Nearly 20 percent of Trump’s supporters disapprove of Lincoln freeing the slaves

[TheDemSocialist]

The New York Times took a dive into whether Donald Trump's supporters were unusually racist — or, in the newspaper's delicate phrasing, "responsive to religious, social and racial intolerance." And they came up with a stunning statistic: Nearly one in five Trump supporters didn't approve of freeing slaves in the Confederacy.
A YouGov/Economist poll in January asked respondents if they approved or disapproved of "the executive order that freed all slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government."

​

That executive order is better known as the Emancipation Proclamation. Thirteen percent of respondents — and "nearly 20 percent of Trump supporters," the Times reports, compared with 5 percent of Marco Rubio's — said they disapproved of it.
It gets even worse. An additional 17 percent of respondents said they weren't sure.

Read more @: Nearly 20 percent of Trump’s supporters disapprove of Lincoln freeing the slaves

Pretty stunning that many Americans hold this view. However its not stunning that they mostly flock to the biggest bigot up there, Donald Trump..

 

[clownboy]

Someone else already threw this turd in the punch bowl. Didn't work for them either.

 

[shrubnose]

Read more @:

Nearly 20 percent of Trump’s supporters disapprove of Lincoln freeing the slaves

Pretty stunning that many Americans hold this view. However its not stunning that they mostly flock to the biggest bigot up there, Donald Trump.. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Since 80 % of them approve of what Lincoln did it looks like slavery won't be coming back,eh?

The other 20 % can go pound sand.

:lol:

 

[Beaudreaux]

I'm not even close to being a Trump supporter, but I have a hard time think this is anything other than just pure :bs.

 

[Chomsky]

Since 80 % of them approve of what Lincoln did it looks like slavery won't be coming back,eh?

The other 20 % can go pound sand.

:lol:

:lamo

Edit: FYI - Your PM box is full & not accepting any more PMs.

 

[mmi]

Since 80 % of them approve of what Lincoln did it looks like slavery won't be coming back,eh? The other 20 % can go pound sand.

The OP says that 17% "weren't sure." So only 63% approved, right? Sadly, among all respondents, only a little more than half "approve strongly."



To be fair to Frumpy, he argues that black youth in America were better off as slaves:

So you have an African-American president and African-American youth is doing worse than virtually it's ever done. I mean we've had some pretty bad times in this country but virtually it's ever done.​

He lies about the economic condition of blacks just like he lies about everything else — constantly and outrageously.

"Donald Trump Thinks African American Youths Are Worse Off Under Obama Than Slavery," PolitiFact, Jun 22, 2015

Maybe he'll come out with a tweet saying the Emancipation Proclamation should be torn up along with other "illegal" executive orders.

On a point of trivia, there are two actions involved here. In Sept 1862, Lincoln fired a warning shot, and on Jan 1 of the following year, he fired directly into the heart of the confederate rebellion.

I'm not even close to being a Trump supporter, but I have a hard time think this is anything other than just pure :bs.

It's BS alright. But yet it appears to be a true reading of the attitude of Americans. Perhaps they've been conditioned to simply oppose executive orders without giving the specifics much thought.

 

[faithful_servant]

Read more @: Nearly 20 percent of Trump’s supporters disapprove of Lincoln freeing the slaves

Pretty stunning that many Americans hold this view. However its not stunning that they mostly flock to the biggest bigot up there, Donald Trump.. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Did they disapprove of freeing the slaves or using an executive order to free the slaves?? They are two different things you know. But that truth won't change your mind or get you to believe anything different than what your closed mind wants to believe....

 

[mmi]

Did they disapprove of freeing the slaves or using an executive order to free the slaves?? They are two different things you know.

So you disapprove of the action? How about the Union victory?

 

[faithful_servant]

So you disapprove of the action? How about the Union victory?

IF what Pres. Lincoln did wasn't legal, then it should have been in a legal manner - THAT'S what I approve/disapprove of. Using an illegal act to rectify a wrong is still an illegal act and IF what Pres. Lincoln did illegal, then I would oppose the illegal action and support freeing the slaves through a legal action. Now I'm sure that I'll be accused of opposing freeing the slaves and people will throw out examples of people doing illegal things to accomplish good things, but that doesn't justify the use of illegal actions when there legal alternatives.

 

[mmi]

I'm sure that I'll be accused of opposing freeing the slaves

I'm confident no one will say that.

>>people will throw out examples of people doing illegal things to accomplish good things, but that doesn't justify the use of illegal actions when there legal alternatives.

You did say "if" his actions were illegal. He was prosecuting a civil war, and, as you know, he did other things, e.g., suspending habeas corpus, that are likely more questionable. I of course understand yer concern, but I would argue that the president should do what he/she thinks is necessary to defend the gubmint against an insurrection, and then let things sort themselves out. Fwiw, the action regarding habeas corpus was later found to be unconstitutional — but that was after Appomattox. Congress authorized the suspension in 1863.

My thought is that we should avoid civil wars and stick to calling each other names.

 

[ARealConservative]

I don't approve of it, but I'm not a Trump supporter either.

Lincoln was an asshole. he didn't give a lick about slavery, he cared about a powerful central government.

 

[iguanaman]

I don't approve of it, but I'm not a Trump supporter either.

Lincoln was an asshole. he didn't give a lick about slavery, he cared about a powerful central government.

And God bless him for that. States rights is nothing but code for taking away rights.

 

[Baralis]

There are few things that I detest more than slavery but if I had been polled that question I may very likely have answered with "disproved" as well. Faithful Servant summed up my reasoning well in his post.

IF what Pres. Lincoln did wasn't legal, then it should have been in a legal manner - THAT'S what I approve/disapprove of. Using an illegal act to rectify a wrong is still an illegal act and IF what Pres. Lincoln did illegal, then I would oppose the illegal action and support freeing the slaves through a legal action. Now I'm sure that I'll be accused of opposing freeing the slaves and people will throw out examples of people doing illegal things to accomplish good things, but that doesn't justify the use of illegal actions when there legal alternatives.

And God bless him for that. States rights is nothing but code for taking away rights.

I have the very opposite view. I see ones support for a consolidated power, in this case the federal government, as a blatant attempt to force all people of a nation to conform to a single viewpoint and is in affect limiting my right to decide what is right for me and my family what my opinion differs from popular opinion.

 

[ARealConservative]

And God bless him for that. States rights is nothing but code for taking away rights.

consent of the governed is the only way you can ensure people will fight to defend this republic.

as it stands today, I have no vested interest in keeping this horror show safe and sound, and I'm not alone.

that is what happens when you ignore state rights. I'd just as soon go to war with you as I would the new boogie man you tell me to fear abroad.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

IF what Pres. Lincoln did wasn't legal, then it should have been in a legal manner - THAT'S what I approve/disapprove of. Using an illegal act to rectify a wrong is still an illegal act and IF what Pres. Lincoln did illegal, then I would oppose the illegal action and support freeing the slaves through a legal action. Now I'm sure that I'll be accused of opposing freeing the slaves and people will throw out examples of people doing illegal things to accomplish good things, but that doesn't justify the use of illegal actions when there legal alternatives.

There's no question about the legality of the emancipation proclamation. It drew its authority from the Confiscation Acts passed by Congress in 1861 and 1862

 

[ARealConservative]

There's no question about the legality of the emancipation proclamation. It drew its authority from the Confiscation Acts passed by Congress in 1861 and 1862

to the victor goes the spoils.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Did they disapprove of freeing the slaves or using an executive order to free the slaves?? They are two different things you know. But that truth won't change your mind or get you to believe anything different than what your closed mind wants to believe....

"Before asking about slavery, YouGov first asked two broader poll questions about executive orders: Do you approve of them, and do you think they're constitutional? Then they asked about specific presidential actions, including freeing the slaves, desegregating the military, interning Japanese Americans during World War II, and deferring deportation for some unauthorized immigrants.

Framing the question this way is a reminder that one of Lincoln's greatest acts, and a turning point in American history, was also a controversial exercise of presidential power. And it's stunning how many people can't bring themselves to say they approve of it."

 

[TheDemSocialist]

to the victor goes the spoils.

Yup. Congress using its constitutional powers to suppress a insurrection.

 

[ARealConservative]

Yup. Congress using its constitutional powers to suppress a insurrection.

ultimately, I side with consent of the governed. If people want to divorce, we allow them to divorce.

it really is that simple. no need to complicate the issue

 

[Beaudreaux]

It's BS alright. But yet it appears to be a true reading of the attitude of Americans. Perhaps they've been conditioned to simply oppose executive orders without giving the specifics much thought.

It could be that, or it could be people understanding history and knowing that the Executive Order only freed slaves in the Confederate States (which meant nothing until after the war was won, and even then it had to be enforced by claiming the southern states as a concurred foreign land - which Lincoln was opposed to) and it did not free slaves in northern states of the Union, nor did it declare those slaves that had escaped the Confederacy as free men and women but rather kept the status quo of their status as chattel and should be returned to their owners.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a great move by Lincoln, but it wasn't all it's been celebrated to be in recent years. The real freeing of the slaves did not occur until the 13th Amendment was ratified.

 

[ARealConservative]

It could be that, or it could be people understanding history and knowing that the Executive Order only freed slaves in the Confederate States (which meant nothing until after the war was won, and even then it had to be enforced by claiming the southern states as a concurred foreign land - which Lincoln was opposed to) and it did not free slaves in northern states of the Union, nor did it declare those slaves that had escaped the Confederacy as free men and women but rather kept the status quo of their status as chattel and should be returned to their owners.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a great move by Lincoln, but it wasn't all it's been celebrated to be in recent years. The real freeing of the slaves did not occur until the 13th Amendment was ratified.

it is more simple then that. the war of northern aggression is still considered to be a black mark to many of us, just as slavery is.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

ultimately, I side with consent of the governed. If people want to divorce, we allow them to divorce.

it really is that simple. no need to complicate the issue

If the union had allowed the succession to happen, it would have created a precedent that would have endangered the United States.

In order to preserve the union, the succession had to be stopped.

 

[faithful_servant]

I'm confident no one will say that.

>>people will throw out examples of people doing illegal things to accomplish good things, but that doesn't justify the use of illegal actions when there legal alternatives.

You did say "if" his actions were illegal. He was prosecuting a civil war, and, as you know, he did other things, e.g., suspending habeas corpus, that are likely more questionable. I of course understand yer concern, but I would argue that the president should do what he/she thinks is necessary to defend the gubmint against an insurrection, and then let things sort themselves out. Fwiw, the action regarding habeas corpus was later found to be unconstitutional — but that was after Appomattox. Congress authorized the suspension in 1863.

My thought is that we should avoid civil wars and stick to calling each other names.

You jerk!!

Hey! You're right. That is better than shooting you!! :mrgreen:

 

[ARealConservative]

If the union had allowed the succession to happen, it would have created a precedent that would have endangered the United States.

In order to preserve the union, the succession had to be stopped.

the precedent of allowing people to govern themselves would not of been a bad thing.

It's all theory, but I'd bet that we would of unified long, long ago, and wouldn't of wrecked the constitution in the process.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

the precedent of allowing people to govern themselves would not of been a bad thing.

It's all theory, but I'd bet that we would of unified long, long ago, and wouldn't of wrecked the constitution in the process.

If any state could leave at the drop of a hat, how can the United States surrvive such a threat to its existence?