You can't read anything into the election of 1844. Those were the candidates the party system picked. Voters weren't voting on slavery, they were voting for a choice of candidates, and the issues at hand in 1844.
Viability of program to buy & emancipate slaves gradually in US?
- Thread starter DominusNovus
- Start date
It depends on when the programs is started and how patient the implementers are.
By say, 1855, the slave auctions can be allowed to continue. As mechanization increases, there are going to be fewer and fewer large scale buyers. The auctions cannot sustain themselves on small scale sales and will then gradually collapse on their own. As for the costs of the buy out program, the Russian Empire (not exactly an economic power house) funded an owner compensation program for the serf emancipation. That aside, offer the buy out program with carrot and stick approaches:
- Owners freeing their slaves early will receive more compensation. Those who wait, receive less. Of, course mechanization cannot be stopped. So.... might want to free sooner than later.
- The program includes both buy out options and is phased. Freed slaves have a mandatory share cropper contract under certain terms for X number of years etc.
-Compensation can include subsidized credits towards purchasing mechanized equipment- which in turn increases the economic pressures for other owners to emancipate. Of course, there is no official pressure to emancipate early. But when your neighbor starts to do more with less, things well, snowball.
- Like MLK's later movement starting in North Carolina (southern by culture, but never truly Dixie), use easier victories on the periphery to gain momentum for the program. The program starts in MO, KY, MD and NC, where slavery was accepted, but not heavily engrained into the economy and ethos. MS, SC, AL, GA etc. are tackled last after momentum gains.
Last edited:
There's a few errors here. First off, if they're in the north, they can't really be re-enslaved (NJ was the last northern state to abolish slavery, in 1805). Second, miscegnation laws were only in a few northern states at the time - the entire North east of Ohio, minus Maine, Rhode Island, and (until 1843) Massachusetts, allowed such marriages.
Lets consider the the issue of my $4.5 million figure, per year. First off, we can hold antebellum inflation as pretty constantly negligible, due to the economic policies of the era. Of course, this program would put upward pressure on the price of slaves, but other economic indicators should be fairly constant. We can see that the population of the North was 3.7 million in 1810, 5.6 million in 1820, 7.06 million in 1830, 9.73 million in 1840, 13.4 million in 1850 (note I'm compiling this from two different sources because I'm too lazy to look up the state by state data and add it up myself, so there's some discrepancy in the 1820 figures, but nothing huge). We can also see that the GDP/cap of the US as a whole was $56 in 1810, $61 in 1820, $77 in 1830, $91 in 1840, and $100 in 1850 (all in 1840 prices, but since inflation was so negligible in this time period, I'm not worried about that). Those numbers are probably not perfectly accurate for the North exclusively, but they'd get us in the ballpark. There's also much debate on whether those numbers are accurate for the nation as a whole, and they're probably not, but they still get us in the ballpark, and I'm very happy to see any better numbers.
So, the GDP of the North works out to $207 million in 1810, $341 million in 1820, $543 million in 1830, $885 million in 1840, and $1.34 billion in 1850. So, for reference, if the North, as a united whole, were to attempt this project in 1810, it would cost just over 2% of its GDP, every year. However, its 1.3% if started in 1820, 0.8% in 1830, and 0.5% in 1840. These are not, of course, negligible numbers, and there are likely problems with looking at the problem this way, but it gives an idea of how much it would cost (I'm forgoing calculating any economic advantage of bringing these girls north) . As a reminder, this program would last less around 13 years at a minimum, and 20 years at a maximum.
It also occurs to me that, while I've been conceding that the overall expenditure could easily go above $4.5 million/year, that doesn't necessarily follow - if there's few enslaved girls left, then even if their per capita price is constantly being pushed upward, the actual number available could keep the overall cost relatively low. Put more simply - the last 10 enslaved girls in the South are not going to cost $450,000 each. I could easily see a bit of a ceiling around the price of a healthy enslaved man - $300 - that would only be broken through once there was a severe shortage of enslaved girls - at which point, it is the shortage of girls, rather than their price, that is really dictating the cost of the project (and said shortage will be limiting the cost).
$1 in 1810 → 2024 | Inflation Calculator
The 1.52% inflation rate means $1 in 1810 is equivalent to $25.39 today. This inflation calculator uses the official US consumer price index published by the Department of Labor.
www.officialdata.org
Last edited:
They can - simply by being captured by the slavers and transported to the South to be sold. I remember several such stories from my history of USA/USA culture classes at university (English major)
Any such efforts would be illegal - these individuals have been already bought and emancipated. It would set of a firestorm of opposition in the North, even if it happens just a few times. For it to happen often enough to make a difference in the overall success of this program would create so much opposition that it would make the Civil War look like a walk in the park. If Southern slavers can, with impunity, march up North and enslave free people, then you'll see similar bands of abolitionists marching south and liberating enslaved people.
And for nearly all Americans, slavery wasn't even an issue. IOW, there was very little public support for ending slavery.
Suppose that the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) hadn't passed by 1920. (Possibly there was no WW I; IMHO wartime conditions, with government intervening and regulating everywhere, enabled passage.) The amendment is still being debated in Congress. Now suppose that both major parties nominate "Wets" - who oppose Prohibition, who enjoy liquor publicly, who even have business interests in alcoholic drink. There would be a Prohibitionist candidate; would he get only 2%-3% of the vote? Of course not - there would be far too many devout Prohibitionist voters who couldn't vote for a "Wet".
But in 1844, hardly any Americans felt they couldn't vote for a slaveholder. Which shows that any program to abolish slavery, particularly one as costly as the OP proposes, had no chance of being enacted.
Southerners were terrified as early as the 1820s of northern interests federalizing the regulation of slavery.
Jefferson actually supported a carefully worded federal buy back program and his grandson supported a VA buy back program. But, the prospect of northern interests who in a few decades would dominate Congress pushing to federalize slavery Jefferson felt would inaugurate civil war.
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams 1821: “Our anxieties in this quarter are all concentrated in the question What does the Holy alliance, in and out of Congress, mean to do with us on the Missouri question? and this, by the bye, is but the name of the case. it is only the John Doe or Richard Roe of the excitement. the real question, as seen in the states. afflicted with this unfortunate population, is, Are our slaves to be presented with freedom and a dagger?
For if Congress has a power to regulate the conditions of the inhabitants of the states, within the states, it will be but another exercise of that power to declare that all shall be free. are we then to see again Athenian and Lacedemonian confederacies? to wage another Peloponnesian war to settle the ascendancy between them? or is this the tocsin of merely a servile war? that remains to be seen: but not I hope by you or me. surely they will parley a while, and give us time to get out of the way. what a Bedlamite is man?—But let us turn from our own uneasinesses to the miseries of our Southern friends.”
founders.archives.gov
Jefferson actually supported a carefully worded federal buy back program and his grandson supported a VA buy back program. But, the prospect of northern interests who in a few decades would dominate Congress pushing to federalize slavery Jefferson felt would inaugurate civil war.
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams 1821: “Our anxieties in this quarter are all concentrated in the question What does the Holy alliance, in and out of Congress, mean to do with us on the Missouri question? and this, by the bye, is but the name of the case. it is only the John Doe or Richard Roe of the excitement. the real question, as seen in the states. afflicted with this unfortunate population, is, Are our slaves to be presented with freedom and a dagger?
For if Congress has a power to regulate the conditions of the inhabitants of the states, within the states, it will be but another exercise of that power to declare that all shall be free. are we then to see again Athenian and Lacedemonian confederacies? to wage another Peloponnesian war to settle the ascendancy between them? or is this the tocsin of merely a servile war? that remains to be seen: but not I hope by you or me. surely they will parley a while, and give us time to get out of the way. what a Bedlamite is man?—But let us turn from our own uneasinesses to the miseries of our Southern friends.”
Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 22 January 1821
From Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 22 January 1821
Last edited:
The discussion on the prohibition or regulation of slavery is not relevant to the proposal. This is a course of action, most likely done by private citizens, that does not require any regulation of slavery as an institution.
I was making the point why the wording of any act of Congress that could have come down for federal funds on the subject mattered.
First, I'm not proposing a guaranteed price from the government - just northerners (perhaps under the auspicies of state governments, but more likely through private organizations) buying slaves on the open market. As to your question, they could try, but that is not as easy as it sounds. Humans aren't livestock, even if slaves are treated as such, and if a slave owner tries to keep his enslaved women constantly pregnant, his risking their health and his investment. I'm sure that, historically, no slave owner was leaving any money on the table when their slaves didn't have more than 4-5 children, on average.
This exact concern itself is why my proposal involved buying and emancipating young girls - it simply starves the planters of slaves that can be bred live cattle.
If you wanted to do something like this---as in, end slavery without massive bloodshed, you should start in places like Delaware, where there really aren't many slaves. Every state you flip from slave to free makes the political position of the Deep South weaker. The real prize is Virginia, which came close to phasing out slavery in OTL. But to get Virginia, you absolutely need to go Anti-John Brown and anti Nat Turner if you can swing it too.
A buyout of the slaves in Virginia though would be a bargain at twice the price. The ideal case would be to use private funds. Without the belief that Virginia would ultimately back them if they forced the issue, the fire eaters wouldn't get much purchase.
A buyout of the slaves in Virginia though would be a bargain at twice the price. The ideal case would be to use private funds. Without the belief that Virginia would ultimately back them if they forced the issue, the fire eaters wouldn't get much purchase.
That is a different matter entirely, flipping states from slave to free. My idea is to effectively ruin the economic and demographic prospects of slavery at the source.
Doing that would require a way larger financial commitment. If that comes via governmental funds, it risks triggering the bloody conflict it seeks to avoid.
There is no “seeking” in this question, just a discussion of if it could happen.
And, as I demonstrated, we’re not looking at a cost the North couldn’t bear.
I strongly suspect that anybody causing trouble (very broadly defined) at a slave auction was going to be in for a rough time and likely to become the victim of "random" violence:
- Several southern states had laws governing manumission. Manumissions not complying with the laws would be stopped.
-Money is money, but the auctioneers could view "purchase for manumission" as being a threat to future auctions and the long term profits from them.
- Local whites may view a steady stream of manumitted blacks- even if legally performed, as economic competition.
- Several northern states forbade free blacks from settling. Other northern states frowned upon such settling. So, options after manumission could be limited.
I am thinking:
Rumors rip through Memphis that abolitionist group "A" is inciting a slave rebellions via the systematic purchase and manumission of slaves. A mob incited by slave owners and consisting of southern nationalist zealots, a variety of plantation employees, including militia sponsored by slave owners, and...... apolitical but anti social street criminals ransack the hotel where the abolitionists are staying.
Two are lynched and two others are nearly beaten to death. The local sheriff laments the violence and cites that the victims uhmm..... "appeared" to have been engaged in lawful commerce. He also adds that "trouble makers" are not welcome and that he and his men cannot be everywhere at the same time. The abolitionists get the message.
Last edited:
A cost they couldn't bear--yes you're correct they COULD bear it. But they most likely wouldn't be willing to bear it, especially if its one of the more expensive implementations. Flipping Virginia though would probably be doable with some seriously rich benefactors.
The problem of doing it through the government is that you'd be talking about raising tariffs a lot (which the South would hate, not just the deep South) in order to buy out their slaves (which they wouldn't like much either). So if one hopes to do it without creating a war in the process, it should be privately funded. The money's there, just getting the interests in the North to cough it up would be difficult.
So they manumit in a free state. Given that I’m proposing solely young girls, they’re not a series economic threat to anyone, and which states, exactly, forbade free blacks from settling?
I repeatedly stated that I’m mainly interested in private groups engaging in this, so the concern about tariffs is irrelevant.
Illinois, Ohio and Indiana all had laws prohibiting free blacks from settling. Other free states permitted settlement by free blacks on paper, but were socially unaccepting of the idea. The 1863 riots in New York illustrate how fragile the welcome could be. In short, large scale manumissions of free blacks in northern states was going to be problematic.
Three states out of many. Those riots were in NYC, were they not? A city prone to riots.