Well here we are pushing 600 posts on a subject well discussed by both sides, politely and well referenced, my compliments.
It is easy to get lost on such a complicated subject.
Some ideas seem very clear and have the benefit of “traction”. They seem to be obvious.
Slavery would have always ended.
In SC, 1/3 owned 2/3.
That 2/3, when freed would have become full citizens. Congress would have seen to that, too many future voters and political power to ignore.
As full citizens, the 2/3, former slaves would have the right to buy guns, compete for jobs, earn money, spend at businesses they liked, elect the next sheriff, governor, mayor, representatives, etc.
Those choices certainly would be highly objectionable to the minority white population with guns.
It is reasonable that the 1/3 white ruling class knew full well what abolition meant at the time.
There would have been war, unavoidable.
The Confederacy would never make more than modest and early gains until the economic might of the Federal government destroyed the resistance and won.
None of todays discussion can change those central ideas.
In SC, 1/3 owned 2/3.
That 2/3, when freed would have become full citizens.
Here I have to interject a "maybe." In the 1850s, there was more sentiment to send them back to Africa than to accept them as full Citizens. Lincoln was actually an officer in an Illinois organization which was dedicated to sending blacks to Africa and South America. Anyplace so long as they weren't in Illinois.
Illinois had laws prohibiting the settlement of blacks, and remember, this is a Northern state we are talking about. A lot of states didn't want blacks in their state, and passed laws to prevent it.
So I don't see it as axiomatic that what you suggest would have happened. It might have happened, but it could have gone another way too.
Since a lot of your subsequent speculation hinges on this point, i'm not sure it is worthwhile to point out what I consider to be some less than certain assumptions in the rest of your message.
I am not certain what “economic might” the Federal government was producing then or now.
People and states were certainly creating wealth; rarely, if ever, does any government. The Federal government was best at taking wealth, small amounts at first and later at confiscatory rates. Then, redistributing to favored groups.
From history I'm more familiar with the Federal government's 1860s military might - which did stem from the northern states’ industrial engines and population advantages.
From the phrasing “destroyed the resistance and won” I'm not sure if you are condemning or commending Lincoln's attack on the Constitution.
You are right about one thing: we cannot change history.
But history can change us.
If you take even a minute to consider that sentence, you'll realize it's fatuous because slavery comes in many forms, some of which flourish today.
The specific form of "chattel slavery" practiced in 1860 may indeed have ended sometime, but the more likely reason is it would just morph into something slightly different, perhaps slightly less obnoxious.
However, the bottom line is there was no serious abolition movement in the South in 1860 and a Confederacy formed in large part to protect slavery was unlikely to tolerate a vigorous abolition movement.
Further, the Confederate constitution would work to prevent any state-by-state abolition movement and constitutional amendment could only happen over the objections of seven original Deep South states.
Now some posters have tried to imagine how the Union might abolish slavery by amendment in, say, 1902 against Deep South objections, but nobody has yet proposed how the Confederacy itself could do so.
For all practical purposes, that would be impossible.
Finally, it's always taken military power to defeat slavery, even when that was only threatened, as the Brits & French did in their colonies in the 19th century.
Another form of slavery was defeated in Eastern Europe in 1945 and a third more metaphorical form was defeated by the combined economic, military & moral authorities of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.
Still other forms exist today in hiding wherever law enforcement is too weak to prevent them.
Key point: Delaware was the least enslaved of all slave-states and yet refused until 1902 to voluntarily ratify the 13th amendment.
So it's just fatuous to suggest that slavery would somehow magically disappear in other states where slaves were nearly half the population and nearly half of white families "owned" at least one slave.
gandalftb: "In SC, 1/3 owned 2/3."
That number is wrong, but South Carolina & Mississippi were the two highest percentages of slaves & slave-holders.
In both states, the numbers were roughly half of each.
Nearly half were slaves and almost half of families owned slaves.
One practical effect was that Confederate soldiers from those states were highly unlikely to be not closely related to slaveholders -- if not their own family, then their uncles, cousins, in-laws, etc., owned slaves.
gandalftb: "That 2/3, when freed would have become full citizens.
Congress would have seen to that, too many future voters and political power to ignore."
Absolutely not the Confederate congress!
There is no way Deep South representatives would tolerate even emancipation, much less full citizenship for their slaves, especially since they were already counted 3/5 for representation purposes.
Suggestions otherwise are pure anti-historical fantasies.
gandalftb: "As full citizens, the 2/3, former slaves would have the right to buy guns, compete for jobs, earn money, spend at businesses they liked, elect the next sheriff, governor, mayor, representatives, etc.
Those choices certainly would be highly objectionable to the minority white population with guns."
But "whites with guns" were never a minority in any US state, ever.
So Southern whites with guns were only defeated in their Jim Crow, black codes & KKK-type enforces by the 20th century Federal government.
gandalftb: "It is reasonable that the 1/3 white ruling class knew full well what abolition meant at the time.
There would have been war, unavoidable."
And now you fantasize about civil war within the Confederacy???.
Come on FRiend, shut it off -- your brain is working overtime to produce Imagineering even a Disney would blush at.
You have no clue what you're talking about, so please, STFU.
gandalftb: "The Confederacy would never make more than modest and early gains until the economic might of the Federal government destroyed the resistance and won."
The Confederacy could well have won a war against the Union if Lincoln had been satisfied with generals like McClellan, Burnside or Hooker and if Lincoln had not been determined to see it through to Unconditional Surrender.
gandalftb: "None of todays discussion can change those central ideas."
As I read them, your "central ideas" are complete nonsense, from beginning to end, so what exactly do you think you're posting here?