WI: A different Northwest Ordinance Act?

[Jim Smitty]

As I been researching the back ground for a new TL I have in the works, I been seeing the a number of the foundering fathers of America could see the danagers of Slavery. Washington freed his(after Martha's death), Jefferson did what he could, and so on. But as I been reading up on Northwest Ordinance I see that the orignial plan was to have all US territory be free, but it failed by a single vote.

Lets say, the orginial Ordinance of the territories is past and all territories of the US become free territories, and in turn free states. What effects would this have on the young nation? You still have slave states, but ready no way to grow the power of the slavery. Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kenucty would all be free states. Any new territory the US picks up in future wars would also be free because of the ITL Ordinance.

Would slavery slow die on the vine in the old south, or would you see an earlier civil war with fewer states rebelling against the Union?

Throughts are welcomed.

 

[Mumby]

As I been researching the back ground for a new TL I have in the works, I been seeing the a number of the foundering fathers of America could see the danagers of Slavery. Washington freed his(after Martha's death), Jefferson did what he could, and so on. But as I been reading up on Northwest Ordinance I see that the orignial plan was to have all US territory be free, but it failed by a single vote.

Lets say, the orginial Ordinance of the territories is past and all territories of the US become free territories, and in turn free states. What effects would this have on the young nation? You still have slave states, but ready no way to grow the power of the slavery. Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kenucty would all be free states. Any new territory the US picks up in future wars would also be free because of the ITL Ordinance.

Would slavery slow die on the vine in the old south, or would you see an earlier civil war with fewer states rebelling against the Union?

Throughts are welcomed.

In the late 18th century, the institution of slavery was dying, particularly in Virginia and the rest of the Upper South. In fact, slavery was supposed to be banned in Georgia up until the Revolution. I think if this were to happen there would be some grumbling but the South would acquiesce. What you've got to worry about is the Planter class forcing their former slaves into an alternative form of subservience like share cropping or something resembling the feudal system.

 

[thekingsguard]

I'd see it die on the vine personally.

I am curious how the places other than Kentucky might be divided - Tennesee would likely be unchanged, but the rest may end up carved up differently. Also, with less demand for plantation agriculture, maybe the Five Civilized tribes completely assimilate into the American South.

This may also change the future Territorial expansion - I still see us taking land from Mexico, but maybe more given less fear of Northern Mexico being slave states.

 

[historylesson]

As I been researching the back ground for a new TL I have in the works, I been seeing the a number of the foundering fathers of America could see the danagers of Slavery. Washington freed his(after Martha's death), Jefferson did what he could, and so on. But as I been reading up on Northwest Ordinance I see that the orignial plan was to have all US territory be free, but it failed by a single vote.

Lets say, the orginial Ordinance of the territories is past and all territories of the US become free territories, and in turn free states. What effects would this have on the young nation? You still have slave states, but ready no way to grow the power of the slavery. Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kenucty would all be free states. Any new territory the US picks up in future wars would also be free because of the ITL Ordinance.

Would slavery slow die on the vine in the old south, or would you see an earlier civil war with fewer states rebelling against the Union?

Throughts are welcomed.

I think you're giving the founding fathers too much credit on the issue of slavery. When one of Washington's slaves escaped he did everything possible to get her back against her will. Also, when he lost his teeth, he replaced them with his slave's teeth simply because he could. The only reason Martha released the slaves once her husband died was because she was afraid they might kill her.


Jefferson was raping 14 year old Sally Hemmings and had several kids with her, despite his "opposition" to the peculiar institution. Madison also became rich from owning slaves.
John Adams on the other hand never owned slaves and would prefer to employ free men.

 

[Faeelin]

I think you're giving the founding fathers too much credit on the issue of slavery. When one of Washington's slaves escaped he did everything possible to get her back against her will. Also, when he lost his teeth, he replaced them with his slave's teeth simply because he could. The only reason Martha released the slaves once her husband died was because she was afraid they might kill her.

No, his will called for the slaves to be freed upon his wife's death.

 

[Jim Smitty]

I think you're giving the founding fathers too much credit on the issue of slavery. When one of Washington's slaves escaped he did everything possible to get her back against her will. Also, when he lost his teeth, he replaced them with his slave's teeth simply because he could. The only reason Martha released the slaves once her husband died was because she was afraid they might kill her.


Jefferson was raping 14 year old Sally Hemmings and had several kids with her, despite his "opposition" to the peculiar institution. Madison also became rich from owning slaves.
John Adams on the other hand never owned slaves and would prefer to employ free men.

I didn't say their were perfect on the subject. After Washington died, in his will his slaves were to be freed after Martha's death. He did free one out right with his death through. Jefferson did free a few, but there was the Sally Hemmings issue.

No they weren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I believe some of them if not most could see the issues with slavery that lie ahead.

 

[Jim Smitty]

I been thinking if you cap slavery to Virigina, the Carolinas, Georgia, Maryland, and Delware it would die on the vine. Might take till the 1840s or 50s but it would die on the vine.

 

[mrmandias]

As I been researching the back ground for a new TL I have in the works, I been seeing the a number of the foundering fathers of America could see the danagers of Slavery. Washington freed his(after Martha's death), Jefferson did what he could, and so on. But as I been reading up on Northwest Ordinance I see that the orignial plan was to have all US territory be free, but it failed by a single vote.

Lets say, the orginial Ordinance of the territories is past and all territories of the US become free territories, and in turn free states. What effects would this have on the young nation? You still have slave states, but ready no way to grow the power of the slavery. Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kenucty would all be free states. Any new territory the US picks up in future wars would also be free because of the ITL Ordinance.

Would slavery slow die on the vine in the old south, or would you see an earlier civil war with fewer states rebelling against the Union?

Throughts are welcomed.

Once these places become states and cotton plantation gets going, they will probably legalize slavery. But I think this means that at minimum Kentucky is a free state, and possibly Tennessee also. If history mostly otherwise proceeds as OTL, my guess is that Kentucky and Missouri definitely become free states, Alabama, Missisippi, and Texas definitely become slave states, and Tennessee and Arkansas become toss-ups. I also think in ATL Virginia likely goes free state.

This America likely never has a Civil War, never has the pro- and anti- slavery agitation of OTL. Its politics are quite different. Its a very different place.

I would love to see this as a timeline.

Edit: If Virginia goes, Maryland probably also does. In both cases, I'd expect some kind of gradual manumission that gave slaveholders plenty of time to sell their slaves south. Perhaps also generous exceptions for personal servants.

 

[Mikestone8]

Would the Ordinance apply to Kentucky? Iirc it was never a Territory, but went from being part of VA directly to Statehood.

 

[Jim Smitty]

Once these places become states and cotton plantation gets going, they will probably legalize slavery. But I think this means that at minimum Kentucky is a free state, and possibly Tennessee also. If history mostly otherwise proceeds as OTL, my guess is that Kentucky and Missouri definitely become free states, Alabama, Missisippi, and Texas definitely become slave states, and Tennessee and Arkansas become toss-ups. I also think in ATL Virginia likely goes free state.

This America likely never has a Civil War, never has the pro- and anti- slavery agitation of OTL. Its politics are quite different. Its a very different place.

I would love to see this as a timeline.

Edit: If Virginia goes, Maryland probably also does. In both cases, I'd expect some kind of gradual manumission that gave slaveholders plenty of time to sell their slaves south. Perhaps also generous exceptions for personal servants.

I'm in the planning stages of such a TL, but with two active TLs, and both being long term projects I don't know when I would get around to writing said TL.