Monroe Vetoes the Missouri Compromise -

[raharris1973]

Apparently James Monroe's first instinct was to veto the Missouri Compromise. He did not like drawing a line in the territories and prejudging that slavery could not be adopted in some of them. He had a message all ready.

Suppose he does that, and Missouri is admitted as a slave state but no 'Missouri Compromise line' at 36'30' is imposed, and the north is outraged.

I see a couple potential early U.S. civil war scenarios emerging from this:

A) Instead of cruising to reelection almost by acclamation, outraged outraged northern opinion rallies behind its own candidate to oppose Monroe in 1820 - likely DeWitt Clinton, Rufus King, or possibly John Quincy Adams. - Since Monroe already wears the Republican or Democratic-Republican Party label, the northern opposition candidate is nominated by a grouping calling itself the National Republicans and the Whigs, though its platform, ideology, and support base is more like the 1850s Republicans than the 1830s Whigs.

Presuming the northern candidate sweeps the free state that candidate will have more than the 118 out of 235 electoral votes needed to win, and defeat Monroe.

The northern candidate on taking office, will support the tariff, internal improvements, homestead acts, and keeping all western territories (Arkansas territory and unorganized territory) free soil.

The southern states will balk at that anti-slavery discrimination and begin seceding over the "secession winter" of 1820-21, or "secession spring" of 1821, starting with Calhoun leading South Carolina in secession but the rest of the south soon following.

A few questions about this scenario- will all slave states, states that voted for Monroe secede? Will they all Confederate with each other? If they do, would they elect Monroe as their leader (and would he accept?) or someone else?

What will the still living founding generation folks be saying about southern secession, like Monroe, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams? I'm going to assume Jefferson will say the south has no choice. James Madison may be more likely to object to secession. John Jay and Aaron Burr will say its awful.

I assume the winning northern-backed administration will try to suppress southern secession by force. But do you think they would let slave states go in peace? At a minimum, I think the northern-backed administration would compete and use its federal forces to try to hold all the western territories against any moves by southern states to occupy them. This could also involve occupying Missouri.

If it comes to a contest of arms, will the north win, or will the south win its independence?

It seems like the north has fewer advantages at this time, so has a greater chance of losing/being forced to give up.

If the north wins, or the fighting is prolonged, will the north make emancipation one of its goals? That's regardless of whether it succeeds or not.

B) Monroe ends up winning reelection by a narrow electoral margin against his northern challenger, having won either Illinois, or Indiana, or both, in addition to all slave states.
Northern public opinion takes its loss hard, especially as Monroe's second administration refuses the territorial limitation on slavery, other desired northern legislation, supports a fugitive slave act, and a gag rule on discussing slavery-related questions in Congress.

Northern states, beginning with New England and Pennsylvania, start seceding in the 1821-1822 timeframe, and it spreads to every state that voted against Monroe.

A few questions about this-

Does the Monroe Administration, Cabinet, and rump Democratic-Republican Congress want to suppress the secessionist north, or let it go in peace? Slavery-firsters will favor 'go-in-peace', but proud nationalists feeling insulted will want to suppress secession, and people like Andy Jackson will say they are happy to whip the Yankee rebels.

If Monroe decides to use force, how does the war go? Are the northern rebels defeated, or do they win independence?

One aspect of a northern secession leading to civil war is I think that the north has a significantly higher chance of getting foreign support. It could stay even, or overpower, federal forces navally.

I could imagine, it would attract more sympathy as the (relatively) antislavery side. I could see Britain aiding northern separatists as a way to split the US, take an anti-slavery posture, give payback for the war of 1812, and take revenge on Andrew Jackson, who is probably a federal general.

The only question is if they demand any unacceptable concessions of the northern separatists in exchange for support.

 

[raharris1973]

In scenario B), northern secession, the type of concessions Britain might look for in return for helping northern secessionists may be concessions on the tariff, cession of some or all northern state claims on the Oregon country, or the Maine boundary dispute. Northern secessionists will try to give up as little on all three of those as possible, based on how much they think they can take care of themselves and how much they think they need British aid.

Of course in a lot of ways, Britain has more economic complementarity with the southern states, and was purchasing its cotton in yearly increasing amounts, and the Empire had not yet abolished slavery in its own Caribbean colonies in 1820, but distaste for slavery and the trend toward abolition was growing.

Yankee secessionists are *not* going to go so far as re-federating with the British empire, their identity is too separate for that by this time.

For scenario A, there are many fewer railroads in the USA, and those that exist are further in the east.

Horse and water-borne transport via sea, river, and canal predominates. The golden age of canals into the old northwest was only just starting, it wouldn't peak for another decade or two. For the rivers, in the 1810s there were 20 steamboats on the inland rivers, and 1200 by the 1830, so I figure at best in 1820-1821 there would have been still relatively scarce numbers of steamboats numbering in the high double-digit or low triple-digits.

That poses some significant challenges for northern based reconquest of the south, although presuming the north has or soon gains naval superiority it can probably menace Maryland and the tidewater coasts of the Chesapeake pretty well.

 

[raharris1973]

1820 election totals -

Scenario A - "northern" candidate wins with all free state votes against all slave states for Monroe-
Free 9(CT)+3(IL)+3(IN)+9(ME)+15(MA)+8(NH)+8(NJ)+29(NY)+8(OH)+25(PA)+4(RI)+8(VT) = 129
Slave 3(AL)+4(DE)+8(GA)+12(KY)+3(LA)+11(MD)+3(MS)+3(MO)+15(NC)+11(SC)+8(TN)+25(VA) = 103

Scenario B - For Monroe to beat "northern" challenger he some needs multiple electoral vote defections from free states-

Shifting the somewhat southern and Mississippi River oriented states of Illinois and Indiana over to Monroe is not enough
Monroe 3(AL)+4(DE)+8(GA)+12(KY)+3(LA)+11(MD)+3(MS)+3(MO)+15(NC)+11(SC)+8(TN)+25(VA) = 109
challenger 9(CT)+9(ME)+15(MA)+8(NH)+8(NJ)+29(NY)+8(OH)+25(PA)+4(RI)+8(VT) = 123

If we transfer over one more 8 electoral vote free state, either Ohio, or New Jersey, we change the score to
Monroe - 117
Challenger - 115

So I was wrong in my earlier post, it takes Monroe winning 3 substantial free states to win reelection with a regionally polarized election, simply because the high population of New England, New York and Pennsylvania packs so much of a punch in electoral college terms.

 

[Buba]

I've read that Ohio - same as Illinois and Indiana - was pretty much "Virginia/Kentucky lite", so maybe it is more likely to be "flipped" than NJ?

The map shows very nicely how the crazy shape of Virginia splits the north.
BTW - surely the green lines are NOT railways, as in 1820 there were none? Also - Wee-Vee in 1820?

 

[raharris1973]

I've read that Ohio - same as Illinois and Indiana - was pretty much "Virginia/Kentucky lite", so maybe it is more likely to be "flipped" than NJ?

The map shows very nicely how the crazy shape of Virginia splits the north. BTW - surely the green lines are NOT railways, as in 1820 there were none? Also - Wee-Vee in 1820?

You are correct Buba about railroads - The map I grabbed said railroads 1820, but the site I grabbed it from said in the text railroads didn't start in the US till 1830, so the map must represent 1840 or so. As for West Virginia on the map - I don't think they worked hard for accuracy on political boundaries, so allowed anachronistic elements to be in it.

 

[stevep]

1820 election totals -

Scenario A - "northern" candidate wins with all free state votes against all slave states for Monroe-
Free 9(CT)+3(IL)+3(IN)+9(ME)+15(MA)+8(NH)+8(NJ)+29(NY)+8(OH)+25(PA)+4(RI)+8(VT) = 129
Slave 3(AL)+4(DE)+8(GA)+12(KY)+3(LA)+11(MD)+3(MS)+3(MO)+15(NC)+11(SC)+8(TN)+25(VA) = 103

Scenario B - For Monroe to beat "northern" challenger he some needs multiple electoral vote defections from free states-

Shifting the somewhat southern and Mississippi River oriented states of Illinois and Indiana over to Monroe is not enough
Monroe 3(AL)+4(DE)+8(GA)+12(KY)+3(LA)+11(MD)+3(MS)+3(MO)+15(NC)+11(SC)+8(TN)+25(VA) = 109
challenger 9(CT)+9(ME)+15(MA)+8(NH)+8(NJ)+29(NY)+8(OH)+25(PA)+4(RI)+8(VT) = 123

If we transfer over one more 8 electoral vote free state, either Ohio, or New Jersey, we change the score to
Monroe - 117
Challenger - 115

So I was wrong in my earlier post, it takes Monroe winning 3 substantial free states to win reelection with a regionally polarized election, simply because the high population of New England, New York and Pennsylvania packs so much of a punch in electoral college terms.

That makes it sounds like a larger and earlier southern break-away is more likely than a northern one.

One other point assuming that the union is split. What happens to Texas? Assuming the north becomes 'free' and opposing slavery would it allow the rebels in Texas to establish a slave state there - possibly even going as far as supporting Mexico? Or more likely possibly would it seek to oppose Texas later joining the south?

If it does stand aside does the south, especially if looking over its shoulder at the north, does the south have the resources to fight Texas over the issue and make the OTL conquests of Mew Mexico/Arizona/California?

You could get some huge changes in the history and development of N America with an early division of the US. Let alone cultural and economic changes.

 

[Buba]

Texas?
ITTL Santa Anna may be successful and goes Vlad Tepes on the rebel leaders.
Giving another explanation for the name Llano Estacado ...

 

[raharris1973]

That makes it sounds like a larger and earlier southern break-away is more likely than a northern one.

Let's go with that - I wonder if *all* slave states and all Monroe voting states also go so far as to take the plunge and actually secede. Or, if like OTL's later civil war, some border states are unprepared to abandoned the Union. After all, no one near power is talking about abolition in 1820 for well-established states, just for a sunset clause for the new state of Missouri and banning it from western territories.

Especially in a two man race, polarized along sectional lines, because the compromise fails, I can't imagine Monroe *losing* any of the slave states to a candidate identified as a northern, free soil challenger, as Lincoln was. The northern opposition candidate would probably not even be on the ballot in most slave states, and his coalition would be like a 35 years early incarnation of Lincoln's Republican Party. But, Lincoln's sweep of the free states (less 1/2 New Jersey) in 1860 still only happened on the Republicans 2nd try. On the Republicans first try in 1856, their candidate Fremont, failed in multiple free states including California, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Possibly, if he is upset enough about the Presidential torpedo'ing of the compromise, Henry Clay could run as a 3rd party candidate attempting a "healing" middle position while running as a favorite son of Kentucky, and basing his national candidacy on a re-sell of the compromise package that Monroe vetoed. In this manner Clay could split southern electoral unity the way John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party did in 1860.

Kentucky will be even more key to any early Civil War than the 1860 version, and Clay will be influential in how his state goes. Its 12 electoral votes show it was the demographic behemoth of the western states, with only Tennessee getting close, and all other non-Atlantic states, north and south, being minimally represented with much of the land still in native hands.

Basically, if Kentucky joins Virginia on the secessionist side, there's just no hope for any northern suppression southern secessionism, and the southern breakaway state is at least as well positioned to define its western frontier past Missouri as the north is.

Kentucky may however stick with loyalty or try neutrality, hoping for a peaceful, compromise reunion. While enjoying slavery in the southwestern portion, all western states, north and south, liked the idea of strong federal support for internal improvements - roads, canals, and federal help against Indians. That's what the westerners had more in common with north easterners than south easterners. Westerners tended like southerners to dislike tariffs though, except for the Louisianans, who couldn't compete with foreign sugar.

In general, I think the states that could be most counted upon to be in the secessionist column would be Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Mississippi. The toss-ups would be Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky and Maryland, and Delaware would be a a real longshot to try to secede and much less to secede because of its economic subordination to Philadelphia.

One other point assuming that the union is split. What happens to Texas? Assuming the north becomes 'free' and opposing slavery would it allow the rebels in Texas to establish a slave state there - possibly even going as far as supporting Mexico? Or more likely possibly would it seek to oppose Texas later joining the south?

Assuming the Union is split, but reunites with northern victory, the US won't allow a slave state to be set up there, but many ex-secessionist may seek a fresh start there.

Assuming the Union is split and stay that way, if the secession is a big one, that encompasses almost all the slave states, the US won't be geographically positioned to interfere directly in any conflict between Mexico and the American south over Texas. I think, based on the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' that the northern rump USA would morally and diplomatically support the Mexican side (perhaps financially too).

If the Union is split but with more of the border states (Kentucky) or old southwest (Louisiana) sticking with the Union, Texas formation, certainly as a slave state, is getting blocked.

make the OTL conquests of Mew Mexico/Arizona/California?

I don't think the southern secessionist state is getting these conquests done under its own power while looking over its shoulder at the north.

 

[Buba]

Wasn't Virginia lukewarm on slavery in this period, seriously contemplating abolition, with sentiments hardening later?

 

[stevep]

Wasn't Virginia lukewarm on slavery in this period, seriously contemplating abolition, with sentiments hardening later?

IIRC there was some talk of this then a small but bloody slave revolt in I think it was the 1820's seems to have hardened opinion but don't know enough to mention more than broad comments.

 

[raharris1973]

Wasn't Virginia lukewarm on slavery in this period, seriously contemplating abolition, with sentiments hardening later?

Virginians may have had ambivalence about slavery in the long-term, but any thoughts about abolition were always accompanied by great fears about how to deal with with a post-slavery free black population. That is why colonization was such a popular approach among white critics of slavery, and the decade ahead is when Liberia was founded.

Virginians, including Monroe and old Thomas Jefferson, were of the "diffusionist" point of view, thinking (or rationalizing) the territorial spread of slavery would actually make abolition *easier* not *harder*. The idea was that the spread of the practice of slavery would encourage slaveholders to migrate out of state with their slaves and for slaveholders in state to sell "excess" slaves to new frontiers of slavery.

That could open up the possibility of upper south states like Maryland or Virginia or Kentucky to follow the example of the north and put gradual emancipation in place. The theory was the northern states were able to do this because the ratio was white to black was "safe" at 9 to 1, 8 to 1, 7 to 1. Even if undesirable, a free black population of 10-15% might be tolerable. But anything of 20% or a 4 to 1 ratio risked societal ruin. None of the free states had ratios like that.

For this reason, these Virginia "diffusionists" feared and loathed limits on the expansion of slavery for both near term greedy reasons and supposedly for long-term lofty reasons.

The upper south and eastern south made money selling by selling slaves south and west. Limiting the spread of slavery across the Mississippi would close that market and depress the price. Additionally, they feared with the trans-mississippi west open to free soil settlement, but not slavery, non-slaveholding yeoman farmers from Virginia would migrate west, continually decreasing the white population of Virginia relative to the black population, thought to be undesirable for society itself, and to "lock in" slavery further as a means of social control.

Bringing it back to this scenario, of how Virginia would feel if a northern free soil candidate loses in 1820, well the PoD is a Virginian born and bred President, Monroe, vetoes the compromise, because he dislikes prejudging that most western territory (except Arkansas and Oklahoma, and Florida really) is no-go for slavery. [And we need to remember, Monroe came quite close to veto'ing the compromise in real life] In that case I imagine he will be pissed off by a northern free soil candidate winning who says slavery gets *none* of the western territories, not even Arkansas and Oklahoma.

Another prominent Virginian, old Thomas Jefferson, was freaked out by the Missouri dispute of 1819-1820, and blamed the dispute, entirely, on northern agitation for trying to tell Missouri what to do with the Tallmadge amendment and to prejudice the status of the territories. He may have been influenced by being an old man in debt whose few assets included slaves he could try to sell off.

And these were two Virginians with the most national and least parochial perspectives.

Also, Virginia did have a history of asserting it could go against federal rules it disliked - the Virginia and (Kentucky) resolutions of the 1790s against the Alien and Sedition Acts.

So, Virginia will I think be very disturbed by the election of a northern free soil President. But it will also be disturbed by the idea of the breakage of the Union, especially any chance that its own secession will cut it off from states and territories to the west.

Virginia's hope will be have the maximum opportunities for its planters to sell slaves or set up shop both deeper in the south, where secessionist sentiment will be strongest, and the "southwest", Missouri, Arkansas territory, parts of unorganized territory, Kentucky, where secessionist sentiment would be far more uncertain.

On balance, I think Virginia is panicked enough to secede in this situation. And it will try to lobby all the slave states to its west to join.

In addition to Virginians like Monroe and Jefferson being rather hardline in the Missouri crisis, so were 'usual suspects' from the Deep South. One of Georgia's Senators basically told his northern counterparts, if y'all keep talking about this slavery issue in Congress and making it Congressional business to restrict it here or there it is a straight line to secession, disunion, civil war, and torrents of blood. Old Mr. Pinckney from South Carolina, a prominent Federalist from the 1790s basically said congress is only getting its grubby little hands on the slavery issue after prying it from the cold, dead hands of South Carolina.

IIRC there was some talk of this then a small but bloody slave revolt in I think it was the 1820's seems to have hardened opinion but don't know enough to mention more than broad comments.

These were all later events. -

In Virginia, we are talking about the 1830s. We can't really say how close any emancipation bill was to significant chance of success, but, it was always intended to gradual, and coupled with plans to "colonize" slaves thus freed out of the state, and country, a notoriously expensive proposition. And, the bloody Nat Turner rebellion of 1831 in Southampton County, turned Virginian's first priority to security against insurrection and control of slaves.

In the 1820s, also *after* the Missouri debate there was the discovery of Denmark Vesey's plot for a slave insurrection in Charleston in 1822, leading to his arrest and execution and that of alleged co-conspirators. That led to greater panic in already high-strung South Carolina, and more restrictions on movement and contacts of free blacks as well as slaves.

 

[raharris1973]

In handicapping an early north-south Civil War, I took a look at whether the southern bias in the US army officer corps had taken hold by 1820 like it had by 1860. The results of my search are inconclusive.

Here's what we do know - The south had a disproportionate number of officers and professional soldiers compared to population by 1860. But in the Continental Army, despite its command by Virginian Washington, and commands for Harry and Charles Lee, the officer corps and soldiery was overwhelmingly northern.

I don't have broad figures for soldier or officer demographics, but I can say that after Washington, all the top most ranking Army generals in the ensuing decades were New England and Pennsylvania dudes, with the except of Wilkinson from Maryland and Winfield Scott from Virginia.

Secretaries of War were appointed fairly from all regions in the antebellum decades. For Monroe's administration, and this could be significant, John Calhoun of South Carolina held the job.

 

[raharris1973]

Another factor in any North versus South Civil War that happens in the 1820s (or anytime before the 1830s):

Large tracts of the south are still under Amerindian control-

Their loyalties and roles in an early Civil War could be interesting factor. Even after being exiled by the deep southern states, most of these Amerindian nations when living in Indian Territory/Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy. They might side with seceding states here, or with the federal government, it all depends on state government policies, local conditions, federal government policies, and native leaders' politics at the moment of any secession war.

 

[S'task]

Another factor in any North versus South Civil War that happens in the 1820s (or anytime before the 1830s):

Large tracts of the south are still under Amerindian control-

Their loyalties and roles in an early Civil War could be interesting factor. Even after being exiled by the deep southern states, most of these Amerindian nations when living in Indian Territory/Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy. They might side with seceding states here, or with the federal government, it all depends on state government policies, local conditions, federal government policies, and native leaders' politics at the moment of any secession war.

Bear in mind, many of those tribes in the south also practiced slavery and owned signficant populations of slaves. So economically they're already incentivised to side with the local states.

On the other hand, one of the major reasons for the tribes to end up siding with the Confederacy in OTL had to do with by the 1860s the US Federal Government had proactively screwed them over multiple times. The Trail of Tears was primarily driven by the Federal government, not state governments, and so when you had breakaway states that were against the Federal in the OTL the Tribes sided with them. However, as noted, this is before that series of being screwed over was well established, so they'll have less motivation to side with the breakaway regions...

On balance, I think Virginia is panicked enough to secede in this situation. And it will try to lobby all the slave states to its west to join.

I'm not sold on this idea. Bear in mind, in the actual US Civil War, Virginia held two secession votes*. The first, held in the immediate aftermath of the 1860 Presidential election like the votes across the rest of the South, FAILED to garner majority support in the State. It took Lincoln proving to be intransigent and willing to exceed his authority as President under the Constitution as Virginia interpreted it (bear in mind, there was a long, LONG period of negotiation and communication between Richmond and DC via the telegraph at the time, along with the ACTUAL breaking out of hostilities in South Carolina for the second secession vote to manage to pass and even then a significant portion of the Commonwealth refused to secede.

Without the longer buildup and intransigence of Lincoln in insisting Virginia supply troops and quarter for his army marching south to prevent the secession, I find it difficult to believe that Virginia would vote to secede.

As to the entire "Virginia was willing to buck the Federal government", note that those issues were ones where Virginia felt the Federal Government was overstepping it's Constitutional bounds. Virginia was quite proud of the Constitution, after all, major parts of it were WRITTEN by Virginians, and hated when the Federal Government violated it. Your citation of the 1790 Resolution against the Alien and Sedition Acts is EXACTLY this kind of stance, as when you read the Alien and Sedition Acts they CLEARLY violate the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. This is also in the OTL what led Virginia to secede, they felt Lincoln was violating the US Constitution to the extent where they were left with no other choice.

In this scenario you have no such core Constitutional violation. Nobody questions if the Federal Government has the power to determine the status of slavery in US territories: it clearly does. Unless this free soil President seeks to forcefully reunite the union as Lincoln later did, and then requires Virginia to support those efforts, I doubt you'd see them secede, it's not in the character of the State, especially given the level of Pride Virginia took in the United States as a Project.


--------------------
* Another thing to understand was that Virginia, unlike many of the other Southern States, held an electoral level vote on secession, meaning it was voted on by the general voting public not just the legislature. This is true of both votes and seems likely the way it would be voted on in the 1820s as well.

 

[raharris1973]

It took Lincoln proving to be intransigent and willing to exceed his authority as President under the Constitution as Virginia interpreted it (bear in mind, there was a long, LONG period of negotiation and communication between Richmond and DC via the telegraph at the time, along with the ACTUAL breaking out of hostilities in South Carolina for the second secession vote to manage to pass and even then a significant portion of the Commonwealth refused to secede.

Without the longer buildup and intransigence of Lincoln in insisting Virginia supply troops and quarter for his army marching south to prevent the secession, I find it difficult to believe that Virginia would vote to secede.

You are speaking as is if the victorious northern, free-soil candidate who unseats Monroe won't take all the same actions as Lincoln, but chances are more than 50/50 that the whole north and the Free Soil will be outraged by Deep South secession, will regard it as a form of "cheating", deny the right of secession, and work to suppress it. The incoming Free Soil administration basically has only two choices, forcefully oppose secession, which Virginia will regard as "coercion", or acquiesce, let the deep south "go in peace", and in so doing practically invite the deep south states to be perpetually independent, receive foreign recognition, steal federal property (including the federal territory of Florida, now cut off by land), and depending on Louisiana's local conditions seize control of the mouth of the Mississippi, and set a precedent. of states leaving at their displeasure.



I think the north accepting all the risks of the "go-in-peace" acquiescent approach to deep south secession (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, minimum) or a perpetual do-nothing, temporizing policy, is far less likely than an eventual confrontation, even if the new northern-led administration, like Lincoln, tries to arrange things so it looks like the rebels fire the first shot.

Besides, if the north doesn't try to suppress secession, there's no war, so there's alot less of a scenario .

Unless this free soil President seeks to forcefully reunite the union as Lincoln later did, and then requires Virginia to support those efforts, I doubt you'd see them secede,

Of course the free soil President will do this. It should be considered his default course of action. A blasé acceptance of secession would be his surprise play, if he did it.

So, I think some flashpoint should bring about a call by the federal government to suppress the deep south rebels, call for volunteers, and presume transit through the upper south.

.....and in that case, Virginia is right back in the psychological situation of 1861. The northern President is is just as "coercive", "intransigent", "tyrannical", ordering actions arguably "unconstitutional". So Virginia has its second vote on secession, and passes it this time.

Why should the dynamic be different in 1820-21 than 1860-61? Virginia votes against secession before it votes for it, after some type Fort Sumter-ish event.

Nobody questions if the Federal Government has the power to determine the status of slavery in US territories: it clearly does.

Plenty of people questioned if the Federal Government, in the form of Congress, had this power, including President Monroe. The root of this scenario is he vetoes the compromise because he feels a bit more strongly on the issue.

 

[S'task]

Why should the dynamic be different in 1820-21 than 1860-61? Virginia votes against secession before it votes for it, after some type Fort Sumter-ish event.

Much of your premising earlier is based on the idea of Virginia LEADING the secessionist movement here. You hang a lot on Virginia being a prime motivator and major instigator counting it as a "sure thing" for secession here:

In general, I think the states that could be most counted upon to be in the secessionist column would be Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Mississippi. The toss-ups would be Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky and Maryland,

My opinion is that even in a much harsher conditions of the lead up to the actual Civil War, Virginia wasn't a sure thing then, and I don't think it would be a sure thing in this scenario either. I also am not sold on the idea that a single victory by a free soil president who would declare that slavery could not extend west would actually manage to do it either. Yes that's harsh, but it's also arguably a policy that is impossible to even enact at the time as that would require legislation to enact and while the Free States hold a slight edge in the Senate (22 to 20 Senators) that wouldn't enable them to pass legislation to enforce that idea (you run into the filibuster right quick).

As such, even with a freesoil firebrand you run into the problem that the more conservative Virginians and others across the south would likely argue that this entire situation is temporary and that the Southern slave states just need to wait him out and put forward a moderate compromise candidate in 1824. As such, I don't see Virginia being a leader for this secession movement and it likely would only end up in this proto-confederacy if pushed to far, which you seem to be mandating by having what amounts to a radical republican of the late 1860s as President...

 

[raharris1973]

Much of your premising earlier is based on the idea of Virginia LEADING the secessionist movement here. You hang a lot on Virginia being a prime motivator and major instigator counting it as a "sure thing" for secession here:

Not really. I only discuss Virginia more than other states, because people raised more questions about it.

The first state to actually secede? Would most likely be South Carolina, or possibly Georgia. They would be the "leaders". I did postulate Virginia as a likely eventual "follower" because of fears of being unable to fairly and equally enjoy the western territories, unable to have as large a western and southern market to sell excess slaves to. Those are directly affected by an administration committed to keeping slavery out of federal territories in the west (which still includes Arkansas)

I also am not sold on the idea that a single victory by a free soil president who would declare that slavery could not extend west would actually manage to do it either.

The Tallmadge amendment and later Wilmot proviso both nearly passed. If South Carolina absents itself from the Senate, followed by a few more Deep South states removing their Senatorsor not, it looks even more sure to pass., as the north's edge compounds.

it likely would only end up in this proto-confederacy if pushed to far, which you seem to be mandating by having what amounts to a radical republican of the late 1860s as President

A late 1860s pro-AA Civil Rights Rad Rep isn't needed at all. Just somebody who's victory is owed to a "solid north" who campaigned on a pledge of "no slavery in the remaining western territories", and likes internal improvements, the tariff. This is no more radical than Abraham Lincoln 1860. In fact, in admitting the possibility of slavery expansion south into Florida territory, it's more moderate than Lincoln 1860.

It's still a mighty shock for both the Deep South, and even Virginia, just coming off the nearly unbroken line of "Virginia Dynasty" Presidents.

 

[raharris1973]

This map is relevant to the discussion:

 

[Buba]

Cool map!
For a State which began un-slavement in 1790 (or is that 1799?) New York sure is taking its bloody time about it
I know that Missouri and Arkansaw are fresh into statehood and with unimpresive population sizes, but still, with so few slaves, are they wed to the concept already? How "hardcore" "must have slavery" are they at this point in time?

 

[raharris1973]

Cool map!
For a State which began un-slavement in 1790 (or is that 1799?) New York sure is taking its bloody time about it
I know that Missouri and Arkansaw are fresh into statehood and with unimpresive population sizes, but still, with so few slaves, are they wed to the concept already? How "hardcore" "must have slavery" are they at this point in time?

I don't know to be honest, only that slaveowners had enough local power to get it voted into the state constitution. I would add the map is slightly inaccurate in representing the Arkansas boundary and making it look like a state. Arkansas was still a territory in 1820, and did not achieve statehood until 1836. Arkansas territory also included almost all of Oklahoma except the northernmost strip at this time.