WI: No Slave Trade Clause in the Constitution?

This got me googling -- after a few minutes of scanning articles, my rough takeaway is that it wasn't until the War of 1812 that the "Spirit of 98" was tied to the defense of slavery.

Though, to be fair, this was the main source...

never read the books. However, Ellis (IMHO, a much better Early Republic historian) brings Randolph's Congressional career where he makes an impassioned defense of slavery (~1800-1802) which as Ellis puts it was the basis for all pro-slavery arguments until the civil war.

I think the review has a bit of ideological bias to call southern conservatism friendly to liberty is just batty. But anyway, the essence is correct the "spirit of 98" was used to defend slavery and secession even though Madison in 1832 a few years before he died said to the leaders of South Carolina's nullification movement that that just wasn't the intention of the Resolutions taking some steam out of their turbines:).
 
never read the books. However, Ellis (IMHO, a much better Early Republic historian) brings Randolph's Congressional career where he makes an impassioned defense of slavery (~1800-1802) which as Ellis puts it was the basis for all pro-slavery arguments until the civil war.

Ah, much obliged. :) On how the resolutions evolve ITTL -- by 1800 here, Kentucky is a free state (as is Tennessee), the slave trade is banned, and there's still no sign that the plantation system can be profitable in the long term (though that may soon change). As such, I can easily see Randolph's interpretation of the KVRs being butterflied down the road, or even out of existence, making states rights somewhat less toxic to civil liberties down the road. :rolleyes: I'm unsure, but we could be talking about a much weaker Federal Government down the road here.

But overall I'd really love suggestions as to what happens after 1808. :eek:
 
I do not know about the immediate future for the timeline, the 1810's. I am interested in the Manifest Destiny period of US history.

With slavery restricted to the SE states and Lousiana and the balance of slave vs. free slanted to the free from the early stages of the republic as you have it.

When the US expands into more lands, will there be more or less opposition from free states when adquiring slave territory? With such an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate, the free states might not object to much to bringing in a few slave territories in. The Free majority only becomes more as the US expands West. With this clear majority from the beginning and the already restrictions to new territories, abolition societies may not be as powerful either, therefore not agitating the slave states.

So basically what I am trying to get at, would the US be more enthusiastic to adquiring Cuba sooner or other fillerbuster activity from William Walker? Would the US carve out an even greater chunk of Mexico? I do see Texas coming in as a slave state in 1836 (as mentioned above, not as much tension in Congress over slave and free), therefore an earlier war with Mexico with the US winning. I do not see Texas becoming five states. I see the US adquiring more of Mexico, but not too much more as only Sonora and Baja Cali are added, both free. US could adquire Cuba as well but I do not know when and how. Perhaps as early as 1819 when Jackson goes into Fla. but I do not know. It was hard to pressure Spain to sell anything. Would Britain allow the US to be more beligerent towards Spain to adquire Cuba along with Florida?

Would slavery be allowed in Florida? It might be.

Another question that I have, would industrisation occur faster in areas such as Ken, Tenn, and Alabama if there was no slavery?

Instead of pulling the US apart, your timeline could make an Ameriwank if the North lets the peculiar institutuion exist in the fore mentioned states plus a few more areas as it expands. As the slave states especially Maryland and and Virginia move towards industrialisation and closer ties with the northeast, slavery looses ground and becomes naturally disbanded without much internal strife. North Carolina follows. Texas follows as well sooner or later. That just leaves SC, GA, LA and I will add FL and Cuba for the heck of it. Perhaps a constitutional ammendment is passed in the 1870's that abolishes slavery from those five states. They put up a stink but abide by it.

The continental railroad occurs sooner without the Civil War. Are there any bad effects of not having the Civil War? In a way it did boost industrialisation in the North and Midwest. Would this still occur?

Could the USA push for the Panama Canal sooner, perhaps joining the French and English in the 1880's to create the canal.

The USA may become a kinder gentler nation towards minorities but it may not as well. Just because blacks are free does not necessarily mean that they will be treated as equals or citizens. Asian exclusion laws can also still be passed. Anti-immigration societies may also arise just like OTL.
 
Sorry about the late response hzn5pk -- yours was such a good post, I had to mull it over for a while before I could think of a good response. I am very much obliged, and I thank you for it. :D On just a couple of points (for now):

Shawn actually had a thought on Texas earlier:

Texas will probably be a free state, since with that many fewer slaves and slave-owners, there wouldn't be good reason to push Santa Anna on it, and who exactly would be fighting hard to annex Texas to the USA if it was free soil?

As it is, I'm still leaning more toward Texas, if it enters the US at all, entering as a free state.

On Florida, IIANM, there were actually more escaped slaves OTL living there, many of them armed, than ongoing slaves. My sense is, if the US annexes FL, they're not going to want to want to risk all out war to impose slavery there, at least not by 1819.

And then there's the strange figure of William Walker -- when he first went on an expedition to Nicaragua, with an army of former 49ers, they were motivated by general expansionism and had no real thoughts on slavery (may actually have leaned more against than pro, I'm not certain).

Anyway, this was in the early 1850's when the north was weary fighting with their southern neighbors over whether their most recent acquisitions, and so were not keen on new territory. The south, conversely, was, particularly if it were slave territory. Walker made a political calculation to improve relations with Washington by getting southerners excited, and legalized slavery in Nicaragua. This made him very unpopular with the Nicaraguans, and his expedition failed.

All this is to say, ITTL, expansionists wouldn't have to worry about this kind of infighting, and would likely would not impose slave laws on an unwilling conquered population -- meaning, absent Cuba or Puerto Rico, most new territory for America would be admitted as free.

And that gets to your thoughts that this could turn into an Ameriwank -- and where I need to think on this even more.

Like I said -- I am much obliged :D
 
sure it would turn into an Ameriwank. Since you are butterflying the one thing that threatens to kill America in the cradle (war over slavery in the 1st 20 years of existence). Basically but would be the problem with that? You can always have them lose a war here or there? Possibly against Mexico?
 
sure it would turn into an Ameriwank. Since you are butterflying the one thing that threatens to kill America in the cradle (war over slavery) in the 1st 20 years of existence.

Sweet :D

When the US expands into more lands, will there be more or less opposition from free states when adquiring slave territory? With such an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate, the free states might not object to much to bringing in a few slave territories in. The Free majority only becomes more as the US expands West. With this clear majority from the beginning and the already restrictions to new territories, abolition societies may not be as powerful either, therefore not agitating the slave states.

I've been thinking about this -- I still think there will be certain tensions, like the free states passing personal liberty laws, that slave states will take issue with, though they won't be able to do much about it. Frankly, I still think there's going to be a substantial abolitionist movement in the US, especially if the Brit Empire abolishes slavery in 1833 (there's the idealism and the pride thing going)...

I see the US adquiring more of Mexico, but not too much more as only Sonora and Baja Cali are added, both free.

Why not go simpler -- add Baja and all Mexico north of the 25th Parallel (that adds everything between the Rio Grande and Sonora). Additionally, you could have a Walker like figure get American territory in Central America in the 1850's or so -- which brings me to...

Could the USA push for the Panama Canal sooner, perhaps joining the French and English in the 1880's to create the canal.

Why not an earlier one in Nicaragua? :cool:

The continental railroad occurs sooner without the Civil War.

Heck, it occurs sooner without north and south squabbling over where the tracks get laid, and whether the territory in between gets settled or not, and by whom, etc. -- or, for that matter, without a section of the country screaming against internal improvements that may well include a Continental Railway Act. I can see the Golden Spike in by 1860 :rolleyes:

Are there any bad effects of not having the Civil War? In a way it did boost industrialisation in the North and Midwest. Would this still occur?

Still need to think about this.

Another question that I have, would industrisation occur faster in areas such as Ken, Tenn, and Alabama if there was no slavery?

I think definitely :D

As the slave states especially Maryland and and Virginia move towards industrialisation and closer ties with the northeast, slavery looses ground and becomes naturally disbanded without much internal strife. North Carolina follows... That just leaves SC, GA, LA and I will add... Cuba for the heck of it. Perhaps a constitutional ammendment is passed in the 1870's that abolishes slavery from those five states. They put up a stink but abide by it.

I'm still on the fence on how plausible all this is; at any rate, I still for some reason think there would be some interesting results from Louisiana and Cuba being initially controlled by French and Spanish plantation owners.

Just because blacks are free does not necessarily mean that they will be treated as equals or citizens. Asian exclusion laws can also still be passed. Anti-immigration societies may also arise just like OTL.

I fear you're right about this -- triumph of free labor this early won't lead automatically to a colorblind society.
 
I fear you're right about this -- triumph of free labor this early won't lead automatically to a colorblind society.[/QUOTE]


I know, a Utopian Society Ameriwank is a little far fetched. It would be awesome. But we are humans and some of us will always see and treat others of us not like humans. Any form of the USA is no exception.

And without a doubt in this scenerio, the Indians are screwed even if there is a kinder gentler USA to blacks and other immigrants. Although there is a little hope for the Indians. Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant learned the scorched Earth policy of defeating the enemy army by waging war and starving out the entire society. Make the entire society hate the notion of war. They learned this in the Civil War and applied it to the Plains, Basin, Mountain, and South West Indians as they were in higher powers in the government and army. Without a civil war, the government and military may be less ruthless in their conduct. But the American Indian is still screwed as industry goes West.

The buffalo are taken out by advancing railroads, ranchers, farmers and mineral miners. The military will have to protect the settlers from the Indians, or try but fail to protect the Indians from the settlers.
 
I know, a Utopian Society Ameriwank is a little far fetched. It would be awesome. But we are humans and some of us will always see and treat others of us not like humans. Any form of the USA is no exception.

And without a doubt in this scenerio, the Indians are screwed even if there is a kinder gentler USA to blacks and other immigrants.

Oh, without a doubt :rolleyes:

As the slave states especially Maryland and and Virginia move towards industrialisation and closer ties with the northeast, slavery looses ground and becomes naturally disbanded without much internal strife. North Carolina follows... That just leaves SC, GA, LA and I will add... Cuba for the heck of it.

The thing is, after the cotton gin was invented -- both in OTL and in TTL -- slave plantations become very profitable. But, OTOH slavey is banned in the west as well as the north -- and quite possibly in Deleware as well, since they were never really enthusiastic about the institution. Many states would adopt personal liberty laws, getting to the point slaves would only have to enter a free state to escape bondage; and slave states wouldn't have the representation to do anything about it.

This could make things so difficult for Maryland that it's no longer worth the trouble, and they see manumission as being a better investment. The other four eastern slave states, not so much; their territories are vast, and they have the geography to protect plantation land. (I still have no idea about LA or Cuba)

Are there any bad effects of not having the Civil War? In a way it did boost industrialisation in the North and Midwest. Would this still occur?

My thinking is the level of industrialization America saw roughly 1820-50 would happen even faster in TTL, since, for one, there would be more places to industrialize. If I'm right, it would be conceivable to see earlier wars of conquest (like with Mexico) playing a roughly equivalent role to industry that the US Civil War did. Or some other war entirely, for that matter -- which brings me to...

Perhaps a constitutional ammendment is passed in the 1870's that abolishes slavery from those five states. They put up a stink but abide by it.

See, I just can't see a region of slaves states, much less a state like South Carolina, just going along with this; oh, I can see an abolitionist movement gaining enough stream to push the issue, but if they do, there will be some very heavy resistance to the established powers of the region.

What I'm seeing here is a very one sided US Civil War -- not even a full fledged civil war, more likely to be called "The Carolina War", or some such.

Then again, if outlawing slavery is that much easier, this would have a weird effect on racial relations -- perhaps what you'd put under "bad effects of not having the Civil War"...
 

cw1865

Tariff

See, I just can't see a region of slaves states, much less a state like South Carolina, just going along with this

They would definitely have put up a stink about a straight up XIII Amendment. What you might get away with, perhaps begrudgingly, is a compensated emancipated scheme or gradual abolition (no child born to a slave is a slave) because at least neither one of those upsets the status quo TODAY. What prevented a compensated emancipation in 1860 would've been the price tag associated with it. If slavery exists only in five states, that cost, is more bearable....If the free states aren't willing to bear that cost, then gradual abolition becomes more likely.
 
What you might get away with, perhaps begrudgingly, is a compensated emancipated scheme or gradual abolition (no child born to a slave is a slave) because at least neither one of those upsets the status quo TODAY. What prevented a compensated emancipation in 1860 would've been the price tag associated with it. If slavery exists only in five states, that cost, is more bearable...

I read this and immediately thought of Brazil and the Rio Branco Law. This famously followed the War of the Triple Alliance, where Brazilians saw the brave service of former slaves, and laid the groundwork for moves toward abolition -- something I can see happening in the US following a major war. (This is not that crazy, especially if the navy plays a key role; they were desegregated and had black recruits, IIANM, almost from the beginning.)

Of course, this law was followed by the far more famous Lei Aurea -- which itself precipitated a coup and the end of the Empire of Brazil (and was, to what I understand, a major part of the cause). Which I think gives more credence to the idea that attempts at abolition would be met with violent resistance.

On another subject -- should I just assume that Louisiana and Cuba are added as states and more or less form political partnerships with the southeast, like the south OTL, despite additional difficulties of linguistic and geographic isolation?
 

cw1865

LA not Cuba

On another subject -- should I just assume that Louisiana and Cuba are added as states and more or less form political partnerships with the southeast, like the south OTL, despite additional difficulties of linguistic and geographic isolation?

I'm ok with Louisiana, but Cuba? I mean, Puerto Rico STILL isn't a state. There is a meme in my head about the Dominican Republic asking to become a state in the 19th century and we said no [I sware I read this somewhere and I'm googling it but not finding it, I could have a faulty memory on this one]. Not just language, its also the Catholicism, in the 19th century that was still kind've a big deal. Of course this is countered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostend_Manifesto

I could see the US potentially acquiring it, but I also see the potential for the US to deny statehood (Congress can do this), in 1857 Congress rejected Kansas' entry into the Union under the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution.
 
OK, so Cuba stays a territory, and as such, is even more susceptible to abolitionist measures than the southeastern states, and probably sees slavery end sooner.

I'm still unsure where this leaves LA -- do they tie their fate to SC and the southeast, despite being cut off from them? And what do they do when the SE resists the final pushes for abolition?
 
I'm ok with Louisiana, but Cuba? I mean, Puerto Rico STILL isn't a state. There is a meme in my head about the Dominican Republic asking to become a state in the 19th century and we said no [I sware I read this somewhere and I'm googling it but not finding it, I could have a faulty memory on this one]. Not just language, its also the Catholicism, in the 19th century that was still kind've a big deal. Of course this is countered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostend_Manifesto

I could see the US potentially acquiring it, but I also see the potential for the US to deny statehood (Congress can do this), in 1857 Congress rejected Kansas' entry into the Union under the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution.

With regards to Puerto Rico. It is because they don't want to, they enjoy the benefits of being a state without the taxes. As for the Dominican, your memory is correct but their addition could have been a violation of the Platt Amendment. The reason we didn't take Cuba was because of the Platt Amendment to the declaration of war (or the peace treaty, can't remember) for the Spanish American War. As for Cuba showing up in a purchase or a short war with Spain, it is likely and would become a state as soon as the requisite amount of white Protestants arrived.

The Tariff is definitly likely, the south would take it and swallow it because they have gotten their way with everything else, now if that tariff is used to partially fund a compensated manumission scheme than I think it is even more likely. Btw, the point in time we are talking about is the 1780-1810s when American politics believed fully in the Enlightenment and so were much more open to the ideas of personal liberty.
 
I realize I'm swinging like a pendulum on the issue of Cuba -- though I think, for this TL, I've been consistent in saying the US acquires the island.

Anyway, whether the island remains a state or a territory is something I only care about in terms of plausibility -- and right now, per GSM's comment, statehood seems more likely.

So that brings me to the question again -- what does Cuba do when the SE resist the final push toward abolition?
 
Post-acquisition, the US would be dealing with the insurgency at least as long as their existed slavery on Cuba. The slave owners are going to go with the SE at least until Brazil emancipates.

Now there's an interesting thought -- Cuba is brought in as a US state, joins the SE in seceding from the Union in response to movement toward abolitionism, and remains an independent state, even as the rest of the rebels are put down.

Slavery survives on an independent Cuba until... well, who knows? :eek:
 
This Clause wasn't that contentious, as most people looked at the falling prices for Tobacco & Rice, and thought Slavery would die out by 1808.

The Contentious Clause was the 3/5 one with NY holding out for not counting Slaves [they are Property] & SC wanting them counted as whole People.

?Wonder if NY winning would lead to a earlier CW?
 

elder.wyrm

Banned
Now this could be an interesting PoD -- what if Franklin doesn't accept this understanding, and decides to hit on the issue. And, weird as this may seem, I can see this bringing Hamilton to object to the clause -- expressly, at any rate, on the grounds that the Government should not be restricted in regulating any particular commerce (to bring in the aforementioned Va and NC).

I don't think so, if only because trade (as in 'the slave trade') and commerce were different terms with different meanings in this time period. Trade meant the conveyance of goods, while commerce more meant the capacity to engage in trade. So, regulating interstate commerce meant regulating the capacity for states to trade with each other. The interstate commerce clause was meant to prevent the states from erecting trade barriers against each other. It was only much later on that it acquired its modern meaning of all kinds of trade.

So it'd be anachronistic for Hamilton to complain about it along those lines.
 
I suppose that's something of an important distinction, but that doesn't mean it's anachronistic in the least -- the Federalists, after all, also supported strong tariffs in general to protect native industry. Restrictions on the slave trade is the same principle made to appeal to slave owners...
 
Top