Nearly 20% of Trump Fans Think Freeing the Slaves Was a Bad Idea

[SummerSnow]

Donald Trump appears to have high levels of support among the nation’s intolerant population, according to a New York Times deep dive into polling data.

The Times found that nearly 20% of Trump supporters did not approve of freeing the slaves, according to a January YouGov/Economist poll that asked respondents if they supported or disapproved of “the executive order that freed all slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government”—Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.

Trump himself has never advocated for white supremacy, but some of his followers may. He has, however, called for a moratorium on Muslims entering the United States and called Mexican migrants “rapists.”



Exit polls from the Republican South Carolina primary reveal that 74% of voters in the state favored the Muslim ban—Trump won 41% of that group, according to the Times, which described Trump supporters as a “coalition of voters on people who are responsive to religious, social and racial intolerance.”

Trump, a billionaire outsider, has talked his way to being the front-runner in the 2016 GOP race, causing much of the Republican establishment to scramble in an attempt to find a suitable candidate to beat him. This remains to be seen as Trump won the Nevada caucuses Tuesday by a wide margin, beating Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz by more than 20 points.


http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/


* Anyone here surprised?*

[ladjf]

1. Slavery in the U.S. should have been explicitly outlawed in the Constitution

when it was first written. What was Jefferson thinking?

[melm00se]

2. That outlawing slavery in the Constitution

would have prevented the formation of the USA.

The southern slave states would never have ratified the Constitution had slavery been outlawed.

[ladjf]

3. I've heard that argument. But, I'm not convinced it's true.

If allowing citizens to buy, sell and own people was a pre-requisite for forming a new Country, perhaps it shouldn't have been formed
until that issue was settled.

Was it better by waiting 90 years before outlawing it?

[hifiguy]

6. The Southern delegates would never have signed on to the Constitution

without slavery being protected. Not a chance. And without a unified new country, the British could have fairly easily re-taken the former colonies.

[ladjf]

9. Your argument makes sense. But, if the Southern states had to either

give up slavery and be part of a viable Country or refuse statehood and be gobbled up by the British Imperialist, they might have opted to give up slavery. Who knows?

France outlawed it in 1793 . Britain in about 1835.

In any event, legal slavery has turned out to have been a disaster.

[melm00se]

10. In the original of the Declaration of Independence

Jefferson included anti-slavery verbiage but it was removed by the delegates.

The same situation applied to the drafting of the Constitution (BTW, Jefferson did not draft the Constitution, he was in France being an ambassador, but he did keep abreast of the drafting with steady communication with James Madison).

Delegates viewed slavery as something that they were unwilling to sacrifice the "American Experiment" over so they didn't. They viewed it as more important to set up and stabilize the new country and then perfect it. They did the best they could (always keeping an eye towards ratification which was contentious enough as it was) by including some ambiguous language in Article 1, Section 9:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

While this section does not specifically say "slaves", it was interpreted in such a way that Jefferson called for (in 1806) and signed (in 1807) the Prohibiting Importation of Slaves Act which went into effect on the 1st possible date (January 1, 1808).

Unfortunately, this law did not eliminate slavery as the slave population was at such a level that it was self-sustaining and imported slaves were not necessary to maintain the slave population.

You ask a good question and you answer it well: who knows? An historian can only address what actually happened and not speculate on what might have been. We only have to accept what has happened and live with its implications and repercussions. Eventually, enough time passes where folks have to just let it go and move on. One cannot undo what happened 150 to to 200+ years ago. Just apply the lessons learned.

[ladjf]

12. How interesting. I've been saying, "why didn't Jefferson put the wording in th

Constitution.?" You've answered that question. I was aware of the "Slaves act". France outlawed slavery in cir 1792 and England 1833. I am convinced that Lincoln hastily pushed us into the Civil War without making a serious effort to negotiate.
Further, from the time the Republicans were formed in 1855, they immediately began to apply the same philosophy and political techniques that they still use today. The recognized that the slave issue and a "lead pipe cinch" to be able to split the Country, the North would win the War and the Republicans (who changed their names) would gain and keep power until 1935.

As you said, that's water under the bridge.

Back to today's politics. After years of watching the American Government continue to sink into political depravity, Bernie's platform gave us some hope that maybe, just maybe, we might start a bloodless political revolution that would finally show how to
regain our rights from the oligarchs. Currently, I'm not feeling very optimistic.

[melm00se]

17. Don't fall into the name trap

The mid 19th century Republican Party had many of the hallmarks of the 20th century Democratic Party. The 19th century Republican Party championed:

- An ambitious expansion of federal power.
- Funded the transcontinental railroad.
- Funded the development of the state university systems.
- The settlement of the West by homesteaders.
- Instituting protective tariffs.
- Laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice

The mid 19th century Democratic Party opposed most, if not all, of these.

(sound familiar?)

As America moved into the latter part of the 19th century and into the 20th century, the 2 parties began to migrate and by the latter part of the early 20th century (specifically in the 1930's) they had exchanged places and (mostly) formed into their current ideological patterns

[ladjf]

18. You are obviously better posted on the entire chronology of the various

reiterations of the two Parties. I was focusing on the very early years 1855 through about 1870. I don't mind yielding to your
deeper knowledge of the complete picture.

[D Gary Grady]

19. Lincoln tried very hard to preserve the Union without war

Lincoln even indicated acceptance of the "other" 13th Amendment, one that would have made it impossible for the federal government to have outlawed slavery in the existing slave states, even by later amendment. It passed Congress by a large margin and was ratified by several states, though not enough to enter the Constitution, and by then many Southern elites actively hated the Union and did not want to remain in it. Most of the secessionist states had already announced secession before Lincoln's inauguration, but he tried in vain to convince them to rejoin. It was South Carolina that started the war by firing on Fort Sumpter.

[Bucky]

13. Actually no, Jefferson put in a phrase blaming the slave TRADE on the crown, which was BS

Slavery itself Jefferson had little problem with, obviously. At times he said he might free his slaves, but he never did. As he got older, in his 40s & 50s, he grew increasingly vehement in his defense of the institution that supported his way of life.

Jefferson did try to blame England for encouraging the slave trade, which he objected to because it involved kidnapping new groups of free people and denying them their liberty. But like most Virginians, he also knew that importing new slaves undercut the profit margin of upper South slaveholders selling their extra slaves further south to the Carolinas & Georgia.

He did oppose turning the Ohio and Kentucky into slaveholding lands, but his rationale was fear that allowing slaves in might discourage whites from moving into those territories.

[jwirr]

16. The southern states made it very clear they were NOT going

to sign on if they lost slavery. If the other states had pushed it they would have walked.

We would then have been 13 unconnected states at the mercy of England. If we had pushed it then we would have still been under the threat from England but the southern states would have done what they did years later. Declared war on the remainder of the states.

Unfortunately - slavery should have been stopped back then but it did not happen.

BTW Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. He was not a participant in the Constitutional Convention. He was actually serving as a minister to France the whole time it was being written.

[joeybee12]

4. I don't think this is right...

I think they meant 20% of Trump Fans DON'T Think Freeing the Slaves was a bad idea

[Bucky]

14. ha ha

it's actually 38% thinking emancipation was a mistake, according the poll I saw.

[joeybee12]

15. What nutcases

[Initech]

5. Moving to Cape Breton Island is sounding better and better every day.

I'm seriously considering taking them up on their offer.

[KamaAina]

8. I've been looking into that as well

turns out there is a small motel for sale right on the Trans-Canada Highway outside Baddeck, the island's tourist hub. It's right next to a stop on the lone bus route that links Cape Breton to the outside world, and a Timmies to boot! If I had the C$550,000, I'd rent the rooms weekly or monthly to fellow 'Murkins fleeing the menace of the vulgar talking yam.

[KamaAina]

7. And the other 80 percent don't know what slaves were.

[LanternWaste]

11. BLM opened my eyes that this racism in the here and now is most certainly not confined to the GOP.

I wish this surprised me, but this election cycle, and the particularly the primary wars are compelling me to think that racism is a feature, rather than a bug of the U.S. political and power structure being conveniently used by candidates and supporters who had never given the AA demographic a first word or a second thought prior to this year.

BLM opened my eyes that this racism in the here and now is most certainly not confined to the GOP.