User blog comment:High Prince Imrahil/The Confederate Flag/@comment-26347028-20160706161658

You can look at it another way. A whole 10% of the population owned slaves, many of them being of five or more. Cut out the fact that women and children. (Lets take a family of four for an example; 75% of these don't. Therefore, 25% is roughly speaking everyone. Therefore, 25 as 100% makes it a whopping 40% of people owning slaves that would reasonably be expected to own them.) Because of this, then, 10% is entirely misconstrued. 40% is nearer the truth, but nowhere near accurate enough. If most of these had three or four, as you claim, then that's one heck of a lot of slaves. And a whole 3% of the population (or 12% as a more reasonable estimate) owning plantations is just crazy to downplay. Their whole evidence declares their own argument void, Your Honour.

To claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery is folly. Not only about slavery, no, of course. Just like the Third Reich wasn't only about genocide. It was trying to take over the world, seize power. In this way are they similar.

The population was mostly racist. Face it. The fact that people still run these plantations means that there are still quite large organisations out there willing to go against the wishes of whoever tries to stop them. So think again when you are told that slavery has nothing to do with it. Not everything, no, but it was mostly power. Power and a large tantrum. Reminds you of the American Revolution, doesn't it. Steady build up of tension. And even then, the English and Americans were both racists. But they changed given time. The Southern USA didn't. They still wanted slaves and, like it or not, were willing in large part to fight for it. It's not just that, no. But that was a fairly large cause of the unrest. Now, due to strict liability that puts the charges of racism completely back in the water, Your Honour. For now, my own case is done.