Just as the Northern slaveholding states had discovered, industrialization was indeed making slavery moot. No longer were dozens needed to sit and pick the seeds out of cotton, the cotton gin would do the same job cheaply, efficiently, and only had to be 'fed' when it was in operation.
As much as slavery is presented as a moral issue, the economic side of the issue cannot be ignored.
Indded, slaves represented a large initial capital outlay, and on ongoing capital outlay as well, in housing (dirt floors? No running water? Outhouse? Well, most everyone lived that way.), food, clothing, and at least rudimentary medical care to keep them healthy enough to work. Much as the argument between a horse and an auto could be weighed once roads traversed all but the most difficult terrain, the automobile only needed to be fed when in operation, the horse was in need of constant care.
Where possible, and in an increasing scope, the business of tillage, cultivation, harvest, and processing was becoming increasingly mechanized. So, despite the need for manual labor during harvest, the expense was ongoing. With an increase in immigrants, one might note that slaves were reserved for less hazardous jobs than wage earners, simply because the wage earner did not represent a significant capital investemnt: he/she was replaceable readily, at a minimum of cost.
There are those who will note that slaves were self-replicating, but I would counter with the need to support them through their lives to a useful age for labor, provided they lived that long (infant mortalities were high among all the population then, not just the slaves), before any return could be had on that investment, whereas the wage earner showed up ready to work, without any prior capital outlay on the part of the employer.
So there were, in fact, multiple dynamics which made those who hired their help at an actual economic advantage over those who owned it.
With increasing industrialization, which unchecked by the devastation of the war might have been more rapid than many assume, I think slaveowning would have been far more an economic liability than an asset within a couple of decades, certainly by the 1890s.
Incidentally, the reason the Irish immigrants became teamsters, miners, longshoremen, etc, was that these were jobs which were commonly considered too hazardous to risk losing a slave (and the investment made in that slave) in.
Now, I am not excusing the institution of slavery. I am not denying the fact that slaves were people, too, although the denial of personhood afforded the Negroes by a self-righteous abolitionist would seldom be afforded to the tribes to the west who were stripped of massive assets, land, mineral wealth, etc. just shortly afterward by being presented and treated as 'savages', which justified in the mindset of the Government taking away all by deceit and open warfare.
So I'm not buying the fable of American History that the North was out to free the slaves, especially as many northern states were slaveowning states as well. The whole moral high ground seeps into the morass of deceit and subsequent villification of entire peoples while stealing their birthright in the name of Manifest Destiny.
Simply enough, slavery was an issue at the time because it was an economic cudgel with which to beat the South, to attack the means of production of the wealthiest, and one which would have been as moot in a couple of decades as banning the horse-drawn plow after tractors came widely into use.
It cost 600,000 lives and uncountable treasure to end an institution which would have, for the most art, died a natural death due to changing economic paradigms.
"The North" never claimed to be "out to free the slaves," at least not in the beginning.
In the beginning, for the North it was all about preserving the Union.
But for the South it was all about protecting slavery, period.
And not against an actual threat from the North, mind you, but rather against a perceived potential threat represented by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln.
An election which, imho, the South engineered!
Yes, Southern secessionists wanted Lincoln elected, so they'd have an excuse to secede.
That's why they split up the Democrat party, dividing their votes, thus giving minority Republicans enough to win.
Smokin' Joe: "The whole moral high ground seeps into the morass of deceit and subsequent villification of entire peoples while stealing their birthright in the name of Manifest Destiny."
Don't know what you are talking about, sounds like a bad dream to me.
The facts are, the South seceded and fought to protect slavery.
The North fought first to preserve the Union, then only later to abolish slavery. Don't know what "vilification" or "deceit" you mean, or how "Manifest Destiny" might fit into this.
Smokin' Joe: "It cost 600,000 lives and uncountable treasure to end an institution which would have, for the most art, died a natural death due to changing economic paradigms."
I don't agree. In a free market, all the supposed "economic disadvantages of slavery" are accounted for in, and adjusted through, the purchase price of slaves.
And my understanding is that in 1860, prices for slaves had never been higher.
That has to mean slaves were hugely in demand, to the point of actual shortages.
Now let us suppose that 20 or 40 years later farming machines begin to come along which increase worker productivity.
Do these machines not also make slaves more productive?
And even if there is suddenly a "surplus" of slaves, doesn't that only make the market price of a slave cheaper, thus easier for more whites to afford?
So, why would any white southerner want to give up slavery if prices for slaves were suddenly so cheap?