I've wondered about territories as well, but the main territory where slavery had a chance that was left was the New Mexico territory, and the amount of slaves there was tiny, after 10 years of territorial status, so my guess is that a state effort to abolish slavery, through the Republican party in the state in question, would be most likely to trigger a new round of sectional trouble and perhaps secession.
If you can somehow get some Yankee settlers into New Mexico, you could possibly get that state admitted maybe as much as 55 years or so before it was IOTL(though it wouldn't likely have much more than maybe 100,000 at most, though).
It makes sense that the first enroads the Republican Party would make would be in the border states. There would be less institutional opposition to the Republicans because the slavepower was weakest in those states.
And they could do well in West Virginia, too, after it gets admitted, even if it's before the start of the *War; slavery, while it was practiced to a degree in a few areas, wasn't nearly as dominant as in eastern Va. even in 1850-60.
Once the idea that a Republican presidency would not mean civil war, a lot of the fear surrounding the party and Lincoln would dissipate among ordinary southerners. I would expect many of the people who supported the Constitutional Union Party would defect to the Republicans. If the Democratic Party remains divided, the Republicans could win pluaralities fairly soon.
Maybe, but unfortunately, it probably wouldn't stop the cries for secession, I don't think.
I don't think direct anti-slavery moves would happen at first. Instead, the Republicans would concentrate more on economic issues on how slavery negatively affects free labor, or against the attempts by the slavepower to limit freedoms.
I can see that happening, too, especially in Missouri and the Upper South.
Because of the 3/5 clause, slaveowners effectively have a much larger say in politics than their numbers suggest. I foresee an effort to redress that bias through redistricting and other electoral reforms. After the Republicans score some successes, they become a mainstream party and then begin to take direct actions against slavery and abolition. That probably won't happen until the 1870s.
I can see Republican victories in the border states throughout the 1860s, a growing party in the Upper South that would cement the Unionists in combination with unionist Democrats.
And they might even be somewhat successful in east Tenn./Western N.C., too; both of these areas did have their share of Unionists who weren't exactly pro-slavery, too(even if not necessarily rooting for the abolitionists 100%, either).
In terms of other acts, President Lincoln would likely make sure northern commanders be assigned in forts and arsenals throughout the south to prevent any chance of rebels seizing them without a fight, as happened IOTL with the Buchanan appointees.
Though unfortunately, we all know how that one turned out.....
I see the first goals of the Republicans in keeping the union, not provoking ordinary slaveowners, and putting policies in place that would prevent the fire eaters from risking secession. Only after those goals are achieved will we see abolition movements in any of the states except for perhaps Delaware because the population is so low.
If the Republicans gets two terms with Lincoln and then win a third straight election, I think at that moment state Republican parties would be willing to push for abolition.
That is certainly possible, IMO.
Lincoln will do his darnedest to restrain abolition movements in border states. The Blairs were fairly conservative anyhow, so I don't expect to see early attempts at abolition in Missouri.
Virginia would also be a flashpoint in this scenario. Remember, the entire Western third of the state seceded from Virginia because it didn't want slavery. And in Missouri, the lineup for and against slavery is also highly geographic with most anti-slavery Missourians living either in St. Louis or north of the Missouri River.
I suspect in both cases, attempts would be made to solve the problem by partitioning the States through votes in the state legislature followed by a favorable vote in a compromise minded Congress.
Very true; While it certainly is true that abolitionism did have a harder time in W.V. than elsewhere, the Westerners still felt antagonistic towards the Eastern area, and many of them weren't exactly pro-slavery, either.
As for Missouri, it's also been noted that there were a fair number of people in the Ozark area who were anti-slavery, and IIRC, there were also a few counties just north of the River that had quite a few slaves in them, too.
(This reminds me of The Story of a Party, btw; the state of Osage was formed to honor the Unionists in that area, IIRC.).
California is another state that could be a flashpoint if civil war is avoided. Slavery is illegal in California but during the 1850s, many Californians owned slaves and no attempt was ever made to free them or interfere with slave ownership. So legalization of slavery could definitely be on the agenda in California as plantation type agriculture spreads there, especially since California is so good an area for plantation type agriculture.
It might depend on who moves to California; from what I've read, IOTL, the majority of people who moved to CA were actually Northerners for the most part, with the possible exception of the southernmost areas.
Another flashpoint could likely be the possible admission of Cuba and Santo Domingo (Puerto Rico, too) as states. Hard to tell when Spain will abolish slavery OTTL but ITTL, Spain abolished slavery in 1873. This could unite Spanish slaveowners into rebelling against Spain and seeking admission to the U.S. And down the line perhaps the question of annexation of all or parts of Brazil at the behest of slaveowners there as that country moves progressively toward abolition. After all,in 1880 one can get from Washington DC to Rio faster than one could get from Washington to St. Louis in 1820.
Or, conversely, if Spain delays the end of slavery, and the U.S. ends it before Spain does, many Spanish slaveowners might actually side
against the U.S. if Cuba and Puerto Rico become targets for annexation.
The longstanding grievance of western Virginians was that the state government in Richmond was geographically far from them, and was dominated by surrounding Tidewater region to western Virginia's detriment.
There were proposals for dividing the state long before the War.
Some truth here, but Katchen is definitely correct as well, even if the effort wasn't nearly as pronounced as in other states(which also seems to be true). And, IIRC, the proposals to divide Virginia go back to not long after Kentucky was admitted.