s.
 
Well, was. A lot of the Americo-Liberian ruling class has fled since the 1980s.

In any case the plan would not be "dump them overseas and have them starve". If you are going to do that you might as well shoot them all in the head, it is much cheaper.
 
In any case the plan would not be "dump them overseas and have them starve". If you are going to do that you might as well shoot them all in the head, it is much cheaper.

Yeah, I get your point. Really I think maybe 100,000 people could be moved at the very maximum, over a period of decades. If that.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Liberia wasn't an American Government endeavor, it was the endeavor of a Private Organisation who had ties to the Government.
 
Actually when Liberia was colonized they had to be continually supplied by ships for quite a while because the colonists didn't know how to live in Africa as Africa is quite different from the American South. They were given supplies, if they weren't they would have rapidly died out and that isn't what happened. In fact the American settlers pushed aside the natives and they couldn't have done that if they were starving on the shores of Liberia. Liberia is still dominated by African-American settler descendants .

Liberia wasn't an American Government endeavor, it was the endeavor of a Private Organisation who had ties to the Government.

This.
Also, it was a small enough operation, with mostly volunteer settlers, so it was logistically possible to support them.

If 'all' the blacks of the US are to be deported, that level of support just isn't going to be possible. (Mostly politically, but even economically, possibly even technically.)

As for it being a death trap. Well, if the idea is to get rid of all the blacks, will the organizers really care?
 
This.
Also, it was a small enough operation, with mostly volunteer settlers, so it was logistically possible to support them.

If 'all' the blacks of the US are to be deported, that level of support just isn't going to be possible. (Mostly politically, but even economically, possibly even technically.)

As for it being a death trap. Well, if the idea is to get rid of all the blacks, will the organizers really care?

If the idea is to get rid of them all by killing them, why go through all that effort? Shoot them in the head and be done with it. That would be much cheaper.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
If the idea is to get rid of them all by killing them, why go through all that effort? Shoot them in the head and be done with it. That would be much cheaper.

Because that's not humane. Say what will you will about the American Colonial Society (they were racists and colonialist), but they genuinely believed that they were doing, and giving African-Americans the opportunity to go back to Africa was for them the right thing to do. They were also primarily made up of Evangelicals and Quakers; if they started capping every slave and freeman in sight, then something has gone very, very wrong. And the American Government won't do that, because as big dicks as they were, they were also not willing to break their morals and just start digging grave pits. Whilst a Trail of Tears style movement might happen, the main goal of the Trail wasn't to kill the native Americans, it was to move them out of the way- the death and misery was an afterthought.

Also killing about a million people spread out across a massive land area is inefficient at this point point, and would face a massive backlash, both abroad and domestic.
 
Because that's not humane. Say what will you will about the American Colonial Society (they were racists and colonialist), but they genuinely believed that they were doing, and giving African-Americans the opportunity to go back to Africa was for them the right thing to do. They were also primarily made up of Evangelicals and Quakers; if they started capping every slave and freeman in sight, then something has gone very, very wrong. And the American Government won't do that, because as big dicks as they were, they were also not willing to break their morals and just start digging grave pits. Whilst a Trail of Tears style movement might happen, the main goal of the Trail wasn't to kill the native Americans, it was to move them out of the way- the death and misery was an afterthought.

Also killing about a million people spread out across a massive land area is inefficient at this point point, and would face a massive backlash, both abroad and domestic.

I have to agree. It just doesn't seem at all likely that something like this would ever happen in any situation even partly resembling OTL-even A. Jackson was hardly one privy to deliberately thoroughly genocidal tendencies.
 
The whole thing would never happen anyway, because the Southern planter class would still be reliant on cheap black labor. They favored expelling free blacks OTL only because they feared they would aid in slave insurrections or help enslaved blacks escape.
 
I have to agree. It just doesn't seem at all likely that something like this would ever happen in any situation even partly resembling OTL-even A. Jackson was hardly one privy to deliberately thoroughly genocidal tendencies.

You missed my point. What I stated was basically a minimum list of what it would take to even pretend you aren't simply sending them off to die.

Without food, without seed, without even minimal farm tools they starve and die in Africa and you couldn't even pretend to yourself otherwise. With the list I had you could at least fool yourself into believing you weren't sending them off to simply die. If you are willing to send them off to die than you might as well shoot them and save the money. The government moved the civilized tribes out of the way but allowed them to take any seed and farm tools and other things they already owned. That way everyone could say they weren't killing them just moving them out of the way.

Add to that the fact that the planters would say that "We take care of them, we feed them, clothe them and house them while the vile Yankees who send them off and let them starve to death. Our way is far less cruel. " The truth is they would have a very good point in that situation. There is zero chance that the government would send them out without at least minimal supplies.
 
Last edited:
Britain made up for the loss of slave labor by importing Coolies from India and China. Blackbirding or shanghaing Oceanic people occured throughout the Americas and Australia. Mexico used the Caste Wars and Yaqui Wars to enslave tons of Yaqui and Mayans for the henequen plantations. Basically, even if slavery were outlawed earlier, the planter class would find ways to get unfree labor.
 
Britain made up for the loss of slave labor by importing Coolies from India and China. Blackbirding or shanghaing Oceanic people occured throughout the Americas and Australia. Mexico used the Caste Wars and Yaqui Wars to enslave tons of Yaqui and Mayans for the henequen plantations. Basically, even if slavery were outlawed earlier, the planter class would find ways to get unfree labor.

Might revive long term contract or indentured servitude. Contract impoverished potential immigrants in Europe or wherever & work them hard for the five or ten years until the contract/debt is paid off. Sort of like the illegal Asian immigrants in the US today. When Indiana achieved statehood Govenor Harrison, a former Virginian tried to write laws allowing long term indentured servitude into the first state constitution. Slavery was prevented by the NW Territory Ordnance so Harrison & Co. tried to work around that.
 
Thanks for all the responses:

How about this as a POD?

1. In 1775, The British set off a massive slave rebellion in Virginia which devastates the colony over a course of several years. Over half of the slaves escape to the British, escape west or are killed in the rebellion.
2. By 1778, the slave Rebellions continues apace when the British Southern campaign focuses on Virginia, rather than the Carolinas.
3. The war ends in 1781, eventually the slave rebellion is put down.
4. Much of the aristocracy is wiped out by the devastation. Their plantations are burned, over half their slaves are gone. Many others forced back into slavery but no one is confortable after the initial rebellion than another won't recur.
5. The lower classes of Virginia, long alienated by their plantation overlords, faced the wrath of this rebellion caused by the aristocracy. They form a new coalition/party/whatever that seized control of Virginia.
6. As slavery nearly cost the 13 colonies their independence, most of the northern states vote for immediate or gradual independence.
7. Slavery is protected by the constitution but Virginia's new government agrees to thomas Jefferson's plan of a 20 year emancipation. By 1810, all slavery in the United States is banned. Virginia includes a stipulation that freed slaves must leave the state. Most go north or west, some return to Africa via the Liberia project.
8. South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, decline to sign the constitution and don't join the new nation.
9. Within two decades, escaping slaves from these former states have bankrupted hundreds of plantation owners. The institution cannot survive if the massive capital investment can literally walk away in the night.
10. By 1800, Britain, in conjunction with America (the northern states) enforces a ban on the slave trade. the United States buys the Louisiana territory, cutting off any expansion west.
11. NC/SC/GA formally initiate a phase-out of slavery by 1830.
12. The southern states, facing potential British/French/Spanish aggression realize that they must return to the United States for safety.
13. Andrew Jackson of North Carolina leads an army into Florida and announces it as Federal Property (pending negotiation of price).
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Thanks for all the responses:

How about this as a POD?

1. In 1775, The British set off a massive slave rebellion in Virginia which devastates the colony over a course of several years. Over half of the slaves escape to the British, escape west or are killed in the rebellion.
2. By 1778, the slave Rebellions continues apace when the British Southern campaign focuses on Virginia, rather than the Carolinas.
3. The war ends in 1781, eventually the slave rebellion is put down.
4. Much of the aristocracy is wiped out by the devastation. Their plantations are burned, over half their slaves are gone. Many others forced back into slavery but no one is confortable after the initial rebellion than another won't recur.
5. The lower classes of Virginia, long alienated by their plantation overlords, faced the wrath of this rebellion caused by the aristocracy. They form a new coalition/party/whatever that seized control of Virginia.
6. As slavery nearly cost the 13 colonies their independence, most of the northern states vote for immediate or gradual independence.
7. Slavery is protected by the constitution but Virginia's new government agrees to thomas Jefferson's plan of a 20 year emancipation. By 1810, all slavery in the United States is banned. Virginia includes a stipulation that freed slaves must leave the state. Most go north or west, some return to Africa via the Liberia project.
8. South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, decline to sign the constitution and don't join the new nation.
9. Within two decades, escaping slaves from these former states have bankrupted hundreds of plantation owners. The institution cannot survive if the massive capital investment can literally walk away in the night.
10. By 1800, Britain, in conjunction with America (the northern states) enforces a ban on the slave trade. the United States buys the Louisiana territory, cutting off any expansion west.
11. NC/SC/GA formally initiate a phase-out of slavery by 1830.
12. The southern states, facing potential British/French/Spanish aggression realize that they must return to the United States for safety.
13. Andrew Jackson of North Carolina leads an army into Florida and announces it as Federal Property (pending negotiation of price).

All of these sound like really good ideas for TL's, though some need a bit more elaboration.
 
Top