The Civil War was about slavery. Was the election of Trump about racism?

History shows this will be a difficult question.

In the "Cornerstone Speech" given by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America delivered in Savannah, Georgia on March 21, 1861, he laid the "cornerstone" of the Civil War, or what some in the south call "The Great War of Northern Aggression." To this very day there is debate among some who wish to white wash the motives of those who led, fought, and planned the defense of the Confederacy.

Let there be no debate about the foundation and purpose of the war. From Stephens' speech:
"The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

We need to be reminded from time to time that white washing our history is a favorite pastime of those who seek to alter the truth of history. Is it true that some who fought for the south did so on the basis of states' rights and not slavery? Certainly. But in no way does that fact mean that the Confederacy can be viewed as a kind of virtuous 10th Amendment advocacy regime and as such negate the principle of racism, oppression, and evil that was central to the war effort of the south?

Likewise, it's true that enthusiastic support for Trump is not sufficient evidence of militant racism of all his devotees. However, let's review the words of Trump to see if it's fair to say that racists were drawn to him because he said racist things. Here are just a few of a plethora of quotes:

June 16, 2015 - “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people,”

June 2016 - “He’s a Mexican. We’re building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings – rulings that people can’t even believe,” Trump said about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge overseeing a class action lawsuit against Trump University. Curiel was born in Indiana.

December 3, 2015 - "Look, I’m a negotiator like you folks; we’re negotiators,” Trump said in a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition.

March 2011 - "He doesn't have a birth certificate, or if he does, there's something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody told me -- and I have no idea if this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be -- that where it says 'religion,' it might have 'Muslim.' And if you're a Muslim, you don't change your religion, by the way," Trump said on a radio program.

November 2014 - "Sadly, because president Obama has done such a poor job as president, you won't see another black president for generations!"

April 2014 - “Our great African-American president hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore.” - The DOJ found systemic abuses within the Baltimore Police Department and released that evidence in a report. https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/883366/download

The question isn't whether or not Trump is a racist or not. He plainly says racist things. The question is to what extent his rise to the presidency was due to support for racism among his most ardent supporters and how that translated into support for him in the context of the election.

This is a debate, like that of the Civil War, that will never subside over time. History will likely demonstrate the election of 2016 to be an uncivil war of words within the political structure of America. If we placed Trump voters into two buckets, one labeled racists and the other labeled patriots, which bucket would be the most full?

That question will likely not be answered in my lifetime.