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.

[wardaddy]

What was your old moniker here
Last incarnation

[BroJoeK]

FB: "He’ll take Stephens’ word as gospel but clearly Davis must be lying when he expresses the opposite sentiments.
Must be!
Because if not, that would call the whole PC Revisionist premise into question and clearly we can’t have that."

As per usual, FLT-bird is just going nuts on us here.
In fact, the words I quoted in post #481 above were Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis' own words -- Davis' December 1860 original version of the Corwin Amendment, by which Davis hoped to keep Mississippi from declaring secession.
But Davis' original Corwin Amendment was rejected by Republicans and so Mississippi declared secession for precisely the reason Davis had spelled out in his proposed Amendment -- slavery.

Here again is Jefferson Davis' original December 1860 Corwin "compromise" proposal.

And here is Mississippi's January 1861 official "Reasons for Secession" document.

And here again is Corwin's later February 1861 watered-down version of Jefferson Davis' original proposal.

Therefore, quotes to the contrary by Davis years later are obvious lies, since we know exactly what Davis was up to in December 1860.

Yes, Virginia, that was all about slavery.

[wardaddy]

You’re certainly original with your pejorative tar Einstein..slavery ....AND Hitler..lol...

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "I think it’s reasonable to say prior to the war between the states Davis gave far more of himself than the average freeper slinging self righteousness at no personal cost here"

Before 1861 Davis was a typical Democrat politician, period.
At a time when total Federal spending ran around $50 million per year, Davis got the government to spend $10 million** of that (Gadsden Purchase) for 30,000 square miles of desert, added to New Mexico, for a Southern Route to the transcontinental railroad -- which would also, conveniently, run near Davis' home in Mississippi.

Davis was a typical Democrat, period.

**BTW, if $10 million for 30,000 square miles of desert sounds cheap, it was still almost 20 times more per square mile than President Jefferson paid for his Louisiana Purchase in 1803.
And Pres. Jefferson himself could not benefit financially from his purchase.

[wardaddy]

If you really are a professor per your sychophants assertion then you’re a simpleton lacking intellectual curiosity

Comparing Davis or Lee to a 2021 democrat is just stupid

It’s like arguing gender today

Not surprising for a leftist

I doubt you’ve shed blood or sacrificed for much...you don’t have time..you live here

I could be wrong ...you can claim anything here

You could be Audie Murphy

In my view the radical Republicans whose boots you lather were the equivalent of today’s nut jobs on the left

Their peers and history calls them RADICAL REPUBLICANS for a reason

[jmacusa]

Just for the record Hitler did not earn his country’s highest honor in WW1.

He earned the Iron Cross Second Class.

Had he earned an Iron Cross First Class he would have worn it at the collar as was the prescribed manner.

The Iron Cross Second Class was worn on the left breast pocket.

The cross was either worn that way(as pictures clearly show this to be the case with Hitler) or a soldier would wear the Iron Cross Second Class ribbon in the second breast pocket of the uniform tunic.

[jmacusa]

“I am a scholar on being southern’’.

Oh yeah? So... what’s that like?

[jmacusa]

Seven kids huh? Well ol’ Varnia was a prodigious gal to be sure. Seven Little Davis's. You weren't one of them were you?

[DiogenesLamp]

I am absolutely not interested in any discussion regarding Southern reasons for leaving. So far as I'm concerned they had a God given *RIGHT* to leave for any d@mn reason they so pleased, even a bad reason.

I am *ONLY* interested in discussing the North's reasons for invading and killing them, because it is this vicious aggression that is the real evil of that war.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

I stand corrected.

[jmacusa]

Off your meds today dude?

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy to BroJoeK, post #350: "And this notion 1860 democrats are the same as today’s loons is Glen Beck And Levin and Shapiro neocon nonsense propagated to deflect charges of racism against the GOPe from media and progressives"

Given the context, that does sound like Mark Levin.

woodpusher to TwelveOfTwenty, post #479: "Your only exalted source is this tripe from your progressive Bostonian Kevin Levin."

I found no place where TwelveOfTwenty mentions someone named Kevin Levin, but woodpusher goes on & on & on about Levin as if he were relevant to someone, somewhere, somehow...

The issue there seemed to be how many slaves served the Confederate army, and the number 300,000 got thrown around.
So 300,000 seems reasonable to me, but then the question is: were any of those considered Confederate soldiers?
The answer is, in the beginning there were a few here or there -- a New Orleans regiment of freed blacks formed, but never fought and was soon-enough forced to disband.
It reformed later as a Union colored regiment.

Some other black units were mentioned but all disbanded, some former slaves said they were forced to man artillery pieces, occasional reports by Union soldiers of being shot at by black Confederates.
This drawing from an 1862 Union publication:

But the fact remains that blacks -- whether freed or slaves -- were not officially allowed to serve as Confederate soldiers, and so it's likely the only ones who did could pass as whites.

How many were there?
A few, on rare occasions, is all I could find mentioned.
Occasional suggestions to make soldiers of slaves were met with responses like this:

"Such an act on our part would be a stigma on the imperishable pages of history, of which all future generations of Southrons would be ashamed.
These are some of the additional considerations which have suggested themselves to us.
Let us put the negro to work, but not to fight."
— Atlanta Southern Confederacy, (January 20, 1865), Macon, Georgia.[100]"

FLT-bird to woodpusher post #492: "This is typical of the PC Revisionists here.
They claim to be conservatives.....yet they happily get in bed with open and avowed Leftists like Levin to make their arguments."

And yet nobody except Lost Causers on this thread mentioned either Mark Levin or a Kevin Levin, but somehow that name "Levin" drives our Lost Causers nuts.

Sounds like obsession.

[BroJoeK]

BroJoeK post #502: "Therefore, quotes to the contrary by Davis years later are obvious lies, since we know exactly what Davis was up to in December 1860.
Yes, Virginia, that was all about slavery."

DiogenesLamp: "I am *ONLY* interested in discussing the North's reasons for invading and killing them, because it is this vicious aggression that is the real evil of that war."

Riiiiiight, that's the ticket!
When the Lost Cause "truths" are found to be lies, what do they want?
Of course, they want what all Democrats want -- they want somebody to blame -- to blame Republicans, blame Lincoln, blame the United States, blame America & Americans.
Blame anybody, blame everybody but themselves.

That's what being a Democrat is all about.

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "Comparing Davis or Lee to a 2021 democrat is just stupid"

Lee was a soldier, not a politician, and like fellow Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, Lee in 1860 believed slavery should be gradually abolished.

Jefferson Davis was a typical Southern Democrat politician of his time -- not himself a radical Fire Eater, but when push came to shove in December 1860, Davis used the radicals' threats of secession to propose his own radical transformation, to effectively make slavery lawful everywhere forever.
So Davis was Democrats' 1860 version of Nancy Pelosi to the radical Fire Eaters' AOC of their time.

wardaddy: "I doubt you’ve shed blood or sacrificed for much...you don’t have time..you live here
I could be wrong ...you can claim anything here
You could be Audie Murphy"

My ancestors in this country go back to ~1700 and served in every major American war, beginning with the Revolutionary War.
Some were wounded, captured, escaped -- all survived or I wouldn't be here...
When I was called I served in the Cold War in Europe -- nobody shot at us, but we did our job, kept the peace.
No problem, you're welcome.

wardaddy: "In my view the radical Republicans whose boots you lather were the equivalent of today’s nut jobs on the left
Their peers and history calls them RADICAL REPUBLICANS for a reason"

Radical Republicans were called "Radicals" for wanting to pass, ratify & enforce the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.
But those "radicals" were defeated in the 1876 election, Union troops withdrew and Southern Democrats retook control of former Confederate states, thus nullifying the "radical" amendments for most of the next 100 years.

I agree with the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments as originally intended.

You don't?

[wardaddy]

Sounds like obsession.

Really....from you.That’s laughable .

As is your poor habit of attributing arguments and statements to detractors here that they didn’t say....a sign of a lazy academic ...if one is to believe your toadie

No I do not like Levin or Shapiro or Goldberg or Beck or Romney or Lowery or the Bushes ...all neocon moderates at best and nevertrumpers ....

I love Donald Trump...I think he’s a mensch and he fights and he speaks up for my part of the country and our heritage ...nay he defends it and our monuments ....courage. And from a helluva Yankee.....as one who lived amongst them for many years I know few share yours and your chihuahuas views on Dixie

I’ll bet most posters here who support the complicated version of the civil war and its aftermath (like me) as opposed to your neoabolitionist “racism the horror” black and white Politico cliff notes version also admire Trump for this as well as his other pluses....I would note the founder of this forum is also on record supporting this as well. As in opposing monument removal

It came as no surprise to me that as 2015-2016 unfolded I saw many a south hater here took the NEVERTRUMPER ROLE here

So where were you mister professor....you know we’ve had not one but two professors here ....I suspect more...exposed as lefties and zotted over the past 20:years....they lived on Southerners are Hitler threads ....like the garbage your deranged pygmy BJK self spouts ....do you freepmail him like index cards ....you know ....like Marc Elias provides Biden.....bullet points....I think that’s sweet actually ..lol

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "As is your poor habit of attributing arguments and statements to detractors here that they didn’t say....a sign of a lazy academic ...if one is to believe your toadie"

Read my home page to learn my academics.

wardaddy: "No I do not like Levin or Shapiro or Goldberg or Beck or Romney or Lowery or the Bushes ...all neocon moderates at best and nevertrumpers ...."

Author, radio & Fox's Mark Levin is a Trump supporter and genuine conservative.
Woodpusher keeps babbling on about somebody named Kevin Levin, who could be anything for all I know.

wardaddy: "I love Donald Trump...I think he’s a mensch and he fights and he speaks up for my part of the country and our heritage ...nay he defends it and our monuments ....courage.
And from a helluva Yankee.....as one who lived amongst them for many years I know few share yours and your chihuahuas views on Dixie"

Did you ever listen to a Trump speech?
In Southern states he always says, "We are the party of Lincoln".
Sure, Trump loves the South and Southern heritage, he defends monuments to Southerners -- including Jefferson & Washington! -- and kept military bases named for Confederates.
But I have never seen Trump buy into even one of your godawful Lost Cause lies, and don't expect he ever will.

Trump is a good guy, a tough guy, his book is "The Art of the Deal" so he's all about making things work for everybody.
And Trump's opponents include some notable Southern Republicans, so I don't think Trump Derangement Syndrome is strictly a Northern Democrat mental condition.

I think if Trump runs again he would landslide-win a fair election, but I'm not certain if we'll ever see another fair election.

wardaddy: "It came as no surprise to me that as 2015-2016 unfolded I saw many a south hater here took the NEVERTRUMPER ROLE here"

I've never seen a neverTrumper post on Free Republic, much less on a CW thread.
And all your drunken nonsense notwithstanding, I've never seen a "South hater" post on Free Republic.

wardaddy: "So where were you mister professor....you know we’ve had not one but two professors here ....I suspect more...exposed as lefties and zotted over the past 20:years....they lived on Southerners are Hitler threads ....like the garbage your deranged pygmy BJK self spouts ....do you freepmail him like index cards ....you know ....like Marc Elias provides Biden.....bullet points....I think that’s sweet actually ..lol"

I see you've had too much to drink, time for bed old man.
Try again when you're sober...

[TwelveOfTwenty]

The amendment was written by Thomas Corwin. Thus the name.

Was this before or after it was ratified by the previous congress and signed by the previous president? Remember, your answer to my question about how Lincoln pressured Corwin was "By getting him to write it."

It did not pass because the original 7 seceding states turned it down.

They had already seceded.

It passed the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority. As we'll see later, many paid for it with their jobs.

That was the previous congress and the previous president, the one who was voted out in 1860.

And enough states never ratified it.

It was nothing.

Is that relevant to the Corwin Amendment? No.

It's relevant to the question of what the Civil War was about. The Corwin Amendment is irrelevant because it was never ratified.

Did it have to be ratified by enough states before it passed the Congress with the necessary supermajority and before Lincoln offered it in his inaugural address?

Yes, because it was nothing more than dangling carrots until that happened.

By the way, Lincoln had not started the war yet when he gave his inaugural address.

Fixed.

Citing violations of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution by the Northern states is not proof of them violating the constitution? Seriously?

Was calling "the negro" "inferior" whose "best use" was as slaves "Citing violations of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution"?

In response to my question about "black codes" in the North, you posted examples of discrimination against blacks before the CW. A link would have by itself would have been fine.

It was unnecessary any way. No one denies that there was discrimination in the North or says that everyone in the North was the good guys, but what about legal "black codes" as had been passed in the South.

If that was just a figure of speech then just say so.

And before you point out that discrimination existed in the North after the CW, I know that too. Racism went on long after the CW and the 13th Amendment.

You seem to not grasp that secession and the war might have been about something other than slavery AND at the same time, one did not need to be an abolitionist to say so.

That's because it was about slavery. The fact that there were other grievances, and no one denies that, is moot. Most of the economic reasons were in some way related to slavery any way, since some of what they produced cheaply was by slave labor.

BTW, "states rights" was the argument later used by Democrats in the House to defeat the EP in 1864. We all know which states' rights they were talking about.

Patently false. Just because some Northerners thought it was "about slavery" does not make it so.

Just because the war was about abolishing slavery doesn't mean it was about abolishing slavery. Got it.

Most in the South did not think so and as we've already gone over

It was for many. It was also a war to end slavery for the slaves who escaped and joined Union forces.

the vast majority of Northerners were not abolitionists.

I'll demolish this nonsense later, but for now I'll leave you with the fact that the North voted for abolition.

Actually he didn't. The 13th amendment passed after his death.

True, but it was passed in Congress and sent to the states where, unlike your Corbomite Maneuver or whatever it was called, it was ratified. He was assassinated before he could sign it.

The North held onto its slaves until after the war and only finally abolished slavery to try to claim a moral high ground it did not possess.

There's a major problem with that. In 1864, the 13th Amendment was passed in the Senate but died in the House thanks to the Democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis. Later that year, Lincoln was re-elected and the Republicans gained huge majorities in both the House and Senate. The Republican controlled House then voted to pass the 13th Amendment.

BTW, the Democrats who voted against it did so in the name of states rights.

So you see, Lincoln didn't have to sell abolition to the North, because the North voted for it.

Here's more.

House passes the 13th Amendment

They did not go to war to put down slavery as they themselves said over and over again.

This was from Lincoln in 1854.

"If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that 'all men are created equal;' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another,"

At the time he didn't believe the Constitution gave the federal government the power to abolish slavery, and said so over and over again. That is among the quotes you keep trying to prove your point with, but they prove just the opposite.

When they got the power they did it, and that was with the full support of the Northern voters.

Repeat snipped.

Did you see the one about how he said the war was waged on the part of the North for economic gain/control over the Southern states? That's what I've said all along. That's what Dickens said numerous times. I posted the quotes.

Yes. As my two references said, he didn't believe the North was serious about abolishing slavery which is why he didn't support them. I'm not sure how you think your references refute mine when in fact they corroborate them.

Do you mean the North did not offer slavery forever by express constitutional amendment

If you're referring to the Corbomite Manuever, no. Unlike the EP it was never ratified.

did not emancipate their own slaves

They did after the CW. They also freed the South's slaves. We've been over this.

and did not expressly say they were not fighting to abolish slavery?

There were comments made by some to that effect. I never said everyone in the North was the good guys. At the end they did it, with the support of the voters.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

From Jefferson Davis, "My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Formatting fixed.

It passed the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority.

As we'll see later, many paid for it with their jobs.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird re: Corwin, #490: "It passed the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority."

TwelveOfTwenty #519: "As we'll see later, many paid for it with their jobs."

Corwin began as Mississippi Democrat Senator Jefferson Davis' proposal in December 1860.

Republicans stood strong against Democrat Davis' proposal and several others -- resulting in Mississippi's secession -- until NY Senator Seward took charge of the Corwin proposal.
Then a minority of Republicans flipped to join unanimous Democrats to pass the Amendment in Congress.

Most historians consider NY Senator Seward at that time to be a "loose cannon", not an instrument of Republican policy.

Regardless, no state "un-seceded" due to Corwin, but two Border states and two Northern states ratified it (Illinois is disputed) and one each later rescinded their ratifications.

The real question here is not Corwin in February 1861 (by then it was too late for the Deep South), but rather Davis' similar proposal in December 1860 -- had Republicans accepted Davis' terms, would he, could he, should he have kept Mississippi & other Deep South states from following South Carolina's lead?

We'll never know, of course, however Davis' proposal by itself makes clear that in December 1860 it was, indeed, all about slavery -- regardless of what Davis himself falsely claimed years later.

As for the fate of those minority RINOs who flipped to support Corwin -- I've not seen that before, will be interested to learn.
Hopefully they'll prove a teachable lesson for today's Cheney's & Kinzingers.