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

[knighthawk]

Many breathed a sigh of relief when President Biden was elected, not for policy but for a reunification of the country after four years of tumult and fiery division under President Trump. But eight months into the new presidency, America's deep disunity might not be letting up.

A new poll has revealed that political divisions run so deep in the US that over half of Trump voters want red states to secede from the union, and 41% of Biden voters want blue states to split off.

According to the analysis from the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, 52% of Trump voters at least somewhat agree with the statement: 'The situation is such that I would favor [Blue/Red] states seceding from the union to form their own separate country.' Twenty-five percent of Trump voters strongly agree.

[DiogenesLamp]

At that point, he had additional powers that he could use to abolish slavery, and that's what he did.

No he didn't. What he did was illegal from a constitutional standpoint. He broke the law when he did what he did.

[enumerated]

“The war was not about slavery.”

I know.. :-) It was a rhetorical question..

You and I are apparently among the few people on FR who understand that Northern aggression simply could not have been motivated by slavery.

After two centuries, why would the North suddenly wage a costly and tragic war over the issue of slavery at that particular time?

No, the issue of slavery was an after-the-fact justification for an unjustifiable war against the southern states.

It was a justification then and it is a justification now.

[M Kehoe]

Hi.

Looks like in your graphic that there was no cotton grown in Florida. Methinks maybe cotton is still grown in FL.

Sixty years ago I picked cotton in Immokoli.

5.56mm

[DiogenesLamp]

No, the issue of slavery was an after-the-fact justification for an unjustifiable war against the southern states.

It was a justification then and it is a justification now.

This is what I learned when I finally started looking at it. Slavery is a smoke screen for what actually happened.

[FLT-bird]

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.

As usual BroJoeK obsesses over this topic. The Republican party was explicitly not abolitionist. They went to great pains to make that clear over and over again. They were against the spread of slavery to the western territories. They were perfectly willing to live with slavery where it existed and even to enshrine it in the constitution effectively forever as well as to strengthen federal fugitive slave laws/enforcement. Fremont could not get elected anywhere nor could any abolitionist. Abolitionists were a tiny minority even in the North.

[DiogenesLamp]

Looks like in your graphic that there was no cotton grown in Florida. Methinks maybe cotton is still grown in FL. Sixty years ago I picked cotton in Immokoli.

It shows a little cotton being grown in Florida. I don't know if the area shown covers Immokoli though.

Apparently the cotton plant likes it warm and doesn't do well above the latitude of Oklahoma.

[FLT-bird]

All Founders recognized a "Right of secesdipn" under two, but only two conditions. From necessity as in 1776, for serious material reasons such as those spelled out in their Declarstion. 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.

The Founding Fathers set no such conditions. When the constitution was ratified, 3 states including the two largest and the two which were the leaders of their respective sections (New York and Virginia) explicitly reserved the right to unilateral secession. Nobody at the time claimed the states' explicit reservation of the right to secede rendered their ratification of the Constitution thereby defective. Every state understood itself to have that right.

[DiogenesLamp]

They were against the spread of slavery to the western territories.

Where it would not spread. What they were really worried about wasn't slavery spreading, it was the possibility that territories would turn into states favorable towards the Southern states and thereby affecting the balance of power in Washington DC.

That power balance is how they were getting Federal policy to flow money into their pockets, and this was always about making sure the money flowed into the pockets of the well connected "elite" of the North East.

[DiogenesLamp]

The states exercised their sovereign right to leave a voluntary union. That's not "rebellion". The US federal government was not their rightful ruler.

This is exactly correct. It makes no more sense than declaring that the European Union has a right to invade England because of Brexit.

[FLT-bird]

Where it would not spread. What they were really worried about wasn't slavery spreading, it was the possibility that territories would turn into states favorable towards the Southern states and thereby affecting the balance of power in Washington DC. That power balance is how they were getting Federal policy to flow money into their pockets, and this was always about making sure the money flowed into the pockets of the well connected "elite" of the North East.

Correct. There was no economic case for slavery spreading to the western territories. This was a power struggle between two sides. States meant Senators. The Senate was the real battleground. With its larger population the Northern states had long controlled the House. They needed to effectively rule over the Senate in order to force things like ruinously high tariffs through. So long as the Southern Senators could block that, the Southern states could at least somewhat protect themselves from Northern predation. The instant the Southern states left, they no longer needed seats in the Senate. They therefore did not need the territory of the United States and did not claim any of it. They hardly had some religious zeal to spread slavery. They were desperately fighting a rearguard action to try to prevent Northern special interests from really sucking the South dry.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

From Georgia: blah blah blah...."

Here's the blah, blah, blah you snipped.

From Georgia: "or the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."

Also from Georgia: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

From Mississippi: "It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. It tramples the original equality of the South under foot. It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."

From South Carolina: "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery".

...Slavery was not what really motivated them. It was merely the legal pretext to do what they wanted to do ie secede to gain economic independence.

Next you'll post quotes from Lincoln and others, expecting me to take your word for what they said. This is what the Confederacy said. You have given no valid reason to disbelieve them, except that to paraphrase, "they had reasons other than slavery so it wasn't about slavery."

OK. I see you need some educating on the subject.

Not really. Assuming all of these quotes are even real and posted in the correct context, and you haven't offered any references even from your confederacy amen corner sites that they are, then it's no secret that many in the North also held racist views. It was what President Lincoln had to deal with, which he did. Frederick Douglas acknowledged that in his oration, but you clearly aren't interested in eyewitness accounts.

OK, you're not serious. You refuse to give me specifics. I'm not playing these games with you.

I should have realized someone who can't see "slave" in the word "slave" would have reading comprehension problems, but which word in "Post an affirmation that you agree with everything in those declarations." is beyond your capability to understand.

and they (abolitionists in the South) were a teeny tiny minority that couldn't even get their candidates into double digit percentages of the vote in elections.

That proves the Confederates goal was to preserve slavery.

It says they were products of their time.

That excuse doesn't work, because the abolitionists from that time understood slavery was wrong, and anyone even back then could understand that they wouldn't have wanted to have been slaves. Your arguments to that effect only prove that the confederacy was what I say it is.

Chattel slavery was not equivalent to the holocaust. Specious Analogy.

The only difference was in numbers oppressed, and the numbers killed to put an end to it.

You keep deliberately trying to gloss over the "IN THE TERRITORIES" part. That did not apply to the states - only the western territories.

"that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.

And to look at the same quote another way...

"that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.

"No person". Do you understand what that means?

He was crystal clear that he had no desire to abolish slavery.

And the Confederacy made it crystal clear that they were seceding over the abolition of slavery.

YES! Secession obviously wasn't about slavery. Only 4 states issued declarations of causes (only about 1/3rd of the states which seceded) and 3 of those 4 cited reasons other than slavery.

So what. Even if only 3 out of 4 states said it was about slavery, then it was still about slavery. Your argument only proves that.

When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, they turned down that offer. Clearly slavery was not what was motivating them.

From Georgia: "or the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."

Also from Georgia: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

From Mississippi: "It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. It tramples the original equality of the South under foot. It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."

From South Carolina: "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery"

To say otherwise is revisionism.

No revision to the "blah, blah, blah" above is needed. They spell out what the secessionists of the time were thinking.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

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.

Frederick Douglas didn't see it that way, and he was a slave in the South who escaped. Oh, that's right. According to you in the confederacy amen corner, he was the bad guy because he broke the law.

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

Right. Abolitionists put their lives on the line to free slaves, but they did it for their own benefit. And, they were breaking the law.

No he didn't. What he did was illegal from a constitutional standpoint. He broke the law when he did what he did.

So did the German resistance during WWII. Who are considered the heroes now?

About your map, China uses slave labor for their manufacturing too.

[DiogenesLamp]

Abolitionists put their lives on the line to free slaves, but they did it for their own benefit.

Stop. The people getting the benefit of keeping the Southern money streaming into their pockets did none of the actual fighting. They paid $300.00 and some poor schlub took their place in combat.

And the poor schlubs didn't give a rat's @$$ about slavery. They were fighting because they had to. Yeah, there was the occasional crackpot all filled with zeal to go free the slaves despite the fact they all hated black people, but most normal people weren't fighting slavery. They marched right through slave holding Maryland to go fight the people who had the gall to tell Washington DC to go f### itself because they weren't funneling any more money into it's corrupt pockets.

The war was about rich northern people remaining rich northern people because the rich southern people would be prevented from trading directly with Europe and thereby depriving the rich northern people of both markets in the south and midwest as well as the rich northern people gloming onto the income stream produced by Southern exports.

And then the rich northern people told all the idiots in the Country they were fighting for some noble bullsh*t about freeing slaves. These were the very same people that offered the Corwin Amendment permanent slavery to the nation.

Let me show you a map that might give you a clue how things really work.

About your map, China uses slave labor for their manufacturing too.

Brought to you by the same liberals that run the country today, and ran it for the same reasons back in 1860. They don't care about slavery, they care about money.

[DiogenesLamp]

No revision to the "blah, blah, blah" above is needed. They spell out what the secessionists of the time were thinking.

Well three of them do, and the way you tell it, that is *ALL* they said on the matter.

Do you know what "cherry picking" is? The other 8 states didn't say any of that stuff you are trying to tar them with.

[FLT-bird]

Blah Blah Blah.

We've gone over that. Yes, there was certainly language about slavery in the declarations of secession. I've never denied it. You tried denying the language about the economic causes of secession that was in 3 of the 4 and which Southerners had been saying for generations.

Next you'll post quotes from Lincoln and others, expecting me to take your word for what they said.

No. I specifically did not do that. I cited my sources. I gave you numerous citations as to where you could find those quotes. I expressly did not expect you to take my word for it.

This is what the Confederacy said. You have given no valid reason to disbelieve them, except that to paraphrase, "they had reasons other than slavery so it wasn't about slavery."

Again, this is false. I cited not only their numerous statements about their economic grievances, but I also pointed out how few Southerners owned slaves. I also pointed to them turning down the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Those are all reasons to believe their real motivation for leaving was their economic grievances even though the Northern states violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution gave them legal cover to legitimately say it was the Northern states which violated the compact.

Not really. Assuming all of these quotes are even real and posted in the correct context, and you haven't offered any references even from your confederacy amen corner sites that they are, then it's no secret that many in the North also held racist views. It was what President Lincoln had to deal with, which he did. Frederick Douglas acknowledged that in his oration, but you clearly aren't interested in eyewitness accounts.

Again, I gave you several citations if you doubted any of those quotes. It was not merely that Lincoln "had to deal with" massive racism in the North. It was that he too shared those views. I could cite a ton of Northern Newspapers as further evidence of that and for further evidence of the fact that it was the economics of trade and taxation rather than some morality play over slavery that motivated both sides.

I should have realized someone who can't see "slave" in the word "slave" would have reading comprehension problems, but which word in "Post an affirmation that you agree with everything in those declarations." is beyond your capability to understand.

Oh I don't have a reading comprehension problem. I fully understand that you want me to endorse a blank check. You demand that I sign off on a bunch of statements but won't provide any specifics. I know full well this is a trap. You are trying to get me to endorse something I don't support so that you can claim some kind of "gotcha" moment. No dice. Its not going to work for you. Ask me specific questions and I'll give you specific answers. Try to be disingenuous/intellectually dishonest and I won't play along.

That proves the Confederates goal was to preserve slavery.

The fact that abolitionists IN THE NORTH could not get their candidates into even double digit percentages in any elections proves the North didn't really care about slavery. It was just a bargaining chip to them....something to be used for the struggle they actually cared about which was the struggle over trade and taxation policy.

That excuse doesn't work, because the abolitionists from that time understood slavery was wrong, and anyone even back then could understand that they wouldn't have wanted to have been slaves. Your arguments to that effect only prove that the confederacy was what I say it is.

Again, the abolitionists were a tiny minority in the North. Most people didn't really care about slavery. They didn't own any slaves.

The only difference was in numbers oppressed, and the numbers killed to put an end to it.

The holocaust was an attempt by a government to deliberately exterminate an ethnic group. Chattel slavery was driven by individuals seeking profit. There is no comparison. You obviously haven't studied history.

"that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.

THE TERRITORIES.

And to look at the same quote another way... "that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. "No person". Do you understand what that means?

LOL! Are you seriously trying to argue that the Republicans were abolitionists? (this ought to be good)

And the Confederacy made it crystal clear that they were seceding over the abolition of slavery.

Did they? Then why did they not agree to return when Lincoln offered the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment in his inaugural address? Also, you do understand that only 4 states issued declarations of causes and the entire Upper South did not secede until Lincoln chose to start a war, right? Clearly they did not secede "over slavery".

So what. Even if only 3 out of 4 states said it was about slavery, then it was still about slavery. Your argument only proves that.

No it doesn't. Again the Upper South did not secede until Lincoln started a war to impose a government upon people who did not consent to it. They seceded over the people's right to self determination. Florida, Alabama and Louisiana did not issue declarations of causes. And if even the original 7 seceding states did not agree to return when offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, that proves that slavery was not their motivation.

From Georgia: blah blah blah

You have no answer to the fact that they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment....the very thing they supposedly seceded over!

No revision to the "blah, blah, blah" above is needed. They spell out what the secessionists of the time were thinking.

No revision is needed to the fact that even the original 7 seceding states turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. That fact speaks for itself.

[MayflowerMadam]

Not a justification; a convenient rationalization.

[enumerated]

Right, that’s a better word for it.

[charles_covington]

Or how about fighting back and not running away every time Democrats cheat?

[central_va]

Secession is not running away. It is the opposite of running away.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-Bird: "As usual BroJoeK obsesses over this topic. "

As usual, FLT-bird obsesses over trying to justify the Lost Cause by constantly posting lies regarding the Civil War.

FLT-Bird: "Abolitionists were a tiny minority even in the North."

Noooo, in 1860 100% of Northerners were abolitionists in their own states.
In 1860, 100% of Republicans were abolitionists in US Western Territories.
In 1860, 100% of Republicans favored maintaining abolition of international slave imports.

In 1856 the Republican presidential candidate, John C. Fremont was alleged by Democrats to be 100% abolitionist, and received 1.3 million Northern votes, more than Democrat Buchanan's 1.2 million Northern votes -- Buchanan won because of Southern votes.

Bottom line: while most Northerners were tolerant of slavery in the South 100% of Republicans were abolitionists in their own states, in the Territories and in international imports.

All of which FLT-bird well knows, but just loves, loves, loves to lie about, in defense of his obsession with the Lost Cause.