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

central_va: "Secession is not running away. It is the opposite of running away."

See... when dealing with central_va, you must always keep in mind the sublime distinctions between "operational", "tactical" and "strategic".
So... secession can be, at one and the same time:

"operationally": running away,
"tactically": aggression against the Union and
"strategically": standing firm in defense of... no, not slavery but States' Rights... yes, that's the ticket.

Or, we might reverse that -- "operationally" standing firm while "strategically" running away -- but that's why they call central_va "the general", since he's declared himself in command of all such sublime distinctions. ;-)

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

As usual BroJoeK goes miles out of his way to tag me when spewing his endless PC Revisionist lies on this topic. Notice how it is never I who tags him into these threads.

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.

LOL! You are of course desperately trying to S-T-R-E-T-C-H the definition of abolitionist to fit here. The Republicans did not favor abolishing slavery in the United States as a whole. Northerners did not favor abolishing slavery in the United States as a whole. Those who did favor doing so - ie actual abolitionists - were a tiny minority seen as extremists who could not get more than single digit percentages of the vote in elections. There simply was no widespread support for it anywhere.

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.

Fremont was of course, not an abolitionist and said so quite clearly.

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.

Bottom Line, Republicans were not abolitionists and BroJoeK is desperately trying to stretch the definition of the term to claim some kind of "victory". Now he's even becoming revisionist with language just like he is with history. LOL!

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

All of which BroJoeK knows but he just can't help himself when it comes to spewing the PC Revisionist lies that obsess him.

FLT-bird: "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."

All of such 1788 reservations were stated in terms of what's "necessary" or due to "injury or oppression".
None, not one, ever claimed a "right of secession" for any reason, or for no reason, at pleasure.
No Founder ever supported what we might call a "no-fault divorce", except by mutual consent.

Pres. James Madison, often named the "Father of the Constitution" went into this question at treat length, here.

Noooo, in 1860 100% of Northerners were abolitionists in their own states.

As usual, you are misleading people as to the motivation of these Northern "abolitionists."

Number 1. They hated black people and didn't want any black people in their state.

Number 2. The labor force didn't want to compete against free labor.

You present their motivation as moral and noble, but it was self interest and hatred.

At this time, only a teeny tiny minority of kooks opposed slavery because it was morally wrong.

These are the abolitionists that Charles Dickens refers to when he said:

" Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. "

No Founder ever supported what we might call a "no-fault divorce", except by mutual consent.

Almost all the evidence is against you. I encountered another piece of evidence against you the other day when someone on the news mentioned what was written in Article VII.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Nine states huh? Not 13? What happened to that compulsory Union? Clearly the other four states were allowed to remain out of the Union.

Rhode Island did so until they finally threatened it with a ban on trade with it, and then it reluctantly agreed to "join" but with the same stipulation that it could leave that Virginia and New York incorporated into their ratification statements.

Again, the evidence is against your claim.

DiogenesLamp to M Kehoe: "It shows a little cotton being grown in Florida. I don't know if the area shown covers Immokoli though."

Immokoli is in Southwestern Florida, and not shown as a cotton growing region on DiogenesLamp's map.
Now our FRiend, DiogenesLamp just loves to make ridiculous claims (i.e., "no cotton=no slaves") and then post irrelevant maps to "prove it".
So here's a map (below) which could help disabuse rational minds of DiogenesLamp's nonsense.

1860 Slaveholder families per County

Notice (above) large numbers of slaveholder families throughout the South, including such Union states as Missouri, Kentucky & Maryland.
What were slaves in such states producing?
These maps (below) show that cotton was not the only product associated with slavery, and crops like wheat & tobacco were not restricted to Southern states.

Further, notice here (below): in 1860 cotton was grown in northern Kentucky and northern Missouri, meaning there was nothing about those latitudes which prevented cotton production.

Also notice: "Bleeding Kansas" in the 1850s was contested by pro-slavery versus anti-slavery settlers.
Anti-slavery settlers eventually won, and cotton today is grown in both Kansas and Oklahoma.

Finally, by 1860 many thousands of slaves worked on railroads & manufacturing throughout the South, further demonstrating that DiogenesLamp's "no cotton = no slaves" equation is pure nonsense.

DL quoting woodpusher: "They were against the spread of slavery to the western territories."

DiogenesLamp: "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."

No, in fact, by 1860 slavery was still lawful in the Territories of Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Nebraska & Utah.
Even California, officially free, still had numbers of de facto slaves.

US States & Territories as of 1860:

Now DiogenesLamp wishes us to believe that Northerners only opposed slavery for economic self-interest reasons and Republicans only opposed slavery for political self-interest reasons.
But the truth is that Northerners first became anti-slavery in their churches, for moral reasons, and culturally through books like "Uncle Tom's Cabin".
Neither of those had anything to do with economic or political self-interest.

FLT-bird to DL: "There was no economic case for slavery spreading to the western territories.
This was a power struggle between two sides."

Except that during the 1850s slavery was lawful & practiced in the western territories of Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah & Nebraska.
In Kansas especially there was competition between slaveholder settlers and free-soilers in which for years slaveholders held the political whip-hand.
Also in New Mexico, Oklahoma & Utah slaveholders held the political upper-hand.
Even California, nominally a free-state, held large numbers of de facto slaves until the Civil War, and appointed pro-slavery US Senators, notably Gwin & Weller.

So there's no doubt that for Democrat slaveholders, political power was all-important because without it slavery was doomed.
And that such Democrats would project their own motives onto Republicans is, at least, understandable -- they still do it today.
But the fact remains that most grass-roots Republican voters were first motivated by books such as the Bible and "Uncle Tom's Cabin" -- so their feelings were first Christian moral & cultural, not just Marxist economics & Democrat politics.

quoting FLT-bird to TwelveOFTwenty: "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."

Many of our Lost Causers make this argument, and they all get the numbers wrong to some degree.
In this case FLT-bird lumps together the 7 Declarations before Fort Sumter with the 4 after Fort Sumter plus the two from Missouri & Kentucky.
But we should delete the 4+2=6 after Fort Sumter, since those were very different circumstances.
Now, of the 7 Declarations of Secession before Fort Sumter,

Two gave us no reasons whatever -- Florida and Louisiana.
One, Alabama, listed slavery as the only reason in its Declaration.
Four other states published lengthy "Declarations of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession...from the Federal Union"
Finally, there were two other widely published explanations in early 1861, by Robert Rhett (CSA Congressman) and Alexander Stephens (the Confederate VP).

All of those who gave reasons listed slavery as a primary reason or as the only reason.
Here is my analysis of the pre-Fort Sumter secessions*:

Reasons for Secession	S. Carolina	Mississippi	Georgia	Texas	Rbt. Rhett	A. Stephens	AVERAGE OF 6
Historical context	41%	20%	23%	21%	20%	20%	24%
Slavery	20%	73%	56%	54%	35%	50%	48%
States' Rights	37%	3%	4%	15%	15%	10%	14%
Lincoln's election	2%	4%	4%	4%	5%	0%	3%
Economic issues**	0	0	15%	0%	25%	20%	10%
Military protection	0	0	0	6%	0%	0%	1%

* Alabama listed only slavery in its "whereas" reasons for secession.

** Economic issues includes tariffs, "fishing smacks" and alleged favortism to Northerners in Federal spending.

All of such 1788 reservations were stated in terms of what's "necessary" or due to "injury or oppression". None, not one, ever claimed a "right of secession" for any reason, or for no reason, at pleasure. No Founder ever supported what we might call a "no-fault divorce", except by mutual consent.

It was up to each state to determine what injury or oppression they deemed sufficient to secede.

Pres. James Madison, often named the "Father of the Constitution" went into this question at treat length here.

Oh you mean in the 1820s? LOL! Firstly what the STATES agreed to at the time is what is relevant. They were the ones who were actually parties to the contract. What does not matter is the opinion of the Madison 40 years later.

Except that during the 1850s slavery was lawful & practiced in the western territories of Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah & Nebraska.

By the 1850s it was clear there was a power struggle between the two sides. They were vying for seats in the Senate. There was no economic case for the spread of slavery in those areas because the labor intensive cash crops slaves were used for could not grow in those areas. Consequently, there were never many slaves in those territories.

In Kansas especially there was competition between slaveholder settlers and free-soilers in which for years slaveholders held the political whip-hand. Also in New Mexico, Oklahoma & Utah slaveholders held the political upper-hand. Even California, nominally a free-state, held large numbers of de facto slaves until the Civil War, and appointed pro-slavery US Senators, notably Gwin & Weller. So there's no doubt that for Democrat slaveholders, political power was all-important because without it slavery was doomed.

No, it was not that slavery was doomed. They surely had to see it was doomed in every place that industrialized anyway as Britain and France had. What was doomed if they did not keep pace with seats in the Senate was their ability to protect themselves from even more rapacious trade and tax policies being pushed through by Northern special interests.

And that such Democrats would project their own motives onto Republicans is, at least, understandable -- they still do it today.

No question there was a power struggle between the two sides. Trying to portray the North/Republicans of that time as lily white/pure of heart etc is a complete joke. They were as greedy as any people in history. They had been sucking money out of the South for generations and were trying to pass federal legislation that would allow them to dip their paws even deeper into Southern wallets.

But the fact remains that most grass-roots Republican voters were first motivated by books such as the Bible and "Uncle Tom's Cabin" -- so their feelings were first Christian moral & cultural, not just Marxist economics & Democrat politics.

Their interests were in jobs in industry and public works projects (paid for mostly by taxes paid by Southerners). People have always been willing to vote themselves other people's money.

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

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Stop, liar.
Even by mid-1861 Union leaders in Congress and the Army understood that defeating Confederates would require destroying slavery -- hence "Contraband of War" and the 1861 Confiscation Act.
And by September 1862 (after Antietam) 100% of Union soldiers understood that Union victory meant destruction of Confederate slavery.
And, in the summer and fall of 1864 Lincoln ran for reelection on his promise to support the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery in every US state/territory.

So all claims by our Lost Causers -- that Northern troops did not fight to free the slaves -- are pure bovine excrement because every Northerner (and Southerner) well understood that slavery would be abolished as Union forces defeated Confederates.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Stop, liar.
Corwin was a unanimous Democrat initiative, opposed by most Republicans, intended to help keep Border States in the Union.
Corwin went nowhere and was quickly rendered mute by the military requirements that "Contraband of War" be freed, and slavery destroyed, for Union victory.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Stop, liar.
Democrats ruled Washington in 1860, just as they do today, and they were just as corrupt and malevolent then as now.
That was a major reason many Northern voters flipped from Democrat in 1856 to Republican in 1860.
Slavery was the other major reason.

Now DiogenesLamp likes maps, so here are two to illustrate the growth of Republican votes, first in 1856 (red=Republican):

So notice in 1860 how many previously Democrat counties flipped Republican due to Washington Democrat corruption and to slavery:

Also notice that even in 1860, New York City was still controlled by its powerful Democrat political machine.

Most of the Lost Causers make this argument, and they all get the numbers wrong to some degree.

Most of the PC Revisionsists try to deny this reality. The facts are obviously not with them.

In this case FLT-bird lumps together the 7 Declarations before Fort Sumter with the 4 after Fort Sumter plus the two from Missouri & Kentucky. But we should delete the 4+2=6 after Fort Sumter, since those were very different circumstances.

uhhh no. We absolutely should not do that. He said "the South" as you PC Revisionists often do. That refers to all 12 states that seceded. I've pointed out several did not issue declarations of causes. I've pointed out several seceded only after Lincoln chose to start a war to impose government rule on people who did not consent to it. Those states are part of "the South" too. You can't just ignore them because its inconvenient for your argument.

Now, of the 7 Declarations of Secession before Fort Sumter, Two gave us no reasons whatever -- Florida and Louisiana. One, Alabama, listed slavery as the only reason in its Declaration.

Alabama did not issue a declaration of causes.

Four other states published lengthy "Declarations of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession...from the Federal Union"

Correct. 4 states issued declarations of causes.

Finally, there were two other widely published explanations in early 1861, by Robert Rhett (CSA Congressman) and Alexander Stephens (the Confederate VP). All of those who gave reasons listed slavery as a primary reason or as the only reason.

This is just false. There were many people who offered various explanations. The Southern states were democratic after all. Different people had different opinions which they were free to express. Rhett's was the most famous and widely circulated. It was attached to and was sent out with South Carolina's declaration of causes. Rhett went on at great length to explain the primary cause was economic. The Southern states were being economically exploited by sectional partisan legislation just as the 13 colonies had been by Britain a couple generations earlier.

Here is my analysis of the pre-Fort Sumter secessions*: Reasons for Secession S. Carolina Mississippi Georgia Texas Rbt. Rhett A. Stephens AVERAGE OF 6 Historical context 41% 20% 23% 21% 20% 20% 24% Slavery 20% 73% 56% 54% 35% 50% 48% States' Rights 37% 3% 4% 15% 15% 10% 14% Lincoln's election 2% 4% 4% 4% 5% 0% 3% Economic issues** 0 0 15% 0% 25% 20% 10% Military protection 0 0 0 6% 0% 0% 1% * Alabama listed only slavery in its "whereas" reasons for secession. ** Economic issues includes tariffs, "fishing smacks" and alleged favortism to Northerners in Federal spending.

Your "analysis". ROTFLMAO!!!

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.

The PC Revisionists don't want you to ever consider Northern motivations - only Southern ones. That is of course so they can always be on Offense and never on Defense. They don't want you to look at the fact that the North was benefitting massively from grossly unequal tax and trade policies AND that they sought to tilt those policies even further toward their benefit until they became positively rapacious. The North did not care about slavery. Why would they? They were the ones who had sold the slaves in the first place. They were the ones getting all that lovely money from tariffs/trade paid for by goods produced at least in part by slave labor. They definitely did not want that to stop. If anything, they wanted an even bigger slice of the profits. That's why the very first thing they offered up was slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. What they made sure not to offer was any reduction in tariffs or equality of federal expenditures for infrastructure or corporate subsidies.

DiogenesLamp: "So much wrong with your false equivalencies that it's hardly worth the trouble to answer them."

Naw... that's not it.
The real truth is that so much of it is right, and explodes so many of your shameless lies, that you just can't risk addressing any of it, and you know it, don't you?

DiogenesLamp: "How many slaves did it take to grow and harvest wheat rather than Cotton?"

We don't have census numbers as to how many slaves were used in each economic activity -- i.e., cotton, wheat, tobacco, rice, sugar, manufacturing, railroads, construction, dock workers, household servants, etc.
But we can still make some estimates...

In 1860 there 3,951,000 total slaves.
Of those, 58% lived in the Deep South cotton states = 2,312,000.
A reasonable estimate is that 3/4 of those were used in cotton production = ~1.7 million.
Then outside the Deep South, where wheat, tobacco & other items (i.e., hemp) predominated, cotton was also grown, using perhaps 20% of the slave workforce, or roughly 300,000 out of 1.6 million.
Add together ~1,700,000 in the Deep South plus ~300,000 elsewhere = 2.000,000 = 51% of all 1860 slaves.
That means roughly half of US slaves in 1860 did not work in cotton, and so would not fall under your alleged "no cotton = no slaves" rule.

Good afternoon y’all from the free state of Florida.

Last thing my post was intended to do was be argumentative. More like a correct me if I’m wrong kinda thing.

I have picked strawberries, beans, cotton and helped as a ranch hand. In Immokoli, Circa 1962-64.

Oh, gotta include this one...and trained with a bull whip.

And a “six shooter.”

5.56mm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.