That's what some of the founding fathers thought...and, well, that's not how it turned out. Slavery ended up becoming a very profitable industry, and it helped make the cotton industry more productive when combined with technilogical developments like the cotton gin.Farsailer wrote:Slavery would have died out anyway. Have to remember what the economics of slavery involved: slave owners had to house and feed their slaves all year long in exchange for getting only a few months of full-time work out of them (planting season and harvest season). This was becoming economically inefficient with the result that only the largest plantations and farms could afford them. Of course those that could afford them could also afford to control their respective state legislatures. But if there had been no war, the plantation owners would have had to give it up before long or go broke. This is the original outsourcing when you think about it...
The cap on the profitability of this industry was legislation designed to prevent the expansion of slavery into new territories. The southern states felt cheated by this and seceded.
In any way you look at it, there are several conclusions that follow:
1)Left on its own, slavery wasn't going anywhere anytime soon. Not in the natural course of events.
2)Whenever the government decided to try to address ending it, it always threatened the stability of the Union, even as early as 1792.
3)Slavery was the principle reason for seccesion, without the seccession, Lincoln wouldn't have tried to preserve the Union. Ergo, slavery is a principal cause of the Civil War.