That’s true.. and slavery would have ended peacefully within about 10 years. It wasn’t slavery the South was fighting to defend. It was the right to safely phase it out on their own terms like the North had done.
Read Alexande Stephans’ defense of secession. Slavery was THE ISSUE. Additionally the Southern states wanted slavery to expand to the western territories.this clashed with the Western movement from the North. Kansas being the clearest example of what was to come. The Abolitionists may have been the South’s bogeyman, but it was the Free Soilers they feared and despised. They did believe slavery confined to the South would die. Finally much is made of the large %age of Southerners who did not own slaves as showing that slavery had less importance as a cause of secession. But the existence of slaves
allowed the slave owning aristocracy to assert the existence of equality based on color and the possibility of extending slavery to the West created the promise that poor whites could move West and join the slave holding society.
It was about states rights not slavery as many think and Lincoln’s sole purpose for war was to keep the Union together at all costs and he’d didn’t care one way or the other about slavery.
That’s real history not the made up shxt being pushed.
While technological advances probably would have spelled the end of slavery eventually, the laws of slavery became progressively more draconian as we neared the Civil War. Slavery would not have expired quickly if left to the South’s ruling party.