No, because the slaveowners were far smarter then their current defenders.
They understood that limitation of slavery would be its eventual death.
What Lincoln ran on and intended to enforce was stopping any further expansion of slavery. Yet he was perfectly content in enshrining its permanent existence into the constitution in a way that would have undermined the Somersett argument with far greater damage than Dred Scott or anything else could have done.
Nothing to enshrine, what he attempted to do was make explicit what was already implicit, slavery was a state issue.
The amendment was redundant and added nothing to the Constitutional protections of slavery already in place.
The slaver owners knew unless slavery had new land with which to expand to, slavery days were numbered.
Lincoln was using the tactics that the Founders had used, isolate slavery, surround it with free states, and let it die naturally.
We used the same tactics on the Soviets, and the internal pressure forced them to collapse, without WW3.
Your boy Dilorenzo advocates compensated emancipation, so, that might have happened in a few years, had the South not bolted from the Union to protect their 'peculiar institution'
That is specious marxian nonsense that Lincoln idolaters have been pushing since the time of his death in order to compensate for the defecit of clear anti-slavery policy prior to 1863 including his pro-slavery policies such as the Corwin amendment and countermanding the release of slaves by union generals early in the war. If it were true that slavery's territorial limitation was the key to its economic decline, the south would have never seceded and in doing so forfeited their claims to the western territories where this expansion was supposedly going to occur. Even with northern state opposition in the union, expansion options for the southern states were far more limited on their own in the confederacy.
Nothing to enshrine, what he attempted to do was make explicit what was already implicit, slavery was a state issue.
That implicit claim was far from certain in the 1850's and in fact constitutional scholars at the time had been arguing over it for decades. The Dred Scott case arose over it, was settled one way under the lower court, and was reversed the other way at the Supreme Court. But much like Roe v. Wade today, adherence to Dred Scott was anything but universal and had as many detractors as it did supporters. Lincoln's amendment, however, would've settled the issue once and for all in a pro-slavery way.