The "horse" is the civil war. It is not the advent of slaves.
Slavery was going to die out anyways. It was declining even in the South. Land was getting farmed out and there was no new territory into which this sort of farming could expand.
People who think the civil war was about slavery have simply been misled by the propaganda still emanating from that war. But for those who believe that slavery was the cause, the evidence indicates it was going to wither and die in a matter of time anyways, so the war was unnecessary.
No slaves, no Civil War.
People who think the civil war was about slavery have simply been misled by the propaganda still emanating from that war. But for those who believe that slavery was the cause, the evidence indicates it was going to wither and die in a matter of time anyways, so the war was unnecessary.
You keep saying that, but you also said that the expressed reasons may not be the real reasons, and that you don't trust people to give the real reason, did you not? So it could have been about slavery.
Second, the final precipitating event of the Civil War was the South's leaving the Union after Lincoln's election. Had they tried to work within the system, there may have been ways to resolve this. But Democrats refused to work with a Republican president.
Finally, your evidence presented in this discussion also suggested that slavery was dying out before the invention of the cotton gin. It is quite possible that other needs for slaves may have been found after the 1860's had slavery persisted. We will never know, because history is not a repeatable experiment.