I don't think so. Sentiment in both North and South was moving against it. The plantation economy was doomed by economics, and I seriously doubt it would have survived much past 1880-90.
The biggest problem is that the Republicans wanted to free the slaves by fiat, which meant financial ruin for many in the South, pro-slavery or not. If the Republicans had proposed an approach that would reimburse the slave-owners for their monetary value, the Civil War likely would not have happened. And it would probably have been cheaper overall.
Actually there were several proposals for compensated emancipation but no one - north or south - seemed interested or willing to commit to such a huge financial gamble. The south rebuffed any notion of emancipation of any kind or under any circumstance.
No, in 1861 there was no proposal by Republicans to free slaves by fiat, or by any other method.
What Republicans wanted in the 1860 election was to prevent the expansion of slavery into Western territories and Northern states -- a modest agenda certainly.
But that was plenty enough to drive Fire Eaters to declare secession, Confederacy and, after Fort Sumter, war on the United States.
Proposals to emancipate slaves came out of the Civil War itself, first in response to African-Americans as "contraband of war", and then at the end with the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.
But since the time of Thomas Jefferson there were proposals advanced for a Federal buy-out of slaves and voluntary (or involuntary) repatriation to Africa or the Caribbean.
Congress even supported re-colonization of freed-blacks with funds in 1819, but the project proved more expensive than expected.
Proposals for government buy-outs of slaves were never accepted by slave-holding politicians.
Yes, I think Slavery would have eventually been conquored by the social forces against it which were growing stronger each passing year, but the economics of it would have kept it lingering for awhile longer.
The plantation economy was doomed by economics, and I seriously doubt it would have survived much past 1880-90.
I am not following you here. I think you are saying that because history happened a certain way, that meant it was always going to happen a certain way. Yes, the Europeans found other sources of cotton, but isn't this because the Union blockaded the Southern cotton shipments and forced a demand problem on Europe?
In the absence of a war, it is quite possible that the alternative sources may never have materialized, and therefore the Cotton produced by the South would have continued to be economically viable.
My answer is "I don't know." If you have some information that could show the future economics of Cotton was not going to be capable of sustaining plantation farming, I would like to see it, but without a war, slavery may have very well been economically profitable into the 20th century.
The biggest problem is that the Republicans wanted to free the slaves by fiat, which meant financial ruin for many in the South, pro-slavery or not.
This is exactly right. In an effort to get people to understand the economic dynamics at work in this era, I suggest they consider that modern liberal eco-nuts want to eliminate carbon based fuel such as oil and coal, which means also diesel and gasoline.
Today we wouldn't even consider an idea to eliminate oil usage in our lives, and we rightly regard these people who are talking about destroying the backbone of our economic system, as "nuts."
So too did the slave owning states of that era regard the abolitionists. So too did most of the Northern people regard them.
If the Republicans had proposed an approach that would reimburse the slave-owners for their monetary value, the Civil War likely would not have happened.
I don't think that would have stopped it. From what I have learned over the last two years, the Civil war was at it's foundation, an economic war and territorial war. Had the South been permitted to establish itself as an independent Nation, it would have siphoned off much of the North East's economic activity, and it would have competed with the Union for the western territories and potentially other states joining it.
An independent South was an economic and territorial threat to the existing Union. Increased capitalization from greater trade with Europe would have created industries in the South that would have eventually competed with industries in the North, and given the potential for free labor from slaves, they would have likely destroyed their northern competition.
After much thinking about it, I have so far concluded that the Confederacy was a dire threat to the future of the Union, and Lincoln more or less had no choice but to stop it from happening.
And it would probably have been cheaper overall.
The lives of Irish immigrants and Northern poor white trash were pretty cheap so far as their North-Eastern elite rulers were concerned, and they certainly didn't care about the lives of the people in the South who might have been a potential economic and territorial threat to them.
I think the powers that emerged in the aftermath of the Civil War were quite pleased with the cost and the results.