> Your theory is that, for example, turning people into property based on race was not racist? If so, I don't think there's much point in a discussion here.
Given that the enslaved had been so subjugated by others of the very same race, how could the institution itself possibly be called essentially racist?
I can only hope you're trolling here. But on the off chance that is a sincere question, maybe read the books I recommended.
Or if you'd like a quick answer from the Confederacy's Vice President, you might read the Cornerstone Speech, which includes these words: "Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
If you're having trouble seeing the racism there, I'm not sure how else I could help.
You quote the Cornerstone Speech correctly, which was a post-hoc rationalization, a propaganda effort to encourage millions of fighting age men to lay down their lives for an economic system that was based on slavery which, I've already proven, was not an essentially racist institution.
Remind me again, in the US, how many white people were sold in to chattel slavery?
If even you could somehow make a convincing argument that the pre-war system was not inherently racist (which you cannot), the post-war system of neoslavery would put the final nail in that coffin.
> Remind me again, in the US, how many white people were sold in to chattel slavery?
Even an answer of zero doesn't address or contradict my original point.
There's no such thing as "neoslavery". Racism was certainly used after the war to reduce labor solidarity between the white working class and the newly-freed black laborers, however, that fact also doesn't address or contradict my original point.
You have proven no such thing, unless you're using some sort of definition of racism so outside the norm that either way it looks like a poor use of my time to try to explain your mistake to you.
Now this is the second time you're ignoring the context of the supply of the very slaves being discussed, so I determine that you are not discussing honestly.
Given that the enslaved had been so subjugated by others of the very same race, how could the institution itself possibly be called essentially racist?