WI: No compromise on slavery at the 1787 US Constitutional Convention

What if the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention were unable to reach a compromise on slavery and that resulted in the Southern states forming their own country, separate from the proposed United States of America?
 
What exactly is meant by compromise? If anything short of outlawing slavery is considered compromise, not only wouldn't any southern states ratify the new Constitution, but probably some northern states as well. "Planters in eastern New Jersey and along New York's Hudson River, where slaves in some spots comprised as much as 30% of the population, were tolerably pleased with their profits and intolerably outraged that slaves could be seized when each was worth several hundred dollars. Our strongest opponents, a New York proponent of black freedom later remembered 'were chiefly Dutch. They raved and swore by *dunder* and *blixen* that we were robbing them of their property.'" William W. Freehling, *The Road to Disunion: Volume I: Secessionists at Bay, 1776-1854,* p. 132. https://books.google.com/books?id=OCSL1OEwV6AC&pg=PA132 New York did not pass a gradual emancipation law until 1799, New Jersey until 1804.
 
In 1787, only Pennsylvania and the New England states had abolished slavery. Are these the places that secede and form a separate republic?

There is also the matter that most of the tax revenue of the new federal government is going to come from south of the Mason-Dixon line.

I don't think the 1787 convention ever seriously considered abolition. No country had abolished slavery yet at that point.
 
In 1787, only Pennsylvania and the New England states had abolished slavery. Are these the places that secede and form a separate republic?

There is also the matter that most of the tax revenue of the new federal government is going to come from south of the Mason-Dixon line.

I don't think the 1787 convention ever seriously considered abolition. No country had abolished slavery yet at that point.

Not quite. Slavery had been abolished in England (used advisedly, it continued to be legal in Scotland until 1778 and the rest of the British Empire in 1830) in 1772 in the aftermath of the Somersett case. There is an entertaining discussion to be had as to the extent to which the AWI was a response to the Somersett case and therefore a war fought in part at least in defence of slavery.
 
Not quite. Slavery had been abolished in England (used advisedly, it continued to be legal in Scotland until 1778 and the rest of the British Empire in 1830) in 1772 in the aftermath of the Somersett case. There is an entertaining discussion to be had as to the extent to which the AWI was a response to the Somersett case and therefore a war fought in part at least in defence of slavery.

Not that entertaining. Slavery had also been abolished by France in the 15th century or so. It might be better to phrase it that no country with substantial slave holding had abolished slavery yet. It's pretty noteworthy that, despite Somersett, territories under the jurisdiction of the British crown would retain slavery for another half century.
 
Top