Not really. The steady march of anti slavery movement was firmly established throughout the world, even the states in the South were debating abolition. Technology, moral suasion, policy would have eventually killed it off. “Nice” people would’ve eventually given it up, then it would’ve become illegal and the rest would be a local police action.
Care to provide evidence that southern states were debating abolition during the 1850s? Most of them passed laws prohibiting even the mailing or possession of abolition literature.
Thirty years before. And it was defeated. After that even mere discussion of abolition was suppressed.
Technology, moral suasion, policy would have eventually killed it off.
You mean the mechanical cotton picker which didn't become common until the 1940s. Eighty years after secession!
“Nice” people would’ve eventually given it up, then it would’ve become illegal and the rest would be a local police action.
There were enough "nice" people in the CSA who supported slavery to guarantee its survival for generations to come. A Confederate victory would have set back the pace of emancipation for decades.
Say you're right, though. Say that there was a move to "abolish slavery" to win over the goodwill of England and France. Something very similar to slavery would have been put in its place. As in fact happened.
My point, though, is that a fair-minded, well-informed person looking at the situation in 1860 would not have assumed that slavery was dying out on its own. It had become more and more profitable in the 1850s.
Support for slavery in the cotton states had become more enthusiastic and monolithic among the educated classes. Given their own country they would have taken steps to spread their beliefs to shore up their institutions.
And even if, as happened as a result of Britain's turning to other sources for cotton, prices eventually fell as they did in the 1870s, this wasn't something people could forsee in 1860s. Simply letting pro-slavery forces have their own way was no recipe for emancipation. Saying we care nothing for freedom would have been a major setback to the progress of emancipation.
It was the pressure of morality on the slave power that led them to seek to insulate themselves from morality by insurrection.
Stephen’s ‘Cornerstone’ speech is seen as the reaction of the slave power to moral persuasion.
They were not going to get rid of slavery without a fight, and not going to permit anyone to get rid of slavery without a fight.
And so they started a fight. Virginia’s deal was they wouldn’t pretend to secession unless a fight had started, and so it was necessary for the slave power to get a war started. So rather than wait, they started it themselves.
And then the slave power lost the war. 600,000+ deaths of the war are evil, and the guilt belongs to the people who started the war.