[rockrr]

Debatable. The North had the money, not the South. It was very poor by comparison. I think by the time the South had the money slavery would have already been a goner. No doubt there would have been a race between the two to expand their territories, but I don’t think slavery would have been much of an issue. If anything I think Texas would have expanded into the western areas.

Again, not true. "Cotton is King" rang true in the years leading up to the Civil War and the concentration of wealth was with the slavers. They literally had money to burn, but apparently not to invest.

There wasn't a single state, territory, or region that pro-confed's didn't agitate to become confed states. And all of them pledged that those would be slave states. Combine that with the confed constitution forever enshrining the Peculiar Institution as the lynchpin of their bastard union, conflict - violent conflict - with free people was inevitable.

[CodeToad]

Me: “The North had the money, not the South.”

You: “Again, not true. “Cotton is King” rang true in the years leading up to the Civil War and the concentration of wealth was with the slavers. They literally had money to burn, but apparently not to invest.”

They were rolling in dough? Wow, Never heard that before. Cotton was King, but it didn’t bring that much to the region. It was half the revenue, but that isn’t saying much.

GDP: North-$3.6 billion, South-$0.733 billion.
Population: North-27.71 million, South-8.73 million.
Cost of War: North-$3,366 million, South-$3,286 million.
Cost per Capita: North-$148, South-$376

So, per capita, the South paid more than twice the costs and had less than 4 times the revenue.

Your statement doesn’t hold to facts.