Definitely not.
The Industrial Revolution made slavery not cost effective.
Quite true. A slave cost $60,000-$80,000 in today's money. Then you have to feed, clothe, house, and provide the basic essentials of living and medical care for them for life. It's cheaper just to hire an emplyee, pay them a wage, and let them sort those issues out for themselves.
Not quite. The invention of the cotton gin made large scale plantation operations a profitable activity. Save for that, slavery might well have petered out. However, in order to harvest that much cotton required a considerable workforce and that made slavery viable. It was the decision to restrict slavery from expanding into new states thus preventing cotton farming to grow which put the south over the edge. Ultimately, it wasn't about liberty. It was about money.
I'll agree that it was about money - and that included the value of the slaves and cotton profits as well as tariffs and subsidizing northern infrastructure with southern tax money. It was also about culture and social issues. It was about a lot of things.
Slavery is actually considered more of an issue now than it was then. The northern nationalist historians started that crap. Followed by the progressives and the Marxists, and the revisionists. Makes it nice and cozy to say it was a noble war to free the slaves rather than a war over taxes and cultural differences.
I believe that slavery would still have petered out and in not much longer than it took to fight the war. I see no way that slavery would have lasted as long as 1870 had the war not been fought. The North, Great Britain, and France, who were all the South's best cotton customers, were applying too much pressure in favor of abolition. Attitudes in the South were changing in favor of abolition too.
One of the biggest questions of the day was what to do with them once they were freed. The Southern abolitionist (There were 5 times as many abolitionist societies in the South as there were in the North.) wanted to educate them and integrate them. Then you had Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, and the American Colonization Society that wanted to repariate them back to Africa.
The Northern abolitionists kept agitating the sitiation rather than working towards a solution. They tended to be their own worst enemy. The very reason that it was illegal to teach them to read and write was that the abolitionists kept printing pamphlets trying to incite the slaves to rise up and kill their masters. As long as they were illiterate, they couldn't read the pamphlets. Even then, a lot of slave owners taught them anyway. Jefferson Davis taught his slaves. Robert E. Lee's wife and daughter ran an illegal school at Arlington. Stonewall Jackson taught his servants so that they could read and understand the Bible.
We know that compensated emancipation worked because that's exactly how Europe and South America did it. Yet, when compensated emancipation was proposed in the United States, the Northern abolitionists shut that idea down by 1849.
The real reason that slavery flourished in the South was a matter of population growth. The South needed laborers to clear the land and work the fields to feed and clothe the nation, but most Europeans were immigrating to the North because the climate was more similar to the climate where they had come from in Europe. Immigrants tended to see the South as a hot, humid, malarial, mosquito and snake infested place.
All that said, I firmly believe that even if the South had emancipated the slaves by 1860, the Civil War would still have been fought because emancipation didn't solve all of the tariff, trade, sectional, religious, and culrural issues between the sections. The Deep South didn't come into the Union until after the Louisiana Purchase and it evolved first under Spanish and French influence, whereas the North had originated under British influence.
