Democrats (the South) always said that this country was always about slavery. They used that rhetoric to argue FOR slavery for decades after it was abolished. This is all documented in supreme court cases from the 18th century on up through the civil war. Some of the founding fathers argued as attorneys in some of those cases in fact, stating firmly that slavery was always illegal in the United States. Republicans (Lincoln included) pointed to the Constitution as evidence that slavery was always illegal and that the southern states had a limited time to abolish it (that's factually written in the Constitution, a concession made in order to earn their support in the revolution). The disagreement on that is exactly what led to the civil war. The South refused to live up to the Constitution's terms and end slavery, counter to the law.

The Republicans won that war. We live in that country that won. Not the one you're describing. Jim Crow was a Southern state thing. The North never allowed it. We live in the North. The South is gone and it was never part of this country because it violated the laws that would have made it so. They rebelled against anti slavery laws from the beginning and they finally got what they deserved, to be conquered by the United States that we live in today. And then they still argued to keep slavery and the Supreme Court kept slapping it down. Over and over and over.

If you believe that the United States was ever about slavery, then you carry the rhetoric of the very party that created Jim Crow and that supported slavery, and you make them the good guy in the story. You support their version, where it was always legal and they got screwed by the lying North.

The irony... Don't ignore the writings of Washington, Franklin, Hancock, etc. All wrote to say that slavery has no place in this country. And it never did! Their letters are preserved for you to read. They are available online or in one of the museums in DC. Probably the National Archive? Someone can correct me if they know.

Anyway, that some people refuse to follow the law, isn't a reflection of the country as a whole. Similarly, when someone is killed in Norway, I don't jump to conclude that Norwegians are murderers. That wouldn't make any sense.

Did you go to high school in the South somewhere? The revisionist's history of the US seems to stem from that part of the country. I'm just curious if it tracks.