Delayed/prevented ACW: Effects on the partition of the Union territories?

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by GauchoBadger, Jan 11, 2019.

  1. GauchoBadger Gang Weeder (in a society)

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2016
    Location:
    Brazil
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    IIRC, after victory in the American Civil War, the dominant Republican party of the United States provisioned for the reorganization of the western territories and their admission into the Union as pro-GOP states (after some gerrymandering, of course).
    So, assume that the ACW is delayed for until at least the 1870's, perhaps indefinitely if you want to (Corwin Ammendment gets passed?). What are the effects on the geographical partition of the western territories?
     
  2. GauchoBadger Gang Weeder (in a society)

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2016
    Location:
    Brazil
    Bumping. How different would Kansas end up looking?
     
  3. Johnrankins Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Well, WV won't be around as the CSA will fall way too fast for WV to be formed. New Mexico Territory probably won't be divided.
     
  4. Maniakes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Kansas probably doesn't change much: same borders, but date of admission a year or two later. The statehood petition was already well underway when South Carolina seceded (submitted in 1859, approved by the House in 1860), and the supporters of the anti-slavery Wyandotte Constitution were firmly in control of the territory. Without secession (and the withdrawal of most of the Senators from the seceded states), there wouldn't be a majority in the Senate to approve Kansas statehood in January 1861 like IOTL, but the margins were pretty slim, especially after the new Congress was seated in March.

    Assuming OTL election results, Republicans would be two seats short of an evenly divided Senate (with Hamlin as tiebreaker) when the 37th Congress convened. And even assuming no Democrats would vote for Kansas statehood (not sure how accurate this assumption is: not all Democrats were pro-slavery, and even some pro-slavery Democrats might have been inclined to accept the outcome on the ground in Kansas), IOTL two northern Democrats (Douglas (IL) and Thomson (NJ)) died during the session and were replaced with Republicans.