[maro]

No slavery, no Civil War. Without slavery, the South would not have developed into an agrarian, aristocratic society dependent on exports and imports from Britain. The imposition of high tariff rates by the Federal government would not have been perceived by the South as ruinous. Alabama would have developed more like Ohio, with the land owned by freeholders. There would have been no plantation culture, since without slavery plantations don't make money. (By the way, I find it somewhat strange that the descendants of poor Southern whites would wear the emblem of rich, snobby plantation owners who would have snubbed those poor whites at any social function. Slavery kept down the white man because it debased the value of white labor.) Now, would some group have eventually decided to secede for other reasons (like the Louisianans with their distinctive culture)? Maybe. It may be that the secession issue was an inherent drafting ambiguity in the Constitution that had to be decided by force of arms sooner or later. But nonetheless, I am confident that without slavery, there would not have been a Civil War as we know it.

[PistolPaknMama]

The imposition of high tariff rates by the Federal government would not have been perceived by the South as ruinous.

Explain please. At the time the north invaded the south, the south was funding some 75% of the federal treasury which was being spent in the north as "industrial development." You don't call that ruinous?

Slavery kept down the white man because it debased the value of white labor.

The very reason for the race riots in NYC and exclusionary laws in the north. The yankees realized that free, or cheap, black labor meant no jobs for whites. They didn't want them either.

I am confident that without slavery, there would not have been a Civil War as we know it.

Then what kind of "civil" war would there have been?