Some of those East Indians sure seem to be "racist."

But this question appears periodically. Presently, the only thing that means anything is how it's being presented in the propaganda mills.

Slavery was the ancillary wedge used to coax the South into "doing something" which they ultimately did, but also as a military assist.

In tandem with the harassing tariffs placed on commodities shipped to the north ostensibly, solely via the Atlantic coast.

What wasn't told the South is that they would be used on commodities being shipped across to the mills in Europe, which was the real purpose for them from the start.

Which would allow North authoritarians to board the Southern ships and fine, and even seize the cargoes conveniently were it decided upon.

The North was not about to allow the South to become both an agrarian and an industrial giant.

They knew all the potential was down here for it, with just the accommodating weather giving us longer periods for production.

But an ambience that all around is superior to the North.

So if there were no blacks and no slavery, skirmishes would've been inevitable.

There have been wars fought for far less.

The Dutch even fought a war over spices.

The above reasons were more than intimated by T. Harry Williams whose two-volume book on American history was the texts used for the course across Louisiana's colleges for at least two generations.

Is it still used? Or has it been discreetly replaced because it doesn't give the full modern narrative that's now been decided upon by progressive revisionists.

Plus, victimhood has been big business in this nation, and will continue to be.

And property destruction, mayhem, injury, and death will continue unabated as one of the residuals we've been gifted with because of it all.