You should try it yourself. Slavery would have continued for decades had the South won. It's what they were fighting for. There wasn't an alternative available. Their society was completely dependent on it.
Still an ignorant public school slob.
Do you really think my GGGF on my mothers side who was a carpenter in Roanoke Va, who fought in the Army of No Va, owned no slaves, thought he was fighting to keep someone in slavery? If you really believe my GGGF would do that then I wish I could spit in your face. You are mixing cause and effect, typical reconstructed history.
Perhaps, but the question that really remains is was a civil war necessary to end slavery? Or could it have ben handled in a way that would not have destroyed the States/Republic?
England's history points to 'no', because they got rid of it in the legislature. Could we have done similar, without something like the 14th Amendment? Probably, I would submit that the following amendment would have ended slavery fairly quickly (given the technological advances going on), w/o bloodshed, and without subjugation of the states:
"Recognizing that all men are born with inherent dignity, no person shall be born into slavery nor shall anyone be denied citizenship on their parent's slavery."
In fact, such an amendment would likely have prevented Roe v. Wade -- which is nothing more than the USSC saying "we can invalidate any state-law[s] we want".