Best case scenario for Slave States

With a POD after 1840, what is the most number of Slave States that can reasonably be brought into the United States by 1860?

In this respect a "Slave State" is one where not only is slavery Legal, the voting population of the state will support it.

Presuming an OTL victory in the Mexican American War and someone at the other end of the scale from Trent and other pro-slavery results, I figure one state in Southern California, no more than two made up from chunks of the Republic of Texas, two(?) from Cuba(???) and maybe one or two from Yucatan?

Any other state made from Mexican lands is either going to have too many Mexicans, not enough "Americans" or both. Maybe Cuba can be taken from the Spanish, but Haiti would resist way to long for it to work and I'm not sure where else in the Caribbean would be likely.
 
Last edited:
They might have got a slaveholding "New Mexico".

In 1850, during the wrangle about the boundaries of Texas, Henry Clay proposed that the Texas-NM boundary should be along 32N, which would have given New Mexico most of the northern half of OTL Texas, and a common border with Louisiana and Arkansas. As I understand it, his proposal wold have allowed Mexican law against slavery to remain in effect, but the slaveholders affected (I understand there were quite a few in the Dallas-Ft Worth area) would surely have appealed to the Courts, and I suspect that Chief Justice Taney and his colleagues would have made short work of that provision. So New Mexico could come into the Union with slavery.

This, incidentally, could raise a teensy weensy butterfly. If events take this course, we could get a "Dred Scott Decision", striking down the Missouri Compromise, two or three years before the Kansas-Nebraska Act instead of after. It will still cause a furore, but will give the Democratic Party something of an "out" as in this situation they won't need to repeal the MC, as it has already been struck down. The of the Know-Nothings may also benefit, since they don't need to endorse the Nebraska Act, but can simply call for to "the law of the land" as laid down by the SCOTUS. Could we thus end up with a stronger Democratic Party and the Know-Nothings rather than the Republicans as its main opposition? And where might we go from there?
 
Illinois nearly legalized slavery shortly after statehood. Indiana could have done the same, conceivably, as well.

If West Florida had been retained as a unit, Alabama and Mississippi might have been three states instead of two.

The Indian Territory could have been centered on OTL Kansas, rather than Oklahoma or Nebraska, OTL OK would probably in those circumstances have become a slave state.

That's what is available without changing settlement patterns, annexing other areas, or going back before the constitution for a POD.
 
For these purposes, I'm mostly looking at economic viability of slavery, rather than looking at political or military questions as to how the USA goes about acquiring new territory. (Although there has to be some vague veneer of plausibility; Tierra del Fuego is right out.)

In terms of existing US territory, well, by 1840 it's hard to get much more. Indiana and Illinois are too entrenched as free states by now to be plausible to turn into slave states. (1820s or possibly even early 1830s, maybe. 1840, nope.) As Admiral Matt said, playing about with the Indian Territory may get you a slave state vaguely around OTL Oklahoma. If things fall out really in the Southerners' favour, it may even be possible to create an *Kansas with slave states.

Past that, well, in terms of territory which the USA later acquired in OTL, Southern California and/or southern New Mexico/Arizona might be turned into nominal slave states, but barring a slave price collapse, they will be slave states in name only. (Although they might end up like bigger versions of Delaware, I suppose). If the USA somehow acquired Hawaii in the 1850s, (unlikely, but not impossible), then it could be turned into a slave state growing sugar, tropical fruit and the like.

In the Caribbean, you could possibly get two slave states out of Cuba, and maaaaybe one from Puerto Rico. The Dominican Republic would be extremely iffy. That's pretty much it.

Setting aside the politics for a moment, Nicaragua might be viable in economic terms - the highlands are extremely fertile, and Nicaragua was not so heavily populated to make slavery unviable. (Though still rather unlikely).

In terms of OTL Mexico, the Yucatan is a possibility if the USA feels like sticking a few fingers into a sausage grinder. Slave-grown sisal would be a valuable cash crop (as it was in OTL, although with different slaves). The land around the Zacatecas-Durango border contains some of the best cotton country in the world, and was not so full of Mexicans that it would be impossible to bring in slaves. For the rest of Mexico, though, slavery isn't really viable at existing slave prices, even if by some feat of political extravangance the USA conquered most of Mexico.
 
For these purposes, I'm mostly looking at economic viability of slavery, rather than looking at political or military questions as to how the USA goes about acquiring new territory. (Although there has to be some vague veneer of plausibility; Tierra del Fuego is right out.)

In terms of existing US territory, well, by 1840 it's hard to get much more. Indiana and Illinois are too entrenched as free states by now to be plausible to turn into slave states. (1820s or possibly even early 1830s, maybe. 1840, nope.) As Admiral Matt said, playing about with the Indian Territory may get you a slave state vaguely around OTL Oklahoma. If things fall out really in the Southerners' favour, it may even be possible to create an *Kansas with slave states.

Past that, well, in terms of territory which the USA later acquired in OTL, Southern California and/or southern New Mexico/Arizona might be turned into nominal slave states, but barring a slave price collapse, they will be slave states in name only. (Although they might end up like bigger versions of Delaware, I suppose). If the USA somehow acquired Hawaii in the 1850s, (unlikely, but not impossible), then it could be turned into a slave state growing sugar, tropical fruit and the like.

In the Caribbean, you could possibly get two slave states out of Cuba, and maaaaybe one from Puerto Rico. The Dominican Republic would be extremely iffy. That's pretty much it.

Setting aside the politics for a moment, Nicaragua might be viable in economic terms - the highlands are extremely fertile, and Nicaragua was not so heavily populated to make slavery unviable. (Though still rather unlikely).

In terms of OTL Mexico, the Yucatan is a possibility if the USA feels like sticking a few fingers into a sausage grinder. Slave-grown sisal would be a valuable cash crop (as it was in OTL, although with different slaves). The land around the Zacatecas-Durango border contains some of the best cotton country in the world, and was not so full of Mexicans that it would be impossible to bring in slaves. For the rest of Mexico, though, slavery isn't really viable at existing slave prices, even if by some feat of political extravangance the USA conquered most of Mexico.


Tierra Del Fuego doesn't meet the economic criteria either (I'd rather try to make New Zealand or Scotland slave holding. :)

Alt Oklahoma is tricky. I know a lot of Confederate Victory scenarios have a Native controlled state more or less equal to our Oklahoma, but trying to get a state there by 1860 would probably still end up Native dominated which wouldn't fly in Congress.

An alt-Kansas, I think would be a SSINO (Slave State in Name Only), though I'm not sure whether it would be INO more or less than Southern California. As for a slave state in southern New Mexico Territory (Either Traditional Arizona or expanded to the CSA-Territory), that would be the thinnest of Veneers. (I'm convinced that Delaware more or less kept Slavery simply due to it being the status quo, a new state with *that* percentage of slavery, wouldn't have applied to keep them)

I hadn't thought about Hawaii, but with a POD in 1840, I'm not sure that any Western Power can get completely control of Hawaii by 1860, much less a majority of non-Hawaiians on the Islands really necessary for statehood. The Hawaiian Natives have never really been treated the way that the natives on mainland North America.

Is it lack of slave crops that makes Puerto Rico unlikely or just significantly less than half of Cuba's population?

For Nicaragua, I think you'd need an earlier William Walker and while the US Government was willing to recognize his government, there is a large difference between that and acccepting it as a state.

For the Yucatan, I wonder whether that would see slavery among the native population or not.

The idea of a state made out of mexico surrounded by territories still too full of Mexicans (or too empty) seems unlikely, I agree.
 
Alt Oklahoma is tricky. I know a lot of Confederate Victory scenarios have a Native controlled state more or less equal to our Oklahoma, but trying to get a state there by 1860 would probably still end up Native dominated which wouldn't fly in Congress.

I think if you read the posts carefully, you'll see that that is not the case. There's no reason the Indian territory had to be in its OTL location. If it were further north, in our Kansas or Nebraska, that could delay a free state. Meanwhile our Oklahoma would be settled continuously with Arkansas and Texas - negligible natives.

An alt-Kansas, I think would be a SSINO (Slave State in Name Only), though I'm not sure whether it would be INO more or less than Southern California. As for a slave state in southern New Mexico Territory (Either Traditional Arizona or expanded to the CSA-Territory), that would be the thinnest of Veneers. (I'm convinced that Delaware more or less kept Slavery simply due to it being the status quo, a new state with *that* percentage of slavery, wouldn't have applied to keep them)

If the territory's English-speakers are majority southern they might do just that just for ideological reasons. After all, if Kansas hadn't had a free state majority....

I hadn't thought about Hawaii, but with a POD in 1840, I'm not sure that any Western Power can get completely control of Hawaii by 1860, much less a majority of non-Hawaiians on the Islands really necessary for statehood. The Hawaiian Natives have never really been treated the way that the natives on mainland North America.

Agreed, 1840 is too late. Now if the US came to terms with Britain on the border there in, say, the early 1830s and you had some early adventurers followed by promoted settlement.... Then there might be enough Pacific presence, activity, and attention to get something done to that effect.

Is it lack of slave crops that makes Puerto Rico unlikely or just significantly less than half of Cuba's population?

For Nicaragua, I think you'd need an earlier William Walker and while the US Government was willing to recognize his government, there is a large difference between that and acccepting it as a state.

The difference is only large if slave states don't control congress. Even with all it's ridiculous inadvisability, annexing the Dominican Republic did almost happen, after all. Not that that was slave states, of course, but it was very possible to work up a lot of congresspersons to annexations.
 
Last edited:
An alt-Kansas, I think would be a SSINO (Slave State in Name Only), though I'm not sure whether it would be INO more or less than Southern California. As for a slave state in southern New Mexico Territory (Either Traditional Arizona or expanded to the CSA-Territory), that would be the thinnest of Veneers.

Kansas is not quite useless for slave cultivation. The few slaves who were brought there in OTL were able to be profitably used. The relevant portion is essentially the south-eastern corner, which climate-wise isn't too different from the parts of Missouri which were slaveholding, too.

I hadn't thought about Hawaii, but with a POD in 1840, I'm not sure that any Western Power can get completely control of Hawaii by 1860, much less a majority of non-Hawaiians on the Islands really necessary for statehood. The Hawaiian Natives have never really been treated the way that the natives on mainland North America.

I'm not all that sure Hawaii is possible either, but I threw it out there in case someone could think of a viable PoD. There were Americans in Hawaii before 1840, of course - though not very many.

Is it lack of slave crops that makes Puerto Rico unlikely or just significantly less than half of Cuba's population?

Partly population, but also partly because slavery was a bit more on the way out there than it was in Cuba. Not as high a proportion of the workforce, and there were some more in the way of recent European immigrants who would probably be anti-slavery. Not impossible to make it a slave state, but harder than Cuba. (Crop-wise it's decent - sugar and coffee, mostly.)

For the Yucatan, I wonder whether that would see slavery among the native population or not.

Probably not worth the trouble of the further revolts it would cause. Actually conquering Yucatan would be bloody and troublesome enough. Provoking pointless Mayan revolts would be even worse.

The slaves who were used in Yucatan in OTL were from elsewhere (Yaqui).
 
I think if you read the posts carefully, you'll see that that is not the case. There's no reason the Indian territory had to be in its OTL location. If it were further north, in our Kansas or Nebraska, that could delay a free state. Meanwhile our Oklahoma would be settled continuously with Arkansas and Texas - negligible natives.



If the territory's English-speakers are majority southern they might do just that just for ideological reasons. After all, if Kansas hadn't had a free state majority....



Agreed, 1840 is too late. Now if the US came to terms with Britain on the border there in, say, the early 1830s and you had some early adventurers followed by promoted settlement.... Then there might be enough Pacific presence, activity, and attention to get something done to that effect.



The difference is only large if slave states don't control congress. Even with all it's ridiculous inadvisability, annexing the Dominican Republic did almost happen, after all. Not that that was slave states, of course, but it was very possible to work up a lot of congresspersons to annexations.

Indian Territory doesn't *have* to be in that location, *but* the five civilized tribes had more or less finished their migration by 1840, which is the earliest for the POD.

For the "Arizona", I'd be curious as to how many people they had in 1860. I know that Nevada came in with a very low population, but that was justified due to war. But if a state is needed to balance a Nebraska or an Oregon, *maybe*.

Annexation leading to free statehood and becoming a slave state are very different things. In a pre-civil War scenario, trying to separate the citizens of Santo Domingo/DR who were of African Descent from those who weren't would have been a nightmare.
 
Kansas is not quite useless for slave cultivation. The few slaves who were brought there in OTL were able to be profitably used. The relevant portion is essentially the south-eastern corner, which climate-wise isn't too different from the parts of Missouri which were slaveholding, too.



I'm not all that sure Hawaii is possible either, but I threw it out there in case someone could think of a viable PoD. There were Americans in Hawaii before 1840, of course - though not very many.



Partly population, but also partly because slavery was a bit more on the way out there than it was in Cuba. Not as high a proportion of the workforce, and there were some more in the way of recent European immigrants who would probably be anti-slavery. Not impossible to make it a slave state, but harder than Cuba. (Crop-wise it's decent - sugar and coffee, mostly.)



Probably not worth the trouble of the further revolts it would cause. Actually conquering Yucatan would be bloody and troublesome enough. Provoking pointless Mayan revolts would be even worse.

The slaves who were used in Yucatan in OTL were from elsewhere (Yaqui).

So in slave friendly crops, Kansas compares to Illinois and Indiana?

And I know a lot can change in 20 years, but that just seemed to far (in re: Hawaii)

For PR, Cuba to the next level sounds about right...

In a more successful Mexican war whether the experience with the Yaqui would be more like the OTL Navaho, who the US never considered enslaving, or more like the OTL Negros. Depends on which Yaqui they end up taking over first, I guess.
 
Top