[x]

When anything is mentioned about the Northern contribution to slavery, we get the response like you got about us thinking that the KKK was just some kind of social club.

But is that really the response you get? I'd say most Americans accept that slavery was a national wrong, not a peculiarly Southern sin. Most people would probably agree with you if you said that today Blacks are better integrated into Southern society than Northern. If you want to go further than this and attack Northerners or Unionists and try to mount a case for the Confederacy as the right side in the Civil War, people will rightfully object, but that's a different question.

A lot of charges get thrown around here, and people lose track of just what they prove or justify. It becomes an "us agin' them" thing that very quickly gets separated from specific propositions and hypotheses. Some people simply point out that no region can claim perfect righteousness and that good and evil are more mixed in the world. Others promote a "the South was right!" ideology that looks like another form of arrogant, self-righteous triumphalism. Often the response that people get depends on which contention they're making.

[Between the Lines]

I'd say most Americans accept that slavery was a national wrong, not a peculiarly Southern sin.

I would say most Americans see the Klan, segregation and Jim Crow-ism as mostly a southern thing, if not totally unique to the South. Never realizing how blacks and others were "kept in their place" in there own hometowns and states, or the fact that the US government openly embraced segregation before WWII and secretly well into the 1960s.

[GrandEagle]

But is that really the response you get?
A great deal of the time...yes. I travel quite a bit with work. Utah, Kansas, New York, Ohio, and Michigan, more recently. I'll admit I am one to discuss just about anything, but invariably I end up in the position of someone wanting me to defend living in the South. People are generally very cordial and I usually enjoy the discussion. Neither side really had a defensible position based on the ethics of our time. The Northern states imported slaves and the southern states purchased them. Both sides owned them for personal use. Both areas had those who really understood that it was wrong, but much like today, as long as "the price was right" for consumer goods most people just ignored it. In today’s United States most people are opposed to things like forced labor, child labor, etc.; that is until faced with paying $100.00 for a pair of tennis shoes made in an industrialized nation with similar standards as us or paying $35.00 for a pair that was made by 9 year olds in Indonesia. When it hits the pocketbook, most people just close their eyes to it. I would assume (people still being people) that in the 1850's most people applied the same "logic" to their purchases.
A great deal of other issues also preceded the Civil War. Mostly dealing with the ever-growing Federal Government assuming more and more unconstitutional authority. Finally it erupted with Lincoln’s election, into the succession of several states. The growing anti-slavery movement saw it's opportunity - the time had come to press the point (a just point I might add). It also served to economically break the back of the newly formed Confederacy. Dual benefits.
Before everyone erupts, I am NOT trying to say that the war had nothing to do with slavery; but on the other hand, saying it was ALL about slavery is equally incorrect.
Now for my position: I think that it was a giant mistake not to abolish slavery with the Constitution. From what I have read, many of the founder despised slavery - but still owned slaves. I have read that the reason for not abolishing it was that one state (South Carolina I think) would not sign the Constitution or participate in the Revolution if slavery was to be abolished. Not wanting to fight the Revolution on two fronts, they failed to abolish it and put the issue off. They did build in some provisions that would eventually have slavery dieing a natural death; the three-fifths rule among them.
I believe in the literal interpretation of Gods Word. In the literal reading we are all related at least from Noah, and back to Adam from that. (Another discussion) Based on this fact no person has more or less inherent worth than anyone else - based on anything.
There are substantial cultural differences between many different segments of our society - race being one of them. I believe that trying to make our nation one culture perpetuates the problem. There is absolutely no reason why different cultures can't live together without hating each other.(Again another discussion)

Some people simply point out that no region can claim perfect righteousness and that good and evil are more mixed in the world.
This was a point that I failed to make. I agree with this point.