Is there anyone here who thinks both of these things are true?
1) All things remaining status quo, the free market itself would've eventually phased slavery out of existence, just as a result of changing economic demands?
2) This would've been a preferable outcome to fighting the Civil War and all the accompanying upheaval.
I believe that history, as we read it, or taught it, is many times like the dissimulation we find in the job world. Meaning, bosses might not tell employees that the office is moving to another state because the company can hire cheaper employees there, due to salary and fewer benefits, but possibly because office space is now so expensive where they presently are. So, my question is whether the South's emotionalism was a way for the north to fight a war that ended the southern banking system (slaves had mortgages taken on them in the deep south) and during Reconstruction northern banks could expand their territory as the south was resuscitated economically? Sounds far fetched? I believe that real history is all mucked up with dissimulation. Not that it's true, but someone had to eventually benefit from collapsing the southern banking system with the Emancipation Proclamation and ensuring that the war had to be fought until there was total surrender. Perhaps, I'm wrong, but I don't accept everything I read. So, to answer your question, the Civil War might have been a purposeful war for ulterior motives of those we would not even think of. So, the thread might also ask, "was the Civil War just a war to preserve the Union?" As this thread now stands, it seems to be only from the south's perspective.