Missouri compromise line northern boarder

if the boundary line of slave and free states were set at the northern boundary of Missouri instead of the southern boundary what would be the effects in the run up to the civil war?
 
if the boundary line of slave and free states were set at the northern boundary of Missouri instead of the southern boundary what would be the effects in the run up to the civil war?


Why would the North agree to such a one-sided "compromise"? Since nobody expected slavery to go into territories north or northwest of the northern border of Missouri, just what does the North get out of it?
 
Maybe it affects the idea of Slavery being a factor in westward expansion if the South theoretically has move land within the US itself to turn into states. So perhaps you have Southerners moving into Kansas instead of Texas at the time. Or not, who knows. The OTL line was one-sided, favoring the North, considering how much line there was on each side, so perhaps a more central position in relation to the Luisiana Purchase territory would affect that. Maybe.

But as mentioned, it depends on what the North thinks of having the line north of its OTL position.
 
IMHO the immediate effect of such a thing is the extension of Southern/slave political power for a while longer. Assuming Kansas and another state or two are admitted with initially slave constitutions, you'll probably see pro-slavery senators initially and perhaps some pro-slavery representatives. Given the reality of these states, the economics of slavery etc, it won't be too long before slavery ends in these states, but the southern ability to block things in Congress extends by perhaps 10 years or more. One of the factors in the timing of the ACW was that the ability of the south to basically veto legislation they did not like was going away. Even with the 3/5 clause the free population of the states that would stay in the Union was 4x that of the states that would secede. The northern states would gain a representation (using 3/5 of border states with slaves) of roughly 250,000, the CSA states 2,100,000 - so for representation the "Union" had 22.25 million, the "CSA" 7.6 million. Sure not all of the representatives were abolition minded, but as far as the south calling the tune in the House of Representatives that was gone - and things like public works/infrastructure, tariffs and education (the south would never had agreed to the land grant university program) were important to the south. In the senate, the number of free states exceeded those of the to be CSA, and add in border states the numbers got worse.

All of the above was apparent to the northern politicians, and while there was division over abolition, even those who cared not about slavery were not inclined to give the southerners an extension on their stranglehold on legislation. The border proposed here is pretty ASB, and within 10 years any states admitted as slave would be non-slave.
 
Top