In theory. In practice, it was far more profitable to put them in the cotton fields in the South.
Here is that excerpt from the Wiki entry on "New Mexico Territory.
Regardless of the official status, slavery was rare in antebellum New Mexico. Black slaves never numbered more than about a dozen.[5]
Again, when they say "New Mexico, they mean the region between Texas and California.
A dozen slaves in the territory? If there was money to be made, there would have been more. People will pursue a profit regardless of how it may hurt other people.
If there was a buck to be made in the territories, the slavers would have chased it.
But do you know why it was important to convince everyone that slavery "expansion" was a serious problem? Because they might elect members of congress that would support the Southern states and not the Northern ones.
The Northern states had control of congress, and used it to enact all sorts of legislation favorable to themselves. A possible pro-southern state would disrupt their majority and cost them a lot of money, so they had to scare people away from the idea.
I will inform you if you didn't already know, that the primary organization that made a point to inform everyone of the dangers of slavery expanding into the territories was the "Free Soil Party."
Now you might think the "Free Soil Party" would be headquartered in Kansas, so that it could be close to the land in question, or perhaps even Chicago, so it wouldn't be too far away, but it was in fact headquartered in New York, over a thousand miles away from the land it was supposedly concerned about.
So why would people in New York be concerned about what was happening in the territories?
Money. Control of Congress, which would affect their money.
So yeah, they were very concerned that Kansas and other territories elected the right kind of people to congress, because it might impact their income streams if they did not.
The population of New Mexico Territory in 1850 was 61,000, and most of the people there were Indians or Spaniards. American settlement hadn't even really begun. The idea that slaves can be forced to do all kinds of labor is true. That potential just wasn't given time to develop.
But do you know why it was important to convince everyone that slavery "expansion" was a serious problem? Because they might elect members of congress that would support the Southern states and not the Northern ones.
What would make the new states support the South rather than the North? The biggest reason would be because there were slaveowners and slaves living there. Make slavery legal, and you have slaves and slaveowning, and it becomes harder for free citizens to compete with the slaveowners.
The Northern states had control of congress, and used it to enact all sorts of legislation favorable to themselves.
No. The Senate was evenly split between free and slave states. Add in the Democrat senators from Northern States and the South dominated US politics through the 1830s and 1840s. That was changing in the 1850s. Southern concern wasn't about always being excluded or oppressed. It was about losing the power that they had held for so long.
Now you might think the "Free Soil Party" would be headquartered in Kansas, so that it could be close to the land in question, or perhaps even Chicago, so it wouldn't be too far away, but it was in fact headquartered in New York, over a thousand miles away from the land it was supposedly concerned about.
So you are still repeating that? You haven't provided any evidence that the party had a headquarters or that it was in New York. The Free Soil Party was founded in Western New York State for several reasons.
First of all, people had settled there not so long ago, and their children were settling in Wisconsin and other western states and territories, so they were concerned about slavery in the territories. Second, the region, "The Burnt Over District," had been the site of many religious revivals and then of reform movements. It was a hotbed of movements like the Free Soilers. Third, the New York Democratic Party was split, so there was an opportunity to pick up Democrat, as well as Whig and abolitionist voters, in what was then the largest state in the country.
I'm getting tired of repeating this. You don't think people in Virginia or South Carolina worried about whether there was slavery in the territories? Slaveowners in Mississippi and Missouri certainly did. Was that concern legitimate in the way that Northerners worries about the expansion of slavery wasn't?
Very interesting post. The salient word, for me, in your comment is "will". Both sides, no surprise, wanted power in the territories; and the South's power during peacetime was centered in slave labor. The territories were the future both sides wanted to dominate.