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?
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?