Why are whites the only race currently associated with enslaving people? Slavery has existed since recorded history and every race has partaken in it.
Africans sold each other to the Portuguese who then sold the slaves to Americans and Europeans. Why is this seen as a "white only" historical issue? Hell, hundreds of thousands of white men even died to free slaves in the U.S. yet we still get shit for it.
Have you seen what's being taught in universities?
Most college aged kids now believe that whites are the only evil slavers and need to pay.
>Have you seen what's being taught in universities?
Yes, this is how I know that whites aren't the only race associated with slavery.
>Have you seen what's being taught in universities?
Dude >>617405 is right, a chick in one of my first year classes last year was so upset when both students and the teacher rallied against her for claiming that White's were evil during the Age of Exploration.
There was citation of the Japanese genociding the Ainu, the tribal warfare in Africa and the Central America and basically a bunch of evidence levied against her so she shut up for the rest of the class then left it the next week.
>ask someone why American Civil War started
>he/she says slavery
Marxist propaganda. It doesn't matter how muslims or east asians or anyone else treats women, gays, minorities, slavery, etc. It only matters how the west does it. Only the west is to be criticized. Only the west is the enemy of marxism, everyone else is an ally in it's destruction.
White people are the basis of the largest forced migration in human history, massively de populating and instigating arms races for the people needed to work in plantations founded on the extermination of indigenous North Americans utilizing the first and most prominent example of race based chattel slavery.
Arabs did slavery legally until much later but it wasn't race based, it wasn't on a similar scale and slaves were not in chattel conditions, it wasn't into perpetuity and as we see in the middle East there was a high assimilation rate.
Can you prove that Africans enslaved African on a racial basis of inferiority and legally inhibited their integration of the basis of race?
Can you show that all forms of African slavery was chattel slavery, can you show that African slavery was based on a plantation system?
Did intra-African slavery force the largest forced migration in human history?
If not than really you are trying to compare apples to oranges
Nah I don't think I'll provide any proof because I'm an asshole
I'm just sayin, sounds like you're justifying slavery because what, arabs deserve special treatment? I honestly doubt any slave wants to be a slave regardless of who their owners are
Reminder that there were white slaves in America while there were African slaves. Reminder that racism is not the cause for slavery, it is an effect. Reminder that poor white slaves were treated just as poorly as poor african slaves, and were also the victims of racist remarks. Reminder that the only real race problem that African-Americans should hold against whites is the Jim Crowe Era.
>Arabs did slavery legally until much later but it wasn't race based, it wasn't on a similar scale and slaves were not in chattel conditions, it wasn't into perpetuity and as we see in the middle East there was a high assimilation rate.
Arabs sterilized about 90% of their slaves so that they wouldn't integrate into society, they'd just die and that would be that.
Blacks were never enslaved on the grounds of being black, they were just relatively cheap, strong and abundant so it was convenient to buy them in the African markets. The notion is actually an ex post facto statement that they were inferior because they let themselves be enslaved, rather than being enslaved because of inferiority.
This is completely untrue, the Ottomans utilized Eunuchs but that was ether exceptional. Black communities in Muslim nations survive today from Turkey to Iran and India with yes Black men.
The racism of African people in Western societies was utilized as an excuse for their active enslavement. This is undeniable given the historical record.
Black people did not enslave black people for reasons of color.
>Black people did not enslave black people for reasons of color.
They enslaved them on tribals grounds, often the tribe that lost a war was enslaved en masse. I reckon you're an American and thus not a very smart person, but I'll let you know there's more to race and ethnicity than just "color". Ridiculous tribal hatred is very much alive in Africa even in modern times.
>Why are whites the only race currently associated with enslaving people?
Whites sold each other into ancient Roman Empire at thousand years. May be blacks did same too, same as into Ancient Egypt, but blacks do not have history, because lack of the civilization.
Dark skinned and light skinned Africans have been discriminating each other since the first men. Even though slavery started out being based on class, racism or lets say discrimination played a huge role in slavery. That's why I said earlier that racism is not the cause of slavery, but simply an effect of slavery. Also, don't tell me I'm wrong because I grew up in Africa, and know shit you're not taught in your American history books.
Islam’s Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora, by Ronald Segal. Look it up. And I mean hell, this is a guy who is frankly apologetic about the whole thing, constantly pointing out how a slave in Arab society could advance higher than a slave in European/Atlantic society.
Your ignoring the fact that there were dark skin Africans with slaves and light skin Africans who were enslaved
Never were black people actively discriminating against each other on the basis of their race. Neither were they hindered for their race, they assimilated into their new found cultures and weren't hampered in the same ways as slavery in the America's.
Nice try though.
Believe me I know full and well about Islamic slavery, why do you think I shut down that stupid comment about the majority of black male Africans being winch when less than 10% of boys in the procedure survived and we know from records of black communities continually existing throughout the Indian Ocean littoral
We have tribal and clan issues but that is not race. We did not have a concept of blackness or race before colonialism. Even in Ethiopia our notions of color, self and other are complex.
Your post reeks with pretension and stupidity.
You literally just stated what I stated but said that I was wrong. I said that slavery in Africa did not start because of racism based on skin color, but racism/discrimination did occur based on skin color, but this racism/discrimination was not the cause of slavery, it was the effect of slavery. This racism/discrimination still occurs today in Africa, and before you say that it doesn't, may I again tell you that I was born in Africa, and I vacation there every summer. I've seen, and have been the target of this black on black racism/discrimination. Also, it is fact that dark skinned slaves were treated better than light skinned slaves, and vice versa, it all mattered who was in control at that time.
Only whites tortured their slaves.
Only whites hit them with whipes.
Only whites put them in ridiculously inhumane conditions.
Only whites would tie them to a pole.
Slavery in the west is related to the idea of inferiority. To the Europeans who enslaved Africans and other population groups, they were inferiors.
In Ancient Greece, in Africa, Rome, etc, the conception was completely different. Slaves were treated as humans and were much higher in society than slaves in western europe. Someone in debt would end up a slave. A prisioner of war would end up being a slave. And so on. There wasn't none of the European inhumanity in Africa, the Middle East, Greece or Rome. They were treated as persons, not as inferiors. And besides, the tasks of each slaves were completely different. In the Americas they would work 24/7 in plantations. In the Arab world, they would help their masters with day to day activities like carrying bags or weapons. In Rome/Greece they would be like modern maids/butlers and so on. In a worst case scenario, the slave would be doing all the normal work of the owner. ie, if modern greek laws existed today, if a janitor had a slave, the janitor woud stop working and the slave would do all his job. its nowhere as bad as it was with european colonizers. not to mention there was this whole idea of loyalty between owenr and slave, specially in africa/egypt. the word slave isnt even an accurate translation of africaneer, a more apporpriate word would be "servant" for slave and for owner it would be "care taker"
So in short
slave in colonialist europe: you're part of an inferior folk that will work until you die in a farm.
slave in elsewhere: we beat you in a war/you've broken the law, you will do the same work for me for this amount of time and i wont abuse you.
i hope we have it clear now
Can't even take you seriously anymore. You obviously know much more about African history than me. Thanks for telling me about MY history of MY ancestors. I simply state Africa(n) because we are talking about historical information about Africa. Also, btw, Africa is a continent, not a country.
I'm Ethiopian, I interact with so many Africans were I live now that its easy to tell a internet fake.
We don't speak of Africa as a monolith. We don't talk about going to Africa every summer. We speak of region, nations, cities. You're painfully obvious, your role-playing is not appreciated. Give it the fuck up
Believe what you must, but your belief is wrong. I travel all around Africa when I go, therefore I stated that I vacation to Africa. I was born in Rabak, and lived there for maybe 12 years. Now, I'm done with this obvious waste of time, since it's hard to change the mind of an idiot. Peace be with you friend, and I hope you finally come to the realization that no one is free of sin.
American cultural exports.
Watching your television and movies has slowly made the rest of the world buy into a connection between race and slavery, something which actually only exists in the USA.
I know /his/ prefers written works but these are good videos and you'll learn a lot.
This ones interesting because it's by a black American guy (but he is an amateur)
>waaaah slavery, waaaah muh ancestors
My ancestors freed you senpai
Your grandpa is the reason I don't have an ebony housegirl gf?
Because slavery in America was 99.9% perpetrated by whites. You have to understand that American SJWs are actually quite patriotic in the sense that they only care about America and have no understanding of the world beyond US borders.
Also, the British colonies didn't have slavery initially, they had a system of indentured servitude, even for the black slaves they purchased from African slavers. It wasn't until Anthony Johnson, (a black former indentured servant) refused to give up his black indentured servant after his contract was over and fought in court for the right to keep him as a slave, that the precedent was set to allow people to have slaves, especially black slaves. Whitey wasn't anywhere near the sole perpetrator, despite what white guilt propaganda says.
>Ignoring the deliberate destruction of the south's trade and agriculture from factories and tariffs, even though their industry's profits made up the majority of the government subsidy money for factory construction in the north.
Sorry, I should have specified that I was talking about it in the context of the US and how people view slavery within the US, since there is a heavier focus on the British history in the US, (due to the nation starting from British colonies).
Also, it supports the point that it's dumb to make slavery an "evil whitey" issue, (putting aside slavery everywhere else in the world, for now) and how it's dumb to just use the blanket term, "white people" since European powers had different systems, SOPs, beliefs, and goals in their exploration beyond their borders.
Weird. I remember my history teacher teaching us that the Transatlantic Slave Trade was just a business venture, with the Americans getting slaves and the Africans getting weapons and money
Primarily England and France, and a few others, since they viewed the war as an economic war and relied on the south's agricultural exports. Since slavery was abolished and still a taboo in Europe, the US used "freeing the slaves" as propaganda to keep Europe from coming to the CSA's aid.
Funny enough, Russia also used it to their advantage when they visited New York to congratulate the US for their crusade against slavery, when in reality, they needed access to Atlantic water ports because of a possible war with England, (since they only had Pacific ports in Alaska).
>tfw will never have a qt black slave gf who you will free and live the rest of your life with
Let's clear up some confusion
>Be a Portugese trader, year of our Lord 1700
>Along the Ivory coast, just cruising and watching the coastline looking for those black people to trade with
>Find some, go ashore
>As we talk shop, I notice so sad looking blackies bounded
>Must have been captured
> Black chief sees me looking at them
>Sells them to me for way below current slave market value
>Load up my cargo rubbing my hands together like that one Jew captain I saw the other month
>only whites tortured their slaves
false and not common practise. Why would you waste a good product?
>Only whites hit them with whipes.
>Only whites put them in ridiculously inhumane conditions.
Again, not that common. On the ships they were crammed in, but again treating your product so badly that it doesn't work is a stupid idea.
>Only whites would tie them to a pole.
Uncle tom's cabin is not a historical book lad. Not saying that slaves were well off but you seriously think a plantation owner who is reliant on slave labour would just mutilate and kill their slaves so they won't work? Nah. You also seem to be confusing labour slaves and educated slaves such as teachers
Besides a minority of "white" countries took an direct part in the atlantic slave trade.
>tfw a finn
>tfw finns have been enslaved all throughout the history
>cant cash in them "muh slavery" points because we're white
My head just exploded reading all that,you don't know anything about the conditions muslims slaves were in.
Have you ever been to Arab or Muslim country?Most of them feel black people are inferior, but you claim they were more progressive about a thousand years ago.
Should have just let the South secede tbqh. Then again they'd probably eventually start a war anyway because their whole culture was built around "muh honor muh glorious warrior spirit muh aristocracy." And we all know they would have tried to colonize Cuba and Central America, which would have brought them into war with the US eventually for violating the Monroe Doctrine.
There really wasn't a way to resolve the sectional conflict without violence at some point or another. The two sides had irreconcilable ideological differences and at the same time were both rabid expansionists. Something had to give eventually.
>the tribal warfare in Africa
Extremely vague and poor argument. It would be a decent rebuttal to someone claiming that Europeans are evil because they spent most of their history slaughtering each other but it's not a good argument against 'Europeans are evil because they did X to this group'
That doesn't violate the Monroe doctrine.
The Monroe doctrine applies to European powers interfering in the Americas. American countries can behave towards each other however they like without violating it, hence why there's been numerous wars on the American continent than the US has paid no attention to.
Your source doesn't work, as it is being updated. However, I did look at the other 2 sources that are linked on that page, and they both state what I stated. Irish slaves were also whipped, just like their African counterpart. So my problem isn't with the paper, even though it is biased towards the hatred of white America, especially since it is leaving out details about how the white slaves were also tortured and bred, just like their African counterpart, my problem is with you, and that you stated that the white slave fact was a myth, simply because a biased paper based on biased liberal "history" sources. I've been researching slavery since my teens, and now I'm a 38 year old man who knows that no one race is innocent from their sins during their time of owning slaves.
>Your source doesn't work, as it is being updated
sorry about that
anyway the irish weren't slaves
>my problem is with you, and that you stated that the white slave fact was a myth, simply because a biased paper based on biased liberal "history" source
but it is a myth, ever wonder why no reputable american history professor talks about irish slavery in the american colonies? Because it didn't happen. Also you couldn't even read the paper so how can you claim it's biased? Because it calls the irish slavery meme a myth?
here are some other """"papers""""" discussing tbe irish slave may may
>Authorities are always right, aren't they champ?
no, but you should stop and ask yourself why you only hear about white slavery in america from white nationalists and conspiracy websites.
Like I stated, I read the other two sources that were posted on the site. In a small box to the right the author of the original source states that the primary source is being updated, after doing so, he then adds two other sources that he worked on about the Irish slaves. Reading these two sources, the author includes that the Irish men and women were whipped by their owners. I never once stated that the white slaves and the black slaves were treated at the same level. I've only stated that the white slaves(servants) were indeed whipped, bred, verbally insulted based on their race(yes people can be racist towards their same race), and intentionally injured. I do know that African slavery and Irish slavery were different, but to state that white slavery is a myth is wrong. Irish slavery isn't talked about in most lower education schools because that doesn't fit the higher ups narrative. When I went to university, I was taught about White slavery in America, just as I was taught about white slavery in the eastern world, such as africa, and asia. I'm here to state that no one race, religion, group, is innocent of slave crimes, and that only focusing on Black slavery in America is the reason behind much of the hatred of the world, and that it would be historically inaccurate.
>Why is this seen as a "white only" historical issue?
Because the other region in the Early Modern/Modern world history that practiced slavery in a mass form with a complete commercial structure built around the slave trade that's not European Trans-Atlantic Basin is the Middle Eastern slave trade that spanned from caravan routes between the Maghreb and Sub-Saharan Africa to the Fertile Crescent, then to the Tatar Crimea.
And assuming you're somebody who had at least a little bit of world history education in your schools, when do you hear about those regions in your curriculum aside from the rise of Islam, passing mentions to the Ottomans, then 911?
Mass, chattel slavery was certainly not a White people in the Americas only thing, but we just don't learn about the other parts of the world that practiced it en mass in our curriculum. And that's not the fault of Liberals nor Conservatives; it's the fault of misplaced priorities in the public, humanistic education in general which cuts through the partisan lines in modern US.
I think the reason for it is because no matter where you live in the world, you are most likely living in a European economic system established upon colonization and in place even to this day with only a few modifications.
>Reading these two sources, the author includes that the Irish men and women were whipped by their owners
where? Can you quote it? Maybe I missed it.
>I've only stated that the white slaves(servants) were indeed whipped, bred, verbally insulted based on their race(yes people can be racist towards their same race), and intentionally injured
an indentured servant is not a slave
>I do know that African slavery and Irish slavery were different, but to state that white slavery is a myth is wrong
but it is a myth, you can read about it here
https://medium.com/@Limerick1914/the-racist-myth-within-a-racist-myth-8eac2c890e92#.r2070hqb0 (you may be interested in this one)
https://medium.com/@Limerick1914/we-had-it-worse-eebe705c41a#.2q101lhs3 (you may also be interested in this one)
>Irish slavery isn't talked about in most lower education schools because that doesn't fit the higher ups narrative
it also isn't talked about in universities, but they have no problem discussing white indentured servitude, I'm not sure if the cousrse is currently open but there is an American slavery course on coursera from U Penn, the professor mentions irish indentured servitude but not the irish slave meme.
>I'm here to state that no one race, religion, group, is innocent of slave crimes
>only focusing on Black slavery in America is the reason behind much of the hatred of the world,
lol, not really.
>When I went to university, I was taught about White slavery in America
Are you sure you didn't learn about white indentured servitude and then told yourself that it's the same thing as slavery?
White slavery isn't a myth, and in universities you can learn about white slavery, as I did. Many historically known instances of white slavery would be the Arab Slave Trade, the Babary Slave Trade, and the Slavery in the Turkish Empire. You asked for a citation, and here's a citation from anons first posted source that backs up my FACT that not only were these "indentured servants" not really "servants" since in order to be an indentured servant requires the mutual agreement on this service, it also includes that these "servants" were whipped if they did not work, therefore concluding that these white slaves were not servants at all, but slaves, which the definition of slave is to force work upon someone and deny them their freedom, which these poor Irish people who were forcibly taken from their homeland and sold to the Americas were then stripped of their freedom and FORCED to work for their freedom without a mutual agreement.
"The vast majority of labourers who agreed to this system did so voluntarily, but there were many who were forcibly transplanted from the British Isles to the colonies and sold into indentured service against their will. While these forced deportees would have included political prisoners and serious felons, it is believed that the majority came from the poor and vulnerable. This forced labour was in essence an extension of the English Poor Laws, e.g. in 1697 John Locke recommended the whipping of those who ‘refused to work’ and the herding of beggars into workhouses. Indeed this criminalisation of the poor continues into the 21st century. In any case, all bar the serious felons were freed once the term of their contract expired." From Liam Hogan's other work at https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/liam-hogan/%E2%80%98irish-slaves%E2%80%99-convenient-myth
Also, I'm not interested in any of your "medium" sources because that's an open based website where anyone can go and state their opinion based on biased beliefs.
>which these poor Irish people who were forcibly taken from their homeland and sold to the Americas were then stripped of their freedom and FORCED to work for their freedom without a mutual agreement.
slow your role there bucko, it clearly states that
>The vast majority of labourers who agreed to this system did so voluntarily
while there were poor irish who were forced into indentured servitude there were not enought ti say
>these poor Irish people who were forcibly taken from their homeland and sold to the Americas were then stripped of their freedom and FORCED to work for their freedom without a mutual agreement.
it would be more accurate to say
>some(or a few) poor Irish people who were forcibly taken from their homeland and sold to the Americas were then stripped of their freedom and FORCED to work for their freedom without a mutual agreement.
>Also, I'm not interested in any of your "medium" sources because that's an open based website where anyone can go and state their opinion based on biased beliefs.
The author is Liam Hogan, the author of the irish slave myth paper, not just some random guy off of the street.
>Many historically known instances of white slavery would be the Arab Slave Trade, the Babary Slave Trade, and the Slavery in the Turkish Empire
Sure but we're discussing slavery in the american colonies.
>here's a citation from anons first posted source that backs up my FACT that not only were these "indentured servants" not really "servants" since in order to be an indentured servant requires the mutual agreement on this service, it also includes that these "servants" were whipped if they did not work, therefore concluding that these white slaves were not servants at all, but slaves,
lol, no, it doesn't. Again, read this
I cant post quotes because of the 2000 character limit
Sorry anon, you're all over the place. First you said there were no such thing as white slaves. Then I gift you the source that you used to prove to me that white slavery is a myth, and in that source it states that some of the indentured servants were forced from their homeland and forced to work, and if they did not work, they would be whipped. So you're telling me just because most people agree to indentured servitude, that gives the owners a right to force others from their homeland and force them to work? Isn't that what slavery is? Forcing people from their homeland, and forcing them to work? And if they didn't work, then there would be torture? I'm not surprised that you're all over the place, since you're using Liam Hogan's work, that is also all over the place. Fact is, if you take someone from their home, force them to work, force them from their free will, and torture them when they don't work, that is the epitome of the definition of slavery. Also, this thread isn't about American slavery, it is about slavery all together. So when I stated instances where whites were enslaved, to prove that white slavery existed and wasn't a myth, I was correct.
>Have you seen what's being taught in universities?
Yes, I just graduated and I can tell you you're full of shit. We covered a decent-sized bit about the Arab and African slave trades in my world history overview class.
So you're saying that if someone came to your house right now and forced you out of it, and then brought you to their house and whipped you with their whip until you started cleaning their house that you would be okay with it and you would consider yourself a servant instead of a slave because this person who forced you out of your house into theirs told you that they would set you free in 2 hours. That's what you're telling me.
I know, but saying "it was slavery" seems far too simplistic, makes the yankees "the good guys fighting for freedom" and the Dixies "the morally corrupt baddies". That being said, As a non-American I do wish to read more about the reasons of the ACW.
>Also, this thread isn't about American slavery, it is about slavery all together.
sure but this conversation is about so called white slavery in america, see
>Then I gift you the source that you used to prove to me that white slavery is a myth, and in that source it states that some of the indentured servants were forced from their homeland and forced to work, and if they did not work, they would be whipped
Yes, and once they completed their contract they would be set free.
>The Irish that were forcibly transported to the West Indies in the 17th and 18th centuries
can be classified in the first instance as forced labourers. This classification includes those
souls who were deported from Ireland due to military design as well as the victims of
notorious criminal activity such as deceptions and kidnapping. It is important to state that,
with the exception of serious criminals, on their arrival to the colonies they were invariably
prescribed the same rights as voluntary indentured servants.
>So you're telling me just because most people agree to indentured servitude, that gives the owners a right to force others from their homeland and force them to work?
> Isn't that what slavery is? Forcing people from their homeland, and forcing them to work?
It can be, but not exactly.
>And if they didn't work, then there would be torture?
Torture wasn't really a common thing, t b h.
>Fact is, if you take someone from their home, force them to work, force them from their free will, and torture them when they don't work, that is the epitome of the definition of slavery
not when that person isn't treated like property, the lives of the indentured servants weren't owned, only their labor. Once their work was done for the day they would usually be free to do whatever they wished. Also not all punishment=/=torture.
If I still have human rights and I am fairly compensated then sure.
Your first human right of free will was already stolen from you when you were forcibly taken from your home. Your first human right of free will was then again taken from you when you were forced to work and then punished with whippings when you denied to do what you were being forced to do. Simply because a few textbooks tells someone that indentured servants aren't the same as slaves, does not mean that that's correct. I'm done with you, because you're obviously dense. You're over here telling me that because whites in america were deemed indentured servants and not slaves that that is the truth, when I have given you evidence and facts that proves that servants were indeed slaves, since their free will were stolen from them when they were forcibly taken from their homeland in order to be forced to work by whippings and beating from their masters. I can conclude that you are the product of this white hatred propaganda machine that the liberal media has been feeding into the minds of the young and vulnerable. I can see that you do know of the many cases of white slavery from all around the world, but you are so stuck on the notion that white slavery in america wasn't bad because you've been led to believe that they were servants. Now I'll retract back to my first post and say that the only real issue that black americans should hold against whites would be the Jim Crow Era. Have a nice day man.
Exactly. Yeah, people were racist back then and slavery was an issue, but mostly concerning economics. It was one piece of many, belonging to a central issue of self-determination and economic protection. The call for abolition increased in the north when factory owners thought, "why employ Americans, when I can use slaves in my factories?" This, of course, made more people want to abolish slavery because then they would be competing with slave labour for work.
Lincoln himself even said he would occupy the south only if they refused to collect tariffs, which many did refuse because if killed their trade industry, and rich and common people saw this as a promise of aggression from the federal government. Because trade was hindered, the south had no one to trade their raw goods with except northern factories and they were forced to sell them at cheap prices. Meanwhile, they got back manufactured goods that many common people could not afford. The factories, (that they mostly funded) and tariffs killed their industries. So, they decided to leave, which was not illegal at all, (yes, sedition is grounds for martial law, but the south was not trying to overthrow the government, they did not try to occupy D.C. even when there was nothing standing in their way. They were leaving the Union). Without the south, the north had no where domestically get the amount of raw goods necessary to make their factories profitable.
The south and the north needed slaves, the south for lucrative agriculture and the north mainly for development. Thanks to factories, the north's economic need of slaves ceased. The protectionist policies that followed greatly hindered the south's trade and agriculture. So, South Carolina wanted to leave. Lincoln was willing to negotiate prices for federal installations within SC, but at the same time, was reinforcing Fort Sumpter, which had been occupied by federal forces since SC's secession declaration. (CONT.)
I don't think it is a 'white only' issue except in your mind.
There are arguments that the Transatlantic Slave trade was different in terms of the industrial scale, the specific racial nature, the inability of slaves to rise in society, offspring being born into slavery for generations etc etc.
The ACW had been building up for almost seven decades, so to argue it was only about slaves is incorrect. It really was a difference between two societies, and of two fundamentally different ways of viewing the relationship that existed between the individual state and the federal government. The ACW didn't just answer the slavery question, it also answered the "what is America" question too.
what a great post to use them on
We get bombarded with images of it in the media and history lessons. At some point, kids internalize that knowledge as an indication that whites were the slavers of the world, when in reality it was a common practice among almost all societies, for a very long time.
White nations having the fortitude themselves to educate their young about their personal mistakes in history is noble but unfortunately this has backfired in making these younger generations develop sentiments of entitlement and indignance from these "slaver whites" (while omitting the sordid history of their own ancestors from memory).
Europeans have always kept the best historical records as well, especially over the last 1,000 years, so that plays a part in how much we know and can reference.
The "battle" of Fort Sumpter took place, (which was in reality, a bunch of people firing guns into the air, hoping the other side would take a shot and give grounds for war). Lincoln called troops to arms to go to war with SC, and only after that, did the majority of the CSA declare secession, (they saw Lincoln's actions as overstepping his authority, much like members of the SCOTUS and many other judges did, which he had jailed. For an interesting read, look up the story or Maryland being occupied by federal troops and being forced at gunpoint to commit to war, when they wanted to stay completely out of the conflict).
Lincoln was an upstart rail road industry lawyer, who spent years fighting for the railroad companies to take people's land, and didn't get anywhere near political office until he had their deep pockets backing him. His actions transformed "these United States", (what the US was called prior to the war) from an economic UNION of sovereign states, into a nation with strong federal control that continued to erode the Constitutional powers of the states and people.
Slavery was a part of the war, but nowhere on moral grounds. It was all at its roots: economics, issues over limits of power, and states' rights to self-determination.
The moral BS just makes it sound good and justify the destruction of what the Founding Fathers built.