Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: Yes its racest

a minority of the states in rebellion7 states initially seceded - they ALL indicated slavery as the primary driver. South Carolina - Causes statement - passed unanimouslyMississippi - Causes statementAlabama - Causes statement "passed unanimously, with two exceptions" - refGeorgia - Causes statementTexas - Causes statement - vote was 166 to 8 in favor; Texas also submitted the ordinance the voters - it passed by a vote of 44,317 (77.3%) to 13,020 (22.7%)Florida - Causes statement (drafted never adopted)Louisiana didn't issue a specific Causes document, but did send out commissioners to advocate its position - for example (See other commissioner statements here)Then, these states unanimously adopted the Confederate Constitution which declared that no "law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." and that transit "with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." and that in any new territory "the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress".AFTER secession had begun and militarization had already started.100% incorrect. The census started in June 1860 and was completed before any state had seceded. It was compiled and published just before the attack on Fort Sumter.Speculation that seems to be premised on placing former politicians on a pedestalIt is based on historical documents with the words of the person themselves (not just Lincoln) - what is the counter position based on?Acknowledging that the civil war was primarily driven by slavery is not an attempt to say these are the good guys or bad guys or put anyone on a pedestal - it is acceptance of fact - contemporaneously accepted by both sides.We will never know Lincoln's actual motivationsWhether slavery was the primary cause of the civil war is not dependent on whether Lincoln was lying his entire life in his public and private correspondence and actions.As to not issuing the proclamation until 2 years after the start of the war: - first, he announced the idea to his Cabinet in mid-1862 and his advisors had him wait for a union victory to make it public which he did in September 1862. Second, he tried several things before that like supporting the Corwin Amendment in his inaugural address, attempting compensated emancipation (not just in 1861, but also in 1837 and 1849), etc.recognition of slaves as property would not make the entire north slave statesThe effect of Dred Scott would have been that after you obtain your slave in a slave state, you could then proceed to move into any state with your slaves. if only because the land in the north was predominately unsuited for large-scale farming as it was in the southDetermining whether something is legal does not depend on its level of practicality. Also, the north did still have lots of farms just not the same extent as the South. This also seems to exclude other labor like textile mills where the north employed girls as young as 7 - surely slaves could have mustered the sophisticated labor of 7 year old girls, no?when the first state seceded, there were still slaves in nearly every northern state anyway.Well - we seem to be finding out why your opinion is so off - it is founded on incorrect information.South Carolina seceded December 20, 1860 - after the 1860 census (which I linked to above) was complete.the first slaves in the americas were whiteA) Incorrect, the first slaves were the African slaves of San Miguel de Gualdape in the early 1500s - the first white indentured servants came about 100 years later. (See also the case of John Punch for an example of the disparate treatment of the two.) B) The evolving praxis of slavery has no weight in determining whether slavery was the casus belli of the civil war. C) I will clarify that my argument is that the slavery fought for by the Confederacy was specifically that of "negro slavery" (as specifically and unanimously stated in the Confederate Constitution).Biblical slavery did not involve 'white' peopleMaybe it doesn't read well - if you look again, you will see that he corrects himself by changing "white men" to "men without reference to color" - I presume he may have done this on purpose to be more clear about the implications, but at minimal point of fact his corrected statement is true.Do you claim to know the causes of the states based off of the words of representatives of a minority of the rebel states that the Union chose to keep records of?Yes, I take the word of the states when their representatives vote on causes for something as monumental as secession, especially when done proximally to the election of a president whose party platform is based on the erosion of slavery, and when the electorate is given a chance to vote on the most blatant of said causes passes the same not just by getting more than 50%, but with more than a 50% MARGIN. And, when the soldiers fighting that war acknowledge that it was about slavery - (my 'See also' link from above), and when no other major factors are given.