No American Civil War: Minimal number of new states

Assumption: There is no ACW, but the conflict between slave states and free states remains strong.

Possible PoD: Lincoln isn't nominated, either for havong died before or because he is unavailable. The Republican candidate manages to lose in 1860, and his successor in 1864, while the main battle is fought inside the Democratic party.

With an eye on the Senate and possible amendments, the slave states will probably strive to have as few new states in the territories as possible.

640px-United_States_1860-1861-01.png

How few are practically possible?

Can Washington Terr. become one state without splitting OTL Idaho off?
Can there be a Mega-Nebraska? Or will there be at least a Mega-Dakota (ND, SD, MT, northern WY)? Might the creation of Nevada be avoided by keeping it with Utah or giving it to California?
Will the southern states try to block the purchase of Alaska, if Russia even offers it at all?

OTOH, without the ACW, might the proposed creation of a slave state in South California below the Missouri Compromise line of 36°30′ North succeed?
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Assumption: There is no ACW, but the conflict between slave states and free states remains strong.

Possible PoD: Lincoln isn't nominated, either for havong died before or because he is unavailable. The Republican candidate manages to lose in 1860, and his successor in 1864, while the main battle is fought inside the Democratic party.

With an eye on the Senate and possible amendments, the slave states will probably strive to have as few new states in the territories as possible.

640px-United_States_1860-1861-01.png

How few are practically possible?

Can Washington Terr. become one state without splitting OTL Idaho off?
Can there be a Mega-Nebraska? Or will there be at least a Mega-Dakota (ND, SD, MT, northern WY)? Might the creation of Nevada be avoided by keeping it with Utah or giving it to California?
Will the southern states try to block the purchase of Alaska, if Russia even offers it at all?

OTOH, without the ACW, might the proposed creation of a slave state in South California below the Missouri Compromise line of 36°30′ North succeed?

With the PoD you've given? Doubtful. The Missouri Compromise was over turned by the Great Compromise of 1850 in favor of Popular Sovereignty.

Also, without Oregon Washington Terr. looks Fugly.
 
Well, I'm skeptical about your POD there, but I'll roll with it. I'd say something like 10-15 states, to maintain the slave/free balance. By 1860, there's 33 states, with about a 3:4 ratio of s;ave to free. Balkanization is key here. As much as I hate to say it, that disgusting-sounding state carved out of California would probably happen.

I see no reason why Nevada wouldn't happen, nor Alaska. It's not exactly an ideal place for plantations.
 
Well, I'm skeptical about your POD there, but I'll roll with it. I'd say something like 10-15 states, to maintain the slave/free balance. By 1860, there's 33 states, with about a 3:4 ratio of s;ave to free. Balkanization is key here. As much as I hate to say it, that disgusting-sounding state carved out of California would probably happen.

I see no reason why Nevada wouldn't happen, nor Alaska. It's not exactly an ideal place for plantations.

The Compromise of 1850 ended the slave/free balance by admitting California. Free states already had majorities in both houses by 1860.
 
The Compromise of 1850 ended the slave/free balance by admitting California. Free states already had majorities in both houses by 1860.

Ah. I concede the point. In that case, Kodak probably has it right. Unless there's no compromise of 1850, it wouldn't matter.
 
Well, I'm skeptical about your POD there, but I'll roll with it. I'd say something like 10-15 states, to maintain the slave/free balance. By 1860, there's 33 states, with about a 3:4 ratio of s;ave to free. Balkanization is key here. As much as I hate to say it, that disgusting-sounding state carved out of California would probably happen.

I see no reason why Nevada wouldn't happen, nor Alaska. It's not exactly an ideal place for plantations.

The POD was just a quick idea. I am certain there are other ways to avoid a shooting war between the sections, but keept their deep tensions.

It is not about Nevada or Alaska being slave states. It is about the numerical fact that there will probably be, at most 20 slave states, and that only if *Oklahoma and *CSA-Arizona and *SoCal are admitted as slave states, Texas is divided in two and Cuba is annexed. While not even Delaware abolishes slavery.
Each additional free state gives two more senators who might be abolitionists, and another legislature that might vote for an abolitionistic amendment. So keeping the number of free states low is of vital interest to the pro-slavery side. For them, one huge free Dakota is better than a free ND, a free SD, a free MT, a free WY ...

The Compromise of 1850 ended the slave/free balance by admitting California. Free states already had majorities in both houses by 1860.

But not the supermajority needed to pass amendments. Unless my math is completely off.
 
Top