Excellent question. Bear with me while I attempt to offer a bit of context and then I'll try to answer it.
If you look at the early history of the Americas you'll see that it was replete with acquisition and conquest. The world powers of the time were expanding their presence onto the continent in a "open season" fashion. Everything was up for grabs - even territories claimed by others.
Our little confederation, which became a constitutionally protected Constitutional Republic came about not just as a rebellion against the crown, but as a pledge of mutual defense against all foreign threats. There is a quote that I believe sums up the American spirit of the time: "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin
James Monroe introduced a nationalistic defense policy in 1823 that came to be known as the Monroe Doctrine. Simply stated it claimed North America for the Americans and warned foreigners (Europeans and the British crown) to look elsewhere for acquisition and conquest. A variation of this attitude was expressed in the view called Manifest Destiny which emphasized the imperative to develop and "tame" the continent.There was an element of arrogance displayed but also a lot of positive enthusiasm for development and growth. The enthusiasm came from the natural affinity of people to create and build things. The arrogance came from the methods some chose in claiming territory.
Interestingly enough, this became one of the first expressions of the philosophical differences between the left and the right in this country. Democrats being Democrats and wanting what they want regardless of the consequences favored Manifest Destiny. As a concept of national conquest Democrats favored it while Whigs did not.
As America grew a schism developed between north and south. A curious subculture developed with the evolution of the slaver aristocracy and the Plantation Society. It was wonderful - if you happened to be of the planter class, but pretty much sucked of you had the misfortune to be born a commoner.
Manifest Destiny helped push the development of fertile land further and further west - until the topography changed to prairie and then to mountains. Over the decades the race to claim and develop had taken on a twist - would new acquisitions be "slave" or "free"? Barters and bargains and battles in Congress resulted in odd compromises such as the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. These bargains were intended to allow development while simultaneously keeping the peace. They only served to flame tensions - tensions that ultimately culminated in civil war.
So what conclusions may we take from our early history? I would say that development of the continent was inevitable - first and foremost. But hand~in~hand with that there was keen competition amongst the factions within our own culture. Those factions became known as the phenomenon of Sectionalism. In my opinion these two key elements would have taken place irrespective of the outcome of the Civil War.
I do not believe that the south could have won the war. Even in the event of beating the astronomical odds against victory on the battlefield, any win would have been Pyrrhic and temporary. The south lived and prospered because of the defensive liaison with its northern neighbors. That gave it the defensive strength to repel its enemies. When it declared itself an enemy to those same neighbors it lacked the wherewithal to successfully sustain its aggression. Had it emerged victorious it lacked the ability to sustain itself economically. And it is my belief that, due to its unholy reliance on The Particular Institution it lacked the moral strength to sustain itself.
Built on a flimsy foundation of expedience, greed, and deceit the southern confederation would soon enough find itself in perpetual conflict with itself, as well as its northern neighbors. Weakened from the civil war the south (as well as the north) would find itself vulnerable to exploit and conquest from foreign predators. The natural pursuit of acquisition would take on an even more deadly tenor as perpetual clashes of north and south took place all across the continent.
Eventually the south would be subsumed back into the United States or be consumed by aggressors. Personally, I'm thankful that things turned out the way they did.
Like the North wasn’t built on greed?
I think Mr. ForAmerica was coming at from the black/slave angle. You missed the mark.
http://www.amazon.com/Disease-Public-Mind-Understanding-Fought/dp/0306821265
“By the time John Brown hung from the gallows for his crimes at Harper’s Ferry, Northern abolitionists had made him a “holy martyr” in their campaign against Southern slave owners. This Northern hatred for Southerners long predated their objections to slavery. They were convinced that New England, whose spokesmen had begun the American Revolution, should have been the leader of the new nation. Instead, they had been displaced by Southern “slavocrats” like Thomas Jefferson. This malevolent envy exacerbated the South’s greatest fear: a race war. Jefferson’s cry, “We are truly to be pitied,” summed up their dread. For decades, extremists in both regions flung insults and threats, creating intractable enmities. By 1861, only a civil war that would kill a million men could save the Union.”