[The Iguana]

It would have happened, assuming the South were agricultural and without significant industry without slaves. Actually slavery can be blamed for the war indirectly but not directly because without slavery and the predominance of large plantations in agriculture it is possible that the South would have industrialized more equally with the North and the tarriff and tax issues would not have divided the country.

You hit on the point I made just now to Who is John Galt?

Slavery is the major factor in making the South the kind of society (and economy) that it was. So your assumption in a sensebegs the question.

So slavery was the root cause however you look at it. Take away those 3 million slaves and the South is a very different society, forced to restructure itself in different ways to remain economically viable. More small farms, less cash crops. More industry. An agrarian aristocracy would be far less viable, indentured servitude or serfdom not being viable alternatives.

But it goes further than that. Because the crisis of 1860 was brought on directly by the slavery quarrel. It was slavery that destroyed the old Whig Party and fractured the Democrats; it was slavery that made the rise of the Republican Party - and Abraham Lincoln - possible. The election of 1860 took place against the background of Harpers Ferry, Charles Sumner, Bleeding Kansas, Dred Scott, Beecher Bibles, Garrison's Liberator, and Uncle Tom's Cabin. It strikes me that to many "economic causes" advocates simply overlook too much of that history.

However, more southerly warmer zones have industrialized at much slower rates than more northerly climes. Slavery might not have made the difference after all.

I think climate would have had an impact, but how much?

I'd be interested in what makes you think that warmer climates would have a 19th century European society inhiospitable to industrialization.

It is true that most 19th century industrialization occurred in colder climates: Germany, the Low Countries, England, the American North, (and, later) Japan. But was this for strictly for climatic reasons or cultural ones?

I don't think you can rule out the latter.

[ThanhPhero]

Not necessarily. It is not a natural law that the South would have industrialized were there no slavery. It might well have remained an economically undeveloped backwater, in which case the tariff issue would stll have been a serious point of division, probably critical. And without slavery, cotton and tobacco might still have developed pretty much the way it did, on large plantations, but with hired labor and the reliance of the region on foreign trade for its manufactured goods.