Suppose that as part of the 1850 compromise, the 36-30 line still holds. The part of California below that latitude is detached from California and joins the New Mexico territory. The part above becomes the state of California.
This gives the South a slightly better deal. However, to get this, popular sovereignty is not applied to the Utah territory, just the New Mexico territory. This maintains the Missouri compromise line, but slavery is allowed in the expanded New Mexico territory so the South is happy that slavery has a place to expand to.
Does this hold up any better than the compromise that actually happened? And how does this change the histories of California, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico?
This gives the South a slightly better deal. However, to get this, popular sovereignty is not applied to the Utah territory, just the New Mexico territory. This maintains the Missouri compromise line, but slavery is allowed in the expanded New Mexico territory so the South is happy that slavery has a place to expand to.
Does this hold up any better than the compromise that actually happened? And how does this change the histories of California, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico?