Replies

jmacusa: " The Confederates here always say the slavery was a dying institution, etc.
If the South had won the war would thay have ended slavery or would the coming industrialization ended it de facto?"

First, remember there was no one "South", but at least three quite different "Souths":

Border States: Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri.
Yes, in all four Border States you could easily argue that slavery was dying out naturally, and might well be abolished entirely within the lifetimes of those living in 1860.
Some reasons for it are obvious, others not so much:
- From Border States it was a relatively short run to freedom in the North, and this forced many slave-holders to promise their slaves eventual lawful freedom in exchange for loyal service.
  So the numbers of freed slaves were growing rapidly.
- Many thousands of Northern anti-slavery settlers moved to Border States because, among other reasons, land was relatively cheap.
- A not so obvious reason: slavery was so amazingly profitable, and slave prices so high in the Deep South that many slave-holders in Border States sold their captives "down the river" to make ends meet.
Upper South: Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas.
These states all opposed secession at first in 1861, only changing votes after Fort Sumter.
One reason is all four Upper South states had large anti-slavery and anti-Confederate, pro-Union regions.
Western Virginia, Eastern Tennessee, Western North Carolina and Northern Arkansas were all hotbeds of Unionism throughout the Civil War.
But in the Upper South slavery was powerfully entrenched in the majority or regions, and controlled their governments.
The map below will explain much.
Deep South: the original Confederacy -- South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana & Texas.
In these states nearly half their populations were slaves, and nearly half of white families owned slaves.
And because of cotton especially, slavery had been amazingly profitable for the past 20 years, and just a bit less so for many decades before.
So slave high prices and demands for slaves in the Deep South were emptying Border and Upper South states of their black populations.

Absent Civil War, how long might that have continued?
Well, what would have stopped it? Nothing I can think of.

Oh, people say, but mechanization would have eliminated the need for slaves.
No, no, no, FRiends, mechanization would have eliminated the need for poor white trash, not slaves!
Even by 1860 slaves had well demonstrated they could both operate and help build any contraptions that white engineers might devise.
So slaves would always be needed, because slaves worked!
It was useless white people who would have no place in the future's "brave new world".

Of course, historically now things turned out quite different, with huge numbers of all races living off the government dole... but your question was slavery's potential future, and so that's your answer, FRiend.

The Cotton Kingdom in 1860, total production was 4 million bales worth $191 million, a huge sum for the time:

You seriously think that there would have still been slavery in the 1900s? There are several problems with that argument.

Mechanization: You totally dissed this one, saying that blacks would be needed to operate the machinery. Perhaps, but a plantation that once required 100 slaves would now only need 10. Mechanization on its own would at least cause slavery to shrink.

Popular feeling and opinion: The majority of people worldwide did not approve of slavery. The majority of Southerners were for gradual abolition. Did you know that there used to be more abolitionist societies in the South than in the North? That was before Northern abolitionists made themselves obnoxious by referring to the south by all sorts of foul names and calling the union with the south a compact with the Devil. It can be argued that the vitriol coming out of the North actually delayed slavery's demise by causing Southerners to take offense and stick by their guns on something they wouldn't have otherwise fought over.

Even so, the South would likely have abolished it around the time that Brazil did. If the South had won the war, Lee (among others) would have been a very prominent, respected, and persuasive voice urging for emancipation.