[GOPcapitalist]

Whose government would have become the monolith we have now? Or would both have grown into what we have now?

IMHO there are two possible scenarios. The one I tend to think would have happened is that both countries would have emerged in the "big government" direction of what we have now, but at a significantly slower pace. I say this as it is a natural tendency for any government to grow in size over time, often to the point that it parents its own destruction.

The second scenario, to which I believe an argument could be made, is that the south would have grown more slowly just as in the first whereas the north would have quickly turned into a centralized industrial state of big government. But I suppose we'll really never know.

[dtel]

We will never know.
This was a dynamic time in American history and so many scenarios could have played out.
If divided into north and south, I think the nations might have been more productive as a whole.
I also think the north would have taken over Canada and the south would have taken Mexico and probably tried to take the whole of South America.
I feel very strongly the south would have remained more conservative over the years and the north would have experimented socially, much as they have done.
To get back on topic, they arguement to me isn't over slavery but way of life.
Slavery would have died on its own, given time and mechanization. IMHO

[muleboy]

dtel's question is a good one, and your answer is as well.

The one thing that is closest to certainty is that an imperialist exercise of power from North America across an ocean would have been delayed for decades. (the Gulf doesn't count).

This "fact" would have made the history of the 20th century vastly different, and quite probably better.