WI: Slavery banned in Louisiana Purchase area but not around New Orleans?

What if, after the Louisiana Purchase, the decision was made to ban slavery in the unorganized portion of the territory, but allow slavery in the southernmost portion, essentially the OTL state of Louisiana? Would this stymie the efforts of slaveocrats in the south, or would they instead refocus their efforts on the acquisition of Cuba and Florida and other Caribbean territories? Would the United States still pursue California and Texas? Would one sectional divide be over where to expand to, south or west?
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
What if, after the Louisiana Purchase, the decision was made to ban slavery in the unorganized portion of the territory, but allow slavery in the southernmost portion, essentially the OTL state of Louisiana? Would this stymie the efforts of slaveocrats in the south, or would they instead refocus their efforts on the acquisition of Cuba and Florida and other Caribbean territories? Would the United States still pursue California and Texas? Would one sectional divide be over where to expand to, south or west?

I don't think this would ever work. The odds were in favor that anything south of Missouri would be settled by southerners. Never mind the fact that it would be almost impossible to work politically as it wasn't much of a compromise.
 
I don't think this would ever work. The odds were in favor that anything south of Missouri would be settled by southerners. Never mind the fact that it would be almost impossible to work politically as it wasn't much of a compromise.

I wonder though if, by changing the terms of the Louisiana Purchase, such that the US is bound, indirectly, to upholding the French Revolutionary ideals of Liberty, Equality, and Brotherhood? The Revolutionary Government had banned slavery in 1794; and while Napoleon does reintroduce it in 1802, it's only in the Caribbean islands, and on sugarcane plantations... Is it feasible at all that France could insist on the continued abolition within the transferred territory, outside of Louisiana where a Caribbean-style plantation system had started to develop, in no small part due to the Americans starting to settle in and around New Orleans? And outside of Louisiana, a "what exists, exists" policy, wherein outside of the future state of Louisiana, slaves are permitted...but only if they were brought in prior to the treaty, and no further slave trade of any sort can continue?

I dunno, I'm just throwing ideas out here, not sure how feasible this really is. But it does sound interesting.
 
Main problem is that these kind of laws only apply until Statehood.

Even OTL slavery was almost legalised in Illinois, though it had been banned under the Northwest Ordinance, so I think we can take it as certain that Arkansas will end up with slaves even if admitted without them. OTOH, Missouri might just possibly stay free.

Interesting thought is if the Constitution makes some reference to the matter, perhaps giving Congress "the power to legislate for territories not forming part of any state, with reference to the status of persons held to service or labour therein, and other matters". This would have only limited effect at first, but could matter later, as it would put beyond doubt Congress' power to ban slavery in a Territory.
 
I think you'd need Adams reelected to do something like this, and the compromise would probably have had to contain slavery below a certain line, and ban it above said line.
 
Top