Might the Thirteenth Amendment Have Passed Earlier?

Well, no. Obviously not, not as history actually played out. No slave state was ever going to vote for the Thirteenth Amendment (not the real one, anyway, as opposed to the proposed one that would have given slavery constitutional protection for all time), and at no time prior to the Civil War were there ever anything close to enough free states to pass an Amendment all on their own. In fact, once New York and New Jersey abolished slavery the percentage of free states never wavered more than ten percentage points away from 50% in either direction.

So obviously I'm talking about a slightly alternate history. The divergence, I think, wants to start around 1831-32, when Nat Turner's slave rebellion caused many Southern states, most prominently Virginia, to genuinely consider the future of slavery, with some advocating a move toward gradual emancipation. Obviously, that side lost the debate, but what if they had won? Could there have been enough free states and gradual-emancipation states together to pass some sort of anti-slavery amendment without a war?

In 1832, there were twelve slave states and twelve free states. Three-quarters of twenty-four would have been eighteen, so we need six more free states, or at least states perhaps willing to vote for an anti-slavery Amendment. Virginia's one. But let's also say that, had Virginia seriously moved away from slavery, the border states, the ones less Southern than Virginia, would have done so as well. That's Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky, at the very least. Maybe Missouri as well, and that's up to five, one short of the requirement. This would have made the Missouri Compromise line the line for slavery throughout the country, east as well as west. It also wouldn't quite have been enough for an amendment. If we assume that every state which joined the Union between 1836 and the start of the war would have been aligned as it actually was, this would have been the high point for the prospects of getting the Thirteenth Amendment through ahead of its time.

If, however, Virginia and the border states had rejected the cause of "slavery today, slavery tomorrow, slavery forever" in 1832, the addition of future states might not have happened as it did. Those states probably wouldn't have signed off on national immediate abolition, but they also probably wouldn't have minded admitting more free states and tipping the long-term political balance away from slavery. Perhaps Arkansas might have been admitted as a free state, which would have brought the free or quasi-free states to 72% of the country. Adding Michigan would take that up to 73%, on the eve of the Mexican-American War. But, in this scenario, that war might well not have happened. Or, alternately, prospective free states such as Iowa and Wisconsin might have been admitted before Texas and Florida were added as slave states.

Let's suppose that happened: Arkansas, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin were added to the 1832 mix, with no new slave states. That brings the total to 21 free/quasi-free states, 7 slave states: three-quarters precisely! And in that scenario, those twenty-one states would have been able to band together and pass some sort of compromise, gradual anti-slavery amendment. Perhaps prohibiting the addition of more slave states, prohibiting anyone not currently a slave from being enslaved, rolling back the fugitive slave laws, restricting the slave trade, etc. It wouldn't have been as ringing as the real Thirteenth Amendment, but it might have avoided war and after the phase-out period the practical difference would vanish.

The 1831-32 Virginia slavery debates, in other words, could have been a turning point in American history. Had the other side carried the day, it would have become awfully feasible for the opponents of slavery to achieve a political victory without resorting to a massive, bloody civil war. Now, this alternate Thirteenth Amendment might have triggered war between the seven hold-out slave states and the free majority, but they might have gone along with a sufficiently compromise-laden amendment. Hell, once they saw that the anti-slavery forces were gaining political ascendance they might have been willing to cut a deal on a Thirteenth Amendment that would gradually abolish slavery but on the most lenient terms possible. Plus, had there been a war it would've been over a lot quicker, with only a small handful of relatively small states against the entire rest of the country. American history would be an awfully lot less tragic; the future of civil rights after the abolition of slavery might even have been less of a struggle. Of course, it's probably not a matter of luck that things didn't turn out that way; the pro-slavery side won those debates for a reason, after all. But it's interesting, and a bit heartbreaking, to think about.