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.

[woodpusher]

[TwelveOfTwenty #591] When Americans wanted abolition passed, they voted Republican in 1864.

[woodpusher #595] The[re] 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.

[TwelveOfTwenty #597 to woodpusher #596] 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.

This nominal response to my #596, quotes here from my #595.

When voting for the Lincoln/Johnson, the minority of Americans who voted for them did not vote Republican. They voted for the National Unity Party.

As the Republican Party did not hold a convention or nominate anyone for President, the American people did not vote for the non-existent Republican Party candidate. The 1864 vote of the American people resulted in Andrew Johnson, never a Republican, serving all but about five weeks of the four year term. Abolition via the Thirteenth Amendment occurred under President Andrew Johnson, a Democrat before and after his time in the National Union Party as Vice President and President.

[woodpusher]

[TwelveOfTwenty #592] "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?

[woodpusher #594] Usenet "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. [Your snippet quote prematurely ended here. My quote continued.] 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.

[TwelveOfTwenty #597 to woodpusher #596] 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.

This nominal response to my #596, quotes here from my #594.

You understood my point well, and made sure to omit it from your snippet quote.

Your #592, nominally responded to my #590, by inserting an irrelevant Hitler comment into the conversation, having nothing to do with the content of my #590, and making believe that you had, thereby, responded to something in my #590.

My #590 was a response to FLT-bird #594, additional addressee wardaddy. You were not included.

"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)

That was quoted from FLT-bird #494 and I provided a slightly longer quote from the Memoir of Varina Davis and some additional information.

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.

- - - - - - - - - -

[TwelveOfTwenty #592] See how that works?

I see exactly how that works. In the grand tradition of Gresham's Law quoted supra, you descended to the Hitler and Nazi reference and automatically lost any argument in progress.

[FLT-bird]

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.

Davis was an enlightened man. I know people will scream "but he was a slave owner!!!". True, he was. But he set up a system whereby his slaves would judge any others accused of an offense before any punishment was handed down. He reserved for himself the right to lesson any punishment decided upon by the jury but never to increase it. He allowed his slaves to earn money for side jobs which they could keep for themselves. He had long advocated emancipation for slaves and their families in exchange for military service and he had long advocated emancipation in exchange for British/French recognition both of which he eventually go the Confederate Congress to agree to. He always treated Blacks with respect and they knew it and in turn he was well regarded by them. Not that you will read this in any of the history textbooks in the government schools or see it on the so-called "history" channel or PBS.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Let’s be clear. It is YOU who always tags ME in these threads - not vice versa...
Yeah, I’d say that’s obsessive behavior. Own it."

I respond to anyone who posts endless lies & nonsense, and there are few here, if any, more guilty of that than FLT-bird.

But "obsession" is your word -- you own it, you weaponized it, you deployed it against not just yours truly, but also DoodleDawg, so "obsessed" is your bludgeon of choice.
And "obsessed" seems to fit well your 80+ posts on this thread totaling 53,000+ words -- and all of them lies!!

Seriously, I think you should get professional help for that.
It's not healthy.

[FLT-bird]

I respond to anyone who posts endless lies & nonsense, and there are few here, if any, more guilty of that than FLT-bird. But "obsession" is your word -- you own it, you weaponized it, you deployed it against not just yours truly, but also DoodleDawg, so "obsessed" is your bludgeon of choice. And "obsessed" seems to fit well your 80+ posts on this thread totaling 53,000+ words -- and all of them lies!! Seriously, I think you should get professional help for that. It's not healthy.

That's funny because I would say it is you who posts endless lies and nonsense. Obsessed describes those who constantly gravitate toward such threads in the misguided belief that they have some kind of duty to police the thoughts of others - such that they constantly seek others out even when they themselves were never addressed and were never part of the conversation. Of course that describes you and not me. Just as counting my posts and even going so far as to count the words in them exhibits more of this obsessive behavior on your part.

As the old ad on TV used to say, if you don't seek help from Charter, seek help somewhere........ You obviously need help.

[wardaddy]

Hitler card.....Godwin’s law ....when simply uttering “slavery is bad “ doesn’t work there is always Hitler .....naturally

Something dawned on me tonight making the long drive back from Traverse County.....Sutton’s Bay Michigan ....glorious foliage I might add...to growth on steroids middle Tennessee

These Macpherson Zinn bots here....especially the cut and paste ones who ....ahem...are said to be noted scholars and Hugh Hewitt bootlickers

Are arguably not actually right-leaning contributing to anything here but WBTS threads where it’s steady chundering of puritanical abolitionist zeal v2.0

Now admittedly a couple of the non cut and paste popcorn gallery ...including the nameless unhinged one ....do post elsewhere....on pertinent threads

Hitler cards are only played by the weak and feeble cowardly sorts who lack any wisdom beyond the self gratification of virtue projection borne at the cost of the mere aforementioned chunder

In other words....free

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "That's funny because I would say it is you who posts endless lies and nonsense. "

And yet... and yet... you refuse to respond to my alleged "lies" with your alleged "facts" -- all you can do is close your eyes, wag your fingers and yell, "obsessed, obsessed, obsessed".
In other words: you're a typical Democrat.

FLT-bird: "Obsessed describes those who constantly gravitate toward such threads in the misguided belief that they have some kind of duty to police the thoughts of others - such that they constantly seek others out even when they themselves were never addressed and were never part of the conversation. "

Now that's an interesting thought, let's see... if I correct your lies, that's "thought police", but if you still post those lies over & over & over again... well... nothing "obsessed" about that, is there?
In other words, you're a typical Democrat.

FLT-bird: "Of course that describes you and not me.
Just as counting my posts and even going so far as to count the words in them exhibits more of this obsessive behavior on your part."

Naw... counting words takes mere seconds in Word software, nothing major about it.
And the obscene numbers of your posts on this thread demonstrate that your chosen weapon, the word "obsessed", applies vastly more to your own mindset than to anyone responding to your posts.
In other words, you're a typical Democrat.

FLT-bird: "You obviously need help."

Again projecting your own sick mental state onto someone else.
In other words, you're a typical Democrat.

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "Hitler card.....Godwin’s law ....when simply uttering “slavery is bad “ doesn’t work there is always Hitler .....naturally"

And yet... and yet... who was it that first played that card?
Oh, look! Post #448, wardaddy mentions "the Hitler youth brigades" -- so, "Ok for me but not for thee", right?

wardaddy: "Hitler cards are only played by the weak and feeble cowardly sorts who lack any wisdom beyond the self gratification of virtue projection borne at the cost of the mere aforementioned chunder"

No need to beat yourself up, FRiend, everybody understands how tempting it can be to call on, ahem, when your arguments are otherwise quite weak.

But the issue here is Jefferson Davis and whether he was truthful in saying, **AFTER** the fact, that Civil War was **NOT** all about slavery.
Plenty of quotes **BEFORE** the war suggest that protecting slavery was indeed foremost on secessionists minds, including Davis'.

[FLT-bird]

I’ve refuted your lies so many times I’ve grown bored with it just as I’ve grown bored with you. So go on counting my posts, counting the words in my posts, endlessly trying to tag me in to your lies and BS all the while trying to project your obsession onto me. Its quite obvious who the obsessed one here is. You’re not convincing anybody with your Leftist PC Revisionist BS.

[FLT-bird]

Its pretty much always the same little group of Leftists in these threads about the War for Southern Independence plus the one harridan (who has nothing to actually contribute - just endless sniping). As you noted, all they have is the opinions of their favorite Leftist revisionists in Academia plus their own crackpot theories for which they have no evidence.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Because the original 7 seceding states rejected it.

The Northern states could have ratified it without those states if they had intended to. They didn't.

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.

Then it passed.

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

Now you are correct. Too bad for them neither the states nor many of their constituency wanted 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.

They also said several times that they didn't have the power to get rid of slavery, which at the time was correct. When they got that power, good riddance to slavery.

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.

Did it occur to you that slavery was the reason, and all of these allegations of abuse and states' right revolved around that? You're so quick to point out what the North said, but that's what the Confederacy said.

That's also what the Democrats in the North said in 1864 when they voted against passing the 13th Amendment. The voters responded by firing many of them.

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.

How horrible, having your slaves taken away from you by force.

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.

"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."

This is getting too easy, are you pulling our leg?

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.

One was abolished by representatives elected by the voters even though abolitionists never can close to getting elected according to you, and the other was never enforced. Of course there were discriminatory laws, but the direction the slaves escaped to tells the story.

Some served in support roles....what we would today consider to be logistics.

Serving as slaves is not 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.

Black Confederates: Truth and Legend

[TwelveOfTwenty]

You understood my point well, and made sure to omit it from your snippet quote. Your #592, nominally responded to my #590...

I don't see the need to flood our host's resources with endless text. In understood your post to mean that leftists always invoke the Hitler card. I answered that below. If there was more to it than that, then just say it without pages of copied text.

My #590 was a response to FLT-bird #594, additional addressee wardaddy. You were not included. "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)

Compare that to this statement. "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."

How do you reconcile this with the quote you posted? The same way you would reconcile Hitler's quote in 1945 with his actions. In defeat, they were both trying to distance themselves from what they had done.

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.

Very true, Lincoln had the dual challenge of abolishing slavery while reuniting the country. Both were accomplished, at least legally, although he didn't live to see the states ratify the 13th Amendment.

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.

I put forgotten in quotes, because that's how the link I posted put it. I never said blacks didn't serve before the CW, but only that recruitment of blacks had stopped long before the Civil War.

I acknowledged you were correct about recruiting blacks earlier in the decade, but that had stopped before the Civil War, to be revived in the North in 1863. Before then, the North was hesitant about recruiting blacks because they didn't want to alienate the border states, fears that turned out to be unfounded. Here's that link again, which says all of this.

Fighting for Freedom, Black Union Soldiers of the Civil War

[woodpusher]

Davis was an enlightened man. I know people will scream "but he was a slave owner!!!". True, he was. But he set up a system whereby his slaves would judge any others accused of an offense before any punishment was handed down. He reserved for himself the right to lesson any punishment decided upon by the jury but never to increase it. He allowed his slaves to earn money for side jobs which they could keep for themselves.

Your last point underscores the discontent of Blacks who enlisted with a promise of equal pay, a promise upon which the government reneged. Whether free or slave, many had a source of income; and they had a family that it helped to provide for. When they enlisted and received about half pay, it directly affected their family left behind.

For some reason, or unreason, some folks who imagine they are generals in the civil war, refuse to accept any consideration of any possibility that slave and owner could share a human connection. They refuse to consider human nature. The more intimate the relationship, the more human connection is made. Where the relationship is like that of the employee and the person issuing paychecks for a mega-conglomerate corporation, not so much.

Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 1st Sess., May 17, 1860, colloquy with Sen. Stephen Douglas pp. 2143-2156, Sen. Jefferson Davis quote at pp. 2150-2151.

There is a relation belonging to this species of property, not connected with the apprentice, not connected with the hired man, which awakens whatever there is of kindness or of nobility of soul in the heart of him who owns it; and this can only be alienated, can only be obscured or destroyed, by collecting this species of property into such masses that the owner himself becomes ignorant of the individuals who compose it. In the relation, however, which can exist in the northwestern Territories, the mere domestic connection of one, two, or, at most, half a dozen servants in a fam­ily, associating with the children as they grow up, attending upon age as it declines, there can be nothing against which either philanthropy or hu­manity can make an appeal. Not even the eman­cipationist could raise his voice, for this is the high road and the open gate for the emancipation of every one who may thus be taken to the front­ier.

Grant, Lincoln, and the Freedmen, Reminiscences if the Civil War, with Special Reference to The Work for the Contrabands and Freedmen of the Mississippi Valley, by John Eaton, Ph.D., LL.D., Brigadier-General; General Superintendant of Freedmen, Department of the Tennessee; Assistant Commissioner of Freedmen, Freedmen's Bureau; Commissioner of Education of the United States; U.S. Superintendent of schools, Porto Rico; in collaboration with Ethel Osgood Mason, Longmans, Green, and Co., 91 abd 93 Fifth Avenue, New York, London, Bombay, and Calcutta, 1907, p. 165-66:

Available at Googlebooks.

Late in the season—in November and December, 1864, — the Freedmen’s Department was restored to full control over the camps and plantations on President’s Island and Palmyra or Davis Bend. Both these points had been originally occupied at the suggestion of General Grant, and were among the most successful of our enterprises for the Negroes. With the expansion of the lessee system, private interests were allowed to displace the interests of the Negroes whom we had established there under the pro­tection of the Government, but orders issued by General N. J. T. Dana, upon whose sympathetic and intelligent co-operation my officers could always rely, restored to us the full control of these lands. The efforts of the freed­men on Davis Bend were particularly encouraging, and this property, under Colonel Thomas’s able direction, became in reality the “Negro Paradise” that General Grant had urged us to make of it. Early in 1865 a system was adopted for their government in which the freedmen took a considerable part. The Bend was divided into districts, each having a sheriff and judge appointed from among the more reliable and intelligent colored men. A general oversight of the proceedings was maintained by our officer in charge, who confirmed or modified the findings of the court. The shrewdness of the colored judges was very remarkable, though it was sometimes necessary.to decrease the severity of the punishments they proposed. Fines and penal service on the Home Farm were the usual sentences imposed. Petty theft, and idleness, were the most frequent causes of trouble, but my officers were able to report that exposed property was as safe on Davis Bend as it would be anywhere. The com­munity distinctly demonstrated the capacity of the Negro to take care of himself and exercise under honest and com­petent direction the functions of self-government.

I'll bet you didn't know that the Freedman's Bureau saw the Black trial system and took credit for it. Bless their heart!

For a 21-page article on Davis, including more details about the quote we have discussed, and the black trial system, see:

Jefferson Davis, the Negroes and the Negro Problem
Walter L. Fleming
The Sewanee Review, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Oct., 1908), pp. 407-427
Longmans, Green & Co., 91-93 Fifth Avenue, New York; London and Bombay; Printed at The University Press of Sewanee Tennessee

Volume 16 available at Googlebooks. Search "the sewanee review 1908"

Fleming at page 411:

After the death of Pemberton in 1852 Davis employed white overseers, some of whom did not approve of his system of managing negroes. They were not allowed to inflict punishment—only to report offenses. One of them left because of his objection to the negro court. The Davis system which was practiced until 1862 had vitality enough to survive for a while after the Federals had occupied the plantations, and a year later a Northern officer who saw what remained of the self-governing community and knowing nothing of its origin took it for a new development, and an evidence of how one year of freedom would elevate the blacks.

Isn't that special?

[woodpusher]

Oh, look! Post #448, wardaddy mentions "the Hitler youth brigades" -- so, "Ok for me but not for thee", right?

'

Context is everything. That's why you bastardize quotes and rip away context, to give appearance of support for your lame, baseless argument. Try the quote with context and describe what wardaddy was arguing.

wardaddy #448

Bro’s mini me brownie claims he’s a “professor”

Well when I was at ole miss 40 years ago most professors were right leaning....I was libertarian leaning.....a long haired southern kid

Erwin Neumaier was a classical liberal...a veteran of Hitler youth brigades sent here and adopted as a wounded teen,,,.an orphan ... he had seen totalitarianism up close as a kid......he was my political theory advisor....I adored him.....steel trap mind

From Socrates to Kant we covered it all....even Fromm and Sartre and Camus and Bill Shakespeare ....and Aquinas....he was a devoted Catholic in Oxford

He figured Hobbes Leviathan as our warning sign. And who do you think he blamed most in the USA for that....ahem......care to hunch?.....he was a Jeffersonian idealist ...Erwin was though he also loved Madison and Mason.....and across the pond. Burke

Today nearly all liberal arts teachers are lefties .....if Bro is not he’s a unicorn

Mike Godwin, 2017

Edgeoforever edgeoforever • Jun4, 2017
@sfmnemonic - is the law suspended here? Can we call a Nazi a Nazi?

MikeGodwin
@sfmnemonic
Replying to @edgeoforever@danielleiat and @mcimaps
No suspension required.
5:31 PM . Jun 4, 2017 • TweetDeck

danielle tcholakian . @danielieiat • Jun4,2017
Replying to @sfmnemonic@edgeoforever and@mcimaps
I keep trying to explain that to people! It doesn't count as "bringing up Nazis" when you're talking to a Nazi!

Mike Godwin @sfmnemonic • Jun 4, 2017
I agree entirely!

It hardly invoked Godwin's Law when wardaddy observed that, as a student, he had a political advisor who was a veteran of Hitler youth brigades. As a supposed history professor, you were inferred to be either a liberal or a unicorn among that large group of liberals.

Note that TwelveOfTwenty #592 contains nothing but his Hitler nonsense, and does not relate to anything in the post to which it nominally purports to respond.

To: woodpusher; BroJoeK

"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?

592 posted on 11/5/2021, 6:10:03 AM by TwelveOfTwenty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

Godwin's Law applies.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

I thought that with Jan.6 and the rise of a Biden we had missed the bullet and Civil War was no longer on the table—But the Democrat-Progressives are beating the drum—The goal, I believe, is to start a Civil War, Crush it (with Chinese-Russian Help) and establish a Democratic-Socialist new Republic. With will have Democrat oligarchs in total power for the next century. I believe that their half Communism (like present China) will not work and slip into a bloody Maoist State that will see the rich shot and a full Communist dictatorship installed. Now, it seems we will have Civil War. Red “Free” states vs Blue “Federalist” States. The was will chew up much of what has been built along with many lives. It will resemble the Russian Civil War, Red vs White rather than that other one in 1861-5. IF it happens, and I pray it doesn’t, we better hope the Red States win.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

My idea—for years has been the following—1. an event happens like the arrest of Trump for Treason or some other charge, he flees to Texas (or Florida) The federals demand his surrender. The Governor of Florida says no. 2. They send troops under Milie to seize the traitor Trump and his children. They are beaten back. The New Supreme court (15 members) say its OK. States led by Texas raise the Bonnie Blue Flag and leave the union. More states follow and appoint Trump as the true president, States form a new government—the Constitutional States of America (CSA) with a new flag—new laws—closed borders. New courts. form a new army and navy. Federalists get UN support and support from China (Russia stays neural in my scenario). and the North invades Texas from California/Nevada. Three years and 4 million lives later the Red States win.

[FLT-bird]

Did it occur to you that slavery was the reason, and all of these allegations of abuse and states' right revolved around that? You're so quick to point out what the North said, but that's what the Confederacy said.

Did it occur to you that slavery was not the reason, and that had it been so the original 7 seceding states could have simply accepted Lincoln's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment?

How horrible, having your slaves taken away from you by force.

No, that was not John Brown's aim. He wanted a murderous race war and hoped to start one. The first person he murdered was a free Black man but hey, why let inconvenient facts get in the way......

"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." This is getting too easy, are you pulling our leg?

You can cite no abolitionists winning elections so instead you try to pass off Kansas discarding the total exclusion of Blacks in the state constitution as some kind of proof of this great abolitionist movement? LOL! This is getting too easy indeed.

One was abolished by representatives elected by the voters even though abolitionists never can close to getting elected according to you, and the other was never enforced. Of course there were discriminatory laws, but the direction the slaves escaped to tells the story.

See above. Abolitionists could not get elected and the Northern states were still adopting exclusionary and highly discriminatory laws even during the war.

Serving as slaves is not logistics.

They did not serve as slaves. They served as Confederate soldiers. Also, you realize there were plenty of freedmen in the Confederate Army too right?

I see you have no answer to the FACT that many thousands of Blacks served quite willingly in the Confederate Army. All you can do is try to keep citing the same BS source that makes ridiculous claims like there being only 7 eyewitness accounts of Black Confederates (I've already provided far more)....or which makes the false claim that Blacks could not legally serve in the Confederate Army (they could and did via several Confederate states.....and Confederate Officers in the field simply ignored the Confederate Congress in any event and inducted any Black man who would agree to serve, etc. In short, this source is laughable.

[FLT-bird]

and I should add, the only reason the Northern states did not ratify the Corwin Amendment was because the original 7 seceding states had already rejected it. It was by the time they could have ratified it, a moot point.

[woodpusher]

My #590 was a response to FLT-bird #594, additional addressee wardaddy. You were not included. "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)

Compare that to this statement. "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."

I would first note that you failed to provide a source, a date, or identify who said it. It could have been Lincoln. It was Lincoln who said, "I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." Where he had jurisdiction to do so, Davis actually made them competent witnesses and jurors.

CW 3:14-15: First Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become most cruel slave-masters.

When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia—to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals.

CW 3:145-46; Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

CW 3:179; Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro-citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. [Applause.] He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. [Renewed applause.] This furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject. I mentioned in a certain speech of mine which has been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made a citizen, and without saying what was my ground of complaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly every thing that he ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the negroes and the white people. [Laughter and applause.] If any one will read my speech, he will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I had to it. But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I did not tell them myself. [Loud applause and laughter.] Now my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power I should be opposed to the exercise of it. [Cries of "good,'' "good,'' and applause.] That is all I have to say about it.

Lincoln was not bashful about saying what he wanted:

"Resolved, That the elective franchise should be kept pure from contamination by the admission of colored votes."
Representative Lincoln voted for that in Illinois, January 5, 1836.

"In our greedy chase to make profit of the Negro, let us beware, lest we 'cancel and tear to pieces' even the white man's charter of freedom"
Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:276

"Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people."
Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:268

"Have we no interest in the free Territories of the United States—that they should be kept open for the homes of free white people?"
Lincoln, August 27, 1856, Kalamazoo, Michigan, CW 2:363

"Is it not rather our duty to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories?"
Lincoln, August 31, 1858, Carlinville, Illinois, CW 3:79

"Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home—may find some spot where they can better their condition—where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. [Great and continued cheering.] I am in favor of this not merely, (I must say it here as I have elsewhere,) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over—in which Hans and Baptiste and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life. [Loud and long continued applause.] Lincoln, October 15, 1858, Alton, Illinois, CW 3:312 (emphasis as in original)

"You can as easily argue the color out of the negroes' skin. Like the 'bloody hand'' you may wash it, and wash it, the red witness of guilt still sticks, and stares horribly at you." Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:276

"I am fully aware that there is a text in some Bibles that is not in mine. Professional abolitionists have made more use of it, than of any passage in the Bible. It came, however, as I trace it, from Saint Voltaire, and was baptized by Thomas Jefferson, and since almost universally regarded as canonical authority 'All men are born free and equal.' This is a genuine coin in the political currency of our generation. I am sorry to say that I have never seen two men of whom it is true. But I must admit I never saw the Siamese twins, and therefore will not dogmatically say that no man ever saw a proof of this sage aphorism.'' Lincoln, Eulogy on Henry Clay, July 6, 1852, CW 2:130-31

"Cast into life where slavery was already widely spread and deeply seated, he [Henry Clay] did not perceive, as I think no wise man has perceived, how it [slavery] could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself." Lincoln, Eulogy on Henry Clay, July 6, 1852, CW 2:130.

Damn, Lincoln said slavery could not be eradicated at once without producing a greater evil. An evil greater to the cause of human liberty than slavery. Whatever might that have been?

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Did it occur to you that slavery was not the reason...

No, because they said it was at least in part about slavery, and they held on to their slaves until forced to release them.

and that had it been so the original 7 seceding states could have simply accepted Lincoln's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment?

Lincoln had nothing to offer because with few exceptions the Northern states wouldn't ratify it even knowing the alternative. It was Lucy with the football. Unlike you, the South didn't keep kicking away at nothing.

No, that was not John Brown's aim. He wanted a murderous race war and hoped to start one. The first person he murdered was a free Black man but hey, why let inconvenient facts get in the way......

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to then it was a result of the fire fight. I'll let you fill in the details first.

I won't argue about whether it was the right way to go about this, but taking slaves was the real act of war.

You have expressed your disgust with the South's stance on slavery in words that left me with no doubt about your sincerity on the issue. If you had lived in the Confederacy and expressed those views, you would have been seen as an abolitionist, and you would have been assaulted or lynched.

You can cite no abolitionists winning elections so instead you try to pass off Kansas discarding the total exclusion of Blacks in the state constitution as some kind of proof of this great abolitionist movement? LOL! This is getting too easy indeed.

So let's see, they didn't elect abolitionists even though they elected representatives who would abolish the original constitution preventing abolition. Got it, thanks for clearing that up.

See above. Abolitionists could not get elected and the Northern states were still adopting exclusionary and highly discriminatory laws even during the war.

There was nothing above but what you were repeating.

They did not serve as slaves. They served as Confederate soldiers.

Black Confederates: Truth and Legend

Also, you realize there were plenty of freedmen in the Confederate Army too right?

Define plenty.

and I should add repeat, the only reason the Northern states did not ratify the Corwin Amendment was because the original 7 seceding states had already rejected it. It was by the time they could have ratified it, a moot point.

Fixed.