WI Delaware end slavery in 1847?

[benjamin]

In 1847 the state senate of Delaware tabled a bill to gradually emancipate its slaves by only one vote. Ironically, this vote was cast by a senator later found to be residing in Pennsylvania (no real fraud here just a poor boundary survey).
Although it is likely that the bill would have been killed by other means...supose it passed.

How would Delaware suddenly becoming a free state have changed the course of American history leading up to the Civil War?

Would the south have refused to support the treaty ending the Mexican-American War in hopes of gaining more land suitable for slavery?

Would Lopez's invasion of Cuba have recieved more support from the South for similar reasons, thus leading to an earlier Spanish-American War?

Would "Bleeding Kansas" have become all the more bloodier as the South became more desperate to restore the balance?

Would abolitionists embrace the idea of popular soverignty after seeing it succed in Delaware?

Would the South try to force the federal government to overturn Delaware's decision in order to protect slavery, thus exposing their double standards towards state's rights?

 

[Tom Veil]

This is an interesting one; I'm bumping it so that the 19th Century US history experts can cast their opinions.

I have a feeling that 1847 was too late to avoid having at least a Constitutional crisis over slavery -- but suddenly being a couple seats short in the senate could change how the Democrats act in the 1850s.

 

[Nicole]

But might Delaware, where slave-owners probably weren't nearly the majority before anyway, vote Democratic anyway?

 

[Tom Veil]

But might Delaware, where slave-owners probably weren't nearly the majority before anyway, vote Democratic anyway?

Depends on:
1. whether Delaware lets blacks vote. Until Andrew Jackson's presidency, free blacks voted in every northern state that I know of.
2. whether the influential (read: rich) people in DE think, "heck, if we can't have slaves, I don't want my competitors in Maryland and Virginia having them, either." If they start thinking like that, they might vote Whig/Republican.

 

[1940LaSalle]

One possible effect: the Underground Railroad in the east would suddenly have become a LOT more effective. There would be about 120 miles more of free/slave dry land border, a lot of which passed through some rather rural territory on the Delmarva peninsula below the C&D Canal. I suspect the relatively small number of slaves on the Eastern Shore of Maryland would have dwindled FAST--either by escapees getting into Delaware (the majority, I would bet) or by being sold south in an attempt to recoup something of the investment before losing it entirely. In effect, slavery in Maryland would have been put on a steep downslope rather quickly, to the point that it would probably have come to a de facto end fairly soon--and thus Maryland would have acknowledged what existed by becoming a free state (although probably with significant restrictions on free blacks) in its own right.

 

[Ghost 88]

With not meaning to offend anyone from Delaware,I think that this would have little effect on the larger political picture,DE had few slaves to begin with,would likely stay in the "southern"group,I don't see a radical departure from thier OTL stance as they still would have looked on slaves as being property,most southerners did not own slaves,but supported it anyway DE was a southern state.
DE is one of two states that still had slaves in 1861 that are never lumpped in with the south,now the other had all of 3 according to the 1860 census but it was still legal.
What if all states where slaves were legal had bought in to the "states rights"argument and succeded would the south have stood a better chance with 5 more states on thier side. Those 5 were Mo,Ky,Md,De,and NJ NJ slaves might have been the last eligible as it may have been on the way out when they died ,but I was useing the fact that they would have been legally owned.
Its always the problem when the "winners write the history books" that facts that make the loser look better are left out,in the case of the ACW thats all slave holding states were traitors,when all slave holding states didn't succede,it would also come as a suprise to the veterns of the more than 50 regiments of Kentuckians who wore the blue of the Union. Its easy and correct to say the ACW was about slavery,its wrong to say the south didn't fight for "States Rights" the right to own or if slavery waslegal in the eyes of the southerner was a "states" issue not one
that could be decided by the Federal government,the south agreed that banning the importation of more slaves was a Federal issue,they banned it in thier own constitution. It is all to simple to label things like this to suit your own agenda,its harder to look at both sides to understand what actually went on.

 

[Hyperion]

With not meaning to offend anyone from Delaware,I think that this would have little effect on the larger political picture,DE had few slaves to begin with,would likely stay in the "southern"group,I don't see a radical departure from thier OTL stance as they still would have looked on slaves as being property,most southerners did not own slaves,but supported it anyway DE was a southern state.
DE is one of two states that still had slaves in 1861 that are never lumpped in with the south,now the other had all of 3 according to the 1860 census but it was still legal.
What if all states where slaves were legal had bought in to the "states rights"argument and succeded would the south have stood a better chance with 5 more states on thier side. Those 5 were Mo,Ky,Md,De,and NJ NJ slaves might have been the last eligible as it may have been on the way out when they died ,but I was useing the fact that they would have been legally owned.
Its always the problem when the "winners write the history books" that facts that make the loser look better are left out,in the case of the ACW thats all slave holding states were traitors,when all slave holding states didn't succede,it would also come as a suprise to the veterns of the more than 50 regiments of Kentuckians who wore the blue of the Union. Its easy and correct to say the ACW was about slavery,its wrong to say the south didn't fight for "States Rights" the right to own or if slavery waslegal in the eyes of the southerner was a "states" issue not one
that could be decided by the Federal government,the south agreed that banning the importation of more slaves was a Federal issue,they banned it in thier own constitution. It is all to simple to label things like this to suit your own agenda,its harder to look at both sides to understand what actually went on.

New Jersey officially abolished slavery in 1846. Some slaves over a certain age where supposedly kept around as life long apprentices or something. But technically, slavery in New Jersey was legally ended well before the Civil War

When West Virginia first entered the Union, it was a slave state, but that didn't happen until 1863.

 

[Ghost 88]

New Jersey officially abolished slavery in 1846. Some slaves over a certain age where supposedly kept around as life long apprentices or something. But technically, slavery in New Jersey was legally ended well before the Civil War

When West Virginia first entered the Union, it was a slave state, but that didn't happen until 1863.

Thats why the last of part of my post,that it may have been ended but some were still held legally in the state,it is conviently left out of most discussions of the ACW not that in itself it is important.Its like in 98 when the Dems said the Reps wanted to cut spending for education when in reality the Dems wanted a 4+% raise and the Reps a3+% raise both of which were above the inflation rate,the only cut being to the Dems wishes not to the actual budget