American slavery by no means followed the Mosaic law, to compare the two is wrong.
Perhaps it's possible that American slavery would've reached a climax at some point (if the South won) where they would be forced to go more so into a model of indentured servitute and contractors - as there's power in numbers.
Others have argued that slavery could've ended WITHOUT the Civil War. In example, there's one interesting book entitled
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War that went into a lot of depth on the matter. It's by one brilliant individual known as Jeffrey Rogers Hummel:
Many have argued that slavery had become economically doomed and soon would have been voluntarily ended by the South because of its unprofitability - and the author of the book noted how one difficulty in this argument was that no specific time was specified for this termination..as in the 1850s, Lincoln, George Tucker, and others did provide a time horizon of about 100 years, which, if accurate, poses some moral problems. ...and yet although the author believes that the economic argument is limited,
he claims that slavery was “doomed politically” because of its accelerated decline in the border states and the expected (by him) repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law, which would raise the costs of enforcement in the South and allow more slaves to escape to the North. As he argues, “the peculiar institution’s final destruction within an independent cotton South was inevitable” (p. 353) - especially
in light of how every other country in the Western Hemisphere that abolished slavery managed to do so without war. Hummel’s
argument was that one can consistently hold views “passionately opposing slavery and simultaneously favoring secession” (p. 353) , implying a belief that more and more pressure could be placed on the South without provoking warfare. Hummel felt the cause of “the Civil
War was the refusal of Lincoln and other northerners to honor the revolutionary right of self-determination” (more
shared here).
I think it's plausible that the economics of slavery would have soon collapsed ( as steam is one thing, whereas cotton is another - and the cotton market would have eventually become unprofitable for the South, war or no war, thus eliminating the value of mass chattel slavery ). Environment wise, there were many dangers that an agriculturally based society had to deal with and the South seemed to be more vulnerable to caving in than the industrious North. The South already had it where the economy almost caved in once before - if recalling what went down during the Reconstruction-era South, as monoculture of cotton depleted the soil in many areas....and what happened later in the early 20th century showed the instability, when the boll weevil destroyed much of the cotton crop and planters and farm workers suffered. There were others thankfully who made a world of difference in preventing the economy from going under - as seen in what occurred with George Washington Carver's work on peanuts... intended to provide an alternative crop.
George Washington Carver (one of my all time favorite heros in the faith) and his theories of crop rotation that sigle-handedly saved
the agricultural economy of the SOuth (admist the Dust Bowl era when the Mid-West/Great Plains were being damaged ) and he revolutionized the Food Industry (more shared here in #
20 / #
54 ). Carver was born into slavery in Missouri, possibly in 1864 or 1865, though the exact date is not known. ..and his master, Moses Carver, was a German American immigrant who had purchased George's parents, Mary and Giles, from William P. McGinnis. Lincoln's Emancipation Decree freed the slaves living in the Southern States that had joined the Confederacy -
but it did not apply to the slaves of whites in Missouri and other border states that remained in the Union but permitted slavery. And throughout the Civil war,
area residents were prey to looting and killing by Confederate bushwackers, Union raiders, and ordinary outlaws taking advantage of the unsettled conditions - for there were differing factions in Missouri. When George was only a week old, George was kidnapped by night raiders from Arkansas -
Confederate night-raiders and ....and they were later sold in Kansas. That background played a big role in his development and what he'd contribute later..
SLavery existing didn't keep away the fact that the Southern economy would face danger with the monocropping of cotton, a soil-depleting crop, and soil degradation. ...and George Washington Carver's crop rotation concept helped revive the southern soil, as Carver advocated that farmers alternate soil-depleting crops, such as cotton, with soil-enriching crops, such as peanuts, peas, soybeans, sweet potatoes, and pecans. Through this cycle the south underwent their own agricultural revolution that renewed their soil and in doing so their connection with the natural processes of the land. And it opened the door for Southern economy to thrive in differing ways. It's powerful seeing his impact being felt still everytime you go to the market and buy food products of certain kinds that he inspired/created. He was decades ahead of his time when it came to things such as ethanol based on corn syrup---and as he already revolutionized the agriculture of the South/saved it and even made inventions used in car doors via plants..
industrial uses from agriculture and biotechnology.
The United Daughters of te Confederacy - a conservative white organization dedicated to the preservation of the memory of the role of the South during the Civil War - gave him a letter of interest and appreciation for the work he was doing ...although their reasons for endorsement were essentially a way in which SOuthern Whites could show the rest of the country that their system of racial segregation was not so bad..
for they reasoned that if someone like Carver could succeed under it, it could not nearly be as bad as people believed. That Carver was humble/devout and not really vocal in condemning the actions of whites/Southern racial practices made it easy for him to be held up by them as a "credit to his race" ...and that all blacks could work hard enough to equals...but it was essentially a romanticized view of the South that'd lead to trying to co-opt the work of Carver and not really allow for blacks to be treated fairly while benefitting from their work. The NAACP was one of the few organizations to try and curb the ways many whites fought against blacks in being seen as equals - and without their prescence, even if slaves were eventually freed, blacks would not have had the advantage of being able to have a visible platform from which they could use education to show their equality.
THere's no way of knowing if the Southern economy would have been the same if the Confederacy had won since most people - be it black or white - had been agriculturally based /turned to farming for lifestyle...and being bent toward that meant you had to be innovative..so it's possible that another like a George Washington Carver would've rose up. However, without
him having the opportunity for pursuing freedom/education like he did later on in life, he may've been hindered in the advancements he made - and thus, there would have been destruction on a higher scale.
There is the possibility that the instituition of slavery might have lingered on as a relic for some decades. For it must be remembered that the Southern Planter Class, though a small minority of the south's population, really were culturally attached to slavery. And they held the bulk of the wealth. After the cotton market collapsed, many ( maybe most ) would have been bankrupted...although property and industrial holdings would have kept some afloat and they would have retained enormous political clout. It is possible it may have been a slow, protracted affair, with states opting out under pressure one by one. There'd possibly be a few backwaters resisting change a little longer, with slaves continuing as household servants, dragging well into the 20th century.
And of course, there is the really terrifying ( but much less likely ) scenario of the South attempting to industrialize with a slave workforce.
The large-scale use of slaves in an urban or industrial la- bor force was never a part of the antebellum South. Examples abound of failed private and public attempts in the South to deploy slave labor in jobs other than staple crop production -and as it is,
slavery itself was keeping the SOuth poor compared to the North - as it prevented the growth of cities and manufacturers....and you could only exploit people for so long in order to have physical labor before the work force rebelled - as there were many slave rebellions rising up (Nat Turner being one of them amongst others that terrified whites). There was a realization - with slavery being abolished around the world - that the only way to keep their economy going would be more use of slave labor from other sources not dried up. And in defending
slavery,
the South would grow increasingly different from the dynamic, capitalist, free labor system that was gaining strength in the North.
If trying to catch up,
there would have to be a change in the system by training others to all be skilled in trade..and using free labor/agragarian revolution that would not be bound on the social caste system of slavery. If trying to industralize with a slave labor force, I don't think this would have lasted ( as plenty of poor whites would want those jobs as the southern economy tanked, with the possible result of class warfare...and on that, perhaps the southern proletariat would have radicalized and we would have ended up with a Confederate SSR ), but it might have prolonged the process. Regardless of what might have happened, it is certain that southern victory would have set Civil Rights and race relations back decades, to the detriment of this country.
