Then you clearly do not read what I write, because I have been saying slavery would have ended within a range of 20 to 80 years, and I have said this many times in these discussions. Does that mean the South would have ended slavery? YES!
When the economic benefit fell below the value of the societal approval for ending it , slavery would have quietly disappeared.
Heck, they would have been free to expand further west like they had wanted to.
And here we go again with this debunked claim. You couldn't grow high value cash crops in the territories. Slavery wasn't going to "expand" because it couldn't.
All of that "expansion" crap was just propaganda.
What nonsense. Growing cash crops is not the only use for slave labor. Mining is another and gold had been discovered in California in 1849.
California had been admitted to the Union in 1850. The heck the Confederacy wouldn’t have wanted it as theirs.
And slavery for continuing for 20 to 60 years more?
Wow. Anywhere from one generation to three of ownership for one, bondage for another.
Why not say a 100 years since you’re pulling numbers out of a hat.
So thanks Lampster. You answered the question truthfully.
The South went to war to preserve slavery.
Slavery was completely gone from its last holdouts in the West (Cuba and Brazil) by the 1880s. The idea that it would have somehow lasted in the CSA well into the 20th century even though it died out everywhere else in Europe, the Americas and the Europeans’ vast colonial empires is laughable. The reason it died out was economics - not some grand moral awakening. The laws of economics worked just as much in the South as they did everywhere else.