Not really. That’s mainly part of the “lost cause” myth of the Confederacy, as spread by the descendants of Confederates and white supremacist groups.

The reality is that while there was a trend of slavery being on its way out within a number of states, these were generally areas where slavery was a small or insignificant part of the economy and was less central to politics and the social order. Actually, it is important to know that while slavery was fading in importance overall at one point during the late 18th century and some of the founding fathers did suspect it would die out, the invention of Eli Whitney’s cotton gin in 1793 led to a revitalization and boom in the slavery-based cotton industry of the American South, particularly in the states that would go on to form the Confederacy. In these places slavery was stronger than ever as was plantation politics- that is the major role that wealthy slave owners had in the political class be it as members of state and local government bodies, as congressional representatives, or as the patrons and backers thereof.

In other words, you had parts of the country where slavery was on its way out or being abolished, and parts where it was only growing. And the vast, vast majority of slaves were in the latter. Between the unequal distribution of slaves prior to state abolition as well as abolition itself, in the years preceding the Civil War about 3.5 million out of the 4 million slaves in America were located in what became the Confederate States. And these states sought slavery’s expansion and protection which is why I would say it is inaccurate (and often outright dishonest) to say slavery was on its way out. Especially considering that this false notion is usually brought up in some way to defend the purpose of the Confederacy, rather than being a statement on Free States.

Leading up to the Civil War, division over slavery and the question of whether it should be allowed in the territories caused a lot of tension between slave states and free states. The slave states feared that if they became outnumbered by free states in Congress then slavery could be abolished across the country (side note: this same concern impacted the drafting of the Constitution and the structure of the American government). As new states were being admitted into the Union, there was fierce debate and fighting over whether they would be free states or slave states. This includes what has become known as the period of “Bleeding Kansas” which was a conflict between pro-slavery and anti-slavery militias in the proposed state of Kansas and surrounding area.

I think the falsehood of the idea that slavery was on its way out can also be seen by looking at the 1860 election and the positions held within it. As many people know, Lincoln was the Republican candidate who ran on the platform of stopping the spread of slavery without outlawing it in states where it existed (the official Republican stance since its inception was in regard to expansion, not necessarily abolition). Stephen Douglas was the Democratic candidate who ran on a platform of “popular sovereignty” meaning it was up to the citizens of each state/territory to decide whether to outlaw slavery or not. So a “states rights” platform.

Looking at the Democratic Party in more detail is revealing. At this time there was a rift within the Democratic Party as to its position on slavery, generally between Northern and Southern Democrats (that is mainly between Democrats in free states and those in slave states) though that’s not to say that all Democrats in either region were unanimous. In the mid 1850’s a number of Democrats who opposed the expansion of slavery had split off to help form the Republican Party, which attracted more support from anti-slavery and anti-expansion voters than the Democrats thenceforth (of course for many abolitionists both parties fell short). However there remained anti-slavery wings of the Democratic Party and in 1860, the party consisted of members who ranged from anti-slavery, to anti-expansion, to neutral, to pro-slavery, to undecided.

Stephen Douglas and the policies of his “Freeport Doctrine” such as popular sovereignty were meant to appeal to all Democrats and moderate non-Democrats by opposing federal action to prevent the spread of slavery without calling for its expansion or protection under federal law. However, this was considered unacceptable to the Southern Democrats who called it the “Freeport Heresy,” and who wanted to ensure that slavery was protected be it by federal law or Constitutional Amendment. Southern Democrats walked out of the 1860 Democratic convention and ran their own candidate, John Breckinridge who had a wholly pro-slavery platform that black people were inferior to white people, abolishing slavery would infringe upon the property rights of slave owners, and there was need for a federal slave code to protect the “right” to own slaves in all states and territories. Despite Douglas being more famous today for his debates with Lincoln and placing second in the popular vote, it was Breckinridge who gained the second highest amount of electoral votes since he carried the South (Douglas won only a single state).

Of course, after Lincoln won, these Southern states formed the Confederacy and attempted to secede. According to the various articles of secession and statements of confederate politicians, the purpose of secession was to preserve slavery and the concept of white superiority.

All of this is to demonstrate the point that public opinion was very divided, states were divided, and parties were divided all over the issue of slavery. The one constant is that by the time of the Civil War, the Southern states that would form the Confederacy- the states where most slaves were held- were fervently pro-slavery, had no inclination towards ending slavery, were in the midst of a period of growth for slavery, sought the expansion of slavery, were not willing to accept policies that didn’t protect the institution of slavery, were not willing to support a position of “states rights” out of fear that a state might wish to abolish slavery, and were willing to fight for the protection and expansion of slavery via guerrilla warfare in the territories, splitting with the rest of their party to run their own candidate, and attempting to split with the rest of the Union to form their own pro-slavery nation.

So in conclusion, to say that slavery was on its way out is misleading at best and deceptive at worst