Originally Posted by Benjamin

I think it would have been worse without the Constitution around.

Originally Posted by htperr6565

The South produced a constitution which contained the same bill of rights...
Confederate States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Benjamin

True, they did. But I'm quite sure the Confederate courts, full of judges and justices from the time of the war, would ever side with blacks about anything.

Originally Posted by htperr6565

"Northern" judges didn't side with blacks until the 1950's. The War-era judges you mention would have died by then.

Originally Posted by Benjamin

True indeed, but I cannot imagine what it would have been like without northern influence. It may have turned into another South Africa.

Originally Posted by htperr6565

may have, may not have, but defineately a different situation than in South Africa. The blacks of the old south had at least been westernized.

Also, you have to remember it was likely that the South would have conquered and reintegrated the North under its idea of what america is/was, just as the North did to it. The likelihood of two separate nations would have been small.

Originally Posted by htperr6565

I would of fought for the South. Slavery would have eventually been abolished, and Lincoln only emancipated the slaves for political reasons, half way through the war, after previous policies made slaves 'contraband.' (Contraband became hard to feed so the union freed them, letting them fend for theirselves) Other reasons why:

1. The South had a more global economic mindset than the protectionist north. The industrialists who benefited from the war eventually dragged us in WW1

2. The south was more likely to complete the Jeffersonian vision of America composed of yeoman farmers, (independent people who would not have embraced industrial slavery as much as the north)

Originally Posted by Niccolo

The economy of the Confederate south was not composed of yeoman farmers - far from it. It was more akin to aristocratic-feudalism. The yeoman farmers in the south were the ones who economically suffered from competing against slave-labor. The model for the South was ultimately monarchist or fascist. Nothing democratic about it.

Originally Posted by Niccolo

Say what you want about the North, it is a long established principle that city air makes a man free. Thankfully, the North won and true liberty prevailed.

Originally Posted by htperr6565

They at least didn't have to send their kids to sweat in a textile factory, until after the Civil war. I wasn;t really saying the South represented the yeomanry Jefferson envisioned, they were just more likely to become that, if cotton and slavery collapsed, which it may have even if the south won.

Originally Posted by htperr6565

I'm sure many, and many still do, sufferred like hell in the poverty of industrial feudalism in the cities.

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

What, the rural poor don't suffer?

Originally Posted by Niccolo

If the south won and cotton subsequently collapsed, they'd play games to force the more productive north to subsidize their cotton to keep their heritage alive. No doubt of that.

Originally Posted by Niccolo

Industrial feudalism? Excuse me? A defender of slavery accuses the North of feudalism? That takes gall (and a whole lot of dishonest hypocrisy).

Originally Posted by Niccolo

Feudalism requires that one has no choice in service. A free industrial/commercial economy provides choices. They may not be pretty choices, but they are free choices.