One of the central premises you keep throwing out as if it were fact is that slavery had 50 years left at best. Then you point out the cruelty of Jim Crow and all that happened in the ensuing years. This is what makes your contention so preposterous. You accuse Ron of having a skewed view of it all, yet I believe its you that has the skewed view. Here is why.

First, to suggest that slavery would have just disappeared is ludicrous. It would have evolved, and not to the advantage of the slaves. One need only look at the capitalist role in this country to know that we would still be dealing with it. Besides this, something are simply so intolerable that they must be eradicated. The "legal" owning of another human being is just such a thing. No amount of "States Rights" arguments can make that tolerable.

Second, the level of violence and anger directed to former slaves would be the same without regard to the winning or losing of the Civil War. The KKK, Jim Crow, etc. did not create the bigotted anger and horrendous acts committed in the name of racial purity. They were simply the alibi's used for these acts. If it had gone as you suggest, they would have found new alibi's to keep the African descended peoples in their place.

Mick