south get Kansas in compensation for CA

How does it play out if the south after losing southern CA as a possible slave state, demands and receives the MO compromise line being pushed farther north giving them a slave Kansas Territory.
 
Uh, is this a DBWI? The South *did* get the Missouri Compromise repealed and Kansas territory opened to slavery in 1854. If you mean, what if they got it in 1850, the answer is that hardly anyone in the North was willing to do away with the Missouri Compromise in 1850--which is what made Douglas's 1854 argument that the Compromise of 1850 "superseded" the Missouri Compromise so infuriating to many northerners who had supported the Compromise of 1850. The fact that northerners rejected extending the Compromise line to the Pacific hardly means they thought it was obsolete for the territory to which it originally applied.

One important thing to remember: There were a lot more northern Whigs in Congress in 1850 than in 1854, and even the most moderate of them would reject such a proposal (as they did in 1854). Probably more northern Democrats would reject it in 1850 than in 1854 as well, without Pierce in the White House pressuring them.
 
no I am not meaning how it was repealed by Kansas Nebraska and popular sovereignty. I am meaning as part of the 1850 compromise the territory that becomes Kansas is made slave territory in compensation for losing territory in CA south of 36 30.
 
no I am not meaning how it was repealed by Kansas Nebraska and popular sovereignty. I am meaning as part of the 1850 compromise the territory that becomes Kansas is made slave territory in compensation for losing territory in CA south of 36 30.


So let's see. In 1854 it was barely possible (after massive use of patronage by Pierce) to get popular sovereignty in Kansas through the House (and this was only true because many northerners were convinced that popular sovereignty would assure that slavery would not actually go there)--but in 1850 you can get not just popular sovereignty but *positive protection* for slavery in Kansas through a *less* pro-southern House?!

Virtually all northerners felt that California should be admitted as a free state--that after all being the will of the people of California. Northerners (or enough northerners to assure passage) were reluctantly willing to make certain concessions for the admission of California, such as the establishment of popular sovereignty in New Mexico and Utah, and the enactment of a fugitive slave bill. Even those were bitterly opposed by many northerners, as they allowed at least a possibility of slavery in territories where it had been prohibited by Mexican law. There is no way that they would agree in 1850 *in addition* to enact not just popular sovereignty but actual positive protection for slavery in Kansas as well! All they would get in return is the defeat of a demand for the partition of California--a demand so extreme that even many southerners knew it would never pass. (The notion that southerners were "giving up" southern California begs the question because it assumes that the Missouri Compromise line was meant not just for the Louisiana Purchase territory but for any territory the US might acquire in the future--an assumption most northerners did not share.)
 
You still need farmhands to grow corn, wheat and the like. Slavery could have been introduced there under different circumstances.

The profit margins aren't there to warrant slavery. Economically slavery needed cash crops to make it viable, and even then it had to be in regions where those cash crops would be easily grown. Wheat/corn/cereal crops are much less labor intensive. Not to say it isn't viable, but wage earners for what ever reason were more productive in harvesting cereal crops the further north you went.
 
The profit margins aren't there to warrant slavery. Economically slavery needed cash crops to make it viable, and even then it had to be in regions where those cash crops would be easily grown. Wheat/corn/cereal crops are much less labor intensive. Not to say it isn't viable, but wage earners for what ever reason were more productive in harvesting cereal crops the further north you went.

Yeah, the profit margins ensured that the slaves would go to the Cotton South for the most part. You might have some slavery there but most likely it would end up like Delaware, practically a free state.
 
The profit margins aren't there to warrant slavery. Economically slavery needed cash crops to make it viable, and even then it had to be in regions where those cash crops would be easily grown. Wheat/corn/cereal crops are much less labor intensive. Not to say it isn't viable, but wage earners for what ever reason were more productive in harvesting cereal crops the further north you went.

Part of the reason was that cotton and tobacco are very very labor intensive crops in the way that grains never were, even in the South. Labor-saving machines like the mechanical reaper and steam threshers really hit their stride around 1850 and made growing grain an even less labor intensive practice. You no longer needed tons of people to harvest crops by hand, instead the farmer and some helpers could bring in the whole harvest. Grains are cheap and the profit comes from the huge quantities that a farmer can bring to market. The same amount of cotton would take many times as much unskilled work which was why cotton used slavery.
 
(1) If you want Kansas admitted to the Union as at least nominally a slave state, having Buchanan successfully ram Lecompton through Congress in 1857 is a lot more plausible than making it a slave territory in 1850. As I note at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/x4RJXYEG94k/fMfPDJnbuE0J the Crittenden-Montgomery Amendment providing for resubmission of the constitution to a popular vote, passed the House by only 120-112.

(2) As to whether Kansas could support slavery, we should not forget that eastern Kansas could be used to grow hemp and tobacco and was not all that different in climate and soil from nearby parts of Missouri with substantial numbers of slaves. http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/callaway/Slavery/grfx/mo_1850_Slavery.gif
 
Top