Manumission was regulated by individual states and colonies up until the 13th Amendment. These regulations were framed with the assumption that enslaved person were like children -- they are yours to work as you see fit, but you also have to ensure their general wellbeing (the irony is not lost on me either). Unlike poor laws, where taxpayers were responsible for the needy among the free population, manumission laws obligated the ex-slaver to set the former enslaved African up for success. In other words, states created laws to avoid having to take care of formely enslaved person in situations where they fell on hard times or became chargeable (again, the irony).

All that is to say, all states at some point made it financially and logistically difficult to manumit slaves. This was especially true in the South. In Georgia (1801), Alabama (1805), Mississippi (1805) and South Carolina (1820), the ex-slaver needed a special act of the state legislature to manumit anyone they enslave. As you may imagine, these were not granted terribly often. From 1723 to 1782 in Virginia, the governor and a council had to approve all manumissions. The Virginia state legislature changed this after the war (1782), though. Although slavers could manumit their enslaved persons at will, they had to provide support for those over or under a certain age. After the population formerly enslaved people grew in Virginia, they passed a law forbidding them from moving into the state (1778) and another soon after forcing all newly-freed people to leave the state within one year. The cost of that move out-of-state, of course, fell onto the ex-slaver. Other states required that bonds be paid in addition to securities to ensure that the formerly enslaved person could leave the state and not become a public charge. Over the first half of the 19th century, the cost of these bonds rose steadily.

Now in the North, manumission was significantly less hindered. Connecticut (my home state!) never had a bond requirement. Rhode Island, New York (which in 1790 had more enslaved people than the rest of the Northern states put together), Pennsylvania, and Delaware abolished the bond requirement. All of these states still held the ex-slaver responsible for those they manumitted, fo course. In the North, generally, those that were manumitted did not have to leave the state. Between 1777 (Vermont) and 1846 (New Jersey), slavery was gradually abolished in the Northern states, making manumission sort of moot. Interestingly, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut held former slavers financially liable for the legal costs of those that were freed from them by abolition laws and found chargeable. In Quaker-dominated late 18th-century Pennsylvania, manumitting your slaves become requisite for continued participation in the Society of Friends.

Now to your question: I can't say much about the social repurcussions of manumitting a large number of enslaved people (beyond that it was socially acceptable in certain religious sects such as the Quakers). But we do know of the financial and logistical burden that came along with manumission, often for the duration of the formerly enslaved person's lifetime.

Sources:

Klebaner, Benjamin Joseph. "American Manumission Laws and the Responsibility for Supporting Slaves." The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 63, no. 4 (1955): 443-53.

O’BRASSILL-KULFAN, KRISTIN. "“Since He Was Free”: Vagabondage, Race, and Emancipation." In Vagrants and Vagabonds: Poverty and Mobility in the Early American Republic, 84-111. NEW YORK: NYU Press, 2019.

Cole, Shawn. "Capitalism and Freedom: Manumissions and the Slave Market in Louisiana, 1725-1820." The Journal of Economic History 65, no. 4 (2005): 1008-027.