America thinks the unthinkable: More than half of Trump voters and 41% of Biden supporters want red and blue states to SECEDE from one another and form two new countries, shock new poll finds

UK Daily Mail ^ | October 1 2021 | MORGAN PHILLIPS

[BroJoeK]

"They were not founded to abolish slavery as you claimed. Period.

As per usual, Flt-Bird is playing word games.
Republicans certainly were Founded as the anti-Slavery party.
They certainly did want abolition in western Territories and wanted to maintain abolition of international imports of slaves.
Every Republican was an abolitionist in his own state, and some Founders, like John Fremont, favored national abolition.
Indeed, Fremont drove Southern Democrat Fire Eaters berserk with rage over his abolitionism.

Compared to Republican Founder Fremont, Lincoln was considered a "moderate" on abolition.
But never moderate enough to satisfy Democrat Fire Eaters.
They considered Lincoln's Republican abolitionism plenty enough to justify secession and war against the United States.

So, yes, Republicans were founded as the anti-slavery party.
Of course, no Republican, then or now, was a "woke" 1619er.

[BroJoeK]

"The first big steal of an election in our lifetime was 1960.
I recall that people were so excited to have a stylish RC President that the cheating was OK.
That was the beginning of the end."

It's worth remembering that Nixon could have challenged the stolen 1960 election, but didn't.
Instead, he came back to win in 1968 and in 1972, a landslide.
We'll see how much history repeats itself this time...

[BroJoeK]

"If the federal government just let it happen without bloodshed, the two countries thus formed could theoretically co-exist as neighbors, and even learn from each other’s policy successes and failures."

Of course, the Federal government in 1861 did let it happen without bloodshed, but Democrat Fire Eaters insisted on provoking war, then started, declared, invaded and waged war in every Union state they could reach.

We can only guess whether similar events would play out again.

[BroJoeK]

"There are no f...ing BLUE STATES. Wake up...There is only industrial scale voter fraud and corrupt media that is used to control us. Trump received more legal votes than any person in our history..."

Exactly right, bears repeating.

[BroJoeK]

"The Founders fully intended for each state to have the unilateral right of secession. 3 states expressly reserved that right when they ratified the Constitution. "

All Founders recognized a "Right of secesdipn" under two, but only two conditions.

1. From necessity as in 1776, for serious material reasons such as those spelled out in their Declarstion.

2. By mutual consent as in 1788 when when states voted to ratify the new Constitution and so "secede" from the Articles of Confederation.

No Founder ever supported an unlimited "Right of secession" at pleasure.

[Pajamajan]

How about THOROUGH investigations of all politicians and their family members for corruption? This is the real problem IMO.

[central_va]

Why is the logical separation like that deemed “unthinkable”?

[central_va]

So state should stay together and all go down the socialist rat hole? F that.

[central_va]

A red country will have really high walls.

[central_va]

A red country will have really high walls.

[central_va]

A red country will have really high walls.

[central_va]

Had the North lost what makes you think they would have been any more adult about it?

You are an infantile prick.

[DoodleDawg]

You are an infantile prick.

You make my point for me.

[DiogenesLamp]

"slavery in the continental United States came to an end as a legal institution on June 14, 1866, when the Creek Tribe agreed to abandon African-American slavery."

You schooled her. This reminds me of all the ignorant news media @$$holes heaping scorn on Sarah Palin for saying "Party like it's 1773."

They all said some version of "Poor stupid woman, she doesn't know the American revolution happened in 1776. "

And of course they were the idiots. The Boston Tea Party, which is what she was referring to, happened in 1773.

[DiogenesLamp]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

The most insightful commentary i've seen from you in a long while.

[DiogenesLamp]

So why in 1860 was it suddenly worth 700,000 lives lost in order to abolish it?

The war was not about slavery. It was about maintaining economic control of the South's economy to prevent it from competing against the northern power brokers who would have lost massive amounts of money if the South engaged in free trade with Europe.

They were connected to Washington through the influence selling corruptocracy, and Lincoln was their primary puppet in the executive branch.

They pretended it was about slavery, but it was really about money which would be lost if the South became independent.

"Slavery" was the sales pitch, but money was the reality.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Republicans abolished slavery. None of your twisting and cherry picking of historical data can refute that.

The Liberal big city Republicans who believed in massive government power and control, taxing and spending, protectionism and everything else modern Liberal Democrats believe in, killed 750,000 people in order to keep control of economic power for the established corruption cabal in the North east. And incidentally they abolished slavery as an afterthought.

Their goal was to keep slavery just as it was for the first two years of the war, so stop lying about their motivation. Their motivation was to keep the money and leave the slaves exactly where they were.

[DiogenesLamp]

Every time I read your posts, this song starts playing in my head.

https://youtu.be/Y6C_nyZLQR8

Well hearing a song in your head can explain why there isn't any thinking going on in there. And no, I didn't bother to follow your link.

[DiogenesLamp]

No revisionism is needed. They abolished slavery. Period.

They killed 750,000 people and brought massive suffering to everyone who was not connected to the Northeastern corruption cartel. And then they didn't even take care of the slaves, but left that mess to fester for the next century.

They didn't care about the slaves, they only cared about the money.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln didn't think he could abolish slavery, and this was an attempt to prevent more states from seceding over the issue while preventing the spread of slavery.

This statement shows just how much you have accepted the narrative you've been taught. I actually went to the trouble of looking at this "spread of slavery" and what i've discovered is it's a lie. Slavery could not spread to any meaningful degree into the territories because plantation style farming was impossible in the territories at the time.

But we've all been taught the lie, and so now people simply repeat that claim with no knowledge regarding what is actually true.

The cotton shown in New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California can only be grown in modern times due to massive irrigation systems which could not have been created in the 19th century.

The truth is, that there were less than a dozen slaves in all the territories up until 1865. There was no demand for slaves in the territories. There would have been no "spread" of slavery.