[qiskit]

> How do you explain the South's century of aggressive open racism after the civil war in your "it was just economic" theory?

"Is your assertion that racist white northerners fought a war against racist white southerners to free black people?". What about racist white northerners and racist white southerners confused you?

> You don't need to try to save their reputations. Let them be remembered as the assholes they were.

Saving their reputation by calling them racist white southerners?

You do realize that some northern states had slaves too during the civil war. And the emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the south.

If you want to learn what the civil war was really about go look into why west virginia seceded from virgina. Do you think west virginians were less racist than the rest of virginians? Or do you think it was economic?

[majormajor]

History makes it pretty clear that southerners were, on the whole, much more openly and institutionally racist than northerners both before and after the Civil War.

The ones that seceded said it was about slavery. Many times. You don't believe them. Why? Why do you care enough to claim that you know their motives better than everyone else?

West Virginia split because they didn't want to go along with Virginia's secession. That's something that happened after the cause, not something that can tell you the cause, though! Maryland and Delaware were less dominated by the slave-holding interests. Its not that interesting.

[joshuamorton]

> Do you think west virginians were less racist than the rest of virginians? Or do you think it was economic?

It was economic in the sense that slavery was not central to West Virginia's economy, but was central to not-West Virginia's economy. A map makes this pretty apparent[0]. The argument isn't that the was was about racism, but about slavery. Those are often related, but aren't precisely the same.

[0]: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3881e.cw1047000/