The White Southern American Man is the highest form of the Anglo-Celtic race

The South suffered for years from Northern white nationalist provocations; the North wanted to end slavery but refused to evenly bear the burden of its abolition, demographically or financially, and openly stoked the flames of race war. They loudly mourned the loss of John Brown, someone who quite literally tried to create a black ethnostate and do a Haiti 2.0; you can say it was deserved, but in that case, the North deserved the very same treatment given Northern industrialization was financed by holding stock in Southern plantation complexes where the majority of early money in the U.S came from. And, of course, for having slavery themselves. The South gave up all rights to western territories when seceding; they gave up all claims to any interference with the federal government of the North, and all that was asked in return was to be let alone.

Also lol & the "enfranchised blacks" thing, the North abandoned blacks the second the western territories could be made into states to secure the Republican vote; the condition of African Americans in the post-war South was almost entirely the fault of the North who used them to try and disenfranchise white Southerners then abandoned them the second it became convenient to do so, to a naturally spiteful and vengeful white Southern population. The only solace here is at least Northern WASPs great replaced themselves after the war, and got real depressed about it by 1900 or so e.g with the Passing of the Great Race and other novels of similar type. Justified.

Slavery was bad because it relied on the constant denial of the natural right to self-autonomy. That doesn't mean it was sadistic, though. There's a reason most American slaves lived long, healthy lives and most Brazilian slaves died.

The reason is because, for most of this period, they were grain and dye farmers. It's not because of some particular Anglo benevolence. (See Jamaica.)
The cotton boom was a short phase in the history of the country, and the invention of tractors rendered the institution obsolete.
Had it remained, America would've gone the way of Brazil, failing to create a self-sustaining, unionized middle class.
It'd be a third-world country with first-rate geography. It's good the Union took the time to deal with it.

What I hate the most is the fact that Native Americans all were ethnically cleansed and then blacks multiplied by the millions not that I hate black people would like their natural state and contributions in the Deep South itself without too many ghetto crack babies on gibs, it’s all thanks to Southerners and their Zionist masters/handlers

Why the fuck would the North let half the country go? Slavery was an economically inferior system and a moral abomination to the fabric of the country, it was destined to be washed away by industrial economic progress and the social conditions that come with it.

Also lol & the "enfranchised blacks" thing, the North abandoned blacks the second the western territories could be made into states to secure the Republican vote; the condition of African Americans in the post-war South was almost entirely the fault of the North who used them to try and disenfranchise white Southerners then abandoned them the second it became convenient to do so, to a naturally spiteful and vengeful white Southern population.

The North by and large didn't have benevolent views towards blacks, that doesn't make the cause of Southern whites sympathetic.

Is this another psyop to divide the US?

Its just bantz, move along

1. Cotton was only the predominant cash crop in the cotton belt. Which wasn't most of the South.
2. Cotton plantations in the U.S South had higher survival rates than tobacco plantations in Brazil, despite tobacco in the U.S being associated as the "lighter" form of plantation slavery.
3. The South was dominated by middle class slave owners who held one to 4 slaves, rather than large stratified plantations, generally, and was more industrialized than everywhere in Europe other than Britain and France at the time.
4. You are a retard.

economically inferior

Yes, the South's agribusiness model for cotton and sugar would have worked better with paid labor but who cares, that's not the point.

The North by and large didn't have benevelont views toward blacks,

That's the whole point. Shows you didn't read what I wrote. The North refused to bear the financial or demographic burden of slavery's abolition, despite immensely profiting from it (how do you think the North industrialized? It was via slave profits from the South). They wanted to keep their states white ethnostates while forcing the South to be swamped by millions of free negros. They were total hypocrites, and every yank soldier that got wasted in the South deserved it for trying to incite a race war.

Cotton was only the predominant cash crop in the cotton belt. Which wasn't most of the South.

That's what I said.

Cotton plantations in the U.S South had higher survival rates than tobacco plantations in Brazil, despite tobacco in the U.S being associated as the "lighter" form of plantation slavery.

Yes, because Brazilian slave policies differed from the onset. Tropical disease is a bitch, and the Portuguese were eager to replace any lost workers. Why even bother with the Apples-to-Oranges comparison here when you could just compare Jamaican Tobacco with Brazil's and Maryland's?
It's clearly a latitude issue.

The South was dominated by middle class slave owners who held one to 4 slaves, rather than large stratified plantations, generally, and was more industrialized than everywhere in Europe other than Britain and France at the time.

At the cost of the common laborer, who had to compete with a racial slave caste for work.
And I wouldn't call mid-19th century Europe some booming utopia. The South being industrialized isn't much of a credit, seeing as the Industrial Revolution there began in earnest around 1810 or so, and was delayed by the wars and revolutions of the period.
The CSA wouldn't have successfully developed into an industrialized economy. It only would've used the infrastructure, but it also would've undermined the North and revived demand for African slaves.

You are a retard.

Imagine a 1950s Mamluk-run industrial power in the South that's maybe 60% West African (and growing). Is that the America you want to see?

Slavery policy differed from the onset.

That was my whole point. Thanks for agreeing. Slavery in the American South was the most well-regulated in world history. Coincidentally, the areas in the South that had the worst kind of slavery, and the most feared by the slaves, was Louisiana, a state whose slavery traditions didn't evolve out of the Tidewater but rather the Caribbean; Southern American slavery was an invention of Virginia, and wildly more limited and humane than what happened in the Caribbean or South America, and only the most Caribbean/South American part of the U.S had slavery anywhere near approaching that level of brutality naturally. Its not a latitude issue, its a social policy issue.

At the cost of the common laborer

The majority of Americans even after the Civil War weren't proletarian laborers. They were farmers. This was true everywhere except New England-New York. The South was the wealthiest region of the U.S prior to the war, and yes, that wealth was unevenly distributed, but so was the wealth in the North both before and after industrialization so that's a moot point.

The CSA wouldn't have industrialized further

And you know this because? Would be awfully weird for the fourth most industrialized place on the planet at the time to not continue investing into industrialization.

Mamluk 60% west african

The South was infinitely more likely to deport freed blacks than a victorious Union ever was, if you're gonna pull out muh racial demographics card.

You also didn't dispute the hypocrisy or aggression of the antebellum North at all, so I'll take that as you conceding that point too.