Border state slavery

[oudi14]

I haven't seen this discussed before. This is definitely not a 'What if the South won?' TL, although this does assume a Confederate victory in 1862. And please, please, ASB Police, restrain yourselves.
If Lincoln never gets to make the Emancipation Proclamation, because his side lost, I'm wondering what happens to slavery in the border states, and DC, and in WV [which I am assuming still becomes a state in '63, despite the Confederate victory.] A slave owner in Maryland or Kentucky isn't going to want to lose his slaves, whatever he might think of the outcome of the war. But the institution can't go on indefinitely, and all the Garrison types are going to be seriously pissed at losing the war, and will likely turn their fury on targets they can still reach, like border state slaveowners. I realize that Delaware and West Virginia had very few slaves, but it was more of a factor in MD, KY, and MO.
Perhaps a solution like the British used, compensation for slaveowners, and a short transitional period, a la 1834-8, might work. Is 1870 a reasonable time period, give or take a couple years, for this to happen?
BTW, in case anyone cares, the POD was Antietam. Yeah, I know, never could happen. But this is about border state slavery, and what to do about it, not Antietam.

 

[Paradoxer]

I haven't seen this discussed before. This is definitely not a 'What if the South won?' TL, although this does assume a Confederate victory in 1862. And please, please, ASB Police, restrain yourselves.
If Lincoln never gets to make the Emancipation Proclamation, because his side lost, I'm wondering what happens to slavery in the border states, and DC, and in WV [which I am assuming still becomes a state in '63, despite the Confederate victory.] A slave owner in Maryland or Kentucky isn't going to want to lose his slaves, whatever he might think of the outcome of the war. But the institution can't go on indefinitely, and all the Garrison types are going to be seriously pissed at losing the war, and will likely turn their fury on targets they can still reach, like border state slaveowners. I realize that Delaware and West Virginia had very few slaves, but it was more of a factor in MD, KY, and MO.
Perhaps a solution like the British used, compensation for slaveowners, and a short transitional period, a la 1834-8, might work. Is 1870 a reasonable time period, give or take a couple years, for this to happen?
BTW, in case anyone cares, the POD was Antietam. Yeah, I know, never could happen. But this is about border state slavery, and what to do about it, not Antietam.

If they piss off locals in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and maybe even Delaware and West Virginia too much along with their politicians they risk more flipping to join Confederates after war.

If radical republicans are even still in power or influence after war(many likely blame them for war starting and especially not winning it among northerners) they would be dumb to take out their frustration on border states.

Many democrats up north and even some northern industrialist did not give shit about slavery. More upset over southern politician power grabs and national influence in politics. If radical republicans go after them they might turn their own public and people against them.

It could cause the domino effect of Balkanization. If radical republicans, Lincoln, his successor, or federal government go after border states slavery after war or even more extreme measures depending how they handle partisans there could lead to them “reaffirming” the idea republicans/Lincoln’s along with federal government are tyrants.

Partisans are still issue in Appalachia after war and their loyalties even among some “unionist” can flip depending who they see as less bad(confederates or union. Don’t put it pass locals there or politicians to play both sides)

Confederate partisans still control good bits of rural Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia especially at start of war. The mountain people can and did flip sides rather freely even during war. Some used it as chance to settle blood feuds. They can care less about slaves and are racist in their own way even if against slavery for economic reasons(less jobs for them slaves take). They don’t think slaves or desire freedom for slaves either. Many honestly just hated plantation class more then industrialist at times especially lower class people there.

I could see New England breaking away after war after rest of US except New England shun the republicans completely. Maybe Lincoln gets impeached after war as scapegoat then shot in streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, or New York during veteran event by vet.

This incident shows increased regional and political divisions form within north now. The Midwest largely your more moderates who were often most open to compromise with south. Then you have mid Atlantic that is between Midwest and New England in politics. Mid Atlantic being New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. A wide mix of politics here due to immigrant influences. Then you have New England original home and stronghold of republicans.

For example, if Lincoln loses war and still gets assassinated you might have incident where certain neighborhoods break out in celebration over death of a “tyrant” that drafted bunch of them off street or boat to fight in war they lost.

This leaves Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri in a awkward position economically and politically. They are more isolated in US politics which could lead to increased alienating and disregard for them on national level.

The US in otl sent military into Maryland to prevent possible succession along with show of force in Kentucky where only areas around capital and Louisville barely voted not to leave.

If they have to send military in to fight partisans there also room for that to lead to escalation

 

[Rattenfänger von Memphis]

Border state slavery in the United States, assuming a Confederate victory in 1862, might have developed along OTL example of West Virginia as the last slave state to be admitted into the United States.

According to the Wikipedia article, History of slavery in West Virginia, West Virginia was not affected by President Lincoln’s later Emancipation Proclamation but, before being admitted to the Union, West Virginia had to make some provisions to free her slaves.

The Willey Amendment was to be the means to accomplish this. But under it, no slaves would actually have been freed until 1867. And some slaves would not have been freed until the 1880s.

Willey Amendment The statehood bill was opposed by Senators Charles Sumner and Benjamin Wade, who insisted on emancipation in some form. On December 31, 1862 President Lincoln signed the West Virginia statehood bill on the condition that the new state provide some type of emancipation.

The Willey Amendment The children of slaves born within the limits of this State after the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, shall be free; and all slaves within this state who shall, at the time aforesaid, be under the age of ten years, shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-one years; and all slaves over ten and under twenty-one years shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-five years; and no slave shall be permitted to come into the State for permanent residence therein.”

The Willey Amendment freed no slaves on West Virginia becoming a state: the first slaves to be freed would not have been so until 1867. There was no provision for freedom for any slave over 21 years of age. As per the census of 1860 the Willey Amendment would have left at least 40% of West Virginia's slaves unemancipated, over 6,000 slaves. Many of those under 21 would have served as much as 20 years in slavery. The phrasing of the amendment also created a window of two weeks during which the children of slaves born between June 20, 1863 and July 4, 1863, would be born into slavery.”

After losing to the Confederacy, the United States would no doubt want to hang on to the remaining border slave states and not drive them into, somehow, joining the Confederate States. In OTL, Kentucky rejected the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, though it had to implement them when the majority of states ratified them.

So, whether the United States would have freed the remaining slaves within their borders immediately as in OTL, or used the much more gradual Willey Amendment method, is something interesting to debate.