"The slavery of the Negroes began in iniquity; a curse has attended it, and a curse will follow it. National vices will be punished with national calamities."
--David Rice to the Kentucky Constitutional Convention, 1792
Asa Earl Martin in *The Anti-Slavery Movement in Kentucky, Prior to 1850* http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA14&id=6QQVAAAAYAAJ describes the debate over slavery in Kentucky's 1792 constitutional convention:
"Apparently no serious differences existed among the delegates except as to recognizing the existence or the perpetuity of slavery.13 This question was brought directly before the convention by the ninth article which legalized slavery. After considerable discussion the article was adopted and while it was designed to make the institution as mild and as humane as possible it nevertheless made it virtually perpetual unless there should be a change in the fundamental law. The legislature was denied power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, nor could it prevent immigrants from bringing in their slaves. On the other hand, the General Assembly was given extensive powers in respect to importation of slaves into the state as merchandise. 14" [The contents of Article Nine: "The legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, previous to such emancipation, and a full equivalent in money for the slaves so emancipated. They shall have no power to prevent emigrants to this State from bringing with them such persons as are deemed slaves by the laws of any one of the United States, so long as any person of the same age or description shall be continued in slavery by the laws of this State. They shall pass laws to permit the owners of slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights of creditors, and preventing them from becoming chargeable to the county in which they reside. They shall have full power to prevent slaves being brought into this State as merchandize. They shall have full power to prevent any slaves being brought into this State from any foreign country, and to prevent those from being brought into this State who have been since the first day of January, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, or hereafter may be, imported into any of the United States from a foreign country. And they shall have full power to pass such laws as may be necessary to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity, to provide for them necessary clothing and provision, to abstain from all injuries to them, extending to life or limb, and in case of their neglect or refusal to comply with the directions of such laws, to have such slave or slaves sold for the benefit of their owner or owners."]
"It was upon the adoption of this article that the friends and opponents of slavery joined battle. The ablest of those who opposed the definite establishment of slavery in Kentucky was David Rice. During the early days of the convention he delivered an address before that body which was one of the most earnest and forceful productions of the period.18 In it he pointed to the anomaly of a 'free moral agent, legally deprived of free agency, and obliged to act according to the will of another free agent of the same species; and yet he is accountable to his Creator for the use he makes of his own free agency.'16
"He declared sarcastically that the legislature, in order to be consistent, should make the master accountable for the actions of the slaves in all things here and hereafter.17 He regarded liberty as inalienable by the legislature except for vicious conduct, and claims to property in slaves as invalid. 'A thousand laws can never make that innocent, which the Divine Law has made criminal: or give them a right to that which the Divine Law forbids them to claim.'18 He replied to the argument that slaveholders would be prevented from emigrating to Kentucky by saying that five useful citizens would come for every slaveholder that was lost, and that if slavery was permitted, free labor would seek other regions.19 The alleged unfitness of slaves for freedom was met by the question, 'Shall we continue to maim souls, because a maimed soul is unfit for society?'20 But he considered that present conditions should be taken into account and that gradual emancipation was the only practical plan. His proposal was that the constitution should declare against slavery as a matter of principle, leaving it to the legislature to find the most suitable means of abolishing it. He suggested, however, that it would be expedient for that body to 'prevent the importation of any more slaves' and to 'enact that all born after such a date should be born free' and that some system of education be devised for making useful citizens of the slaves.21 Emancipation by some means he regarded as a political necessity, and he closed with an earnest appeal that the new state might not be stained with this sin at its birth. 'The slavery of the Negroes,' he said, 'began in iniquity; a curse has attended it, and a curse will follow it. National vices will be punished with national calamities. Let us avoid these vices, that we may avoid the punishment which they deserve.''Holding men in slavery is the national vice of Virginia; and while a part of that state, we were partakers of the guilt. As a separate state, we are just now come to the birth; and it depends upon our free choice whether we shall be born in this sin, or innocent of it. We now have it in our power to adopt it as our national crime; or to bear a national testimony against it. I hope the latter will be our choice; that we shall wash our hands of this guilt; and not leave it in the power of a future legislature, evermore to stain our reputation or our conscience with it.'22
"The constitutional provision fixing slavery in the state was ably supported by Colonel George Nicholas, the most distinguished man in the convention and at that time the most eminent lawyer in Kentucky.23 After a thorough discussion which lasted for a number of days, the question was pul to a vote. This was the only case in which the ayes and noes were recorded in the Journal. Under the date of Wednesday, April 18, 1792, is the following entry: "A motion was made by Mr. Taylor, of Mercer, and seconded by Mr. Smith, of Bourbon, to expunge the ninth article of the constitution, respecting slavery, which was negatived; and the yeas and nays on the question were ordered to be entered on the Journals."24 The result of the vote was: yeas, 16; nays, 26. 23
"Three of the delegates, Wallace of Woodford County, Walton of Nelson County, and Sebastian of Jefferson County, who were generally regarded, prior to the meeting of the convention, as emancipationists, supported the constitution as proposed by the committee. This change of attitude has been attributed by Brown and others to the influence of Nicholas,26 although no evidence has been produced to support the contention. Had they not upheld the constitution, the final result would have been the same, though the pro-slavery majority would have been reduced from ten to four.
"If the constitution could be described as the work of any one man, that man would doubtless be Colonel George Nicholas.27 In speaking of the political unwisdom of adopting the ninth article a prominent historian of Kentucky makes the following comment: 'And the unfortunate step was taken under the guidance of a man whose ability and uprightness can not be questioned, whose experience in affairs was large, and whose performances justified confidence. But Nicholas was not yet a Kentuckian. He had not yet learned the ways of the West, nor comprehended where the interests of the new commonwealth were different from what suited or seemed to suit Virginia and her people.'28"
As a POD, let's say that George Nicholas, like a minority of Virginians, was passionately *anti-* slavery--at least in the sense of wanting the institution abolished in the future (something which even some slaveholding Virginians wanted). Together with the three delegates whose votes he is said to have changed, the shift of Nicholas's own vote would mean that Article Nine would have passed by only 22-20. If Nicholas could just change two more delegates' votes, the antislavery forces would actually have a 22-20 majority.
Suppose this happens and the first Kentucky legislature does adopt a gradual emancipation law--prohibiting the import of additional slaves into Kentucky, providing that all children born after a certain date will be free, etc. Realistically, to pass, the measure might also have to provide for the future colonization of Kentucky's free blacks outside the state. Anyway, some slavery would linger in Kentucky for decades--after all, New Jersey still had 18 black "apprentices for life" in 1860!--but Kentucky would be considered politically among the free states, just as New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania were, even when they still had some slaves; it was the legal *commitment* to eventual total emancipation that was decisive. Kentucky would get more migrants form the North and fewer from the South than in OTL, and in 1820 Kentuckians may respond to the Missouri Crisis in a northern way, seeing it reasonable that Missouri be required to gradually rid itself of slavery as Kentucky itself did. (And in any event, there might be less slavery in Missouri, since slaveholders from Kentucky were a fairly large percentage of Missouri slaveholders. OTOH, in this ATL some slaveholding Kentuckians who in OTL stayed in Kentucky might evntually migrate to Missouri instead.) Moreover, with Kentucky a free state, the whole notion that there had to be a numerical equilibrium between free and slave states would be less tenable.
If an anti-slavery George Nicholas seems an insufficient or unlikely POD, here is another possibility: a major slave revolt in 1792 either in Kentucky itself or more likely in Virginia. ("More likely" in Virginia because the major slave revolts tended to take place in areas with a large slave population, which eastern Virginia had, and Kentucky, relatively speaking, did not.) A slave revolt in Virginia in 1792 would probably not result in the emancipation of that state's slaves. Virginians might *talk* about emancipation, but in the end would reply to the revolt as they usually did: by tightening restrictions on slaves and free blacks. But in Kentucky, the revolt might lead to enough people agreeing with David Rice that Kentucky should avoid Virginia's curse while it still had the chance to do so.
I do not want to underestimate the difficulties. Slaves were already 16 percent of the population of Kentucky in 1790. http://books.google.com/books?id=84Qf2qKyZiEC&pg=PR15 This was obviously a far lower percentage than in South Carolina or even Virginia, but it was still large enough to create a considerable economic interest in slavery and considerable fears about having a large free black population. The fact remains, though, that a change of just six votes would have given the anti-slavery forces a majority in the convention. Gradual emancipation might be difficult, but unlike in parts of the South, it was not *unthinkable.*
--David Rice to the Kentucky Constitutional Convention, 1792
Asa Earl Martin in *The Anti-Slavery Movement in Kentucky, Prior to 1850* http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA14&id=6QQVAAAAYAAJ describes the debate over slavery in Kentucky's 1792 constitutional convention:
"Apparently no serious differences existed among the delegates except as to recognizing the existence or the perpetuity of slavery.13 This question was brought directly before the convention by the ninth article which legalized slavery. After considerable discussion the article was adopted and while it was designed to make the institution as mild and as humane as possible it nevertheless made it virtually perpetual unless there should be a change in the fundamental law. The legislature was denied power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, nor could it prevent immigrants from bringing in their slaves. On the other hand, the General Assembly was given extensive powers in respect to importation of slaves into the state as merchandise. 14" [The contents of Article Nine: "The legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, previous to such emancipation, and a full equivalent in money for the slaves so emancipated. They shall have no power to prevent emigrants to this State from bringing with them such persons as are deemed slaves by the laws of any one of the United States, so long as any person of the same age or description shall be continued in slavery by the laws of this State. They shall pass laws to permit the owners of slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights of creditors, and preventing them from becoming chargeable to the county in which they reside. They shall have full power to prevent slaves being brought into this State as merchandize. They shall have full power to prevent any slaves being brought into this State from any foreign country, and to prevent those from being brought into this State who have been since the first day of January, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, or hereafter may be, imported into any of the United States from a foreign country. And they shall have full power to pass such laws as may be necessary to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity, to provide for them necessary clothing and provision, to abstain from all injuries to them, extending to life or limb, and in case of their neglect or refusal to comply with the directions of such laws, to have such slave or slaves sold for the benefit of their owner or owners."]
"It was upon the adoption of this article that the friends and opponents of slavery joined battle. The ablest of those who opposed the definite establishment of slavery in Kentucky was David Rice. During the early days of the convention he delivered an address before that body which was one of the most earnest and forceful productions of the period.18 In it he pointed to the anomaly of a 'free moral agent, legally deprived of free agency, and obliged to act according to the will of another free agent of the same species; and yet he is accountable to his Creator for the use he makes of his own free agency.'16
"He declared sarcastically that the legislature, in order to be consistent, should make the master accountable for the actions of the slaves in all things here and hereafter.17 He regarded liberty as inalienable by the legislature except for vicious conduct, and claims to property in slaves as invalid. 'A thousand laws can never make that innocent, which the Divine Law has made criminal: or give them a right to that which the Divine Law forbids them to claim.'18 He replied to the argument that slaveholders would be prevented from emigrating to Kentucky by saying that five useful citizens would come for every slaveholder that was lost, and that if slavery was permitted, free labor would seek other regions.19 The alleged unfitness of slaves for freedom was met by the question, 'Shall we continue to maim souls, because a maimed soul is unfit for society?'20 But he considered that present conditions should be taken into account and that gradual emancipation was the only practical plan. His proposal was that the constitution should declare against slavery as a matter of principle, leaving it to the legislature to find the most suitable means of abolishing it. He suggested, however, that it would be expedient for that body to 'prevent the importation of any more slaves' and to 'enact that all born after such a date should be born free' and that some system of education be devised for making useful citizens of the slaves.21 Emancipation by some means he regarded as a political necessity, and he closed with an earnest appeal that the new state might not be stained with this sin at its birth. 'The slavery of the Negroes,' he said, 'began in iniquity; a curse has attended it, and a curse will follow it. National vices will be punished with national calamities. Let us avoid these vices, that we may avoid the punishment which they deserve.''Holding men in slavery is the national vice of Virginia; and while a part of that state, we were partakers of the guilt. As a separate state, we are just now come to the birth; and it depends upon our free choice whether we shall be born in this sin, or innocent of it. We now have it in our power to adopt it as our national crime; or to bear a national testimony against it. I hope the latter will be our choice; that we shall wash our hands of this guilt; and not leave it in the power of a future legislature, evermore to stain our reputation or our conscience with it.'22
"The constitutional provision fixing slavery in the state was ably supported by Colonel George Nicholas, the most distinguished man in the convention and at that time the most eminent lawyer in Kentucky.23 After a thorough discussion which lasted for a number of days, the question was pul to a vote. This was the only case in which the ayes and noes were recorded in the Journal. Under the date of Wednesday, April 18, 1792, is the following entry: "A motion was made by Mr. Taylor, of Mercer, and seconded by Mr. Smith, of Bourbon, to expunge the ninth article of the constitution, respecting slavery, which was negatived; and the yeas and nays on the question were ordered to be entered on the Journals."24 The result of the vote was: yeas, 16; nays, 26. 23
"Three of the delegates, Wallace of Woodford County, Walton of Nelson County, and Sebastian of Jefferson County, who were generally regarded, prior to the meeting of the convention, as emancipationists, supported the constitution as proposed by the committee. This change of attitude has been attributed by Brown and others to the influence of Nicholas,26 although no evidence has been produced to support the contention. Had they not upheld the constitution, the final result would have been the same, though the pro-slavery majority would have been reduced from ten to four.
"If the constitution could be described as the work of any one man, that man would doubtless be Colonel George Nicholas.27 In speaking of the political unwisdom of adopting the ninth article a prominent historian of Kentucky makes the following comment: 'And the unfortunate step was taken under the guidance of a man whose ability and uprightness can not be questioned, whose experience in affairs was large, and whose performances justified confidence. But Nicholas was not yet a Kentuckian. He had not yet learned the ways of the West, nor comprehended where the interests of the new commonwealth were different from what suited or seemed to suit Virginia and her people.'28"
As a POD, let's say that George Nicholas, like a minority of Virginians, was passionately *anti-* slavery--at least in the sense of wanting the institution abolished in the future (something which even some slaveholding Virginians wanted). Together with the three delegates whose votes he is said to have changed, the shift of Nicholas's own vote would mean that Article Nine would have passed by only 22-20. If Nicholas could just change two more delegates' votes, the antislavery forces would actually have a 22-20 majority.
Suppose this happens and the first Kentucky legislature does adopt a gradual emancipation law--prohibiting the import of additional slaves into Kentucky, providing that all children born after a certain date will be free, etc. Realistically, to pass, the measure might also have to provide for the future colonization of Kentucky's free blacks outside the state. Anyway, some slavery would linger in Kentucky for decades--after all, New Jersey still had 18 black "apprentices for life" in 1860!--but Kentucky would be considered politically among the free states, just as New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania were, even when they still had some slaves; it was the legal *commitment* to eventual total emancipation that was decisive. Kentucky would get more migrants form the North and fewer from the South than in OTL, and in 1820 Kentuckians may respond to the Missouri Crisis in a northern way, seeing it reasonable that Missouri be required to gradually rid itself of slavery as Kentucky itself did. (And in any event, there might be less slavery in Missouri, since slaveholders from Kentucky were a fairly large percentage of Missouri slaveholders. OTOH, in this ATL some slaveholding Kentuckians who in OTL stayed in Kentucky might evntually migrate to Missouri instead.) Moreover, with Kentucky a free state, the whole notion that there had to be a numerical equilibrium between free and slave states would be less tenable.
If an anti-slavery George Nicholas seems an insufficient or unlikely POD, here is another possibility: a major slave revolt in 1792 either in Kentucky itself or more likely in Virginia. ("More likely" in Virginia because the major slave revolts tended to take place in areas with a large slave population, which eastern Virginia had, and Kentucky, relatively speaking, did not.) A slave revolt in Virginia in 1792 would probably not result in the emancipation of that state's slaves. Virginians might *talk* about emancipation, but in the end would reply to the revolt as they usually did: by tightening restrictions on slaves and free blacks. But in Kentucky, the revolt might lead to enough people agreeing with David Rice that Kentucky should avoid Virginia's curse while it still had the chance to do so.
I do not want to underestimate the difficulties. Slaves were already 16 percent of the population of Kentucky in 1790. http://books.google.com/books?id=84Qf2qKyZiEC&pg=PR15 This was obviously a far lower percentage than in South Carolina or even Virginia, but it was still large enough to create a considerable economic interest in slavery and considerable fears about having a large free black population. The fact remains, though, that a change of just six votes would have given the anti-slavery forces a majority in the convention. Gradual emancipation might be difficult, but unlike in parts of the South, it was not *unthinkable.*