US Slave States Most Likely to End Slavery on their Own
- Thread starter Dirk_Pitt
- Start date
Iirc, Missouri was the only slave state with much in the way of an antislavery movement, so I'd bet on it to be first. But there could be a long wait until the second.
Dirk_Pitt
Banned
Virginia actually had a vote for gradual emancipation in 1831, though it failed, it was my impression that it was quite close. Plus in Delaware the slave population was actually shrinking(Maryland was in a similar state).
Tennessee also had a less of a dependence on slavery(particularly in the eastern foothills). Texas also had a sizeable antislavery movement.
IMO, it would go in this order
1) Delaware which was practically a Free State with a lot more Free Blacks than Black Slaves.
2)Missouri with its quickly growing German population in St Louis
3)Maryland with the railroads bringing in a lot of Yankees.
4) Kentucky which has always was a moderate Slave State
5) Virginia which was close to becoming a Free State in 1831
6) Tennessee which had a lot of non-slave owners in the east.
7) North Carolina, possibly just to spite South Carolina.
8) Texas which voted heavily for secession but had strong Unionist sentiment in places.
9) Florida which is down there with South Carolina on likelihood of free slaves. At this time period Florida tended to follow South Carolina in whatever it was doing.
Delaware to my mind throws a good deal of doubt on the notion that economic forces would have eliminated slavery. By 1860 slavery had long since been economically insignificant in the state. Over 90 percent of the African Americans living in the state were free. (In 1860, according to the census, there were exactly four slaves in the city of Wilmington!) Yet southern Delaware stubbornly resisted emancipation, and had just enough power to block it in the state as a whole. Politics, not economics, was decisive--Delaware Democrats feared that emancipation would lead to black voting, which would deliver the state to the Republicans. Hence Delaware rejected compensated emancipation, despite its financial advantages for the state; hence it refused to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment until...1901! (And even then it only did so because the Republicans had taken control of the state.) There is a good discussion of this in Patience Essah, *A House Divided: Slavery and Emancipation in Delaware, 1638-1865* (University Press of Virginia 1996). http://books.google.com/books?id=n3ZLDt5yes8C&pg=PA3
If it was that difficult to abolish slavery in Delaware, it is really hard to see states further south doing it voluntarily for a long time to come.
If it was that difficult to abolish slavery in Delaware, it is really hard to see states further south doing it voluntarily for a long time to come.
I think it's best to understand that economic forces are one of several forces that play into the mix. I understand the number of free blacks on Delaware caused a lot of racial antipathy among the white population.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
I think Virginia was most likely to end it (IIRC, they voted on gradual manumission in the 1830s, and it was pretty close). However, that doesn't mean the slaves would be free. They would probably just get sold to the Deep South, since I can't imagine Virginia slaveowners letting all that money get up, walk out the door, and start voting Republican.
Well, that's part of the problem isn't it. I mean slaves don't vanish into thin air when you liberate them. They become 'free blacks'.
We should consider that, after a certain point, the overall nation has passed a tipping point. If you have a handful of slave states that become free states, then pretty soon, their voting patterns on a national level are going to reflect that.
At that point, action at the federal level, as well as the diminishing support from the lower number of fellow slave states, could dramatically alter the political calculus in the remainder.
For example, say Virginia took the lead. Well, several other states will likely follow simply because Virginia is Virginia. There could be a domino effect. Especially depending on how early all of this happens. What there's only a handful of slave states left in 1845? Does Texas enter as a slave state or free state? Does it enter at all? What about Florida? How might the various compromises that marked the era end up being resolved?
All of these questions would most certainly greatly influence how each state approached the issue on their own.
At that point, action at the federal level, as well as the diminishing support from the lower number of fellow slave states, could dramatically alter the political calculus in the remainder.
For example, say Virginia took the lead. Well, several other states will likely follow simply because Virginia is Virginia. There could be a domino effect. Especially depending on how early all of this happens. What there's only a handful of slave states left in 1845? Does Texas enter as a slave state or free state? Does it enter at all? What about Florida? How might the various compromises that marked the era end up being resolved?
All of these questions would most certainly greatly influence how each state approached the issue on their own.
1861 wasn't 1831, the South became worse on the issue, in particular Virginia. If it were that close to emancipation it would have been the 5th Union Slave State.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
Right, but if Virginia had enacted gradual manumission in 1831, the political situation in 1861 would be radically different.
True enough, if that happened the CSA wouldn't have lasted long.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
There might not have even been a CSA. Without Virginia (and the other states that followed it), the "CSA" is just the Deep South. They might have realized that seceding successfully was impossible, and jut accepted it.
Kentucky had an abolitionist movement, remember Cassius Marcellus Clay? No, not the boxer, the abolitionist he was named after.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
Muhammad Ali was named after an abolitionist? That makes his rejection of his "slave name" kind of ironic.