> Such mass fratricide for the sake of non-kin was completely unprecedented in history. Africans never did that. Middle Easterners never did that. Asians never did that.

That also means that only in America brother fought against brother to preserve slavery. Not something to brag about.

Most of these other countries were able to abolish slavery* without having half their population preferring fratricide over freeing their slaves.

Even in the New World other states just abolished slavery with far less bloodshed. Example A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_Brazil

> One where (mostly British) Americans killed hundreds of thousands of their own cousins to free enslaved people belonging an entirely different ethnic group

A quote from The Great Emancipator's inaugural address: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." [1]

Abolition wasn't the war aim at the outset. Preserving the Union was Lincoln's goal. He did everything he could to prevent the slave states from seceding.

Abolition became a goal halfway through the war.

"The abolition of slavery became a Union war goal on January 1, 1863, when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared all slaves in rebel states to be free". [2]

Which makes sense. If half your countrymen are driven to take up arms against the other half just to keep some people in bondage, you may as well end that evil institution. Otherwise they're bound to try again.

*With varying degrees of success in the actual implementation.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Secession_and_...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

You're ignoring the context of the point--it's not about "bragging." We were discussing the quote above that someone is "disenfranchised" by adhering to the original meaning of the constitution "roughly in proportion to how much they share in common with" "white men." But following that logic to its conclusion leads to absurd results.

By that logic, non-white people would have been less "disenfranchised" if the constitution had been written by people who matched their skin color. But, in fact, that's not true! Slavery was abolished in Africa by force by the British Empire, or else in the 20th century due to international pressure. Those societies never developed large-scale indigenous movements to abolish slavery. So if you were an enslaved person in America, you would have been worse off if the constitution had been written by people from your country of origin! Your best-case scenario would have been to have more of the colonies be populated by Puritans and Quakers, who ultimately proved willing to kill other British people to end the practice of slavery. But Puritans and Quakers were "white" too!

The point is that principles transcend race, and focusing on skin color similarity with the founders (or lack thereof) is sophomoric. The constitution was written by "white" men, but the people living under it today are the spiritual and cultural descendants of those men--even the ones who superficially resemble the African and Middle Eastern counterparts of the American founders.