How to best limit American slavery?

[SirPaperweight]

What would be the best POD, preferably before the Revolutionary War, to limit the development and expansion of slavery in America? Overall, the goal would be to avoid the extreme entrenching of slavery in the Southern US, thus perhaps leading to a lessening of the intensity of white supremacy and more urbanization in the region. Here are some ideas I've been thinking of:

It seems to me that the best way to limit the growth of slavery is to make it unprofitable, but I'm not sure how best to do that. I know that the colony of Georgia actually banned slavery until the 1740s, but I'm not sure if that ban could be made permanent with the pretense of nearby slave-holding South Carolina. An earlier discovery of gold in the state might lengthen the ban, but for how long?

There's also the possibility of a (very) early introduction of the Boll Weevil. While this might handicap cotton production, there are still crops like tobacco, rice indigo. Would those crops sustain slavery to the same degree? Would the crippling of American cotton allow for the gradual end of slavery as was envisioned by Southerners pre-cotton gin?

Could something happen to sustain indentured servitude? I'm not entirely sure how this would work, but the idea is that as long as there is a large population of servants in America, slavery would not be as necessary.

There's also the possibility of a political or religious restriction on slavery, either by the British or by some faction of the American settlers themselves. I'm not sure what form that would take, though.

 

[JSilvy]

Slavery in Georgia easily could have been avoided if James Oglethorpe's plans for a debtor colony went through. Also, if the Barbados slave codes never came to the mainland, we could have possibly seen a less intense form of slavery. If the US successfully seized Canada in the Revolution or the War of 1812, we could see more settlement to the north, more northern states, and then as a result less slavery.

 

[Revachah]

Paternal inheritance of freedom.

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

You either need indentured servitude to be longer (or lifelong) or overall decrease white immigration, probably both at the same time. Slavery was introduced in North America in order to stop social tensions between the white colonizers from exploding, as the indentured servitude system was creating a large segment of unemployed white men who destabilized the colonial society by their demands. Slavery offered the advantage of creating bonds of solidarity between the colonizers (hence lessening social tensions) in addition to preventing the "unemployed masses" situation, since slavery was lifelong and hereditary.

 

[Dempsey-Louis]

I am of (what is considered by some a very strange) opinion that the American Civil War was a rebellion of rugged individualism against aristocracy. That the geographical breakdown (North vs. South) was only relevant to the location of slavery and that Federal vs. State alliances came about only because that is where the two sides, in the end (1860), found themselves empowered.

To end slavery before 1863 would necessitate the end of aristocratic ranking as an American ideal; an ideal America was not ready to forgo until the transcendental awakening.

This acceptance of social ranking would have thwarted any attempt to replace slavery with indentured servitude; bond-slaves would have eventually (as occurred in early Virginia) slipped back into slavery. The institution (servitude) at first would have become perverted by some form of perpetual debt that the bond-slave could not rise above, and eventually would have resulted in the return of permanent bondage. (Although under these circumstances American slavery might not have been purely racial.)

 

[Don Corleone]

I am of (what is considered by some a very strange) opinion that the American Civil War was a rebellion of rugged individualism against aristocracy. That the geographical breakdown (North vs. South) was only relevant to the location of slavery and that Federal vs. State alliances came about only because that is where the two sides, in the end (1860), found themselves empowered.

To end slavery before 1863 would necessitate the end of aristocratic ranking as an American ideal; an ideal America was not ready to forgo until the transcendental awakening.

This acceptance of social ranking would have thwarted any attempt to replace slavery with indentured servitude; bond-slaves would have eventually (as occurred in early Virginia) slipped back into slavery. The institution (servitude) at first would have become perverted by some form of perpetual debt that the bond-slave could not rise above, and eventually would have resulted in the return of permanent bondage. (Although under these circumstances American slavery might not have been purely racial.)

The racial basis was inevitable. A white guy could run away and start over under an assumed name 100 miles away. An indigenous person knew the land and could escape to rejoin his tribe.

A black person couldn't blend in and couldn't cross the ocean to get home, so skin color became a convenient marker. White supremacist ideology followed as a rationalization.

 

[Dempsey-Louis]

The racial basis was inevitable. A white guy could run away and start over under an assumed name 100 miles away. An indigenous person knew the land and could escape to rejoin his tribe.

A black person couldn't blend in and couldn't cross the ocean to get home, so skin color became a convenient marker. White supremacist ideology followed as a rationalization.

Yes I agree - I was only suggesting that white bond-slaves would have also found themselves enslaved as well (maybe); and yes they would have been in a better position to emancipate themselves via flight, but that it still might have become 'legal' to enslave a white man. - I am just speculating off the theme.

 

[Mikestone8]

Any reason why the Northwest Ordinance couldn't have been incorporated into the Constitution? It was originally passed under the AoC, so evidently the South didn't block it then.

If slavery is only permitted in territories where Congress expressly authorises it, that likely means a free Missouri, and makes the Wilmot Proviso redundant, while the Dred Scott decision could at any rate be nothing like as sweeping as OTL. .

 

[The Uchronian]

Any reason why the Northwest Ordinance couldn't have been incorporated into the Constitution? It was originally passed under the AoC, so evidently the South didn't block it then.

If slavery is only permitted in territories where Congress expressly authorises it, that likely means a free Missouri, and makes the Wilmot Proviso redundant, while the Dred Scott decision could at any rate be nothing like as sweeping as OTL. .

Yes, this. And, originally, I've read that the original draft of the Northwest Ordinance also included a provision in which slavery was prohibited in all territories, not just those north of the Ohio-and that the measure only failed by one vote. If that one particular delegate from New Jersey hadn't fallen ill, it would have become law, and perhaps it might well have even been directly incorporated into the Constitution, at least if a strong enough movement existed for that to be done.

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

The racial basis was inevitable. A white guy could run away and start over under an assumed name 100 miles away. An indigenous person knew the land and could escape to rejoin his tribe.

A black person couldn't blend in and couldn't cross the ocean to get home, so skin color became a convenient marker. White supremacist ideology followed as a rationalization.

That's certainly a factor, but not a defining factor. By 1822 ca. 20% of Brazil's population was made up of free black people. Skin color only became a determinant marker where the Barbados code ruled, which was in turn created due to lack of land for white settlers. However the racial basis in continental colonies was not inevitable.

 

[Mikestone8]

Yes, this. And, originally, I've read that the original draft of the Northwest Ordinance also included a provision in which slavery was prohibited in all territories, not just those north of the Ohio-and that the measure only failed by one vote. If that one particular delegate from New Jersey hadn't fallen ill, it would have become law, and perhaps it might well have even been directly incorporated into the Constitution, at least if a strong enough movement existed for that to be done.

Did the US have any Territories south of the Ohio in 1784? Iirc KY and TN still belonged to VA and NC, and most of AL and MS still belonged to GA. Would those states cede any territory if doing so would involve a ban on slavery there?

In any case, the South wouldn't even allow the African Slave Trade to be banned until 1808. Tell them they can't take their slaves west and it's "Goodbye, Constitution". They accepted its exclusion from the Northwest, but I can't see them swallowing such a ban iro the areas right on their doorsteps.

 

[Alon]

I have an Anglo-American TL that has this. POV is vaguely in 1774; the important consequence is that the Revolutionary War is forestalled (rather than defeated) and the colonists get representation in Parliament, which reformers like William Pitt use as a way of diluting the British rotten boroughs. The important aspects of this are,

- There is no Louisiana purchase. Louisiana is French, and has little white settlement north of OTL's state of Louisiana, except St. Louis. Britain notably chooses not to seize it at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. It buys off the northernmost parts later to facilitate transcontinental railroads, but that's not even all of OTL's Montana. In between OTL's Montana and Louisiana, indigenous people remain de facto (later de jure) independent. No slavery.

- Slavery gets abolished on the British schedule, i.e. in the 1830s. The American South is too weak to resist the combined powers of the American North and Britain proper. For the same reason, civil rights laws get enforced early - universal male vote happens on a compromise schedule between OTL's Britain and white America, in the 1860s. With no independent Supreme Court, a parliament dominated by the metropole and the American North can more easily pass laws limiting segregation. (But laws against job discrimination have to wait until OTL's schedule in the 1960s.)

- A generally stronger Britain in the mid-19c is in a stronger position to enforce the international ban on the slave trade, which leads to slightly faster abolition in Brazil than in OTL.

 

[IamtheEmps]

George is actually a Tyrant, and grants the continental Congress its wish, to have independent taxation. He then rules as a divine right monarch taking taxes from all over the empire, and not having to answer to anyone. In this climate, UK bans the slave trade, as per OTL, and limits the import, to the americas, it is slowly phased out ala Brazil, to create a loyal base of Black southerners, to counter balance and Independent minded America. Divide et Impera

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Have that Dutch ship founder at sea, have the Federal Court rule against the black landowner who argued he had a right to hold on to his indentured servants for life... Do what Thomas Jefferson suggested and ban it from the start, etc.

 

[PuffyClouds]

If the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Cherokee could hold onto most of Mississippi, Alabama, and parts of Georgia then that would mitigate the expansion of Deep South plantations into prime cotton growing land. Break Florida into East Florida, Apalachicola, Lower Alabama, and Pearl if you want to have some fun thrown into the mix.

Did the US have any Territories south of the Ohio in 1784? Iirc KY and TN still belonged to VA and NC, and most of AL and MS still belonged to GA. Would those states cede any territory if doing so would involve a ban on slavery there?

If you could get Georgia and South Carolina to yield their claims around the Articles of Confederation, I think that could help.

 

[Don Corleone]

That's certainly a factor, but not a defining factor. By 1822 ca. 20% of Brazil's population was made up of free black people. Skin color only became a determinant marker where the Barbados code ruled, which was in turn created due to lack of land for white settlers. However the racial basis in continental colonies was not inevitable.

Barbados code is a good point. I was thinking limit as in preventing slavery from becoming widespread, but you could also limit the severity by having legal protections for slaves. The French and Spanish made it illegal to break up a slave marriage by sale, limited the workday to 10 hours, and gave slaves Sunday off (God's day). The downside to that would be better treatment would make it harder for the abolitionist movement to gain traction and slavery might have lasted longer.

 

[Richard V]

Give West Africans alternative exports to slaves. India had spices to sell and China had tea and porcelain. Africans needed European manufactured goods, nearly the only thing they had to pay for it was slaves. Maybe cocoa, introduced in late 19th centuty, gets there in the 16th century along with corn and cassava. This would reduce slave export, driving up cost of slave based agriculture.

 

[Dempsey-Louis]

This is probably as unrealistic as any other thing I have ever conjured, but . . . in keeping with the OP's suggestion of indentured servitude as a possible solution, what if . . .

the western nations recognize the negative nature of bringing legalized, race-based, permanent slavery into their own culture and (via international law) establish an African "guest-worker" policy. Western nations would be free to buy African POWs from other African tribes, but the buyer would only be allowed to hold the bond-slave for a 7 year period (seven years being a common contract length for unskilled labor as it was applied to indenture servitude.) Once contracts were completed the bond-slave would be returned to Africa at a different location (i.e. to a series of new Liberia(s)). These new settlements would be populated exclusively with Africans returning from servitude, and having been exposed to western culture, with hopefully a better skill set, would be subsidized (and armed) and encouraged to seek vengeance against their original captors, selling them into the next wave of "guest-workers." This would not only be ironic but would ensure a constant supply of African labor, and in theory would eventually result in a completely new Africa, void of its original tribes (and culture).

Once the process was completed this new Africa would now be ready to be exploited as profitable mercantile colonies, and from there would (hopefully) eventually reach real independence (in a few hundred years).

I guess this doesn't lend itself to the moral answer the OP was probably looking for, but I think a 16th Century Donald Trump would be all over it.

P.S. I think the Brits had/have a similar program for Australians. [wink]

 

[Timaeus]

Maybe implode the United States?

 

[Wendell]

Ban slavery in the Southwest Territory and.or the Louisiana Purchase. Not quite as early as you might want, but it mitigates Revolution-related butterflies.