Talk:Politics (Two Americas)

Freedom of Speech in the CSA
The descriptions of the parties need a little more fleshing out, to say the least. It is understandable that the Republican Party, as it existed in the USA, would not exist in the CSA, and that the Democratic Party would be the predominate party there. But the fact that a party is "banned" for its ideology is against the constitutional guarantee of free speech (CS constitution, Article I, Section IX, paragraph 10) which is identical to the First Ammendment of the US Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Consequently, the most that could be said was that the CSA was "effectively" a single party state due to the dominance of the Democratic party. The constitution actually guarantees (again following the US constitution) that each individual state a "Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section III, paragraph 3), so at least the possiblility of a party named "Republican" could exist before the end of the "state of war." The truth is, the "solid south" existed, in which the post-reconstruction period firmly rejected the Republican party (due mostly to the Reconstruction itself). It was the reconstruction, with its virtual "marial law" that created this animosity.

It is questionable that without the reconstruction such a staunch "right wing" approach would develop. It is true that he Democratic Party was the pro-slavery party before the war, while the Whigs tended to be the home of abolitionists, and that the Republican Party replaced the Whigs as the anti-slavery party. But even an "anti-slavery" party would have to exist if the CS constitution stood as written, for party politics are the result of the "freedom of speech" clause as well as the "assemble" and "petition" clause.

If you want a realistic time line, in fact, slavery would continue to be an issue that would most likely not last into the twentieth century. Spain abandoned it in Cuba in the 1880's, I believe. The CS constitution forbid importation of slaves from any other country besides the United States (Article I, Section IX, paragraph 1). Racial tentions were bad enough in the south as it was with the policies imposed on them from the north. Without totally rearranging things philosophically, though, slavery in a modern country, with international recognition, would not maintain slavery as an institution. I think a caste system, though, is totally possible. In this there would be a lower class which would essensially work for really low wages, but then would have to fend for themselves rather than be cared for by "owners" or "masters." In fact, the ones that accepted the concept of "masters" in the sense of "servants" (rather than slaves), would probably have it better off. As I said elsewhere, study apartheid in South Africa. Additionally, check the caste system in India (still in place though India is a democracy).

I am aware that you want the "one party" system in the CS up through WW 2, and slavery into the 1960's (paralelling desegregation). But to equate the "solid south" and segregation with a "one party" system and slavery is unrealistic. SouthWriter 04:58, February 22, 2010 (UTC)