Blessed are the Bold

Excerpts from Valentine Publishings An Introduction into United States History:

CHAPTER VIII: The Birth of the Republican and Democratic Parties
Section 6
The years 1831 and 32 proved to be important years in the genesis of the young National Republican Party. It was in November of 1831 that the Virginia legislature voted in favor the gradual and compensated emancipation of slaves. This bill sent shockwaves through the normally Solid South. Not only did Virginia become the first state south of the Mason-Dixon line to abolish slavery, the act put many in the state firmly in the National Republican camp.

As was mentioned in section 3 of this chapter, Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party despised the Bank of the United States for a variety of reasons. This was almost universally popular in the southern states. However, with the abolition of slavery in Virginia, the slave-holders were soon to be dependent on the Bank for compensation. To them, disbanding the Bank of the United States now equated emancipation without compensation and economic ruin. Furthermore, by the 1840s, the former slave-holders became actively involved with investing in the infrastructure of Virginia, a policy that was heartily supported by the pro-industry National Republicans, and equally opposed by the pro-agriculture Democrats.

Less dramatic than the swinging of Virginia to the National Republican camp was the decision of the Anti-Masonic party to support the National Republicans in the 1832 presidential election, in exchange for their presidential candidate, William Writ, being placed on the ballot as the National Republican candidate for Vice President. It is a historical irony that Writ, despite being the Anti-Masonic candidate for president, was in fact a Freemason himself, as was Henry Clay. With the support of the Anti-Masonic party, the National Republicans found a new upwelling of support in Vermont, New York, and Pennsylvania. With William Writ on the ticket, the National Republicans also strengthened their base in his home state of Maryland.

Despite all these fortunate turns of luck, the fate of the Presidential election of 1832 was hardly ensured. The Democratic party still had strong support in many of the more rural states of the nation. As election day neared, nobody was willing to claim that they had the advantage. When the votes were eventually collected, Andrew Jackson had a small majority of the popular vote, by a difference of less than 2%. However, Henry Clay had managed to secure more electoral votes, 154 to Jackson's 132. Upon hearing the outcome, Jackson is rumored to have commented, "This is the second time Mr. Clay has stolen the presidency from me," a reference to the presidential election of 1824, covered in section 1 of this chapter.

1832uselection.png
 
The details of the Virginia bill, please :) immediate universal Emancipation, to be compensated at 600 dollars per slave from State bonds? or something more gradual and stingy/practical? Are the freedmen explicitly declared citizens, or no? Are they required to leave Virginia (a common feature of Emancipation bills of the time, but somewhat impractical in Virginia's case)? By what date?

How long was the Bank of America's charter renewed for (i.e., when does this very ugly issue raise its head again?) The Indian Removal Act was passed in 1830 but not actually implemented until 1838...does Clay have anything to say or do about it? John Calhoun stumped vigorously for Clay, not because of agreement on policy but because of mutual hatred for Jackson...how shall he be rewarded? And the tariffs...
 
Last edited:
Shawn Endresen said:
The details of the Virginia bill, please :) immediate universal Emancipation, to be compensated at 600 dollars per slave from State bonds? or something more gradual and stingy/practical? Are the freedmen explicitly declared citizens, or no? Are they required to leave Virginia (a common feature of Emancipation bills of the time, but somewhat impractical in Virginia's case)? By what date?
Definately gradual implementation. All I know about OTL's bill is that it wasn't supposed to go into effect till 1840.

Shawn Endresen said:
How long was the Bank of America's charter renewed for (i.e., when does this very ugly issue raise its head again?) The Indian Removal Act was passed in 1830 but not actually implemented until 1838...does Clay have anything to say or do about it? John Calhoun stumped vigorously for Clay, not because of agreement on policy but because of mutual hatred for Jackson...how shall he be rewarded? And the tariffs...
Well, the Bank of the United States (Bank of America is slightly different :p ) hasn't gotten renewed yet, Jackson has still vetoed the renewal, so it'll be up to Congress to pass a new bill regarding it.

As for the Cherokee, in an interesting little coincidence, William Wirt (I misspelled it in the first post), the new Vice President, had just finished up his defence of the Cherokee in the Supreme Court. The SC has the same ruling, but the executive branch in this timeline has bit more interest in enforcing the ruling.
 
Straha said:
w00t! a TL which I indirectly started. This is the third time its happened! :cool:
Well, not to dampen your enthusiasm, but the timeline was already in the works, I was just looking for something to do with the U.S. Seeing as this stuff predates the events that are going to unfold in Europe, I figured it should start things off. That and plain old Americentrism. :D
 
I was thinking I suppose no South Carolina crisis?

An interesting year would be 1836 in TTL I have a lot of curiosity how possible differences could be in TTL respect to the Texas War of Independence.
 
Excerpt from Alexander Reagan's A heritage of shame: The history of slavery in America:

CHAPTER 5
The abolition of slavery in Virginia in 1831 was the sign of things to come. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the state of Virginia had the highest number of slaves of any state, over 469 thousand, according to the 1830 census, though in terms of percentage of the overall population of the state, Virginia's slave population came in fifth, at just under 39 percent. The state also had the second highest number of free blacks in its borders, approximately 47 thousand as of 1830.

Due to Virginia's prestige among the southern states- indeed, among the entire country, the decision to emancipate the Virginian slaves carried immense political weight. Many states soon followed the example set by Virginia. President Clay's home state of Kentucky passed their own emancipation act in 1834. Delaware followed suit in 1835, with Maryland passing a similar bill later that year. When Arkansas was admitted to the Union in 1836, its constitution included clauses regarding emancipation, mainly to the effect that anyone born after 1836 was free.

However, after these states issued emancipation bills, the movement stalled for a period. Contemporary sources show that many at the time were uncertain of how well the matter would work out. There was doubt as to the economic viability of emancipation, as well doubts rooted in simple racism. More pragmatically, many states did support the idea and simply wished to watch those that went before them for how to proceed about the matter- and how not to.

Finally, in 1842, most had come to the conclusion that abolition had worked astoundingly well. In that year, both Missouri and Tennessee abolished slavery. North Carolina passed the most gradual emancipation bill to date in 1845. In 1847, Louisiana, which had the highest number of free blacks out of all the slave states, was the last state to abolish slavery in 1840s. Florida entered the Union as a free state in 1845, after much pressure from the federal government. Texas was admitted early in 1846 after a compromise was reached allowing for the highest compensation rate for emancipation yet (over 600 dollars per slave on average).

Unfortunately, the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia (though the Cherokee Nation, which resided almost entirely within the state of Georgia, had abolished slavery back in 1836), and South Carolina stood steadfastly by their peculiar institution for quite awhile longer. Their attitude was due, in part, to the abolition of slavery in the surrounding states. As various states looked to be close to passing measures of abolition, many plantation owners moved to states that looked to be more secure in regards to protecting their property. While statistically insignificant, the fact remained that, after the 1840s, those four states were the only states in the country to hold on to their tradition, more out of pride than any economic reasoning.

Map of the United States by total number of slaves in 1830:
husco.map114885788814019.png


Map of the United States by the number of slaves in proportion to the total state populations:
husco.map114885868614160.png
 
Good update:)

Originally posted by Dominus Novus
Unfortunately, the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia (though the Cherokee Nation, which resided almost entirely within the state of Georgia, had abolished slavery back in 1836), and South Carolina stood steadfastly by their peculiar institution for quite awhile longer. Their attitude was due, in part, to the abolition of slavery in the surrounding states. As various states looked to be close to passing measures of abolition, many plantation owners moved to states that looked to be more secure in regards to protecting their property. While statistically insignificant, the fact remained that, after the 1840s, those four states were the only states in the country to hold on to their tradition, more out of pride than any economic reasoning.

In this case it seems clearly not possible a civil war, or is possible some kind of mini civil war? (although it would be more a rebellion than the civil war of OTL)
 
Wow, that was fast. 8 states in 15 years? Even good ideas don't usually propagate that fast...Kentucky and Missouri, for example, may be without slaves but I can pretty much guarantee their laws forbid free blacks to live in the state. Missouri's may even have been achieved at gunpoint (while the popular vote suggests only 15% of Missouri's population supported slavery, the state legislature was so effectively gerrymandered that those 15% controlled the legislature right up to the ACW). I'm not sure how gradual your gradual emancipations are, but I can easily see North Carolina passing a 20-year bill, so that it won't be slave free until 1865.

Texas needs a good deal of explaining. Its independence will not be acknowledged, nor will it be considered for membership, under Clay (although he won't at all stop private Americans from helping the Texans however they like). If he got a second term, talks can't even begin until 1841, at which point the Texans are conscious of having been brushed aside for 5 years. I'm pretty sure they would demand emancipation at Federal expense, which will most likely be rejected...so Texas may remain a sovereign slaveholding republic for a while, since, while the Democrats desperately want it in the Union, they don't want to pay too much for it...when, if ever, did Britain acknowledge Texas' independence? I expect Florida has a free birth constitution without actually emancipating anyone. Too much of its white population came from Georgia and South Carolina.

Either Texas or Florida seems the right point for a violent uprising in the remaining slave states; they've always believed that this Abolition stuff was foisted on them by Boston, and when the Federal government refuses to admit these slaveholding areas as states unless they emancipate, there's the proof.

Unless we can somehow kill off Nicholas Biddle and replace him with someone sane and human, the USA is headed for a massive depression in the early 40s. Some people are going to blame this directly on Abolition, which may stall things a bit. In fact, emancipating states may have to suspend payment on those all-important bonds...

I know it's not the be-all and end-all of American politics, but...Presidential elections in 36, 40 and 44?

The USA is now a patchwork of very different slave laws in different states. Do we see an earlier and different Dredd Scott? At what point does the Supreme Court rule on whether a freedman is a citizen or not? (they didn't buy Daniel Webster's process of elimination argument OTL, but a different Court might here). If freedmen are citizens, who challenges Missouri and Kentucky's ban on them in the Supreme Court, and how does that go?
 
Shawn Endresen said:
Wow, that was fast. 8 states in 15 years? Even good ideas don't usually propagate that fast...Kentucky and Missouri, for example, may be without slaves but I can pretty much guarantee their laws forbid free blacks to live in the state. Missouri's may even have been achieved at gunpoint (while the popular vote suggests only 15% of Missouri's population supported slavery, the state legislature was so effectively gerrymandered that those 15% controlled the legislature right up to the ACW). I'm not sure how gradual your gradual emancipations are, but I can easily see North Carolina passing a 20-year bill, so that it won't be slave free until 1865.
Lets just say that I wouldn't be suprised if there were still legal slaves until into the 1870s.


Shawn Endresen said:
Texas needs a good deal of explaining. Its independence will not be acknowledged, nor will it be considered for membership, under Clay (although he won't at all stop private Americans from helping the Texans however they like). If he got a second term, talks can't even begin until 1841, at which point the Texans are conscious of having been brushed aside for 5 years. I'm pretty sure they would demand emancipation at Federal expense, which will most likely be rejected...so Texas may remain a sovereign slaveholding republic for a while, since, while the Democrats desperately want it in the Union, they don't want to pay too much for it...when, if ever, did Britain acknowledge Texas' independence? I expect Florida has a free birth constitution without actually emancipating anyone. Too much of its white population came from Georgia and South Carolina.
Britain was pretty interested in Texan independence, moreso than Texas was. Thats why the cost of emancipation was so high in Texas, to keep it out of the British sphere of influence. Florida's admission was much as you suggest.

Shawn Endresen said:
Either Texas or Florida seems the right point for a violent uprising in the remaining slave states; they've always believed that this Abolition stuff was foisted on them by Boston, and when the Federal government refuses to admit these slaveholding areas as states unless they emancipate, there's the proof.
See, the unconditional abolitionism of the north was just starting off in the 1830s. As the southern states emancipate on their own, there's no real feeling that Boston is forcing them to do it. If they feel anyone's pressuring them, its Richmond, and they respect Richmond quite a bit more.

Shawn Endresen said:
Unless we can somehow kill off Nicholas Biddle and replace him with someone sane and human, the USA is headed for a massive depression in the early 40s. Some people are going to blame this directly on Abolition, which may stall things a bit. In fact, emancipating states may have to suspend payment on those all-important bonds...
A possible problem, haven't decided exactly how to go about it.

Shawn Endresen said:
I know it's not the be-all and end-all of American politics, but...Presidential elections in 36, 40 and 44?
I'll get to it eventualy.

Shawn Endresen said:
The USA is now a patchwork of very different slave laws in different states. Do we see an earlier and different Dredd Scott? At what point does the Supreme Court rule on whether a freedman is a citizen or not? (they didn't buy Daniel Webster's process of elimination argument OTL, but a different Court might here). If freedmen are citizens, who challenges Missouri and Kentucky's ban on them in the Supreme Court, and how does that go?
Missouri had 1,500 free blacks, Kentucky had 7,500, in 1840. There wasn't a ban. As for whether or not freedmen are citizens, probably not initially, but it'll be resolved eventually.
 
This is pretty huge. That means that the huge debate on wether or not to admit new states to the Union over slavery will most likely never occur (unless we grab Cuba or something)....and we'll be spared Bleeding Kansas, ect., but I could see some kind of "Slavery Rebellion" comming along, in which case Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson would be in the Union army instead....

Keep it up. This is an interesting premise...:)
 
The abolition law that was introduced in Missouri OTL had all freedmen being handed some money (I think 40 dollars) and, if they did not secure their own passage out of the state, they would be transported and turfed out into Kansas Territory. I just figured this one was similar. Clay favored repatriation and removal of freedmen, feeling that they could never really become Americans; I figured he was representative of Kentucky. Some of the attempts at Abolition in Virginia included similar clauses, although where the Virginia freedmen were supposed to go I can't imagine.

Good point about Richmond; and the total Abolition movement was well underway already, it was just still a minority viewpoint. Slave-catchers tended to disappear inexplicably in Western Ohio a lot, and county sheriffs found reasons to jail them in Pennsylvania and points north quite a bit. It's just that there was no pity for the slaves yet, only distaste and anger at the slavers.
 
Shawn Endresen said:
Good point about Richmond; and the total Abolition movement was well underway already, it was just still a minority viewpoint. Slave-catchers tended to disappear inexplicably in Western Ohio a lot, and county sheriffs found reasons to jail them in Pennsylvania and points north quite a bit. It's just that there was no pity for the slaves yet, only distaste and anger at the slavers.
Its also worth noting that this was about the time that southerners stopped viewing slavery as a necessary evil and started viewing it as a force of good. This legislation helps change that mindset drastically.
 
Honestly, I don't think any such change occured; those were always the two opposing viewpoints within the South, and discussion between Southerners on the point was always pretty open and reasonable, even up to 1961. The key point was they stopped being willing to discuss it at all with Northerners, whom they didn't feel were entitled to an opinion. The only Southerners still willing to speak on a national level were the extremists like John Calhoun and George MacDuffie, resulting in a change in the North's perception of the South's position.
 
Bump. This should be continued. I'd like to see the Cherokee nation admitted as a state myself, but Georgia would likely oppose such a move, preventing its occurrence short of rebellion by Georgia from the Union...
 
Top