I'll notify Jim Rob of your insistence that he shut Freeper down at once.
The problem with your interpretation is that you take today's corporate predominance and project it back through the whole history of the republic, first as conspiracy then as reality. But it would have been hard to forsee in 1787 or 1860 what happen generations later. For every one, far-sighted individual who had a long-range plan, there were hundreds and thousands who responded to the events and passions of the day. Moreover, it's not the case that the sides were fixed in stone. Planters and other Southerners like Washington, Marshall and Pinckney were important federalists. Southern Mountaineers, recent immigrants, and poor farmers all flocked to the Union cause.
What comes out of a war isn't always what caused the war. We didn't go to war in 1941 in order to split up Germany, though that became an important option later on. In retrospect things look determined, but at the time one always had to take into account the possiblity that the other side might win.
Nor was what happened after the war pre-ordained. Switzerland went through a civil war similar in its origns to our own at about the same time. The Federal side won there as well. But the end results were different, perhaps because of institutions like referendum, perhaps because the conflict never became a total war, perhaps because language and religion made it much harder to consolidate the country. Perhaps America might itself had followed something more like the Swiss pattern had Southerners stayed and worked within the Union, perhaps not. In any event, it was their choice to put slavery first and let the alliance with the West go. All they had to do was stand by the Northwest Ordinance and there would have been no secession crisis or war, at least in 1860-1.
And there was a powerful planter aristocracy. Had history turned out differently, would one be justified in viewing the whole thing as their conspiratorial plot? Certainly many free men perceived slaveholders' designs to spread slavery and increase their power before the war and concluded that such attempts would continue once an independent slaveowning republic had been established. From the perspective of the time their interests were more likely to be damaged by teh expansion of slavery than be the development of capitalism, though in retrospect one might disagree. But in asserting that industrial development was a greater threat than slavery, you lose the moral high ground.
The assumption seems to be that exploitation was an essential part of that capitalist development from which we have benefited, while any connection between agrarianism and slavery or exploitation was a non-essential, easily dispensible link. Certainly the latter assumptions is dubious. Slavery would have lasted longer had the other side won, and what replaced it would have been another form of exploitation, made even more oppressive by ethnic differences or tensions even sharper than those in Northern industrial cities.
How much better was the life of a sharecropper than that of a mill hand? Industry provided a way of providing for small farmers who were driven off the land by the increased productivity of agriculture, and those who were oppressed by landowners and mortgagers. It also gave them opportunities for advancement they would not have had on the land.
In any event, vulgar Marxist attacks on millowners or mercantilists aren't any improvement over the old "Slave Power" theory. They just put the blame on the other side.