Greater Free/Slave State parity; effects on a future civil war? Who secedes?

Wholly inspired by EBR's excellent Rebel North scenario.

Suppose that the United States gains even more land during the Mexican-American War. Or go beyond that; extend the Missouri Compromise Line to the Pacific and get South California as a slave state. Buy Cuba, as advocated by Pierre Soule.

A conflict over slavery was pretty much inevitable at this point. In OTL 1861, the ratio was 19/15 in the free state's favor. What if the parity was more equal? 19/18, or even 19/19? Who would secede, the North or the South?

A conflict over slavery was pretty much inevitable at this point. In OTL 1861, the ratio was 19/15 in the free state's favor. What if the parity was more equal? 19/18, or even 19/19? Who would secede, the North or the South?

Click to expand...

A couple of problems with this. The territory that you are speaking about in Northern Mexico isn't exactly suited for plantations. The other thing is that a more equal or totally equal parity between slave/nonslave states would throw the election of Lincoln in 1860 into question and that was the raison d'etre for the secession of what became the CSA.

DownrangeDowner said:

Suppose that the United States gains even more land during the Mexican-American War.

Click to expand...

If the US takes the next tier of Mexican states, then about 40% of the population West of the Mississippi River will be former Mexicans. They were used to slavery being illegal and only parts of the land were good for cotton-growing, so they are more likely to become free states than slave states.

DownrangeDowner said:

Or go beyond that; extend the Missouri Compromise Line to the Pacific and get South California as a slave state.

Click to expand...

That was possible, but Southern California would be unlikely to stay a slave state.

DownrangeDowner said:

Buy Cuba, as advocated by Pierre Soule.

Click to expand...

Buying Cuba was advocated for decades, but the Spanish never wanted to sell. And the Cubans spent 50+ years fighting to be independent od Spain, they're even less likely to want to be part of the US.

DownrangeDowner said:

In OTL 1861, the ratio was 19/15 in the free state's favor. What if the parity was more equal? 19/18, or even 19/19? Who would secede, the North or the South?

Click to expand...

If the parity was more equal no one would secede.

Fiver said:

If the US takes the next tier of Mexican states, then about 40% of the population West of the Mississippi River will be former Mexicans. They were used to slavery being illegal and only parts of the land were good for cotton-growing, so they are more likely to become free states than slave states.



That was possible, but Southern California would be unlikely to stay a slave state.



Buying Cuba was advocated for decades, but the Spanish never wanted to sell. And the Cubans spent 50+ years fighting to be independent od Spain, they're even less likely to want to be part of the US.



If the parity was more equal no one would secede.

Click to expand...

Slave states in name only, then? If I remember correctly, the New Mexico territory was slated to be slave. And surely there were other crops that slaves would cultivate?

With regards to secession, I can't imagine that the moral issue of slavery would remain out of the picture for long. There's bound to be one candidate or another who makes abolitionism a major plank.