@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:How about the claim that it wouldn't have mattered if the South had won the Civil warm, because slavery was on its way out of American history anyway? It seems like a valid, if debatable, claim a historian might make. It is also the point that seems to underlie Harry Turtledove's alternate-history book
Guns of the South. (Admittedly I didn't read the book. I found it through Joefromchicago's link to Turtledove's Wikipedia page, and I'm going by Wikipedia's summary of its content.)
Actually, i heard that book read on the NPR program "Radio Reader." It sucked, but it played at the same time every day at which i ate my lunch in the office--it wasn't really worth my time to tune in another station, and then have to tune back to the NPR station when the lunch hour was over. As i recall the basic premise, "time travelers" from 20th century South Africas who also happened to have been racists, brought AK47s to the Confederate States to assure that they would win the war. Then, at the end of some other goofy plot scenario, Yankees and Rebs had to unite to destroy the evil interlopers from the future. It wasn't about slavery at all.
And your post is only about slavery for as long as it takes you to launch yourself on that flight of fancy. Yes, slavery was, economically, a failing institutio. But in a broader economic sense missed by most historians, it already was a failure. Small holders and small skilled laborers already couldn't compete with the slave economy, and either sank into not genteel at all poverty of migrated to "free" states where they could pursue their ambitions.
But what is most pernicious about your remark is that it partakes of the apologetics of the distorted popular view of that war. It implies that slavery would have died if the North would just have left the South alone. But the South started that war--before Lincoln was inaugurated, before he even reached Washington, the states of the South were engaged on a course in violation of the constitution, and had taken up arms against the Federal government. Whether or not slavery would have collapsed as an institution is not relevant, because the southern states started that war solely on the basis of Lincoln having been elected, and not as the result of any direct action on the part of the Federal government.
And many of them have been whining about the consequences now for over 140 years. You've been suckered by the whole "war of Northern aggression" bullshit.
Wanna buy a bridge?