at U.S. Constitutional Convention in 1787, northern states engage in brinksmanship and get deal on phase out of slavery by southern states

[GeographyDude]

For starters, how can farmers in the North or small holders in the South compete against free labor? Short answer, they can’t.

And the point of brinksmanship is not just to embarrass southern states (might just flash that ace), but to actually get a pretty alright deal.

Bonus points if there’s one of the periodic religious revivals going on at the same time and there’s internal pressure wthin southern states for a phase out.

 

[Mikestone8]

It would need a PoD *long* before the Convention met. As of 1787 even some *Northern* states still had slavery.

 

[Neal Caffrey]

You would need something like John Laurens taking his father position in Congress and having the same influence as he had to make this likely.

 

[Alias_The_J]

What we got in OTL was an intended phase-out; slave value was declining, and raising new slaves was perceived as a negative investment. It was only the cotton gin that changed this.

 

[GeographyDude]

It would need a PoD *long* before the Convention met. As of 1787 even some *Northern* states still had slavery.

In the 1840s and ‘50s, the driving force was fear of slavocracy on politic terms, not so much pro abolition on moral terms. For example, the Liberty Party didn’t do nearly as well as the Free Soil Party.

And I will freely admit that it’s hard for me to feel that I really have have a firm grasp on the emotions of the time — looking at it across what’s now a time gulf of some 170+ years.

 

[Wendell]

I'd argue that this was OTL. Counting only six of every ten slaves for purposes of House apportionment and taxing the first six of every ten slaves owned incentivized abolition by limiting the power of slave states and introducing a barrier to slave ownership. Allowing a ban on importations after 1808 was intended to do the same as well.

 

[Socrates]

I'd argue that this was OTL. Counting only six of every ten slaves for purposes of House apportionment and taxing the first six of every ten slaves owned incentivized abolition by limiting the power of slave states and introducing a barrier to slave ownership. Allowing a ban on importations after 1808 was intended to do the same as well.

Nonsense. If slaves didn't count as people in terms of their guaranteed rights, why on Earth should slaevocrats get to count them as people they represent?

 

[Wendell]

Nonsense. If slaves didn't count as people in terms of their guaranteed rights, why on Earth should slaevocrats get to count them as people they represent?

In what society do slaves have such guaranteed rights historically?

 

[wcv215]

To be frank what happens is the southern states walk out, the convention fails, and everyone’s back to square one, and significantly more pissed at each other.

 

[Socrates]

In what society do slaves have such guaranteed rights historically?

Most of them. Chattel slavery was a rare thing. Of course, more civilized countries didn't have slaves at this point.

 

[Wendell]

Most of them. Chattel slavery was a rare thing. Of course, more civilized countries didn't have slaves at this point.

Slavery was legal and/or pervasive in the western hemisphere at that point, as well as in much of Asia and Africa, and in parts of Europe, much of which was otherwise still feudal.

 

[GeographyDude]

I'd argue that this was OTL. Counting only six of every ten slaves for purposes of House apportionment and taxing the first six of every ten slaves owned incentivized abolition by limiting the power of slave states and introducing a barrier to slave ownership. Allowing a ban on importations after 1808 was intended to do the same as well.

Allowing a ban, maybe, if there was an expectation that there’d actually be a ban.

Although General Charles Pinckney of South Carolina thought southern states — meaning slavocracy — had won the negotiation.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Of course, more civilized countries didn't have slaves at this point.

you're about 10 years too early, if one wants to call revolutionary France civilized. About 40ish for Britain. everywhere else, slavery was prolific in the west. The only maybe exception i can think of being Austria or one of the Scandinavians, more due to a lack of need/colonies than anything

 

[NedStark]

To be frank what happens is the southern states walk out, the convention fails, and everyone’s back to square one, and significantly more pissed at each other.

So, two America, one North and one South.

 

[46566]

I'd argue that this was OTL. Counting only six of every ten slaves for purposes of House apportionment and taxing the first six of every ten slaves owned incentivized abolition by limiting the power of slave states and introducing a barrier to slave ownership. Allowing a ban on importations after 1808 was intended to do the same as well.

Would simply changing the percentage the slave counted effect the slavery question? Maybe count 4 out of 10 slaves but count freed slaves as a full person? It would give the south more of a incentive to free the slaves they have for potential house votes.

 

[wcv215]

Would simply changing the percentage the slave counted effect the slavery question? Maybe count 4 out of 10 slaves but count freed slaves as a full person? It would give the south more of a incentive to free the slaves they have for potential house votes.

The US already counted freed slaves. The clause is "three fifths of all other persons," after all non-slaves had been accounted for. This did not encourage them to free their slaves OTL.

One thing to keep in mind is that the number wasn't just plucked from thin air. It was taken from an actual amendment to the AoC that fell two states short of passing (notably the states which dissented were New York and New Jersey). Other numbers had been bounced around, but were rejected. At that time though it was about taxes, which is why the Constitution says the number is used for both representation and taxation (even though these taxes were nonexistent.)

 

[Falecius]

In what society do slaves have such guaranteed rights historically?

Muslim countries, theoretically, recognised slaves as people with some rights (though of course not equal to free individuals). The practical side was a lot more varied than that, however, with existiting legal protections often honored in the breach.

 

[Mikestone8]

To be frank what happens is the southern states walk out, the convention fails, and everyone’s back to square one, and significantly more pissed at each other.

So, two America, one North and one South.

Especially as, bar PA and GA, the split between northern and southern states roughly corresponded to that between large and small ones, which was already causing heated argument.

 

[Wendell]

Allowing a ban, maybe, if there was an expectation that there’d actually be a ban.

Although General Charles Pinckney of South Carolina thought southern states — meaning slavocracy — had won the negotiation.

A good negotiation is one in which the defeated side thinks they've won. Also, the U.S. did ban importation of slaves in OTL after 1808.

Would simply changing the percentage the slave counted effect the slavery question? Maybe count 4 out of 10 slaves but count freed slaves as a full person? It would give the south more of a incentive to free the slaves they have for potential house votes.

Free people of color did count towards a state's population for U.S. House apportionment.

Muslim countries, theoretically, recognised slaves as people with some rights (though of course not equal to free individuals). The practical side was a lot more varied than that, however, with existiting legal protections often honored in the breach.

Did people in the Muslim world become slaves of their own volition? The difference between slavery in the Islamic world and slavery in the Atlantic world was that slaves in the Muslim world transcended race and were often trained in warfare.

 

[Falecius]

Did people in the Muslim world become slaves of their own volition?

Of course not.