W I ... 'Dred Scott' reached opposite verdict?

Regarding the infamous Dred Scott decision by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS):

Assume that 5 out of 9 justices actually declared all men to be people rather than property (regardless of race), and therefore slavery and its institutions to be null and void, in the 1850's, without having to fight the ACW. For this to work, there would have to be at least two different people on the high bench, but let's assume this to be the case.

By extension, the Missouri Compromise itself would be voided, and the provisions in the Constitution regarding "3/5's of a vote" and "returning slaves to owners " rendered moot.

The south is outraged, and demands action. The compromise result is as follows: Each slave is deemed to owe his/her master an amount equivalent to their market value at the time of the SCOTUS decision! The federal government agrees to provide cheap loans or grants and buys off the Southern states! The south is not happy over the loss of their 'Peculiar Institution', the north is not happy about going into debt over the 'South's problem', and the people are not happy about the federal-state sales tax imposed to cover the loans, but the whole thing holds together. Some states threaten succession, two even pass bills in their lower houses, but the whole thing blows over when the 'rich southern lobbyists' decide to cut their losses and accept the compensation (especially when they realize that they can get the compensation, and then hire back their former slaves at bargain prices that barely covers their room and board).

Meanwhile, the former slaves are initially jubilent, and then less so when they realize that slavery comes in different guises: Many whites in the south resent the freedom of the 'uppity' former slaves, and force many nonwhites to flee north. The ones who remain are paid pathetic wages to do the same work as before, etc. In the north, non Africans are displaced in unskilled jobs, and resent their new unemployment. All like the OTL, just 8-10 years sooner.

Where would things go from here? There's been no desperate ACW, no need for Reconstruction, the wealth of the South has not been squandered, the north has not had rapid industrialization due to a bitter war, etc.

Would women's suffrage have flared earlier with these events occuring?

Would the USA's role in the world be dramatically altered? For example, the UK would never have had to develop cotton industries in India and the middle east if the US's supply remained abundent and uninterrupted, etc.
 
Last edited:
The three-fifths clause wouldn't be overturned just by court decree...

This is actually the easiest part of the scenario. All the Southern States would support this. remember it was NY that got it into the Constitution in the first place.

And the SCOUS has thrown other clauses out of the Constitution by Decree, without problems.
 
DuQuense said:
This is actually the easiest part of the scenario. All the Southern States would support this. remember it was NY that got it into the Constitution in the first place.

And the SCOUS has thrown other clauses out of the Constitution by Decree, without problems.
Like which ones?
 
tinfoil said:
Regarding the infamous Dred Scott decision by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS):

Assume that 5 out of 9 justices actually declared all men to be people rather than property (regardless of race), and therefore slavery and its institutions to be null and void, in the 1850's, without having to fight the ACW. For this to work, there would have to be at least two different people on the high bench, but let's assume this to be the case.

Or, let's assume that the Supreme Court actually answered the question before the court, rather than waving their hands and making up a random ruling totally contrary to the views which the Southern-dominated Supreme Court actually held.

The question before the court (well, several questions, but the one which is relevant to the above) was whether some Negroes could become citizens of the United States. The Court found that they couldn't (among other things). The opposite of this ruling is not that all Negroes are citizens, it is rather that some of them can become citizens. If the Court rules that some of them can, well... that's a whole other issue. But the Court was never asked to decide, and during that era never would decide, that all Negros were automatically free. I mean... abolishing slavery by Supreme Court decree in 1857? I'm trying to think of a contemporary analogy to demonstrate how utterly impossible such a ruling would be, and failing. It just WOULDN'T HAPPEN.

And no, this wouldn't avoid the ACW. If, for some reason the Supreme Court was replaced by time-travelling aliens who ruled as per the above, then South Carolina secedes the day it hears of the decision, Mississippi the day after, and the rest of the slaveholding states - yes, every last one of them - by the end of the week. Most of the northwestern states, who wanted their own rules to keep out ALL Negroes - slave or free - out of their states, and would now be prohibited from doing so because they're, you know, citizens, would follow by the end of the month. Hell, I'm trying to think of any state outside of New England - and, maybe New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, just possibly - who wouldn't be tempted to secede on such a decision, or maybe just ignore the ruling entirely.

By extension, the Missouri Compromise itself would be voided, and the provisions in the Constitution regarding "3/5's of a vote" and "returning slaves to owners " rendered moot.

They would indeed be rendered moot (the relevant clauses of the constitution would be in place, but irrelevant) if slavery is abolished. But since slavery wouldn't be removed, this doesn't follow, and would be another incentive for the South to secede if they hadn't already done so.

The south is outraged, and demands action.

No, the South takes action. If they don't march on Washington and lynch the SC Justices who made up the ruling - assuming the slaveholders of Washington haven't already done so - then they secede. No ifs, buts or maybes about it.

The compromise result is as follows: Each slave is deemed to owe his/her master an amount equivalent to their market value at the time of the SCOTUS decision! The federal government agrees to provide cheap loans or grants and buys off the Southern states!

Would. Not. Happen.

The South seceded over the election of a president who was partially opposed to slavery (while acknowledging that he had no power to abolish slavery in existing states). How much worse do you think the reaction would be to an instantaneous abolition of all slavery?

Furthermore, the federal government did not have the money to buy out all the slaves, or even a tenth of the money. I forget the exact revenue of the federal government in 1857, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was less than a hundredth of the required amount. Slaves were expensive, and federal government revenues at the time were miniscule compared to what they are today.

And as if that weren't enough, the South was flat-out against even compensated emancipation. Even Delaware rejected it, on the eve of adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, and this when slavery was moribund in Delaware anyway and it was clear that the ACW had rendered slavery defunct.

The south is not happy over the loss of their 'Peculiar Institution',

I nominate this for understatement of the millenium.

the north is not happy about going into debt over the 'South's problem',

With this as the runner-up.

and the people are not happy about the federal-state sales tax imposed to cover the loans, but the whole thing holds together.

Ahem. With a 1000% sales tax to pay for the price of emancipation, how in the world could it hold together more than five minutes?

Some states threaten succession, two even pass bills in their lower houses,

Nope, every last one of them passes bills in the lower and upper houses (assuming that they have upper houses).

but the whole thing blows over when the 'rich southern lobbyists' decide to cut their losses and accept the compensation (especially when they realize that they can get the compensation, and then hire back their former slaves at bargain prices that barely covers their room and board).

This is so full of misconceptions I don't where to start. Even subsistence wages would be more expensive than what the slaveowners were 'paying' the slaves, since they lose the economies of scale. The South would not accept the compensation; they would demand the reversal of the decision and the abolition of the Supreme Court or secession, nothing less.
 
Top