AHC: No State of Louisiana - effect on slave/free state balance?

This question comes as part of my ongoing research for my Fringe alternate universe timeline. If Louisiana was never admitted as a state (or at least its statehood delayed), how would it affect the balance of power between slave and free states in the Senate?

I'm mainly concerned about the period between 1812 and 1836, after which Arkansas joined the Union. Would the dates of admission of Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, and Alabama be shifted? How would the Missouri Compromise be changed?
 
Let's see, by the time Lousiana became a state, the Free-Slave ratio was 9:8, so its admission balanced it. Considering the state admissions during the 1810's mantained the balance, it's possible either of Mississippi or Alabama will be admitted earlier to become the 9th slave state. But other than that order shift, I don't see bigger changes. If Lousiana still does not become a state by 1820, then the ratio is 11:10.

Now comes a bit of a snag: Maine. Maine's desires to separate from Massachussetts originated, or mainly grew, form the War of 1812, and by 1819 Massachussetts had agreed to the separation. If this doesn't change, then Maine's admission would make the ratio 12:10. Missouri Compromise with Slave State Missouri has to happen now, but the ratio would still be one short for the balance. In that case, then at this point Lousiana has to become state now. Alternatively, Florida or Arkansas gain statehood much earlier than OTL if the intent here is to delay Lousiana's statehood as long as possible.

Beyond that... I'm not sure what may happen. Or what does Lousiana remaining a territory itself could change. Or even how could it remain a territory for so long.
 
Might the south want an extra territory to be carved out of southern Mississippi and Alabama, maybe, or some kind of greater recognition for the Republic of West Florida, with its admission as a state, extending its borders to all of West Florida?

Also, @AcaciaSgt's suggestion for an earlier admission of Florida could work here.

The problem with this is that the modern borders on the map are already defined. Here's a pic:

USAlternateMap.jpg


My concern is that Louisiana is referred to here as "Louisiana Territory," and there are several other differences as well. In my estimation, for example, I have Carolina remaining split up into North and South until a later date because of the 13 stripes on the alternate American flag, and the District of Virginia still being a state as well (at least prior to the Civil War). Here's my thoughts on the admission of states:

  1. Delaware - 7 Dec 1787
  2. Pennsylvania - 12 Dec 1787
  3. New Jersey - 18 Dec 1787
  4. Georgia - 2 Jan 1788
  5. Connecticut - 9 Jan 1788
  6. Massachusetts - 6 Feb 1788
  7. Maryland - 28 Apr 1788
  8. South Carolina - 23 May 1788
  9. New Hampshire - 21 Jun 1788
  10. Virginia - 25 Jun 1788
  11. New York - 26 Jul 1788
  12. North Carolina - 21 Nov 1789 (recombines w/ Southern counterpart later on, but not for a while)
  13. Rhode Island - 29 May 1790
  14. Vermont - 4 Mar 1791
  15. Kentucky - 1 Jun 1792
  16. Tennessee - 1 Jun 1796
  17. Ohio - 1 Mar 1803
  18. Here is where things get tricky. Mississippi - 11 Dec 1816 (?)
  19. Indiana - 10 Dec 1817 (?)
  20. Alabama - 3 Dec 1818 (?)
  21. Illinois - 14 Dec 1819 (?)
  22. Missouri - 1820 (?)
  23. Maine - 1821 (?)
  24. Louisiana Territory (?) - 1822 (?)
As you can see, in order to make the balancing math work out, I'd have to include LA Terr. as a state. I thought about an earlier Arkansas or Florida, but both territories had much lower populations during the early 1820s than the minimum threshold for statehood. Especially since Arkansas's borders weren't clearly defined yet. Would an earlier Florida be passable if they were to ignore the population requirements, or would Louisiana Territory be an appropriate name for a state? I'm trying to apply Occam's razor to the situation.
 
Top