WI US slavery expansion limited early, would the US be more or less territorially expansionist?

Would early containment of slavery slow down, speed up, or not affect the rate of US expansion?

  • slow down

    Votes: 14 50.0%
  • speed up

    Votes: 5 17.9%
  • not effect

    Votes: 9 32.1%

  • Total voters
    28

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
A few threads, notably by David Tenner, have explored limitations of westward expansion of slavery in the early United States. Among the ones proposed are a limitation of slavery in the US territory south of the Ohio in 1784.



Based on the discussions, I would say that the most plausible scenario would be slavery getting off to a weaker start in Kentucky, and this leading to Kentucky’s admission into the Union as a “free state” or a “planning to be free” state. From there, it’s not too difficult to imagine Tennessee being established as a free territory and then state.



Avoiding slavery expansion into Alabama and Mississippi seems much harder though for economic reasons and because Georgia (and maybe South Carolina?) would be less likely to yield their claims to the land in the first place if federal authorities would ban slavery in those territories west of Georgia.



So let’s suppose that Kentucky and Tennessee, as a result of subtle differences in initial settlement communities and their politics, and later federal legislation, come in as “free states”.



That seems pretty much assured to have the knock-on effect of forestalling slavery in what will become Missouri and Arkansas. Indeed, it makes a slavery ban (or a slavery sunset) in upper Louisiana territory (north of the slave-heavy District of Orleans) pretty likely.



It puts a question mark on slavery expansion in Florida (although Georgians would be at the forefront of developing and settling the state) and Texas as well.



But it puts a larger question mark on US expansion and various aspects of it as well.



The simple attached poll question is:



Would early containment of slavery in the upper South slow down, speed up, or not affect the rate of US territorial expansion to the west?



The reason I ask is that one view of western expansion, especially in Texas and into Mexican territory, is that slavery expansion was the primary driving motive. The inference of that would be that without slavery expansion, there’s one less major reason for Americans to settle Texas, to rebel in Texas and to covet New Mexico and California. On the other hand, the idea of a southern driven expansionist movement could be a bit of an exaggeration, and if slavery expansion were not feared in most or all of the newer western territories and states, the eastern free states might have much less reason to hesitate on annexing Texas and taking territory from Mexico.



Your thoughts?

There is a host of subordinate questions to answer though even before we get to the issue of Texas and the Mexican Cession however.



These include:



With fewer slave-manned plantations and a slavery sunset enshrined in law could Kentucky and Tennessee develop as fast as OTL and reach eligibility for statehood on the same schedule as OTL (1792 & 1796 respectively) ?



What would happen in Mississippi and Alabama long-term?



They perpetually remain parts of Georgia?



Georgia concedes statehood to those parts (as Virginia did for Kentucky) with them getting a special dispensation from Congress and their statehood conventions to legally support slavery indefinitely?



Does the development of the land between the Georgian Appalachians and Mississippi slow down to the point that there is no pressure to carry out the Indian Removal Act in the southeast, in the 1820s at least?



Is annexation of Florida as urgent an issue for the United States in 1800-1820 as it was in OTL?



Is a ban on slavery extension into the Louisiana territory likely? At least for part of it?



Do Americans settle in Texas on schedule? Do they bring as many slaves as OTL? Do they rebel on schedule?



If the Anglo-Texans establish a republic, are they annexed sooner for lack of a slavery controversy, or do they desire to retain independence?



Does lack of enduring slavery in Kentucky or Tennessee somehow affect the durability of slavery in Virginia, Maryland or North Carolina?



New England states, while not pro-slavery, had some reluctance about westward expansion simply for its effects on weakening the power of the northeastern section. East Coasters in general had more misgivings about dispossessing Indians than more inland Americans. If the great bulk of western territories seem destined never to have slave property, do lawmakers of New England, the Atlantic slave states and whatever becomes of Mississippi, Alabama and the state of Louisiana form an anti-expansionist alliance of convenience? How effective might such a coalition be?



If annexed by the 1820s, is Florida developed enough for statehood by 1845?

[Let me shout out here to the Florida as a free state thread that just started, that I have not read, but soon will]



Would negative changes in the legal security and territorial extent of slavery accumulating from the 1770s through 1807 have any effect of reducing slave imports for as long as the trade is legal?
 
It could potentially go either way, I suppose: one important thing to remember is that, even IOTL, a fair number of supporters of Manifest Destiny were anti-slavery, and a not-insignificant number of them opposed to it(at least beyond Texas, anyway) were pro-slavery, such as John C. Calhoun.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
a fair number of supporters of Manifest Destiny were anti-slavery, and a not-insignificant number of them opposed to it(at least beyond Texas, anyway) were pro-slavery, such as John C. Calhoun.

That's basically correct, in actuality there was mixing and matching of political views on slavery and Manifest Destiny.

Calhoun was actually supportive of expansion to the Pacific Coast, just insisting on not taking on enough of Mexico to substantially change the racial mix in the US. So he opposed the "All Mexico" agitation.

"All Mexico" had limited support in all sections. It's prime supporters being President Polk [pro-slavery] and jingoistic papers in New York and Chicago [the neoconservatives of their day], some of which might have been antislavery.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Slavery had a minimum effect on expansionism (though it was there).

In fact with fewer slave states you may see an increased effort to take Cuba from Spain and more expansion into the Caribbean.
 
Free Kentucky and Tennessee will definitely impact the push in Virginia to phase out slavery in 1831, which may help push movements in Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina. From there it's essentially only in the Deep South/Dixie.
 
I imagine that it would be slowed, but not halted. Americans were going to push to the Pacific one way or another, especially if the competition was going to be so weak. But, without slavery to drive southerners west, many of the OTL colonists wouldn't have much of a reason to go. Texas, for example, would be much less appealing if neither country allowed slaves. But, like someone else mentioned, it also may make Northerners more partial to the idea, so maybe you could see an inverse effect where they are the driving force behind the colonization push.
 
I would think TX would go as in OTl, more or less... nothing really stopped slave owners from taking slaves into TX when it was under Mexican law.. they came in under the fiction of 99-year indentured servants, or the Mexican law was just ignored (the Mexican authorities didn't get up into TX all that often to ensure compliance with the law). Slaves owners (and slaves) were kinda scarce on the ground for quite a while in TX. Of course, once TX is part of the USA, then the rest of the nation has to deal with a ready-made slave state, if they want it in the union... it's unlikely that the rest of the nation is likely to push 'free state' status on them, or that TX would accept it...
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Free Kentucky and Tennessee will definitely impact the push in Virginia to phase out slavery in 1831, which may help push movements in Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina.

It might be helpful to Virginia emancipationists, but I don't see how this definitely follows from the OP. States *east* of Kentucky and Tennessee, like North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware still have large slave populations and their owners in positions of political influence. They still have markets to sell slaves in the deeper south. They are confronted with questions of "what happens after emancipation". I have higher confidence that states due *west* of Kentucky and Tennessee like Missouri and Arkansas would be effected, because of a lack of confidence in the security of slave property.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think limitations to westward slavery expansion probably would not be enough to delay Kentucky or Tennessee statehood, or the Louisiana purchase, as probably there would be enough demand for land by free farmers to populate Kentucky and Tennessee on time, and the desire to control New Orleans would be supported by even non-southern interests as residents of even Pennsylvania and Ohio benefit from the river system being a reliable outlet for their produce.

Louisiana state would come in as a slave state but the rest of the Louisiana territory would probably be slave free.

Mississippi and Alabama and Florida could see slower growth and consequently only later admission as states into the Union. Even if the Georgia Cherokee are "removed" on schedule, the same might not happen for the Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw and Seminoles.

By the time settling Texas is an option, the possibilities are fairly wide open and highly uncertain. If there is even a burst of American settlement in Texas in the 1820s and 1830s, alot would depend on whether colonists from Louisiana and the and the southeast coast, or colonists from Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio predominated.
 
Last edited:
Top