Effects of New Mexico been a slave state

[Brazilianguy]

Doing a research i read in wikipedia that ''As one of the final attempts at compromise to avoid the Civil War, in December 1860, a U.S. House of Representatives committee proposed to admit New Mexico as a slave state immediately. Although the measure was approved by the committee on December 29, 1860, Southern representatives did not take up this offer. Many had already left Congress due to the imminent declarations of secession by their states.'' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_Territory)

What if somehow the civil war is delayed (perhaps to after the 1864 with Lincoln losing the 1860 election) and New Mexico became a state? Remembering that this was 3 years before the creation of the Arizona Territory, so this new state would be composed of itl New Mexico, Arizona and the southern triangle of Nevada (map below), how would this state developed?

 

[Crazy Boris]

I don't think it would happen
there were slaves in New Mexico in the form of amerindian Genizaros, but there weren't that many by the 1860s
and the expansion of southern-style slavery wouldn't make any sense given the area's climate isn't great for agriculture
and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think New Mexico leaned abolitionist, generally
Basically, New Mexico doesn't really want it, the slave states have nothing to gain from it aside from like, a couple extra potentially (certainly not guaranteed) pro-slavery congressmen, and it probably wouldn't prevent secession anyways since the impetus for secession was Lincoln's election, not New Mexico's status.

Basically, it wouldn't do anything and New Mexico would probably go abolitionist right away.

 

[GrandMaster]

The whole Southern California secession thing could take more traction than it did in OTL, which could cause it to break away from California and join the Union as another slave state, following New Mexico's lead, since it would be right next to it.

 

[mrmandias]

I guess you could have slave mines or something, but southern style commercial slavery for market production doesn't make economic sense without railroads through the area.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

So there would be pro-slavery non-slave owning non-Southerners who just want to preserve the balance between the states? Based in NM and SoCal and so on.

 

[JWQ]

Lincoln wasn't going to allow slavery expansion out west or anywhere for that matter where he, in fact, by 1864, rejected any possibility for the south to be accepted back into the union in exchange for enslaved people to be held in bondage for the 13th amendment was right on its way to abolish African American slavery forever in the united states.

Even if southern California succeeded from California, lincoln would probably say the session was illegal and would refuse a separate territory carved from California. While abe lincoln is an admirable character, he wasn't as pro-union as milliard Fillmore to allow compromise to save the union on the south's compromised terms. Insteadlincoln would only allow compromise under his terms of a settlement. The stamp narrative compels the reader to think compromise wasn't feasible in the book how the war came. However, while the scholar is distinguished, his book is narrow and one-sided, and if anyone is guilty of cherry-picking sources, it's this scholar. The mature historian Shelby foot is correct that it was 'Americas failure to compromise" (over slavery)