Wouldn't genocide be pretty extreme?
How long run would it be though? Wasn't anti-Semitism quite common in the United States until after World War II?
Anti-Semitism was a problem until the 1940s, yes. But it wasn't quite widespread, either, even in the '20s, when the first Red Scare was going on.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Indian Territory had been ceded to the Confederacy, as many Native American tribes fought on the side of the Confederacy, or at least against the Union. Might that actually cause something of a breach in Confederate vs. Union attitudes towards the Native Americans? Confederate Native Americans would have helped win the war and would be living on reservations in Oklahoma, which would be largely out of the way until the discovery of petroleum. In the Union of course there would still be the Indian Wars out West.
A few tribes did, yes, but primarily against the Union.
So historically, anti-Catholicism was a bigger issue than anti-Semitism?
For the most part, yes, perhaps especially in parts of the South.
I've read of some instances in which Irish Americans were treated even worse than slaves in the antebellum South, so things could be very bleak for them for quite some time. I can't see them (or Greeks or Italians) going to the Confederacy instead of the United States if similar circumstances continued after the war.
This wouldn't be surprising, sadly.
I think the Union would be better than the Confederacy in most regards, although some parts of the United States were more racist and/or discriminatory than others.
True, true. For example, IOTL, prejudice against, say, Chinese, was usually worse on the West Coast, as it so happens, than in New York or Chicago.
Definitely, especially for South Carolina, where the people couldn't directly vote for President until after the Civil War.
And it would likely stay that way for a while. Hell, it's almost a miracle this didn't get extended to other states, as well!
My guess is that the Confederacy would have been more accepting of non-African minorities than the U.S.A. was. This is because in general, the need for unity and inclusion against the possibility of slave rebellion meant that large slave-holding societies were often more tolerant within their free population, creating a cultural attitude in which all of the free population was at least somewhat equal since they weren't slaves (compare to e.g. the period mudsill theory; the South was basically a sort of herrenvolk democracy.) This has been true throughout history - e.g. ancient Sparta had quite a bit more gender equality than the other Greek cities, but this was restricted only to the ruling Spartiate class, since it was so tiny that they had to make use of their female population.
I'm not so sure of that, TBH. The South in general was a bit more conservative than most of the North as a whole even before slavery began to take off IOTL, and anti-Catholicism was almost as widespread as up North, and quite a bit more virulent in some places, by the 1850s. I can't see that changing much with any plausible POD that isn't radical in nature.
If anything at all, the inequality between the free populations(with Anglos on top, assimilated Protestant Scots-Irish, Germans, etc. second, and so on) would almost certainly be worse, at least in the short term, than in the U.S., and partly
because of slavery, and not despite it.
In a similar way, we can see a situation in which immigrants to the Confederacy were treated reasonably equally, as long as they assimilated into the slave-holding ruling class. If nothing else, there would be a constant need for immigrants (to ensure the slave population didn't grow too large as a percentage of the population).
This might be possible in the long run, but it would take a *hell* of a POD, or PODs(multiple) to make that actually work as a whole(and not just with exceptions, like maybe New Orleans, for example); it would be a tough job, seeing as that the Confederacy was basically explicitly founded as a Herrenvolk
republic.
(note the emphasis).