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.

[x]

Nobody denies that the Corwin Amendment was a thing. It was a last minute bid to keep the country together. It wasn't ratified and probably couldn't have been ratified. It did not exclude the possibility that states might abolish slavery on their own and the constitutional status of such an unamendable amendment was always in question.

Southern slave owners fervently believed that the Republicans would bring an end to slavery, but their defenders today want to believe that they would have made slavery permanent.

[x]

Somebody should explain to these guys what “revisionism” means and who the revisionists are, but I don’t want the aggravation.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

But as I already outlined, there were 15 states that still had slavery. There simply were nowhere near enough states to pass a constitutional amendment repealing the Corwin Amendment unless the states that still had slavery consented. Funny, you choose to ignore the basic math.

They would have had to pass it first, and they never got close to that. No one even voted to ratify it until after the CW started, and that was only a last ditch effort to preserve the Union.

Oh, and "anti-slavery" does not mean "abolitionist".

I would refer you to Georgia's declaration of secession. Just search for the word "abolition".

The Republican Party was merely against the spread of slavery. They were not in favor of abolition.

What part of "ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" is unclear to you?

They themselves said so over and over again.

Frederick Douglas, who lived through these times as a freed slave, answered that here.

There were nowhere near enough of them (abolitionists) to do that. Slavery was only banned after the war when Northern politicians were desperate to try to claim some noble purpose behind all the blood and carnage they caused when they started a war for money and empire.

Then later, you posted.

It was pushed through as a fig leaf to try to cover for the bloodbath Lincoln started. They had to tell all those voters in the Northern states their loved ones were killed or maimed for something other than to line the pockets of special interest groups.

So you're saying the North used abolition to sell the war to the populace, even though only a tiny minority were abolitionists. That makes sense.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. It was the contract made between the states. The Northern states broke it. That was the "injury" the Southern states could cite as providing legal justification to secede.

The fact that they even saw it as a ligitimate reason tells me everything I need to know about the confederacy.

The slave trade had been illegal since the Grandfather Clause in the constitution expired in 1810. Of course there was massive illicit slave trading that New Englanders continued well into the mid 19th century, but it had not been legal for over 50 years by the time the Southern states seceded.

How does this refute my point, which was "That's funny. It was about money, but they abolished the profitable slave trade."?

I would add there is quite overt slavery in China which big companies like Nike and Apple and others are lobbying Congress not to sanction China for...so those greedy bastards can continue to profit from it by having those slaves make cheap goods they can then import into the US.

That's what I was referring to. We agree on this.

The individual owners of slaves had an economic incentive to try to keep them healthy and to at least not make their conditions so bad that they would run away at any opportunity.

And human traffickers have reason to keep their kidnapped women looking good so they can keep making money off of them. Are you serious?

That is different than a program of extermination like the Nazis had in which they planned to work their slaves to death - or like the Soviets/CCP had and have in which they at best do not care if their slaves die because there are plenty more they can enslave. The treatment of an individual enslaved by a government is far worse - let alone the treatment of individuals deemed enemies of the state in totalitarian dictatorships like the State Socialists or National Socialists.

I suppose next you're going to tell me no slaves were killed or maimed by their masters.

Georgia's declaration said they were anti slavery - not that they were abolitionists. These are two different things.

They were abolitionists, which made them anti-slavery. Georgia's statement used both terms.

They got several Northern states to ratify it and this was before Lincoln started the war.

At least one of those states, Maryland, sympathized with the confederacy.

They specifically got Northern states to ratify it to show the original 7 seceding states that they were serious about it. Had those states indicated that the Corwin Amendment would satisfy their concerns, they would have gotten even more Northern states to ratify it. Then the original 7 could have come back in and also ratified it to make sure it passed. Once they explicitly rejected it and refused to come back in, there was no point for Lincoln to push more Northern states to ratify it.

All conjecture. The North never came close to ratifying it.

Virginia's objection and the objection of the rest of the states in the Upper South was Lincoln choosing to launch a war of Aggression

You don't think taking slaves is an act of war on those taken, legal or not?

on the original 7 seceding Slaveholding states in order to impose a government upon them that they no longer consented to. Their objection was that the federal government was not respecting the states' right to self determination.

Fixed it, using their wording.

Look at when they seceded. Look at what their newspapers and political leaders were saying.

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"

[FLT-bird]

Perhaps. But there can be no doubt that when it comes to spamming threads endlessly with drivel you have no equal.

Just as when it comes to being an argumentative shrew who specializes in getting herself completely destroyed in one thread after another, you have no equal.

[FLT-bird]

FRiends, both FLT-bird and woodpusher have large inventories of what I call, cut & paste Lost Cause liar quotes, and both will post their inventories given any excuse to. And both typically respond to challenges by first posting yet more quotes and then descending into insults before finally disappearing. All that in mind, here's my response to FLT-bird's most recent. Enjoy!

Oh! Look who's back to push his usual load of historically illiterate PC Revisionist lies and BS. Its none other than BroJoeK. As always, he is one a quest to show us what a complete lack of a life he has by seeking me out even when I have not addressed him and then attempting to steal hours and hours of my time day after day. I know. Its sad. Its pathetic. Obviously anybody who had so much as a single friend or interest or just anything going on in his life would never waste his time trying to do that but well, that's BroJoeK. Poor fella. He's best just ignored until even he realizes nobody is going to engage with his intellectually dishonest obsessive BS.

[FLT-bird]

That is absolutely hilarious! :)

Its really an indictment of how sad and empty BroJoeK's life is. Can you imagine having so many empty hours to fill every day that you would seek others out in order to obsessively spew the same lies and BS over and over and over again just hoping they would throw you a bone by wasting their time to respond to your drivel? You have to feel sorry for him.

[FLT-bird]

They would have had to pass it first, and they never got close to that. No one even voted to ratify it until after the CW started, and that was only a last ditch effort to preserve the Union.

They didn't ratify it because the original 7 seceding states rejected it. No one voted to ratify it until after Lincoln started the war because he only sent it to the states' governors a few weeks before he started the war.

I would refer you to Georgia's declaration of secession. Just search for the word "abolition".

I would refer you to any of a whole host of statements from various Republicans stating that they were expressly not abolitionists - they were merely against the spread of slavery.

What part of "ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" is unclear to you?

LOL! I see you actually are going to try to engage in the fiction that being against the spread of slavery = abolitionism. "The motive of those who protested against the extension of slavery had always really been concern for the welfare of the white man, and not an unnatural sympathy for the negro." William Seward.

[the Republican Party's stance] "all the unoccupied territory shall be preserved for the benefit of the white caucasian race -a thing which cannot be but by the exclusion of slavery." New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley

[on the Emancipation Proclamation]"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating them where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." William Seward Secretary of State under Lincoln

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ... Abraham Lincoln

"In the first half of the nineteenth century, state legislatures in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut took away Negroes' right to vote; and voters in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Maine, Iowa, and Wisconsin approved new constitutions that limited suffrage to whites. In Ohio, Negro males were permitted to vote only if they had "a greater visible admixture of white than colored blood." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 54)

"The problem with this lofty rhetoric of dying to make men free was that in 1861 the North was fighting for the restoration of a slaveholding Union. In his July 4 message to Congress, Lincoln reiterated the inaugural pledge that he had 'no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists.'" (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 265)

Here are Lincoln's own words:

"There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them"

Frederick Douglas, who lived through these times as a freed slave, answered that here.

When the Republicans themselves openly and repeatedly declared that they were not abolitionists....that they had no intention of interfering with slavery where it existed, there's nothing more to say on the matter. That's definitive.

So you're saying the North used abolition to sell the war to the populace, even though only a tiny minority were abolitionists. That makes sense.

AFTER the war. AFTER. That's key.

The fact that they even saw it as a ligitimate reason tells me everything I need to know about the confederacy.

Everybody saw it as legitimate. Were that not so, the constitution would not have had a Fugitive Slave Clause nor a 3/5ths compromise.

How does this refute my point, which was "That's funny. It was about money, but they abolished the profitable slave trade."?

They only abolished the slave trade on paper. They continued slave trading on a very large scale for 50 years after the legality of it expired. ie they were greedy as hell and their primary motivation was always MONEY.

And human traffickers have reason to keep their kidnapped women looking good so they can keep making money off of them. Are you serious?

YES! They have incentive not to kill them. The Nazis and Commies had no such incentive with their victims. Indeed killing them was their goal.

I suppose next you're going to tell me no slaves were killed or maimed by their masters.

Don't suppose. Of course some were. It was however, rare. People do not generally destroy their own property. Their incentive is to take care of their property.

They were abolitionists, which made them anti-slavery. Georgia's statement used both terms.

Except they were not abolitionists as they themselves said numerous times.

All conjecture. The North never came close to ratifying it.

Lincoln started the war first and the original 7 seceding states rejected it before many Northern states had a chance to pass it.

You don't think taking slaves is an act of war on those taken, legal or not?

Not sure I understand the question. The slaves were taken by Yankee slave traders from African slave traders. We're not talking about sovereign countries here.

From Georgia: blah blah blah

Yes, they noted the Northern states had violated the Constitution. The Northern states had indeed violated the constitution. There's no question of it.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "You are projecting revisionism onto everyone else.
You think like the Taliban."

Your Lost Cause is a rewriting of history, projecting backwards in time what you wish had been said & done, not what actually was.

But I'll leave you, general, to figure out if your Lost Cause Taliban projections are operational, tactical, strategic or just massive piles of bovine excrement.

[BroJoeK]

Nice work, TwelveOfTwenty!

FLT-bird on Corwin: "They got several Northern states to ratify it and this was before Lincoln started the war."

TwelveOfTwenty: "At least one of those states, Maryland, sympathized with the confederacy."

Both Maryland & Kentucky supplied Confederate troops, but their Union troops outnumbered Confederates, in Maryland ~2-to-1 and in Kentucky ~3-to-1.

As usual, FLT-bird is confused & disoriented, so here are the facts:

Corwin ratification dates:

1. Kentucky -- April 4, 1861
   Fort Sumter -- April 12, 1861
2. Ohio -- May 13, 1861 (rescinded March 31, 1864)
3. Rhode Island -- May 31, 1861
4. Maryland -- January 10, 1862 (rescinded April 7, 2014)
5. Illinois -- June 2, 1863 (disputed validity)

Note again the totals: 2 slave states plus 2 or 3 (was Illinois' valid) free states ratified.

Now compare those dates to the dates those same states ratified the 13th Amendment:

1. Kentucky -- rejected February 4, 1865, ratified March 18, 1976 (35th state to ratify)
2. Ohio -- February 10, 1865 (13th state to ratify)
3. Rhode Island -- February 2, 1865 (2nd state to ratify)
4. Maryland -- February 3, 1865 (4th state to ratify)
5. Illinois -- February 1, 1865 (1st state to ratify)

Confederate surrenders began in April 1865.

Bottom line on Corwin: it was supported unanimously by Democrats in Congress, opposed by a majority of Republicans, signed by Democrat President Buchanan, it may (or may not) have helped keep Kentucky & Maryland in the Union.
In spring of 1861 Lincoln himself was willing to allow slavery as a peace-deal to preserve the Union, but even then many Union leaders understood that Confederacy could only be destroyed if slavery was also destroyed, hence "Contraband of War", 1861 Confiscation Act, Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment.

So yes, Virginia, the Civil War was all about preserving the Union and destroying slavery.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "sorry but you are the one who ALWAYS seeks me out. Not vice versa."

Naw, you're just flattering yourself.
I read CW threads to see who is posting the most lies & nonsense, and respond.
If that's FLT-bird, so be it.
Remember, you can shut me right up, just don't post any lies or nonsense.

FLT-bird: "You come here to post endless PC Revisionist lies and BS and to lie and claim that anybody who disagrees with you is a Democrat..."

But you are a Democrat, 100% of Lost Causers are old-time Southern Democrats, and Democrats have always been opposed to the Constitution as intended, have always advanced a radical agenda which includes enslaving some Americans for the benefit of Democrats (whether slavery or big-government socialism), and have always been violent in opposing Constitutional law & order, or imposing their own oppressive rule.

FLT-bird: "and also post the ridiculous nonsense that the mid 19th century political parties are the same as the modern political parties."

Radical Democrats are pretty much the same now as then -- some form of slavery is their goal and slavery today as then requires powerful Federal government to enforce.
That's what Fugitive Slave laws and Dred Scott were all about.
The only difference is that today Democrats are not the party of slaveholders, but of the descendants of their slaves.

FLT-bird: "No. You seek me out specifically to post your lies and nonsense. "

Again, you're just flattering yourself.
Again, I'll offer: you can shut me right up if you just stop posting lies & nonsense.

How hard can that be?

[FLT-bird]

Nice work, TwelveOfTwenty!

More sad pathetic obsession, BS and lies from BroJoeK

[FLT-bird]

Naw, you're just flattering yourself. I read CW threads to see who is posting the most lies & nonsense, and respond.

If you wanted to read lies and nonsense you would read your own posts. More sad pathetic obsession, BS and lies from BroJoeK.

[DiogenesLamp]

. It was a last minute bid to keep the country together.

This is rationalization for the North embracing continuing slavery in the US.

What possible reason could they have for holding onto slave states that would require them to abrogate their principles?

My answer is easy and obvious. "Money."

It wasn't ratified and probably couldn't have been ratified.

This is whistling past the graveyard. It was ratified by five northern states. William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state and former governor of New York, guaranteed that the amendment would be ratified by New York. With New York's support, it would have been ratified by the surrounding states too, and add to that the 16 slave states, and the thing was virtually guaranteed to pass.

Bear in mind the representatives of those very same northern states voted to pass it through the congress. What makes you think their legislators wouldn't have passed it too?

Southern slave owners fervently believed that the Republicans would bring an end to slavery,...

So I have been constantly told, though Lincoln himself said repeatedly he would not do this and that he had no power to do this.

...but their defenders today want to believe that they would have made slavery permanent.

Presumably you are categorizing me as one of "their defenders", but I have repeatedly said that slavery would have ended when the social pressure against slavery within each state became greater than the economic benefit of slavery, and I have predicted that tipping point would have been reached between 20 and 80 years subsequent to 1860.

Meaning that even if the claims that the war was over slavery were true, it would have ended on it's own without bloodshed anyway, rendering the war a horrible tragedy.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm trying to make FLT-Bird happy by giving him the win. Nothing personal.

It's good to see that you do have a wry sense of humor sometimes. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

Somebody should explain to these guys what “revisionism” means and who the revisionists are, but I don’t want the aggravation.

In this context, "revisionism" is pointing out flaws in the official claims used to explain what was done and why.

The way January 6 is being characterized by the current "authorities" is an example of how accurate the "official" narrative of Washington DC is.

All news and history is slanted for the benefit of the Corruptocracy in Washington DC, and it's influence selling associates elsewhere.

[woodpusher]

DiogenesLamp #276:

FRiends, both FLT-bird and woodpusher have large inventories of what I call, cut & paste Lost Cause liar quotes, and both will post their inventories given any excuse to.

That is absolutely hilarious! :)

BroJoeBidenK will call someone a Lost Causer and Reb for any statement or quote. By now his Lost Causers by quotation include Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and Roy P. Basler (executive secretary and editor-in-chief of the Abraham Lincoln association 1947-1952; editor of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 9 volumes).

[FLT-bird #205 to BroJoeK #181]

Notice that I am no part of the post.

To: BroJoeK

…

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.

205 posted on 10/4/2021, 2:01:34 PM by FLT-bird

[DiogenesLamp #208 to FLT-bird #205] begins,

To: FLT-bird

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

DiogenesLamp was quoting FLT-bird #205.

[BroJoeBidenK #228 to DiogenesLamp #208]

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

At this point, I was not even aware of the existence of this thread. I had stated nothing on the thread, nor does it appear anybody quoted me saying anything. BroJoeBidenK merely has cognitive issues. Only in BroJoeBidenK's head, was I here among his imaginary friends and adverseries, being "quoted."

The cognitively challenged BroJoeBidenK then went on another roll with his #275, again exhibiting his severe cognitive issues.

To: FLT-bird; DiogenesLamp; x; jmacusa; rockrr; enumerated; TwelveOfTwenty; woodpusher; DoodleDawg

FRiends, both FLT-bird and woodpusher have large inventories of what I call, cut & paste Lost Cause liar quotes, and both will post their inventories given any excuse to.

And both typically respond to challenges by first posting yet more quotes and then descending into insults before finally disappearing.

BroJoeBidenK has severe cognitive issues. At this point I had still not joined the thread to say anything at all. BroJoeBidenK is unique in his ability to charge that I descend into insults and disappear on a thread where I was never present.

BroJoeBidenK, go fight with a windmill. You can return and regale us with your tale including quotes of the windmill, and of how the windmill is an insane Lost Causer and how you kicked its ass, just as "Corn Pop" Joe Biden was going to do to Donald Trump.

[DiogenesLamp]

:)

[TwelveOfTwenty]

They didn't ratify it because the original 7 seceding states rejected it. No one voted to ratify it until after Lincoln started the war the democrats attacked Fort Sumter because he only sent it to the states' governors a few weeks before they started the war.

It was nothing more than a failed attempt to save the Union. It never had a chance. The South knew this.

I would refer you to any of a whole host of statements from various Republicans stating that they were expressly not abolitionists - they were merely against the spread of slavery.

Judging from the declarations of secession, they had the confederacy fooled. Oh that's right, the confederacy was lying when they wrote it was about slavery.

LOL! I see you actually are going to try to engage in the fiction that being against the spread of slavery = abolitionism.

The exact term Georgia used was "anti-slavery party". Anyone who can't see they referred to abolition must also struggle with what the meaning of "is" is.

"The motive of those who protested against the extension of slavery had always really been concern for the welfare of the white man, and not an unnatural sympathy for the negro." William Seward.

He was acknowledging racism. I don't deny there were racists in the North. I've conceded that Lincoln had to deal with this, and Frederick Douglas spelled that out.

But the Republicans won and freed the slaves, and that's the bottom line.

When the Republicans themselves openly and repeatedly declared that they were not abolitionists....

You've quoted three or four, and in President Lincoln's case he was talking out of both sides of his mouth to keep the Union together. Frederick Douglas understood this. Here's the quote again, in case you want to read what a freed slave and abolitionist had to say.

"Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."

From Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln

Before you say "a ha, there were racists in the North", I never denied it.

that they had no intention of interfering with slavery where it existed, there's nothing more to say on the matter. That's definitive.

The Republicans abolished slavery. That's definitive. I won't say there's nothing more to say because I know you'll regurgitate more leftists propaganda.

That's right, leftist propaganda. The dems are trying to stick us with their slave holding past, and I'm sure they appreciate all of the help you're trying to give them by accepting it on our behalf.

There's a reason they're trying to bury the confederate past, and it isn't because they're proud of it.

Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln, 14th paragraph

AFTER the war. AFTER. That's key.

The abolitionists were at it long before the war even started. It didn't happen until AFTER the war because the confederates weren't going to give up their slaves otherwise.

Everybody saw it as legitimate.

Not the abolitionists.

They only abolished the slave trade on paper. They continued slave trading on a very large scale for 50 years after the legality of it expired. ie they were greedy as hell and their primary motivation was always MONEY.

As you and I have agreed, businesses are doing that now with those stupid free trade deals. What does that have to do with why the war was fought or that slavery was abolished afterwards?

YES! They have incentive not to kill them. The Nazis and Commies had no such incentive with their victims. Indeed killing them was their goal.

That the slaveholders' crimes didn't measure up to what the nazis and commies did doesn't make their crimes any less abominable.

Not sure I understand the question. The slaves were taken by Yankee slave traders from African slave traders. We're not talking about sovereign countries here.

I understand the logistics of the slave trade, but that doesn't change the nature of the crimes committed against those taken.

Yes, they noted the Northern states had violated the Constitution. The Northern states had indeed violated the constitution. There's no question of it.

So let me see if I understand you. Slavery is an abomination, but it was OK for the confederates to have slaves because it was legal. The South didn't secede over slavery, even though that was their stated reason for seceding and they never freed their slaves until forced. The abolitionists weren't actually anti-slavery. The Republicans weren't abolitionists even though they did free the slaves. The Republicans justified the CW by ending slavery to win the population over, even though only a tiny minority in the North cared about slavery. And last but not least, both the Republicans and the confederacy lied about all of this being about slavery.

Does that cover it?

[DoodleDawg]

If you wanted to read lies and nonsense you would read your own posts.

I'm finding more than enough lies and nonsense in your posts. It's what you excel at.

[FLT-bird]

I'm finding more than enough lies and nonsense in your posts. It's what you excel at.

That right there is a lie. Lying is what you do.