I can't speak for LA, but my mother lodge is in Kentucky and I move away from KY prior to any form of recognition between mainstream and Prince Hall, so I can speak to that.
At that time, yes, Prince Hall was considered Clandestine, although I think most brothers would simply use the term 'unrecognized' out of respect. The issue (as it has been communicated to me) was that both the mainstream Grand Lodge of Kentucky and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Kentucky (I apologize if I'm not using the correct terms) both considered themselves sovereign. Therefore, for either of them to request recognition from the other would be seen as a sign of inferiority. Sort of like saying 'if I have to ask you for your permission to be a Mason, you must have authority over me'. Both sides saw it as a case of 'if they want to be recognized by us, fine, but they have to come ask us'. Well, with both sides taking that stance, there was never going to be mutual recognition. Obviously, SOMETHING has changed as there is now recognition (albeit without visitation for the time) but I don't know the exact mechanics of how that happened.
Going back to my previous statements here, sadly, Kentucky does have racist Masons within some of their/our lodges. That being said, my experience is that this is a very small percentage. I think that for many years, the attitude wasn't one of active rejection, but simply 'they don't need us and we don't need them' in terms of Prince Hall. The older generations, even if not racist, were just fine with that stance. The younger generations disagree and are actively working towards bringing the two together, but it's a slow process. My understanding is that the decision to not have visitation was designed as a temporary measure, and, unfortunate as it might be, I think it's for the best to avoid rocking the boat too quickly.