[DiogenesLamp]

You know very well the southern economies would not have allowed it to keep going much longer anyway.

Why is that? I don't know this, but if you will explain it to me, then I will add that information to what I do know.

I think Slavery wouldn't have lasted much longer, but Cotton might have continued to command a lot of money for quite awhile longer.

Even the folks FOR secession admit this in their excuse why the north shouldn’t have gone to war with the south over slavery.

I don't know of this, and I haven't really heard a good explanation as to why this might be so.

[Secret Agent Man]

Just research it. And common sense think about it based on the north and south economies. Slaves were not inexpensive. Machines could do more faster and parts could be replaced. People get old and weaker and sick and injured and still had to be taken care of. They were living investments that required sustenance and maintenance. Further the south economy was built on crops, what they often sold was raw product, not end goods. The mills, which were industrialized, were in the north. Industry was not in the south.

It was only a matter of time. At least what others have argued.

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

I don't know how long slavery might have lasted.

And I do think that the southern states had the right to secede.

I also believe that the slaves, free men and women in the eyes of God, had the right to overthrow their self-styled "owners", by force if necessary, and I would have supported that.