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.

[FLT-bird]

What about the British press during the CW? They were still stung after losing their colonies and then failing to get them back. Don’t you think they had more than a few hidden motives for wanting the country to fall apart?

There was zero prospect of the British Empire "recovering" any American state. You're just projecting fanciful motives onto them now.

[woodpusher]

This is what the CW was about.

[image of person identified as "Gordon."]

Here's the story behind that image. It reports he escaped the South to Union soldiers.

There's plenty more where that came from.

Wars are about money and power.

Your image is hotlinked from blogspot and the link for the cited anonymous/uncredited story goes to:

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/scars-of-gordon-whipped-louisiana-slave-1863/

In short, your fantastic, uncredited story is unsourced. It is also quite discredited by a real, award winning history professor.

There's plenty more where that came from.

Of particular note, apparently the "only images that might rival the 'scourged back' are the photographs of Wilson Chinn, 'a branded slave.'" Apparently you just made that claim up and decided to include it because, to you, it sounded good, even though it has no basis in fact. However, you are invited to present the "plenty more where that came from."

The image is especially famous from its appearance in Harper's Weekly in 1863 for its Fourth of July issue, accompanied by three pictures purporting to be of Gordon. The images were "Gordon Under Inspection," "Gordon as He Entered Our Lines," and "Gordon in His Uniform as a U.S. Soldier." The article was "A Typical Negro."

The image of "Gordon Under Inspection" is apparently the image of Peter. A copy at the National Archives identifies the subject as Peter.The image of "Gordon as He Entered Our Lines" is apparently Gordon. Neither is apparently related to Peter Asher, or had help from JPG&R. Artist Vincent Colyer also featured two of the images in his volume, Report of the Services Rendered by the Freed People to the United States Army, in North Carolina. here they were identified as Furney Bryant, the Refugee, and Furnee Bryant, 1^st North Carolina Colored Troops.

In the field of real historians, not of the Holiday Inn Express or Wikipedia type, there is Dr. David Silkenat, Ph.D., senior lecturer in American History at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. His 2019 book Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War was a finalist for the Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize, and was named the best Civil War book of 2019 by Civil War Monitor magazine. Books of his in 2011 and 2016 won the North Caroliniana Society Book Award for the best non-fiction published those years. He is chair of chair of the Scottish Association for the Study of America. Dr. Silkenat has also received has also received the William F. Holmes Award from the Southern Historical Association and the Harry E. Pratt Memorial Award from the Illinois State Historical Society.

https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/22082113/Silkenat_A_Typical_Negro_Revised_22_June_2014.pdf

In 2014, Dr. Silkenat published a peer-reviewed paper on the Harper's Weekly story, "A Typical Negro."

Citation for published version:Silkenat, D 2014, “A Typical Negro”: Gordon, Peter, Vincent Colyer, and the story behind slavery's most famous photograph', American Nineteenth Century History, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 169-186.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14664658.2014.939807

“A Typical Negro”: Gordon, Peter, Vincent Colyer, and the Story Behind Slavery’s Most Famous Photograph David Silkenat

University of Edinburgh

Edinburgh Research Explorer

david.silkenat@ed.ac.uk

Abstract

The image of the “scourged back” remains one of the most visually arresting depictions of slavery. Based on a photograph taken in Baton Rouge in April 1863 and later published in Harper’s Weekly, it has become one of the most widely reprinted and recognizable images of American slavery. However, despite the image’s ubiquity, we know relatively little about the image and the man featured in it. Most historians who have examined the image accept the narrative in the accompanying Harper’s article as an accurate account of the subject’s life and the image’s origins. This article argues, however, that there is good evidence to suggest that the accompanying article was largely fabricated and much of what we think we know about “Gordon” may be inaccurate.

The full 28pp article is available at the link.

[DiogenesLamp]

I've asked the Lost Causers a simple question many times: If the South had won the war would it have ended slavery? They have twisted themselves into the most convoluted verbal gymnastics over this to others avoiding the question completely because they know the answer. No. The South would not have ended slavery.

Then you clearly do not read what I write, because I have been saying slavery would have ended within a range of 20 to 80 years, and I have said this many times in these discussions. Does that mean the South would have ended slavery? YES!

When the economic benefit fell below the value of the societal approval for ending it , slavery would have quietly disappeared.

Heck, they would have been free to expand further west like they had wanted to.

And here we go again with this debunked claim. You couldn't grow high value cash crops in the territories. Slavery wasn't going to "expand" because it couldn't.

All of that "expansion" crap was just propaganda.

[x]

You have objected to a state’s right to keep slavery out, and you have objected to federal attempts to keep slavery out of the territories, even though state and federal bans on slavery were both in effect when the Constitution was ratified and even though both were universally accepted as legitimate at that time. You have also objected to every effort to advantage free labor over slave labor and to remove the advantages of using slave labor, so clearly you aren’t being entirely truthful.

[wardaddy]

You remind me of Nolu Chan....and that is the highest of compliments sir....he and Goetz_von-Berlichingen used to inspire me here in their defense of the South....Nolu was a force to be reckoned with...he single handedly brought down the cruel anti freeper site twenty years ago called klown posse....they deserved it

Btw ..some of those you duel with here....were on that nasty forum ....they would dig into private freeper life to publicly purloin or threaten jobs

They messed with him...bad call...lol

Nolu argued well

[jmacusa]

What nonsense. Growing cash crops is not the only use for slave labor. Mining is another and gold had been discovered in California in 1849.

California had been admitted to the Union in 1850. The heck the Confederacy wouldn’t have wanted it as theirs.

And slavery for continuing for 20 to 60 years more?

Wow. Anywhere from one generation to three of ownership for one, bondage for another.

Why not say a 100 years since you’re pulling numbers out of a hat.

So thanks Lampster. You answered the question truthfully.

The South went to war to preserve slavery.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Well first of all, this is a "You're another" fallacy. (Tu quoque fallacy.)"

But that's not a "fallacy", it's a legitimate argument -- in court it's called "standing".
If you are accusing me of something you yourself are guilty, then you have no "standing" in the court of public opinion.

And here's how you know I'm right: you yourself use "tu quoque" logic whenever that suits your own purposes.
Consider just one example of a Lost Cause tu quoque argument: "Northerners were slavers too!"

[mo]

think of “reverse secession” which actually may work judicially.

the states that cannot=refuse to run a clean vote disenfranchise the rest of us. They need to be “asked” to leave the Union

[FLT-bird]

Slavery was completely gone from its last holdouts in the West (Cuba and Brazil) by the 1880s. The idea that it would have somehow lasted in the CSA well into the 20th century even though it died out everywhere else in Europe, the Americas and the Europeans’ vast colonial empires is laughable. The reason it died out was economics - not some grand moral awakening. The laws of economics worked just as much in the South as they did everywhere else.

[DoodleDawg]

The reason it died out was economics - not some grand moral awakening.

Slavery did not 'die out' in either Cuba or Brazil. It was ended by governmental order in both cases and in both cases over the objection of the slave holders themselves.

[FLT-bird]

Slavery did not 'die out' in either Cuba or Brazil. It was ended by governmental order in both cases and in both cases over the objection of the slave holders themselves.

Slavery died out in Brazil when a couple of Brazilian states banned it. Slaves in the other states then ran away en masse and the enforcement costs exceeded the economic utility. The whole system rapidly collapsed - as would have happened in the seceding states had Lincoln not started a war to impose federal government rule on them. None other than Lincoln pointed out this is what would have happened to slavery in those states without the benefits and protections of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

If you want to make the case that none of this is true then run with it, but here's more if you're interested.

Whipped mercilessly, worked to the bone in cotton fields and warned police will hunt them down if they escape: Incredible images show the brutal reality of slaves in America on the anniversary of the end of the brutal practice

Images of Whipped Slaves

And if you have any doubt about the confederacy's attitudes towards blacks, here are snippets from their own declarations of secession.

From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".

From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".

From Texas: "She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits"

Also from Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

Another from Texas: "that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

[TwelveOfTwenty]

There was zero prospect of the British Empire "recovering" any American state. You're just projecting fanciful motives onto them now.

I never said there was, but there was still a feeling of wanting to knock us down a peg or two. Also, not all supported the South. Many exploited workers sympathized with the slaves.

There is a lot of commentary here if you're interested.

Were the British hoping to retake the American colonies with the divisions and disunion of the Civil war?

[TwelveOfTwenty]

In the same manner that the Trump Presidency was about "Russian Collusion" and "Racism."

No comparison. The dossier was fake, and everyone knows it.

On the other hand, 4 million escaped slaves is solid evidence.

The Civil war was about Rich, Powerful, corrupt men who controlled Washington DC and calling anyone who threatened their power an "Insurrectionist".

4 million slaves who escaped to the North say you're wrong.

[DoodleDawg]

Slavery died out in Brazil when a couple of Brazilian states banned it.

'Banned it' as in state governments ordered it ended? Not 'died out' naturally?

Slaves in the other states then ran away en masse and the enforcement costs exceeded the economic utility.

And it was ended completely on May 13, 1888 when the Brazilian government ordered the 700,000 remaining slaves to be free. Government ordered it ended; it didn't 'die out'.

...as would have happened in the seceding states had Lincoln not started a war to impose federal government rule on them.

Your imagination is almost as great as your compatriot, DiogenesLamp. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Southern leaders thought that slavery was dying out in 1861.

[FLT-bird]

Oh I’m well aware of the fact that there were divided opinions in Britain. To try to ascribe any analysis that noted secession and Lincoln’s decision to start a war to impose federal government rule over the Southern states without their consent to “they wanted to take the US down a peg” is ridiculous. Many of them could see exactly what was going on and it wasn’t about slavery.

[FLT-bird]

'Banned it' as in state governments ordered it ended? Not 'died out' naturally?

A couple states banned it. Slaves then ran away in droves. Enforcement costs exceeded profits. The system rapidly collapsed.

And it was ended completely on May 13, 1888 when the Brazilian government ordered the 700,000 remaining slaves to be free. Government ordered it ended; it didn't 'die out'.

It became politically possible because the economics of it collapsed. It had not been politically possible before. It died out.

Your imagination is almost as great as your compatriot, DiogenesLamp. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Southern leaders thought that slavery was dying out in 1861.

You are trying to twist what I said. I said that had the original 7 seceding states been left to go in peace, they would not have enjoyed the benefits and protections of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution. They never could have secured the border from a little north of Hilton Head, South Carolina to El Paso, Texas. Slaves would have fled in droves. They couldn't have stopped it. The enforcement costs would have exceeded the profits and slavery would have collapsed. Don't believe that? Take this guy's word for it:

"But secession, Lincoln argued, would actually make it harder for the South to preserve slavery. If the Southern states tried to leave the Union, they would lose all their constitutional guarantees, and northerners would no longer be obliged to return fugitive slaves to disloyal owners. In other words, the South was safer inside the Union than without, and to prove his point Lincoln confirmed his willingness to support a recently proposed thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, which would specifically prohibit the federal government from interfering with slavery in states where it already existed." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 32-33)

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "I was just documenting that you have cognitive issues...
Due to your Biden syndrome, in your confusion you imagined that DiogenesLamp had "quoted" woodpusher."

You're right, I checked your homework and it's a clear case of clerical mistaken identity -- I mistook your twin brother (or sister), FLT-bird, for you, sorry about that, young fellow.
I'll be more careful in the future.

And maybe you can help out by explaining in what ways you actually differ from FLT-bird?

woodpusher: "Our conversation is on another thread where you established that Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and Roy P. Basler were all Lost Causers. "

And here you demonstrate your own "cognitive issues" and also validate my criticism of many Lost Causers -- you can dump-truck a full 14 yards of quotes on us, but have only specious arguments to cement all that aggregate together.
First, here, you duplicated your post to jmacusa, just changing the addressee.
Second, your duplicated posts #127 & 128 both refer back to your post #123, in which you seem to think you've made a very, very, too too clever argument, actually quoting someone else's words, but presenting them as if they were your own, then demanding:

"Am I right, or am I a Lost Causer?"

So jmacusa responded factually (& I chimed in) that Freedmens' Bureaus were hated by Southerners so abolished by Congress in 1872.
Now comes woodpusher's Big Reveal: his words in post #123 were not his own, they were quotes from Ulysses Grant!
So that means jmacusa and BroJoeK have called Ulysses Grant a Lost Causer, WOW!
What a brilliant thinker is woodpusher, getting two Union defenders to call Grant a Lost Causer, AMAZING!

Except, of course, it's not.
Grant's quote is from December 1865, years before incidents like this one:

"Failed attacks led to a massacre during the 1868 elections, with the insurgents' murders of about 1,300 voters across various southern states ranging from South Carolina to Arkansas."

Such incidents tend to suggest that Grant's words of 1865 were perhaps a bit naïve.
However, Grant's words which woodpusher did not quote in his post #123, but did quote in his post #127-8 show us that perhaps Grant was not so naïve as woodpusher would have us think:

"It is not the thinking men who would use violence towards any class of troops sent among them by the general government, but the ignorant in some places might..."

Finally, to nail down this point: Grant's quote is dated December 18, 1865, and less than a week later on December 24, 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, six former Confederate officers first gathered as an informal social club, modeled after the iconoclastic Sons of Malta,

"...ludicrous initiations, the baffling of public curiosity, and the amusement for members were the only objects of the Klan..."

Years later:

"Beginning in April, 1867, there was a gradual transformation.
...The members had conjured up a veritable Frankenstein.
They had played with an engine of power and mystery, though organized on entirely innocent lines, and found themselves overcome by a belief that something must lie behind it all – that there was, after all, a serious purpose, a work for the Klan to do."[41]"

So I think Ulysses Grant can be totally forgiven for not foreseeing in December 1865 what didn't happen until years later.

And I would also forgive woodpusher for trying to play a silly trick -- it is, after all, all he's got to offer.
I don't, however, think woodpusher would qualify as, in Grant's words, a "thinking man".
Too many "cognitive issues".

[DiogenesLamp]

You have objected to a state’s right to keep slavery out,

Violation of the privileges and immunities clause. They can assure that no slaves are created through their own laws, but they have no right to infringe on other states laws to which they agreed to respect at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

and you have objected to federal attempts to keep slavery out of the territories,

Inconsistent application of the law. If it's legal within the states, there is no justification for making it illegal in the territories.

even though state and federal bans on slavery were both in effect when the Constitution was ratified...

I assume you are referring to the Northwest ordinance here.

both were universally accepted as legitimate at that time.

If you mean the legality was not challenged at the time, that is a very different thing than "accepted." Given that there was no intent and no perceived benefit to taking slaves into the Northwest territories, there is hardly a reason for anyone to object to it other than the principle it attempts to establish, and a lot of people simply don't bother to object to things solely on principle.

You have also objected to every effort to advantage free labor over slave labor...

I am not sure what you mean with this comment. If you regard "advantage free labor" as meaning using the government to implement policies which were not agreed to in a democratic process, then yes, i'm against that.

and to remove the advantages of using slave labor,

By government manipulation to which not all parties have agreed? Yes, i'm against that.

so clearly you aren’t being entirely truthful.

Well you certainly present it that way, but it makes no sense to believe that any modern person favors slavery. Apart from us all being taught how evil it is, advocacy for it benefits no one in America, and only serves to excuse what China and other dictatorships are doing.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

But many others saw it was about slavery, given that the South's own declarations of secession said as much.

Yes, I know, they were lying about slavery, just as everyone else who doesn't go along with your revisionism was.