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

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.

No it did not. It passed Congress. The prospect of it passing enough states was VERY real had the original 7 seceding states agreed to it. With the Republicans putting maximum pressure on the Northern states to pass it, they'd have gotten enough of them. They got a few even after the original 7 seceding states rejected it.

If the Northern states had intended to ratify it, they would have. They didn't even though it meant secession and war.

Au Contraire. Getting the necessary supermajority in each house of Congress and the signature of the president shows it was a genuine and very viable offer.

Many of those who passed it were out of work in 1861, more in 1865. The president who signed it is widely considered one of the biggest failures in US history.

The Southern states voted for its passage in 1865...Louisiana ratified in February 17th. Tennessee April 7th...

I see where you're coming from now, but I was referring to the link and getting it passed in Congress, which didn't happen until the Republicans got enough votes to pass it in 1865.

Of course the states had to ratify it and they did, but it had to pass Congress first, and in 1864 it was the democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, who blocked it.

And note the states ratified abolition but didn't come close to ratifying the Corwin Amendment, even though they could have.

According to the results of actual elections in the Northern states they did not.

I'll refer you to my links on Kansas below.

That's not a complaint about slowness. He is accurately observing why the Republicans did not want slavery in the territories. They wanted to reserve it for White people. You know what else they did not want in the Territories? Black people. Yes, free ones too. Read Oregon's original Constitution. Read Kansas'.

Black Exclusion Laws in Oregon

"The 1859 Kansas Constitution opened the state to all settlers regardless of their ethnic or racial background."

"A few stubborn proponents of the Topeka Constitution refused to abandon their document, but overall the abolitionists were eager to start over and make the most of their opportunity."

Both sides made liberal use of anybody they could to fight the war.

The North didn't open up recruitment to blacks until 1863.

If the Northern states had intended to ratify it, they would have. They didn't even though it meant secession and war.,/p>

It didn't go to the Northern states until shortly before Lincoln offered it in his inaugural address. The original 7 seceding states then turned it down. After they did so, efforts to pass it in the Northern states dropped off considerably - it was by then a dead letter. It was still passed by a few Northern states. Had the original 7 agreed, Republican pressure on the Northern states to pass it would have been enormous.

Many of those who passed it were out of work in 1861, more in 1865. The president who signed it is widely considered one of the biggest failures in US history.

Had Buchanan not signed it, Lincoln would have. The vast majority of Republicans supported it. The guy who wrote it was a Republican.

I see where you're coming from now, but I was referring to the link and getting it passed in Congress, which didn't happen until the Republicans got enough votes to pass it in 1865. Of course the states had to ratify it and they did, but it had to pass Congress first, and in 1864 it was the democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, who blocked it. And note the states ratified abolition but didn't come close to ratifying the Corwin Amendment, even though they could have.

As already discussed, the Corwin Amendment became a moot point when the original 7 seceding states did not agree to it. As it is a few Northern states still passed it. Those states' congressional delegations certainly supported it. There's no reason to believe that with the full backing of the Republicans - which it had - it would not have been ratified in enough Northern states to be ratified to the constitution had the original 7 seceding states agreed to it - but they refused.

I'll refer you to my links on Kansas below.

I'll refer you to the fact that abolitionists simply could not win elections. I've already posted the editorial opinions from several major newspapers (including the NYT ha ha!).

Oregon's was written in 1857, and was never enforced although that doesn't make it right. This was around the time the abolitionists were expressing their frustration about how slowly abolition was moving. Black Exclusion Laws in Oregon "The 1859 Kansas Constitution opened the state to all settlers regardless of their ethnic or racial background." "A few stubborn proponents of the Topeka Constitution refused to abandon their document, but overall the abolitionists were eager to start over and make the most of their opportunity."

Unfortunately the history of this is pretty widespread in the Northern states. Illinois required Blacks to post a very large bond in order to move into the state and laws on the books made it impossible for them to serve on juries, vote or even sign contracts. White laborers would frequently refuse to work alongside Blacks. The combined effect of the public and private discrimination was to make it nearly impossible for Blacks to earn a living....thus to drive them out.

NY had similar laws. Ohio had a notorious Pogrom in Cincinnati. Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, the list goes on and on. The Slavenorth website does a good job of documenting the Black Codes and efforts to exclude and to ethnically cleanse Blacks from the Northern states and Western territories.

The North didn't open up recruitment to blacks until 1863.

As the numerous sources I cited attest, the Confederate Army enlisted Blacks from early on.

"I hope the negroes' fidelity will be duly rewarded and regret that we are not in a position to aid and protect them. There is, I observe, a controversy which I regret as to allowing negroes to testify in court. From brother Joe [Joseph Davis], many years ago, I derived the opinion that they should be made competent witnesses, the jury judging of their credibility. (Jefferson Davis: Private Letters 1823-1889, selected and edited by Hudson Strode, New York: De Capo Press, 1995, reprint, p. 188)

Varina Davis, Jefferson Davis: Ex-President of the Confederate States of America, A Memoir by his Wife, Volume 2

Chapter 71: letters from prison.

From Mr. Davis to Mrs. Davis.
Fortress Monroe, Va., October 11, 1865

Excerpt pp. 720-21

I hope the negroes' fidelity will be duly [723] rewarded, and regret that we are not in a situation to aid and protect them. There is, I observe, a controversy which I regret as to allowing negroes to testify in court. From brother Joe, many years ago, I derived the opinion that they should then be made competent witnesses, the jury judging of their credibility; out of my opinion on that point, arose my difficulty with Mr. C—*, and any doubt which might have existed in my mind was removed at that time.
…
* An overseer who gave up his place with us, on account of the negroes being allowed a hearing in their own defence.

In addition to the Memoirs of Varina Davis, I have The Papers of Jefferson Davis, Vol. 11, June 1865 - December 1870, Lynda Lasswell Crist, Editor, LSU Press, 2008. In this volume, the Letters appear in chronological order. There is one, and only one, letter of Jefferson Davis to Varina Davis on October 11, 1865 from Fortress Monroe included therein, but it has an entirely different text from what is provided by Varina Davis. Varina only provided excerpts from the text she quoted from, with the excerpts spanning pp. 720-28 of Volume 2 of her Memoir. The Papers of Jefferson Davis provides a different text for that same date in its entirety, spanning pp. 32-36 in a small type font. I have no explanation for this anomaly, but I believe the lengthier excerpt I have provided, with date, provides some useful information.

Also from The Papers of Jefferson Davis, Vol. 11, June 1865 - December 1870 is another letter from Jefferson Davis to his wife Varina, p. 96-98, at pg. 97:

I had feared that our negroes would be disturbed by the introduction of others among them, but could not have imagined that they would be driven away from their home by those pretending to be their special advocates.

Also of possible interest:

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/limber-jim/

Varina Davis, Memoir, Vol. 2 at 645-46, describing a scene at Port Royal after the capture of Jefferson Davis, herself, and children:

There a tug came out to us, bringing a number of jeering people to see Mr. Davis, and they plied him with such insulting questions, that he looked up at an axe fastened to the wall in the gangway; the look was observed, and the axe removed. From one of these people we learned that our old friend, General Saxton, was there, and my husband thought we might ask the favor of him to look after our little protégé Jim’s education, in order that he might not fall under the degrading influence of Captain Hudson. A note was written to General Saxton, and the poor little boy was given to the officers of the tug-boat for the General, who kindly took charge of him. Believing that he was going on board to see something and return, he quietly went, but as soon as he found he was to leave us he fought like a little tiger, and was thus engaged the last we saw of him. I hope he has been successful in the world, for he was a fine boy, notwithstanding all that had been done to mar his childhood. Some years ago we saw in a Massachusetts paper that he would bear to his grave the marks of the stripes inflicted upon him by us. We felt sure he had not said this, for the affection was mutual between us, and we had never punished him.

What you think would have happened "if" doesn't prove anything. The Congress that passed it was largely replaced afterwards, and the states sure weren't impressed.

Had Buchanan not signed it, Lincoln would have.

Once again, what you think would have happened proves nothing. What didn't happen proves everything.

The vast majority of Republicans supported it.

Then it must have been ratified and made law.

The guy who wrote it was a Republican.

So was David Duke. The Republicans aren't defined by everyone who chooses to associate with them. When Americans wanted abolition passed, they voted Republican in 1864.

In reply to "I see where you're coming from now, but I was referring to the link and getting it passed in Congress, which didn't happen until the Republicans got enough votes to pass it in 1865. Of course the states had to ratify it and they did, but it had to pass Congress first, and in 1864 it was the democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis, who blocked it. And note the states ratified abolition but didn't come close to ratifying the Corwin Amendment, even though they could have.", you commented on the Corwin Amemndment but not on the bold. I posted it again so you could comment on it.

I'll refer you to the fact that abolitionists simply could not win elections. I've already posted the editorial opinions from several major newspapers

I'll choose the results of the 1858, 1860, and 1864 elections over op-eds.

(including the NYT ha ha!).

If you're depending on the NYT to prove your case, you should quit now. I meant that as a dig at their credibility, not at you.

Unfortunately the history of this is pretty widespread in the Northern states...thus to drive them out.

You state the obvious. Of course there was racism in the North regardless of the verasity of each of the examples listed, but your two examples of Kansas and Oregon did more to refute your point then prove it.

As the numerous sources I cited attest, the Confederate Army enlisted Blacks from early on.

Enlisted as in recruited, or enlisted as in forced by their masters? Most were of the latter, and many of them escaped to the North when they got the chance.

Black Confederates: Truth and Legend

What you think would have happened "if" doesn't prove anything. The Congress that passed it was largely replaced afterwards, and the states sure weren't impressed.

What happened in elections years later does not matter. What does matter is that it passed the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary supermajority, was signed by one president and endorsed by another. It was offered to the original 7 seceding states and was rejected.

Once again, what you think would have happened proves nothing. What didn't happen proves everything.

What did happen is that Lincoln orchestrated it from its writing to its passage through Congress. Even Lincoln hagiographers like the admitted plagairist Doris Kearns-Goodwin acknowledge this.

Then it must have been ratified and made law.

No for the reason I outlined - the original 7 seceding states rejected it.

So was David Duke. The Republicans aren't defined by everyone who chooses to associate with them. When Americans wanted abolition passed, they voted Republican in 1864.

A Republican wrote it. The Republican president elect orchestrated it and lobbied for it. Most Republicans voted for it.

By that date, most Northerners had come over to supporting abolition. That was not the case prior to the war and even a couple years into the war. It certainly was not why they chose to start the war.

I'll choose the results of the 1858, 1860, and 1864 elections over op-eds.

Abolitionists did not win in 1858 or in 1860. In fact, they did not even come close to winning either year.

If you're depending on the NYT to prove your case, you should quit now. I meant that as a dig at their credibility, not at you.

Oh I know. Its just hilarious to see such a bastion of Leftism having taken this position in the past. This is the paper that still has not returned the Pullitzer prize won by Holodomor denying Stalin apologist Walter Duranty after all.

Oh I disagree. Both states adopted constitutions that excluded Black people.

Enlisted as in recruited, or enlisted as in forced by their masters? Most were of the latter, and many of them escaped to the North when they got the chance.

Forced? There's practically zero evidence of any Blacks having been "forced" to serve in the Confederate army. Its tough to "force" anybody that you have to give guns to......

"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939." Berlin, 29 April, 1945, 4 a.m. Adolf Hitler
See how that works?

Godwin’s law:

Usenet "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
Spread
While Godwin's Law was originally conceived for the Usenet newsgroup discussions, the humorous rule remains just as applicable today in any threaded online discussion, such as message boards, chat rooms, comment threads and wiki talk pages. Since the dawn of online discussions, Godwin's Law has been used as an indicator of whether a thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging mud and who finally gets to "win" the discussion.

All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

- - - - - - - - - -

What is the particular sacredness of a State? I speak not of that position which is given to a State in and by the Constitution of the United States, for that all of us agree to—we abide by; but that position assumed, that a State can carry with it out of the Union that which it holds in sacredness by virtue of its connection with the Union. I am speaking of that assumed right of a State, as a primary principle, that the Constitution should rule all that is less than itself, and ruin all that is bigger than itself. But, I ask, wherein does consist that right? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county?
[...] The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States.

- - - - - - - - - -

What is a confederation of states? By a confederacy, we mean a group of sovereign states which come together of their own free will and, in virtue of their sovereignty, create a collective entity. In doing so, they assign selective sovereign rights to the national body that will allow it to safeguard the existence of the joint union.
This theoretical definition does not apply in practice, at least not without some alterations, to any existing confederation of states in the world today. It applies the least to the American Union of States. The extensive rights of independence that were relinquished, or rather rights that were granted, to the different territories are in harmony with the whole character of this confederation of states and with the vastness of its area and overall size which is almost as large as a continent. So, in referring to the states of the American Union, one cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which we could more accurately designate as privileges.

- - - - - - - - - -

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

Obviously, God loves Dixie. Hitler and the rest of y'all not so much. See how that works?

The North didn't open up recruitment to blacks until 1863.

Actually, the North opened up recruitment and enlistment to blacks during the Revolutionary War. So did the South. It should be noted that they did not count as three-fifths of a replacement either. In both wars, conscription seemed to affect the moral imperative.

Records of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England (10 vols., Providence, published by the State of Rhode Island, 1856-1865, Vol. VIII, 358-360.

Certificate of the Governor of Rhode Island to Colonel William Barton.
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
February 14th, 1778.
This certifies, that the General Assembly, at the December session, 1777, appointed William Barton, Esq., colonel of a regiment ordered to be raised for twelve months, for the defence of the United States in general, and of the state aforesaid, in particular.
That, at the session held in February instant, Col. Barton informed the Assembly that he had an appointment from the Most Honorable the Continental Congress, with the rank and pay of colonel, but at present without command; and that being most ardently desirous of exerting his utmost abilities against the common enemy, he was willing, provided he could obtain permission of His Excellency General Washington, to command the said regiment, upon his pay from the Continent only; by which means he should also be freed from the disagreeable situation of receiving the public money without being in actual service.
And that the Assembly taking the same into consideration, voted that Col. Barton having received a Continental appointment, and being liable to be called from the command of said regiment, and the service of this state, upon the shortest notice, did thereby vacate his office in said brigade; and then appointed Col. Topham to the command of said regiment.
- - - - - - - - - -
Whereas, for the preservation of the rights and liberties of the United States, it is necessary that the whole powers of government should be exerted in recruiting the Conti- [*359] nental battalions; and whereas, His Excellency Gen. Washington hath enclosed to this state a proposal made to him by Brigadier General Varnum, to enlist into the two battalions, raising by this state, such slaves as should be willing to enter into the service; and whereas, history affords us frequent precedents of the wisest, the freest, and bravest nations having liberated their slaves, and enlisted them as soldiers to fight in defence of their country; and also whereas, the enemy, with a great force, have taken possession of the capital, and of a greater part of this state; and this state is obliged to raise a very considerable number of troops for its own immediate defence, whereby it is in a manner rendered impossible for this state to furnish recruits for the said two battalions, without adopting the said measure so recommended.
It is voted and resolved, that every able-bodied negro, mulatto, or Indian man slave, in this state, may enlist into either of the said two battalions, to serve during the continuance of the present war with Great Britain.
That every slave, so enlisting, shall be entitled to, and receive, all the bounties, wages, and encouragements, allowed by the Continental Congress, to any soldier enlisting into their service.
It is further voted and resolved, that every slave, so enlisting, shall, upon his passing muster before Col. Christopher Greene, be immediately discharged from the service of his master or mistress, and be absolutely FREE as though he had never been encumbered with any kind of servitude or slavery.
And in case such slave shall, by sickness or otherwise, be rendered unable to maintain himself, he shall not be chargeable to his master or mistress; but shall be supported at the expense of the state.
And whereas, slaves have been, by the laws, deemed the property of their owners, and therefore compensation ought to be made to the owners for the loss of their service,—
It is further voted and resolved, that there be allowed, [*360] and paid by this state, to the owner, for every such slave so enlisting, a sum according to his worth; at a price not exceeding £120 for the most valuable slave; and in proportion for a slave of less value.

Benjamin Quarles and Leslie H. Fishel Jr., The Negro American, A Documentary History (1967) Ch. 25-26; pp. 51-52

25
NEGROES IN THE CONTINENTAL ARMY
By the summer of 1778 the Continental army, like those of most of the states, was accepting Negroes. Indeed, a Negro was far more likely to serve in the Continental line than in the state forces. Service in the former was less preferable, since the period of enlistment was longer and the soldier had to be prepared to go to any theater of war, rather than remain within the borders of his own state.
Since the Negro volunteer was not, as a rule, in a position to choose between the state and federal armies, he generally found himself in the latter. The official return below, signed by Adjutant General Alexander Scammell on August 24, 1778, gives the numbers as of that date.
RETURN OF THE NEGROES IN THE ARMY, 24TH AUGT. 1778 BRIGADES
[Table omitted]
(signed) Alex Scammell, adj. Gen*
[woodpusher: the return table provided for 15 units with Black enlistees shows the number Present; Sick Absent; On Command; and Total. At bottom, it shows the overall total for the 15 units:
586 Present;
098 Sick Absent;
071 On Command
755 TOTAL
26
A DRAFT SUBSTITUTE
The Rhode Island slave enlistment bill led to the formation of a predominantly colored unit (except for its officers) for the Rhode Island First Regiment. Other states, including some south of the Mason-Dixon Line, had second thoughts about excluding Negroes from arms-bearing.
Maryland's need for manpower led her to include the free Negro in the lists of draft eligibles and to authorize slave enlistments with the consent of their masters.
Virginia, though not permitting slaves to bear arms, lifted the ban on free Negro soldiers. In Georgia there were instances, even if not numerous, of a slave serving as a draft substitute for his master. Austin Dabney of Burke County was an example. Freed to enlist to replace his master, Dabney served in Colonel Elijah Clark's artillery corps. In the Battle of Kettle Creek in 1779, Dabney's thigh was broken. Forty years later the Georgia legislature voted him 112 acres of land as a reward for his "bravery and fortitude . . . in several engagements and actions" against the British. Below is an attestation of Dabney's service.
*George Washington Papers (Library of Congress), LXXXII—volume entitled, "1778, Aug. 17-30."
State of Georgia
These are to certify, That Austin Dabney was an Inhabitant of this State prior to the Reduction thereof by the British Arms, and was a Refugee from the same, during which Time he cheerfully did his Duty as a Soldier and Friend to this and the United States.
Given under my Hand, this Second Day of Febry 1784, Elijah Clark, Col.
By his Order W. Freeman*
…
*Original manuscript, Georgia Department of Archives and History (Atlanta).

Actually, the North opened up recruitment and enlistment to blacks during the Revolutionary War.

You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble and stopped there. That is true, but that was "forgotten" long before the Civil War.

Fighting for Freedom, Black Union Soldiers of the Civil War

The was no Republican convention or Republican nominee in 1864. Lincoln teamed up with Democrat Andrew Johnson as his running mate and they won the nomination at the convention of the National Union Party, and the pair won election as members of the National Union Party.

I'm not sure what your point was here. In 1864 the Democrats in the House managed to block passage of the 13th Amendment. The American voters in the Union replaced many of them with Republicans, and in 1865 the 13th Amendment was passed and sent to the states for ratification.

Usenet "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one

I understand your point. My only point was that when all was lost, Hitler's response was something to the effect of "I didn't want this". I saw the same in the comments you posted from Jefferson Davis in 1865, when he tried to distance himself from slavery.

Obviously, God loves Dixie. Hitler and the rest of y'all not so much. See how that works?

Careful about invoking God. He loves you by grace, not because of how wonderful you are. From the looks of that map and based on your comments He loves Illinois too, so I guess Mayor Lightfoot isn't so bad after all.

And are you assuming I live in one of those high occurrence areas?

What happened years later resulted in the abolition of slavery. What happened with the Corwin Amendment amounted to nothing.

What did happen is that Lincoln orchestrated it from its writing to its passage through Congress. Even Lincoln hagiographers like the admitted plagairist Doris Kearns-Goodwin acknowledge this.

I'm not going to waste time exchanging theories of what motivated him with you, because the bottom line is it never became law, and President Lincoln later signed the 13th Amendment that banned slavery.

A Republican wrote it. The Republican president elect orchestrated it and lobbied for it. Most Republicans voted for it.

House, 62 Republicans voted against, 48 for.

Senate, 12 Republicans against, 8 for.

Lincoln sent it to the states according to law so they could decide whether or not to ratify it. None but a few did.

I know you're going to come back and say "If they were abolitionists then why did they vote for this?", but at that time they didn't see themselves as being able to abolish slavery, so they weren't giving up anything they didn't think the South already had. For many it was a last ditch attempt to prevent war, which is also how Buchanan saw it.

By the time all of this happened which never came close to including ratification, it was already too late.

By that date, most Northerners had come over to supporting abolition. That was not the case prior to the war and even a couple years into the war. It certainly was not why they chose to start the war.

The South thought so, which is why they seceded and fired on Federal property. Or so they said.

Abolitionists did not win in 1858 or in 1860. In fact, they did not even come close to winning either year.

In 1858, Kansas voters elected representatives that would abolish that original constitution that you tried to prove something with. In 1860, many who supported the Corwin Amendment including Buchanan lost their jobs. All facts, not would haves.

Oh I disagree. Both states adopted constitutions that excluded Black people.

Oregon never enforced theirs, and the voters in Kansas voted to abolish theirs.

Forced? There's practically zero evidence of any Blacks having been "forced" to serve in the Confederate army. Its tough to "force" anybody that you have to give guns to......

Who said anything about giving the slaves guns? They did the menial jobs the Confederacy saw them fit for.

Of course there were some blacks, among them slave owners themselves, who were willing to fight for the Confederacy.

Black Confederates: Truth and Legend

What happened years later resulted in the abolition of slavery. What happened with the Corwin Amendment amounted to nothing.

Because the original 7 seceding states rejected it.

Nobody need theorize what was motivating him. He said it quite clearly and orchestrated the writing and passage through Congress of a slavery forever constitutional amendment.

House, 62 Republicans voted against, 48 for. Senate, 12 Republicans against, 8 for.

A Republican wrote it and enough voted for it to give it a 2/3rds supermajority in each house of Congress.

Lincoln sent it to the states according to law so they could decide whether or not to ratify it. None but a few did.

Because the original 7 seceding states rejected it.

It wasn't just that they didn't see themselves as having the power to abolish slavery. It is that they had no desire to abolish slavery. They said so themselves many times.

The South thought so, which is why they seceded and fired on Federal property. Or so they said.

So they said.....when trying to essentially copy the "train of abuses" in the Declaration of Independence. They listed how the Northern states violated the Constitution and 3 of the 4 states that listed declarations of causes went on at length about their economic exploitation. To that they added that the North was governed by extreme radical fire breathing abolitionists which was clearly not true.

Things like rich Yankees bankrolling John Brown's murderous attack which was designed to cause a bloodbath AND then even after they openly admitted it, their states refusing to prosecute them really did make Southerners feel that the Northern states were radical and extreme. Imagine how we would feel today if a foreign country sheltered and refused to prosecute people who had bankrolled a terrorist attack on the US. We felt that was an act of war. We invaded other countries for that. Imagine how Southerners felt.

LOL! This is one of the weakest rebuttals you've written. You know as well as I that abolitionists could not get elected in 1860. They couldn't even come close to getting elected.

Oregon never enforced theirs, and the voters in Kansas voted to abolish theirs.

Yet both states adopted constitutions that barred Black people from living there. Other Northern states passed laws to effectively ban Blacks from moving there and drive out the few they had.

Who said anything about giving the slaves guns? They did the menial jobs the Confederacy saw them fit for. Of course there were some blacks, among them slave owners themselves, who were willing to fight for the Confederacy.

Some served in support roles....what we would today consider to be logistics. Some did so for money because once the war started these were the best jobs to be had. Some did it because they felt a sense of patriotism for what was after all, their home. Some took up arms and fought. Some were quite literally family members of some of the White Confederate soldiers. Some were childhood playmates (remember segregation was a Northern and not yet a Southern thing). Human beings are complex and when there's a massive war, its going to draw in people who have a variety of motives for doing what they do.

[TwelveOfTwenty #585 to FLT-bird #566] The North didn't open up recruitment to blacks until 1863.
[woodpusher #596 to TwelveOfTwenty #585] Actually, the North opened up recruitment and enlistment to blacks during the Revolutionary War.
[TwelveOfTwenty #597 to woodpusher #596] You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble and stopped there. That is true, but that was "forgotten" long before the Civil War.

You may have forgotten, but it still happened. Blacks were enlisted in the North and South prior to 1863, and some were cited and rewarded for their acts of bravery. The fact cannot be erased from history by forgetting about it.

[TwelveOfTwenty #597] Fighting for Freedom, Black Union Soldiers of the Civil War

Your source quotation of an 1869 source:

Enlistments
The Federal program to admit black soldiers during the Civil War was not without precedent or resistance. American blacks had taken part in the country's defense since the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. By the mid-nineteenth century, their earlier efforts were all but forgotten.

As it was remembered in 1869, there is no particularly good reason to erase factual Black history in the 21st century. Rather than rely upon snippet quotes from an internet site, I shall present some Black history from an actual book, FREEDOM, A Documentary History of Emancipation 1861-1867, Series II, The Black Military Experience; Ira Berlin, Editor; Joseph P. Reidy, Associate Editor; Leslie S. Rowland, Associate Editor; Cambridge University Press (1982), 852 pp.

At pg. 11:

However firm, official commitment to black enlistment did not of itself put black men into uniform. In the Northern free states, where recruiters had full access to the black population, the number of potential recruits was small. According to an estimate by the Superintendent of the Census, only 46,000 black men of military age resided in those states (see Table 1), so that Northern free blacks alone could not hope to meet federal manpower requirements. The largest number of black men within reach of army recruiters resided in the border slave states that had remained in the Union (Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky) and in those portions of the Confederate states occupied by federal forces before the end of 1862 (especially Tennessee and Louisiana). But in these areas, exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation, white unionists, many of them slaveholders, raised powerful objections to black recruitment. Fearful for their property, they alternately threatened to desert the Union and claimed unflinching devotion to the federal government in order to prevent the enlistment of slaves or even free blacks. At first federal policy makers respected such claims, especially while Confederate forces still contended for military control of these states. But, while the Lincoln administration sought to avoid alienating loyal masters, many of whom carried considerable political weight, it still desperately desired to tap these vast reserves of potential soldiers.

At pg. 14: [footnote omitted]

By the spring of 1865, black enlistment and conscription had placed 179,000 black men in the Union army, forming, together with those blacks who served in the navy, nearly 10 percent of those who served in Northern armed forces.²² Of this number, approximately 33,000 enlisted in the Northern free states. The border slaveholding states of Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky offered a total of nearly 42,000, with Kentucky alone providing over half. Tennessee contributed 20,000; Louisiana, 24,000; Mississippi, nearly 18,000; and the remaining states of the Confederacy accounted for approximately 37,000 (Table 1).

At pp. 39-40 [footnotes converted to endnotes]

Hard on the heels of Hunter’s disbandment of the regiment, Saxton asked Stanton for permission to recruit and arm 5,000 black quartermaster employees, whom he euphemistically termed “laborers” but whose intended use as an armed force to protect lowcountry contrabands he did not disguise.⁸ Surprisingly, Stanton not only authorized the 5,000 quartermaster laborers but also an additional 5,000 black soldiers, who would “receive the same pay and rations as are allowed by law to volunteers in the service.”⁹ Stanton’s pay guarantee removed one of the chief obstacles standing in the way of Hunter’s black regiment and paved the way for the formal organization of the 1st South Carolina Volunteers in mid-October 1862. In the interim, Saxton laid plans for his regiment with both Stanton and Massachusetts Governor John A. Andrew and Andrew’s abolitionist associates. Within a month of organization, Saxton named as commander of the regiment Thomas W. Higginson, radical abolitionist and former ally of John Brown. Despite smoldering black resentment of Hunter’s earlier impressment, the regiment filled to capacity almost immediately. Higginson, like others, believed that habits of obedience developed during slavery made blacks ideal soldiers, and he commented repeatedly that only the noblest of motives prompted his men to enlist. Early in 1863 recruitment for the 2nd South Carolina Volunteers began, followed shortly by the organization of the 3rd Volunteers.
By March 1863, voluntary enlistment in the 2nd and 3rd South Carolina Volunteers began to lag, so Hunter (who, as department commander, had superior authority to Saxton’s regarding black troops) began another mandatory draft of able-bodied men and then authorized formation of the 4th South Carolina Volunteers. Hunter broadened the age distribution of eligible draftees by raising the upper limit from forty-five to fifty. More significantly, in light of opposition to his earlier draft, he tagged for conscription only unemployed contrabands.¹⁰ However, Hunter allowed his recruiters to determine who was unemployed, and as a result they took whomever they pleased. Only a fine line separated conscription and kidnapping as Hunter’s recruiters ransacked the islands.
⁸ Mansfield French, a missionary to the freedpeople at Port Royal, detailed his own role in securing Stanton’s approval of the plan to enlist black soldiers in [Mansfield French] to Brevet Major Genl. R. Saxton, 4 Sept. 1865, enclosed in M. French to Hon. E. M. Stanton, 24 Oct. 1865, W-2260 1865, Letters Received, ser. 12, RG 94 [K-570].
⁹ Official Records, ser. 1, vol. 14, pp. 377—78.
¹⁰ Official Records, ser. 1, vol. 14, pp. 1020—21, 429—30.

At pg. 253:

98: Adjutant General of the Army to the Secretary of War
Louisville, Kentucky February 1, 1864. Sir: Being informed at this place that the slaves of Kentucky on the borders of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Tennessee, were constantly crossing the lines and quite a number of them enlisting in organizations were for the distant states of Massachusetts and Michigan, I determined to see the Governor of this state, and suggest the organization of Regiments within its limits, and thus obtain a credit for the Negroes in the States quota. The plan to be similiar to that adopted for Missouri. I, accordingly, repaired to Frankfort and had a full conversation with Governor Bramlette, detailing my plan that the state might receive credit for the Colored Troops, and that the owners of the slaves might receive from the Recruiting officers, certificates for all slaves who might enlist. …

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.