Pulling down statues? It’s a tradition that dates back..

The only way one can argue that the Civil War was not about slavery is to completely divorce it from any historical context.

Congratulations .. You've elevated "Missing the point" to an art form ..

What you mislabel a whataboutism is a clue to the insanity being proffered under the guise of heritage/history. Loyalists are the Revolutionary equivalent of Confederates.. Enemies of the cause.

Where are the memorials to American Loyalists?

If it's the pivot around which those conflicts turned, it was the major reason for them.

Well, a little history lesson, and maybe all this racist BS might not seem so racist.
Etymology and history
Main article: Negro
The variants neger and negar derive from various European languages' words for 'black', including the Spanish and Portuguese word negro (black) and the now-pejorative French nègre, the 'i' entering the spelling "*****" from those familiar with Latin. Etymologically, negro, noir, nègre, and ***** ultimately derive from nigrum, the stem of the Latin niger ('black'), pronounced [ˈniɡer], with a trilled r. In every grammatical case, grammatical gender, and grammatical number besides nominative masculine singular, is nigr- followed by a case ending.
In its original English-language usage, ***** (then spelled niger) was a word for a dark-skinned individual. The earliest known published use of the term dates from 1574, in a work alluding to "the Nigers of Aethiop, bearing witnes."[2] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first derogatory usage of the term ***** was recorded two centuries later, in 1775.[3]
In the colonial America of 1619, John Rolfe used negars in describing the African slaves shipped to the Virginia colony.[4] Later American English spellings, neger and neggar, prevailed in a northern colony, New York under the Dutch, and in metropolitan Philadelphia's Moravian and Pennsylvania Dutch communities; the African Burial Ground in New York City originally was known by the Dutch name Begraafplaats van de Neger (Cemetery of the Negro); an early occurrence of neger in Rhode Island dates from 1625.[5] Lexicographer Noah Webster, whose eponymous dictionary did much to solidify the distinctive spelling of American English, suggested the neger spelling in place of negro in 1806.[6]
During the fur trade of the early 1800s to the late 1840s in the Western United States, the word was spelled "niggur," and is often recorded in the literature of the time. George Fredrick Ruxton used it in his "mountain man" lexicon, without pejorative connotation. "Niggur" was evidently similar to the modern use of "dude" or "guy." This passage from Ruxton's Life in the Far West illustrates the word in spoken form—the speaker here referring to himself: "Travler, marm, this niggur's no travler; I ar' a trapper, marm, a mountain-man, wagh!"[7] It was not used as a term exclusively for blacks among mountain men during this period, as Indians, Mexicans, and Frenchmen and Anglos alike could be a "niggur."[8] "The noun slipped back and forth from derogatory to endearing."[9]
The term "colored" or "negro" became a respectful alternative. In 1851 the Boston Vigilance Committee, an abolitionist organization, posted warnings to the Colored People of Boston and vicinity. Writing in 1904, journalist Clifton Johnson documented the "opprobrious" character of the word *****, emphasizing that it was chosen in the South precisely because it was more offensive than "colored" or "negro."[10] By the turn of the century, "colored" had become sufficiently mainstream that it was chosen as the racial self-identifier for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In 2008 Carla Sims, its communications director, said "the term 'colored' is not derogatory, [the NAACP] chose the word 'colored' because it was the most positive description commonly used [in 1909, when the association was founded]. It's outdated and antiquated but not offensive."[11] Canadian writer Lawrence Hill changed the title of his 2007 novel The Book of Negroes. The name refers to a real historical document, but he felt compelled to find another name for the American market, retitling the US edition Someone Knows My Name.[12]
Nineteenth-century literature features usages of "*****" without racist connotation. Mark Twain, in the autobiographic book Life on the Mississippi (1883), used the term within quotes, indicating reported speech, but used the term "negro" when writing in his own narrative persona.[13] Joseph Conrad published a novella in Britain with the title The ***** of the 'Narcissus' (1897), but was advised to release it in the United States as The Children of the Sea, see below. A style guide to British English usage, H. W. Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage states in the first edition (1926) that applying the word ***** to "others than full or partial negroes" is "felt as an insult by the person described, & betrays in the speaker, if not deliberate insolence, at least a very arrogant inhumanity;" but the second edition (1965) states "N. has been described as 'the term that carries with it all the obloquy and contempt and rejection which whites have inflicted on blacks'."
By the late 1960s, the social change brought about by the civil rights movement had legitimized the racial identity word black as mainstream American English usage to denote black-skinned Americans of African ancestry. President Thomas Jefferson had used this word of his slaves in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), but "black" had not been widely used until the later 20th century. (See Black Pride, and, in the context of worldwide anti-colonialism initiatives, Negritude.)
In the 1980s, the term "African American" was advanced analogously to the terms "German American" and "Irish American," and was adopted by major media outlets. Moreover, as a compound word, African American resembles the vogue word Afro-American, an early-1970s popular usage. Some black Americans continue to use the word *****, often spelled as nigga and niggah, without irony, either to neutralize the word's impact or as a sign of solidarity.

If a state drafts a document outlining their reasons for leaving and focuses on slavery then yes I am going to believe them. I'll take them at their word. (something you seem unwilling to do).


If you were familiar with the Virginian Ordinance you wouldn't have asked for the text. Perhaps you didn't know the proper name? 

Regarding South Carolina, I don't know where this 20% talk comes from. But I smile at it.


I don't read ^ that and come away thinking the slavery issue was only 20% of the cause.