WI: American Banning of Slavery Before Civil War

Greenville

Banned
What if an Republican American president was elected into office before 1860 and managed to use the anti-slavery majority in both houses of Congress to ban slavery fully either through a constitutional amendment or otherwise?
 
He wouldn't have the supermajority required in the house of representatives to ban slavery. However, in the 1920s there were shady goings (read: political favors and bribes) going around that caused many legislatures to vote for a bill against their own constituency, so maybe a president can pass those to the southern congressmen and Senators. And the result would be... the South would revolt anyways.
 
Well, this would require there to BE a Republican party that early (at least one that got any significant votes), firstly. Secondly, what majority in the House and Senate? IOTL the Dems controlled the Senate in 1858, while the 'Opposition Coalition' (note, only a few actual 'Republicans' there) ruled the House.

So. You'd need a PoD that a) established the Republicans as a party earlier, b) made it far more popular than OTL, c) sweep the Presidency and both House and Congress. Just to start.

Then, the South would secede even more surely than they did when Lincoln (who was NOT in favour of national abolition) did. So there'd be no chance to pass such legislation.

Also, it most assuredly won't be by Constitutional Amendment (at least until the South has seceded as OTL), as there is no conceivable way you could get the required supermajority of states to agree to it.
 
Also, it most assuredly won't be by Constitutional Amendment (at least until the South has seceded as OTL), as there is no conceivable way you could get the required supermajority of states to agree to it.

Bribes worked in the 1920s, in the 1830s it should be easier to pass them out undetected than 90 years later
 
You'd have to have individual states ban slavery that didn't in OTL.

Sounds right. I think Virginia mulled the idea. Throw in, say, Delaware and Maryland as well, and that's ten colonies out of the original thirteen against it. I feel like this needs a pre-Revolutionary POD though.
 
If a president somehow managed to get this through, he's facing the ACW early. At least Lincoln promised if the South behaved, he'd let them keep their property (slaves)
 
Bribes worked in the 1920s, in the 1830s it should be easier to pass them out undetected than 90 years later

Bribes only work for issues the people don't care very strongly for. If a congressman from Alabama voted to ban slavery he would be lynched when he came home.
 
Well maybe no Nat Turner. Virginia gradually abolishes slavery in 1830s.

Maryland Kentucky and maybe Tennessee follow suit

Deep South becomes more isolated
 
I'm curious how many states would have to be firmly in the 'never secede' camp to convince the ardent secessionists that they didn't have a chance.

Sure, S Carolina is famously too small to be a republic and too big to be an insane asylum, but if they knew that there was no chance any state north of them would secede, would even they be crazy enough to try to take on the Union?
 
I'm curious how many states would have to be firmly in the 'never secede' camp to convince the ardent secessionists that they didn't have a chance.

Sure, S Carolina is famously too small to be a republic and too big to be an insane asylum, but if they knew that there was no chance any state north of them would secede, would even they be crazy enough to try to take on the Union?

It depends how crazy the Governor and Speaker are, and for that, we really need more information about the scenario.
 
Sure, S Carolina is famously too small to be a republic and too big to be an insane asylum, but if they knew that there was no chance any state north of them would secede, would even they be crazy enough to try to take on the Union?

Yes, they would...
Indeed. They were prepared to go it alone iOTL until Andrew Jackson threatened the wrath of God on them.

Since the US is supposedly a union of States, freely entered into, and there is no explicit prohibition of secession in the Constitution, and 'that which is not forbidden is allowed', I think the Southern States had every right to secede. Of course, the CSA would have been a 3rd World hellhole, but that was there choice.

The concept that secession is 'unconstitutional' requires ... creative ... thinking. (Of course, the SCOTUS does that from time to time.)
 
Indeed. They were prepared to go it alone iOTL until Andrew Jackson threatened the wrath of God on them.

Since the US is supposedly a union of States, freely entered into, and there is no explicit prohibition of secession in the Constitution, and 'that which is not forbidden is allowed', I think the Southern States had every right to secede. Of course, the CSA would have been a 3rd World hellhole, but that was there choice.

The concept that secession is 'unconstitutional' requires ... creative ... thinking. (Of course, the SCOTUS does that from time to time.)

By [the Articles of Confederation], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
 
By [the Articles of Confederation], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
As others have pointed out in other threads, 'perpetual' in a treaty simply means that there's no specific end date.
 
As others have pointed out in other threads, 'perpetual' in a treaty simply means that there's no specific end date.

Hey, take it up with the Supreme Court. All I did was quote them verbatim. The logic seems pretty sound to me, and doesn't require much in the way of legal finessing to make sense. And Black's Law agrees with the idea that perpetual means never ending. So do the founders that have quotable attribution, including Madison, Hamilton, and Washington. Can't get much better legal pedigree as to the meanig of the Constitution thwn that.
 
Even if there could be an abolitionist majority, which is not easy to get (the Republicans were not exactly abolitionist), they would not just suddenly ban slavery. They would make it a very gradual process and probably offer compensation to slave owners. (And even then, the South would not agree.)
 
Top