“Slavery as an institution would have been the economical thing for he south to do.”
Nope. Slavery was expensive. Machinery was cheaper. Machinery was already starting to take hold. Slavery was doomed as an economic institution.
The south, on it’s own did not have the industrial base to create enough machines to make much of a difference for at least a decade.
Slavery would have been in place until the turn of the century.
So what you're saying is that the incentive for ditching slavery was more due to economics rather than a moral incentive of respecting another human being?
I certainly hope the South's moral character isn't judged by this type of "matter of fact" approach to argumentation.