In 1824 slavery was still referred to as "a necessary evil." It would not be until after the Nat Turner Rebellion and the rise of Calhoun (i.e. post Jefferson and Jackson) that slavery was to be called "a positive good." Why does this matter? Because by introducing slavery while many saw it as a soon to end institution brought into the state just to kick-start immigration and the economy there is less opposition from proponents of free soil settlement.
Once Jefferson and Jackson are out of power the whole dynamic changes. The Old Northwest begins to look towards the immigrant filled Northeast for political support. The old slave south turned away from supporting small farmers and refused to support the various Homestead Acts. Even with IL as a slave state this won't change. The cost of slaves is just too much for poor immigrant farmers to afford. Pretty soon these non-slave farmers will vastly outnumber the slave holders in IL and beyond. IL will go back to being a free state.
The problem is that once the slave trade ends, with more territory open to slavery means more demand for slaves and higher prices for slaves. This has the knock on affect of making it harder for the smaller farms and small businesses to buy slaves. It is more likely that like MD and VA, IL will become a breeding ground for slaves to sell south. After a decade or two of this the slave population will drop and emancipation will be possible. If this occurs in an orderly fashion than it is likely DE, which was already on the borderline, will follow suite.
So what will the south do in the early 1850s when two or three border states (depending on the status of IA and KS) begin gradual emancipation? If the northern states got scared when IL went slave imagine the reaction 30 years later when IL, DE, IA and KS (possibly MO as well) vote to become free states.
Remember also that in 1824 Jefferson was still alive and he was very supportive of the idea of the yeoman farmer working small plots of land. If IL went slave, despite being a slave owner himself, he would not be too happy.
@Benkarnell - IL could and did elect very pro-slavery Governors because they could do so without fear of it being an issue. IL was a free state and by 1830 that wasn't going to change. Being a free soil/no slavery in the territories farmer more often than not went hand in hand with being racist and against allowing free blacks to live in your state or have any rights. If those governors had actually run on a platform of opening IL and the territories to slavery they would have lost. John Reynolds for instance came from PA and was a big supporter of Railways and canals. He even went to Philadelphia (not Savannah or Charleston) to raise funds for the canals.
Benjamin
Once Jefferson and Jackson are out of power the whole dynamic changes. The Old Northwest begins to look towards the immigrant filled Northeast for political support. The old slave south turned away from supporting small farmers and refused to support the various Homestead Acts. Even with IL as a slave state this won't change. The cost of slaves is just too much for poor immigrant farmers to afford. Pretty soon these non-slave farmers will vastly outnumber the slave holders in IL and beyond. IL will go back to being a free state.
The problem is that once the slave trade ends, with more territory open to slavery means more demand for slaves and higher prices for slaves. This has the knock on affect of making it harder for the smaller farms and small businesses to buy slaves. It is more likely that like MD and VA, IL will become a breeding ground for slaves to sell south. After a decade or two of this the slave population will drop and emancipation will be possible. If this occurs in an orderly fashion than it is likely DE, which was already on the borderline, will follow suite.
So what will the south do in the early 1850s when two or three border states (depending on the status of IA and KS) begin gradual emancipation? If the northern states got scared when IL went slave imagine the reaction 30 years later when IL, DE, IA and KS (possibly MO as well) vote to become free states.
Remember also that in 1824 Jefferson was still alive and he was very supportive of the idea of the yeoman farmer working small plots of land. If IL went slave, despite being a slave owner himself, he would not be too happy.
@Benkarnell - IL could and did elect very pro-slavery Governors because they could do so without fear of it being an issue. IL was a free state and by 1830 that wasn't going to change. Being a free soil/no slavery in the territories farmer more often than not went hand in hand with being racist and against allowing free blacks to live in your state or have any rights. If those governors had actually run on a platform of opening IL and the territories to slavery they would have lost. John Reynolds for instance came from PA and was a big supporter of Railways and canals. He even went to Philadelphia (not Savannah or Charleston) to raise funds for the canals.
Benjamin