Yes but the question is theoretical. If the south knew the war would end badly and that they had the votes to stop 13th amendment and a friendly Supreme Court, they should have stayed in the union.

The question is would Lincoln have still pushed for the freedom of slaves. The war really did force his hand into the emancipation proclamation, but there's a lot of debate surrounding the man himself. Overall, it seems as if emancipation had been coming, but for the south some of the main fears concerning Lincoln were actually that they'd not continue the fugitive slave act, and South Carolina originally said enough and just left.

there's also still a debate among historians about whether or not this was a war against a foreign country to reclaim it, or if this was a war against a rebelling faction of our still united country... each claim having massive implications for the law

abandon all hope of a different past

What if the sharecropper system (with federal subsidies to guarantee undiminished plantation profitability) was part of the Republican platform? Would that have made emancipation palatable to the South? Could that have averted the Civil War?

If the war hadn't happened then it would have eventually ended. Most all other major world powers and European powers had ended it by 1900, see Brazil in 1888.

I really am not sure. Slavery is cheap. even with subsidies slavery is cheaper, safer, and individually easier to control. a plantation owner doesnt have to worry about next election losing subsidies if his profit is based on his own business model of slavery.

Even if the Confederacy had won the war it would have eventually ended; probably by 1900 like everyone else.

slave labor is also bad for an economy as a whole though, removing that many wage earners and consumers from a market can lead to serious problems:

when both the utilitarian and the ethicist disagree with a practice, its days are numbered

but the sharecropper system lasted quite awhile. This thread is not about whether slavery could have persisted, but rather whether the war could have been averted. See if you can directly answer the question that was posed.

what if christopher columbus went south instead of west?

There could have potentially been a compromise to end slavery by the end of the nineteenth century. But, it would have taken cooler heads. The southern fire-eaters wanted a war and they got one and they got BTFO.

Brad, were you upset that Trump trashed Lincoln like that, saying that Andrew Jackson could have averted the war [when Lincoln obviously wasn't up to the task]?

Andrew Jackson did avoid a war. He stopped South Carolina succession it was called the nullification crisis.

*secession*

Typing fast

@ND, duh. But that crisis of 1832 was about the tariff, not slavery.

Just saying, Jackson did stop a potential conflict.

If I remember correctly, Jackson was willing to commit federal troops against South Carolina, making him much like Lincoln. Not sure where Trump sees a difference.

I haven't seen the Trump Civil War interview. Link?

It's all over the MSM. Don't know how you missed it!
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/331349-trump-why-was-there-the-civil-war

The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation that would operate with perfect equality.

my god, teh stoopid! It burns!

Jackson was a vile backwoods thug. he disdained the supreme court ordering the army to forcibly remove a people who won their day in court but lost to the heavy hand of a dictator. i support his removal from our currency. and to make matters worse he was the president who the democrats claim as their first president having split from the democratic-republican label.

@ Flashy
no system of taxation can operate with perfect equality

@ Hauta
Lincoln didn't start the war. those asshole SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS started the war.

and those asshole NORTHERN DEMOCRATS wanted to make peace with the south and leave the nation divided. and asshole DEMOCRATS have been dividing the country ever since

The south would have been delighted if Lincoln didn't respond to fort sumpter. They didn't attack northern territory until the war had been going on for awhile. As for your foxlike attempt to conflate democrats of 1860 with democrats of today, it grows tiresome and confuses no one.

Brad, you should take a stab at responding to the OP.

& Capt Brad.. It's about equity as much as equality & "fortunately" the current President supports the new or latest evolutions of economic slavery with the USA and globally.