It's silly to pretend that because some blacks were slave owners that blacks as a whole were supportive of the Confederacy. If, given the choice of removing slavery or keeping it, an overwhelming percentage of blacks would have been in favor of abolishing it. I realize the point is that there were some who favored it, but, that is the exception. Much like today, the main supporters of any institution tend to be the ones most benefiting from it. This tends to hold true in all areas with the exception of religion, where the benefits can be pushed into the afterlife.

Likewise, it's silly to claim that people in the south were traitors. I've discussed this on the message board before. People did not see America as one country, but a confederation of nations that were bound together voluntarily out of mutual interest. If the UN waged war on the US and won it would fundamentally change the nature of the US's sovereignty. It would be foolish for people 100 years from now to see the US as traitors. Robert E. Lee was torn as to whether he would fight for the US or his state (synonym for nation). Even though he was opposed to slavery, he thought it was an overreach of the federal government to wage war on a sovereign nation for defending their own interest. He was also instrumental in rebuilding relationships once the South was defeated, but that's all I really want to say on that subject.  

Since this thread hasn't died, I figure I'd chime in with my thoughts on the incident that kicked off this thread. Firstly, I think Republicans are foolish for defending Trumps tweets about "The Squad." Like a lot of what Trump does, his tweets were insensitive and inflammatory. I don't mind that. Whether or not people on the left will admit it, they have turned political correctness into a tool to leverage power over those with which they disagree. It is no longer a call to civility, but a method for control. Trump's willingness to oppose this is a large part of his popularity. People that feel like they are being silenced are enabled by his boldness and are following his lead. As a person that believes the politically correct narrative has gone to far, I support Trump in this, and understand why people follow him.

That said, in this case, he also demonstrated prejudice. This really should not be debatable unless one is more interested in team politics than truth. If his statements were just pointed at Ilhan Omar, I'd be less inclined to make that claim. She was given asylum by the US and speaks very poorly of it. While I don't think it disqualifies her from saying those things, it makes the sentiment expressed by Trump a reasonable statement, even if it's still inflammatory. However, when he directs it at multiple congresswomen who have a different ethnicity and were born here, this defense goes out the window. In order for it to be considered reasonable, there has to be some criteria that would connect them to a country outside the US and there is none in this case. Even if you believe their rhetoric is anti-American, that is not enough to see them as foreign. I have a hard time believing he would say this in response to negative comments made by Bernie Sanders, Warren, Pelosi or Schumer. It's one thing to tell people to leave if they don't like it, it's another to say go back to their countries when they were born here. This context warps the message into something that is dangerous, as evidenced by the chants "Send her back." I think needs to be acknowledged and admonished. Trump did walk it back a bit by saying he didn't like the chant, but he should specifically apologize for his role in that.

Now that I've covered the basics, it moves me into my last point. I don't believe his comments were RACIST. I don't buy into the theory that racism is power plus prejudice. That theory is founded in activism. Racism has always been about one group being superior over another, based on race alone. There is no evidence of this anywhere in Trump's history. The left's rampant disregard for the gravity of the word is slowly beginning to render it meaningless. Calling someone a racist, much like political correctness, is a tool used for control, not respect. AOC's willingness to insinuate that Pelosi is attacking women of color is a political ploy. Harris, hinting that Biden has racist undertones, is using it as a tactic. 

I believe the rhetorical devices used by the leftist elites is no different than what they despise about Trump (in fact, I'd argue that Trump is the result of a backlash against the progressives desire to control the narrative, but that would be a digression). It's an escalated, calculated maneuver designed take a sentiment felt by their base and harness it to advance personally. They warp legitimate grievances to advance their own agenda. You don't have to literally agree with the words being said to relate to the sentiment behind them. In Trump's case, the sentiment he exploits is the changing landscape of the American ideal. In the progressive case, the sentiment they exploit is the inequality that is inevitable in any system. Once the people begin to attach that cause as the primary source of their woes, they naturally begin to correlate that cause as a source of their ills. The truth is there are all sorts of factors that contribute to disenfranchisement, but people typically only hone in on a few. Their world outlook is often guided by those who control the narrative. It would be wise of us to see each other as allies, and fight back against the people that are using division to gain control. Like I said in the opening paragraph, the main supporters of any institution tend to be the ones most benefiting from it.

---