Judge Andrew Napolitano recently propounded a contrarian view of President Lincoln, suggesting that other action could have been taken to end the practice. Napolitano goes so far as to suggest that the government could have bought up all the slaves for half the sum spent on the war.
I'm reminded too of an essay by Winston Churchill about half a century after the war which suggests he believed the Confederacy themselves would have ended slavery soon after defeating the North. Is this all revisionism on a grand level or is there any plausibility to their arguments?
I would have to disagree with those two views. The Confederate states had a severely investment in the slavery. Not only was the entire doctrine of the Confederate mainly focus on slavery, but It had become the main source of income for many of the plantation owners. To suggest that the sue of money would solve this problem shows a lack of understanding of what it meant for the South.
I also take issue with the essay's thesis. Slavery was the main cause for secession. Had the Confederacy any intention of getting rid of slavery, then the Civil War might not have happened.
The abolishment of slavery during the Civil War was an opportunistic move had by Lincoln. During the early stages of the war, Lincoln had made it clear the reason for the war was to preserve the unification of the United States not the abolishment of slavery. As the war progressed and the Union began to gain some ground, steps taken to abolish slavery, without lowering morale and support for the Union, were gradually introduced. I would say that the Civil War was definitely the only way that the US would be rid of slavery.