No more so than the United States at the time. It was incidental, not central, to the basis of either. Your evaluations are based on applying late 20th century values to early 19th century culture through a filter which seems not only highly simplistic but also remarkably reminiscent of a gradeschool text's sidebar.
No more so than the United States at the time.
Well, that is wrong.
The United States was not -based- on racial superiority. The CSA was:
"It cannot be believed that our ancestors would have assented to any union whatever with the people of the North if the feelings and opinions now existing among them had existed when the Constitution was framed.
The Union of the Constitution was a Union of slaveholding States. It rests on Slavery, by prescribing a representation in Congress for three-fifths of our slaves. There is nothing in the proceedings of the Convention which framed the Constitution to show that the Southern States would have formed any other union; and still less that they would have formed a union with more powerful non-slaveholding States, having a majority in both branches of the Legislature of the Government. They were guilty of no such folly."
--Robert Barnwell Rhett
The problem for the south was that the north was not friendly -enough- to slavery. That is why they tried to bolt.
Walt
That is simply false. The basis, the cornerstone of the so-called CSA -was- slavery.
Walt
Indeed, to look at 19th Century American through the eyes of the secessionist fire eaters gives the opposite conclusion to that which 21st century observers reach. To the militant secessionists, the United States were headed rapidly towards racial equality and "amalgamation." They condemned the union for that reason. Though one can and should reject their value judgement, their assessment of what Republican victory meant ought not to be forgotten. It makes 19th century America look far better in terms of 21st century ideas than many people today would give it credit for.
In other words, the Confederate judgement of how bad the Union and the Republicans were would be taken as a very positive assessement by current egalitarian standards. The present day assessment of how bad North and South both were in terms of race doesn't account for the passionate fear and loathing for the Union, the abolitionists, and the "Black Republicans" on the part of many who supported the Confederacy and the Democrats, largely on racial grounds.
Also, if we want to understand the questions at issue in the 1850s and 1860s, racial equality has to be pretty far down the list compared to slavery and its expansion. That era was talking primarily about slavery. Recasting the debate in terms of racial equality and giving both sides a failing grade is a pretty late 20th century view in itself.
I think we can respect military skill and courage even if exercised in behalf of a cause we reject. One sidebar: Stonewall had a lot of the traits that are condemned in Grant and Sherman. Arguably, he was less of a cavalier than any major commander on either side. His puritanism gives him a lot of the traits in Yankee character that neo-confederates attack. Indeed, contrary to the caricature of noble Southerners and brutish Northerners, successful and distinctive commanders on both sides had much in common. Why should they not, as they came out of the same culture? Discuss.