Let me get that straight. The South wins the Civil War....and due to black participation, rejects slavery, segregation, and racism??!?!??----18.104.22.168 01:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Everyone knows that the North was more racist than the South.
Of course. North fighted for freedom and therefore it was rasist and South fighted for slavery and therefore was not rasist. Brilliant logic.
um.....ok, yes the north was a racist as the south and had slave states in the union during the war, but the csa felt that slavery would disaper in due time, so I'm goin to say no to this one.
Segregation laws were invented in the North and the worst race riots occurred in the North. Further, some in the South did consider manumission, even during the Civil War. Therefore, while it is naive to assume that the CSA would not have had to confront the race issues, it is not so clear cut as the first comment makes it sound. The South was not hopelessly bound to racism, segregation, and slavery.
However, this article leaves no explanation for how a CSA military dictatorship would evolve. An aristocracy . . . maybe. But why a military dictatorship? I doubt the CSA civilian government in Montgomery/Richmond would have stood for it. Nor can I think of any Southern military leaders with the pride/guts/amorality to pull off the establishment of a military dictatorship (Nathan Bedford Forrest?).
As nice as a Southern Utopia would be, this althist doesn't really provide a plausible means to one. --J. T. Zeringue 05:04, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, he did name it a "Utopia" - the idea being that it is practically impossible to imagine. And the act of freeing the slaves in 1870 is great - except that the "father of the Confederacy died from complications of a stroke in October of 1870. There would not be much time for the "military dictatorship" to survive. SouthWriter 18:42, July 12, 2010 (UTC)