The Missouri Compromise line is extended to the Pacific coast

[WolfBear]

What if, after the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848, the Missouri Compromise line is extended to the Pacific coast, with slavery being legal to the south of this line and being illegal to the north of this line?

For reference:

The Missouri Compromise Line is Extended to the Pacific Coast

After if, after the U.S. victory in the Mexican-American War, the U.S. government decided to extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific coast? Would this have prevented the U.S. Civil War? Any thoughts on this? For reference:

historum.com

 

[stevep]

Ah, see my comment on the other thread -

If by extending the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific, which would only have really had an impact after the conquest of California and other lands from Mexico I think you would then have had the issue that while people could bring slaves into say California its probably that the vast majority of the voting [i.e. largely Anglo] population would be bitterly opposed to their presence. Basically as a threat to 'free' labour. So you would have such states seeking to limit if not ban slavery as much as they could. Which would again cause tensions with the existing slave states. Furthermore the bulk of the southern states west of Texas [and much of Texas itself] isn't suitable for plantation slavery or any agricultural purpose so unless they were used say for mining there would be relatively little employment for them.

 

[Skallagrim]

If the compromise line is extended right after the Mexcan-American War, it's going to affect the migration into the regions involved. There's going to be fewer white people moving to Southern California, with the result that it can have a slave-based hacienda economy.

As @stevep mentioned, prospects for plantations are limited (although there's viable parts of California, to be sure). Nevertheless, there's no law of nature saying slaves can't be used for mining and such purposes. In fact, it's been quite common, historically. So I see no reason for, ah, "pessimism" about slavery's prospects, here.

New Mexico Territory is going to be very sparsely settled for a long time in any event, so that's a bit of a moot point either way.

I'm pretty sure that under the premise of the line being extended West, the Indian Territory, the New Mexico Territory, and the state of Colorado (meaning southern California; OTL Colorado will need a different name) will all have their Northern borders at the line, and not one inch across it.

 

[stevep]

If the compromise line is extended right after the Mexcan-American War, it's going to affect the migration into the regions involved. There's going to be fewer white people moving to Southern California, with the result that it can have a slave-based hacienda economy.

As @stevep mentioned, prospects for plantations are limited (although there's viable parts of California, to be sure). Nevertheless, there's no law of nature saying slaves can't be used for mining and such purposes. In fact, it's been quite common, historically. So I see no reason for, ah, "pessimism" about slavery's prospects, here.

New Mexico Territory is going to be very sparsely settled for a long time in any event, so that's a bit of a moot point either way.

I'm pretty sure that under the premise of the line being extended West, the Indian Territory, the New Mexico Territory, and the state of Colorado (meaning southern California; OTL Colorado will need a different name) will all have their Northern borders at the line, and not one inch across it.

Even so I think the discovery of gold is going to attract a lot of settlers and many of them will be opposed to slavery if only because they don't want the economic competition, let alone any morale reasons. Hence for 'California' once it becomes a state you could see a move against slavery fueled by popular feeling.

I remember reading once, as the gold mining reached the point where most of the mines were centralised under wealthy owners employing machines and a lot of workers the owner of one complaining about how often his workers sought to steal gold from the mine and the efforts he had to go to to prevent that. One of the people who mentioned it to suggested he replace the workers with slaves - this was before California was formally a free state and it would be allowed. However the mine owner in question was a certain John Fremont. However further east in the overwhelmingly desert regions which are less likely to attract a lot of settlers that could definitely be an option.

The other issue is that while some areas in the region are suitable possibly for plantations how much of that would require large scale irrigation which could take a lot of work and time to put in place. That's the primary reason why southern California is able to have the large population it currently supports. There's a short video I actually saw earlier this morning that mentions the problems of water in the American west which raises questions about any use of slaves in the area outside mining type activities. Even hacienda type systems might have problems if their near to either the Mexican border or that with the state north of the Compromise line as there is the chance of slaves seeking to escape.

 

[Skallagrim]

Even so I think the discovery of gold is going to attract a lot of settlers and many of them will be opposed to slavery if only because they don't want the economic competition, let alone any morale reasons. Hence for 'California' once it becomes a state you could see a move against slavery fueled by popular feeling.

I remember reading once, as the gold mining reached the point where most of the mines were centralised under wealthy owners employing machines and a lot of workers the owner of one complaining about how often his workers sought to steal gold from the mine and the efforts he had to go to to prevent that. One of the people who mentioned it to suggested he replace the workers with slaves - this was before California was formally a free state and it would be allowed. However the mine owner in question was a certain John Fremont. However further east in the overwhelmingly desert regions which are less likely to attract a lot of settlers that could definitely be an option.

The other issue is that while some areas in the region are suitable possibly for plantations how much of that would require large scale irrigation which could take a lot of work and time to put in place. That's the primary reason why southern California is able to have the large population it currently supports. There's a short video I actually saw earlier this morning that mentions the problems of water in the American west which raises questions about any use of slaves in the area outside mining type activities. Even hacienda type systems might have problems if their near to either the Mexican border or that with the state north of the Compromise line as there is the chance of slaves seeking to escape.

The two major Californian goldfields were both North of the line, so I'm pretty sure you're going to see a more populated and immigration-heavy (Northern) California, and a less populated, unattractive-to-immigrants 'Colorado'. The latter has more dispersed, smaller goldfields, which can far more easily be privately owned by one party. I imagine the party in question typically being a slavocrat (or a cartel of them). They'd also have some plantations in the Southern segment of the Central Valley, although these would be marginal combined to what can be achieved in that regard back East (in the Deep South states).

'Colorado' is a viable slave state, is what I'm saying, and the territory in-between Colorado and Texas is just going to almost entirely uninhabited, so that hardly matters anyway. (If they plan a 'Southern route' railway, though, its construction would presumably rely on slave labour.)

If/when war breaks out between the North and the South, 'Colorado' is pretty much doomed. The Californians will have little trouble over-running an under-populated slave state that's functionally isolated from all possible support.

(Of course, it's also possible that 'Colorado' opts not to secede, and just stays with the Union, much like the OTL slave states that did so.)

 

[Earl]

The two major Californian goldfields were both North of the line, so I'm pretty sure you're going to see a more populated and immigration-heavy (Northern) California, and a less populated, unattractive-to-immigrants 'Colorado'. The latter has more dispersed, smaller goldfields, which can far more easily be privately owned by one party. I imagine the party in question typically being a slavocrat (or a cartel of them). They'd also have some plantations in the Southern segment of the Central Valley, although these would be marginal combined to what can be achieved in that regard back East (in the Deep South states).

'Colorado' is a viable slave state, is what I'm saying, and the territory in-between Colorado and Texas is just going to almost entirely uninhabited, so that hardly matters anyway. (If they plan a 'Southern route' railway, though, its construction would presumably rely on slave labour.)

If/when war breaks out between the North and the South, 'Colorado' is pretty much doomed. The Californians will have little trouble over-running an under-populated slave state that's functionally isolated from all possible support.

(Of course, it's also possible that 'Colorado' opts not to secede, and just stays with the Union, much like the OTL slave states that did so.)

Probably secedes, the south of California already had a few Confederate Militas OTL.

 

[WolfBear]

Probably secedes, the south of California already had a few Confederate Militas OTL.

Which ones?

@stevep @Skallagrim Any chance that slaves in "Colorado" could be used for ranching?

 

[Skallagrim]

Probably secedes, the south of California already had a few Confederate Militas OTL.

Possible. But Kentucky had Confederate militias, too, so I'm not sure that's any kind of definitive indication.

@stevep @Skallagrim Any chance that slaves in "Colorado" could be used for ranching?

Ranching would be the ideal way for slaves to escape. It would be practically impossible to keep an eye on them all the time.

 

[gral]

Ranching would be the ideal way for slaves to escape. It would be practically impossible to keep an eye on them all the time.

Some slaves were used in ranching in Brazil, but it doesn't seem to be the usual practice(for the above-mentioned reason).