Slavey was a great eveil, true, but it would have died out within a few generations without a civil war. At that time only the U.S. and Brazil (and of course the Islamic states as they still do), permitted slavery. Internationally it was a dying institution and would have died a natural death in the South years before had not a Yankee, Eli Whitney, invented the Cotton Gin. First, Spain still had slavery in its remaining colonies. The same may have been true of South Africa and Portugese colonies.
Second, "a few generations" can be a very long and miserable time. Slavery could easily have lasted forty years more, until the turn of the century, or perhaps even as much as eighty years more until mechanical cotton pickers began to make an impact. And it's likely that a system of "gradual, compensated emancipation" would have left people in bondage for decades.
Third, our perception of slavery as a "dying institution" wasn't seriously felt at the time, though it might have been imployed as an excuse for not doing anything about slavery. The perception of the day was that "Cotton was King," and slavery would ride high for some time to come. The example of Eli Whitney strengthened the case of those who thought that slavery would come out on top again, as new lands were annexed and new uses found for slave labor.
Had the Confederacy succeeded, either because they won the war or because there was no war, it's likely that Spain and Brazil would not have felt so isolated and compelled to end slavery when they did. Slavery would not seem so anomalous as it did after the American Civil War. The timetable of slavery as a "dying institution" would have been postponed for decades to come.
The very same Northern Industrialist who had earned their first dollars in the slave trade, and who allowed their foreign laborers to live a life of poverty and squalor few slaveholders in the south would have imposed on their own slaves, were the loudest in condemning the South.
This is quite a generalization. There were notable exceptions, but generally, millowners were generally not "the loudest in condemning the South." They understood that their livelihood depended on cotton and advocated moving slowly.
Of course trade, including the importation of slaves to the West Indies played a role in the New England economy in the 18th century, but since the slave trade had been abolished in 1808, it's extremely unlikely that any millowner earned his "first dollars in the slave trade."
It's also worth noting that this kind of argument could with more validity be made against Southerners who favored abolition: "They benefited from slavery as much as they could, and now they want to prevent others from owning slaves." The strongest opponents of slavery were in the professions, like the clergy, and in the independent middle classes, not among millowners.
The striking feature in antebellum history is the drying up of Southern antislavery sentiment. That's the dog that didn't bark that contributed to the coming of the war. Rather than concentrate on hypocritical Yankees, it's the change in Southern attitudes from embarassment about slavery to defiant pride in it that led to the coming of war. When we've fully exhausted that issue and truly understand the difference between the South then and the South now we can return to the endless and tiresome North versus South polemics.
"First, Spain still had slavery in its remaining colonies. The same may have been true of South Africa and Portugese colonies."
BY the time of the Civil War, South and Central America and Mexico were esentially ndependent and all those countries had outlawed slavery. Spain's "Empire" was reduced to a few colonies in Africa and Asia. The Slave Trade had been abolished (except in Islamic Countries where it apparently continues.) Portugal, true, still held Angola and Brazil, and a few other small colonies not worthy of mention. South Africa was still divided between warring Bantus and Zulus. The fact is, slavery was dead or dying throughout the civilized world.
"Second, "a few generations" can be a very long and miserable time."
As miserable as all the casualties on both sides of the Civil War, including civlians affected directly or indirectly? I wonder.
"And it's likely that a system of "gradual, compensated emancipation" would have left people in bondage for decades. "
My guess is the Federal Government could have bought and freed every southern slave for less than it spent on the war.
"The example of Eli Whitney strengthened the case of those who thought that slavery would come out on top again, as new lands were annexed and new uses found for slave labor."
Where else could slavery proved such an effective economic system other than on massive, labor intensive, cotton plantations which required lots of unskilled labor? Railriad building? Wheat farming? Gold mining?? Not likely.
"Had the Confederacy succeeded, either because they won the war or because there was no war, it's likely that Spain and Brazil would not have felt so isolated and compelled to end slavery when they did."
The pre-Bellum American South, Spain and Portugal were industrial and economic backwaters, anachronisms in the dawning industrial age.
"This is quite a generalization. There were notable exceptions, but generally, millowners were generally not "the loudest in condemning the South."
I don't think so. Mill owners were not the sole representatives of the new industrial age, and even they were subject to public opinion, as exemplified in England with the Emancipation Proclamation.
"..since the slave trade had been abolished in 1808, it's extremely unlikely that any millowner earned his "first dollars in the slave trade."
Perhaps not, but his father who passed on his wealth to him, probably did.
"The strongest opponents of slavery were in the professions, like the clergy, and in the independent middle classes, not among millowners."
Such outstanding southerners like RObert E. Lee and Jackson opposed slavery or at least recognized it for the evil it was.
"The striking feature in antebellum history is the drying up of Southern antislavery sentiment."
A lot of this was related to the perception of northern aggression and the aggressive abolitionist movement there and its potential impact on the slave population.