Do you know why the constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of a person? Because if they had counted them as whole persons, then the slave population would have enabled the South to dominate the House (and thereby protect slavery even more).
The Civil War was fought to preserve chattel slavery? By half the country, yes. Fought to end it by the other half. (Yes, I know, Lincoln's goal was to preserve the union. But go look at how many Union soldiers' graves say "He died that all might be free".)
On to the problem with your first post. Even if we agree with everything you said in your second post, that doesn't begin to draw a line from slavery to civil forfeiture. (I mean, if civil forfeiture was primarily applied to blacks, you might have a case. But you didn't even try to make that case, or any other.)
> Do you know why the constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of a person?
None of that changes the fact that doing so explicitly indicates slavery to be a legal practice in the newly founded country. "You can keep black people as property, but don't worry, we fixed the impact on Congressional representation" is exactly the sort of thing that "white supremacy" describes.
> I mean, if civil forfeiture was primarily applied to blacks, you might have a case.
"Nearly two thirds of seizures of cash by Oklahoma law enforcement agencies come from blacks, Hispanics and other racial or ethnic minorities, an Oklahoma Watch analysis of high-dollar forfeiture cases in 10 counties shows."
"Black residents have their money and property taken by police in South Carolina nearly three times more often than whites, for deep and unfair systemic reasons that go beyond the design of a civil forfeiture law, experts say."
The Civil War was fought to preserve chattel slavery? By half the country, yes. Fought to end it by the other half. (Yes, I know, Lincoln's goal was to preserve the union. But go look at how many Union soldiers' graves say "He died that all might be free".)
On to the problem with your first post. Even if we agree with everything you said in your second post, that doesn't begin to draw a line from slavery to civil forfeiture. (I mean, if civil forfeiture was primarily applied to blacks, you might have a case. But you didn't even try to make that case, or any other.)