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

[KamaAina]

Not. The. Onion.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/24/11105552/trump-supporters-slavery

The New York Times took a dive into whether Donald Trump's supporters are 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.

And the other 63 percent didn't know who Lincoln was.

[malthaussen]

1. What, this shocks you?

Slavery is perfectly cool, as long as you aren't the slave.

-- Mal

[underpants]

2. I love the poorly educated

I will say that the wording of that question is um questionable. A lot of people might not know what they meant. AND many Civil War history types will cloud conversations by stating that Lincoln didn't free (all) tge slaves, Johndon did.

Just saying.

[Herman4747]

3. Well, yeah, those guys are zany.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. While the question was poorly worded

He was endorsed by white power groups. So this is not surprising

[hibbing]

5. David Duke told his supporters to vote and volunteer for Trump today

The Republicans have been fueling this for decades and now they have their perfect candidate. An openly racist billionaire who can say what they all want to say and feels the way they feel. It is interesting to watch all the elite commentators on the corporate media try to spin it as something different. Such as anger at Washington.


Peace

[elljay]

6. It really is the year 2016, isn't it?

And we're having this conversation? Someone please tell me that I have had a complete and total mental breakdown and am imagining all this.

[potone]

20. That is exactly the way I feel.

Can this possibly be true??? This goes beyond racism. Slavery??? OK, the question was badly worded, but it is clear enough that the issue is slavery. How can anyone assent to that? We need an entire overhaul of our educational system. Good Lord!!!

[moondust]

7. No surprise.

For years I've suspected that quite a few Americans primarily in the red and brown areas, now called "Red States," would happily return to slave-owning for profit if they could--as long as they're not the slaves! They probably don't think too much about the high overhead involved in owning moochers slaves and keeping them healthy enough to work.

[Rider3]

8. WTF?

People actually believe it is OK to "own" another human being? I'm ashamed of this nation.

[KamaAina]

9. The vulgar talking yam's supporters do not see African Americans as human beings

[Recursion]

22. It was a push poll. After a series of questions about Obama's executive orders

they asked if they approved or disapproved of Lincoln's using an executive order to free the slaves in states still in rebellion.

[eissa]

10. And the remaining 80% can't spell "slaves." nt

[Bad Dog]

11. Sasha Baron Cohen got to the nub of it a while back

The attitude towards slavery comes out around 4.12, but the rest is worth a watch.

[Nitram]

12. Snopes points out that there is no confirmation of this contention. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. Bullshit. That number is much higher I'm sure.

[dchill]

29. That's what I was thinking.

20% is probably closer to the national average.

[Risen Demon]

14. This has me thinking about "What if..."

What if a law was passed that said "Slavery is legal again"

That would be the defining article. However, what these people wouldn't understand is that it applies to income/debt ratio rather than race. Once they found out that the racial standard was removed, they would sure change their minds.

[robertgodardfromnj]

15. Jesus Christ

Trump and his fans are out of their minds. This country will be in great turmoil if he becomes president.

[Third Doctor]

16. These are the same people that have

convinced themselves that the Civil War was not about slavery but state's rights. The right to do what? It was spelled out in more than one confederate state secession declaration and they all centered on slavery. It's interesting the rich elite of the old south conned the lower classes to fight against their own best interests the same as the modern GOP convinces a lot of their descendants to vote against their own best interests. Is dumbness a genetic trait and passed down?

[skepticscott]

33. It's not even like that was anything new

How many wars down through history have been orchestrated by the rich and powerful, and actually fought by the poor and powerless?

[malthaussen]

17. Eh, it's a poorly-worded question.

Or rather I should say, a loaded question. Those words "executive order" make it about something other than the freeing of slaves. This is not to say that Mr Trump is not supported by bigots, nor that many of his supporters do think slavery is just all right, merely that these conclusions are not necessarily proven by the question.

-- Mal

[dumbcat]

28. Thank you for pointing that out

I wondered how long it was going to take. The conclusion drawn in the title cannot be supported by the results of the question asked. I know many people here are smart enough to know that, but the culture here is a disincentive to bringing it up. It tells me willful ignorance and deception are acceptable when it is in support of a "righteous" cause.

[Dont call me Shirley]

18. OMG, get over the civil war already it was a hundred and fifty years ago!

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

19. A book showing how happy George Washingon's slaves were

became an Amazon best seller after it was pulled from Scholastic's shelves. link

In fact, according to one Arkansas state senator, slavery "was a blessing" to the blacks. link

Are we truly surprised that a sizable portion of the American public don't see anything wrong with slavery?

[Generic Brad]

35. They were so happy his prized chef Hercules ran away

Of course the Scholastic book dealt with how industrious he was in his efforts to happily bake a birthday cake for Washington. No mention of him desperately escaping from Mount Vernon and painfully sacrificing life with his family for a chance at living and dying as a free man.

Many of our venerated founding fathers were pieces of shit when it came to understanding, recognizing, and upholding human dignity.

[keithbvadu2]

21. Official republican position - Lincoln was our nation's greatest leader

From the 2004 GOP Platform

"One hundred and fifty years ago, Americans who had gathered to protest the expansion of slavery gave birth to a political Party that would save the Union – the Republican Party.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln of Illinois carried the Republican banner in the Presidential election and was elected the Party's first President. He became our nation's greatest leader … and one of our Party's greatest heroes. "

[Nitram]

27. The GOP like to claim Lincoln as their own because he was president when...

...the Republican Party was progressive and liberal. Ironic.

[ultragreen]

23. Is there any way to deport these people?

[Abouttime]

24. I wish

It's a tragedy that in the year 2016 we have people in klan robes showing up to support a republican front runner.

[ericson00]

25. while I don't doubt Trump supporters include large numbers of racists,

I scowered the poll cited https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ctucuikdsj/econToplines.pdf

and nowhere to be found what the statistic that 1/5 Trump supporters oppose the Emancipation Proclamation. Boy crying wolf doesn't help anything.

[valerief]

30. I'll bet that 20 percent is part of the 1%.

[Yo_Mama]

31. Anyone who takes that seriously needs to take seriously all the racist blacks reported in this poll.

Could there be something slightly off with the poll? I do not believe that 29% of black people in this country think that slavery should have been continued.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/25/donald-trump-supporters-racist-poll-yougov-economist-column/80944446/

32% of American blacks back President Franklin Roosevelt’s decision to round up Japanese-Americans and put them in camps during World War II. According to The New York Times analysis of the poll results, that is almost exactly the same percentage as among Trump voters.
...
Here’s something that might put things in perspective: If you dig deep into the confusing Economist/YouGov online poll, you find that only 71% of American blacks approve of the Emancipation Proclamation. Five percent definitely disapprove of Lincoln’s action and 24% just aren’t sure.

Here's the actual poll:
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ps6zskmuwy/econTabReport.pdf

If you go to page 137 (Q. 127), you will see that only 71% of black voters approve of the Emancipation Proclaimation! Same percentage as whites. On page 138 you will find that 21% of Hispanics disapprove of DACA (the Dreamers - legalizing illegals who were brought into the country as children), higher than the percentage of Blacks (20%).

Only 55% of Blacks in this poll approve of desegregating the US military. More Whites (61%) approve. Damn those racist black people. But the black people are not as racist as the Hispanics! Only 39% of Hispanics approved of desegregating the US military.

Off hand I would say there was a comprehension error here. Or perhaps half the respondents had fallen asleep by that point.

[oberliner]

40. Thanks for adding this info

This whole "story" is manipulative BS.

[skepticscott]

32. Dumb ass question to begin with

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free any slaves in Confederate states. Anyone with an actual brain would have snorted at the question as moronic, and walked away.

[D Gary Grady]

38. The Emancipation Proclamation in reality freed millions of slaves

There is a popular historical myth that runs more or less like this: "The Emancipation Proclamation was mainly a PR effort aimed at winning support from anti-slavery advocates in Britain. It didn't apply to the four slave states that remained in the Union because Lincoln needed their political support, and given that the Confederate states obviously would not obey an order from Lincoln, the Proclamation had no actual effect." This sounds superficially quite plausible, but it's false.

First, the Emancipation Proclamation could not possibly have applied outside the rebellious areas because the only legal basis on which Lincoln could issue it was the general law of war and the Confiscation Acts, under which Lincoln could, in furtherance of the war effort, order seizure of enemy property such as wagons, buildings, munitions, crops, and in this case chattel slaves. On the day the Proclamation was issued, January 1, 1863, only a small number of slaves were freed by federal forces operating in rebellious areas. But as Union troops advanced farther and farther into the Confederacy, their officers carrying small printed copies of the Proclamation, millions more slaves were freed, until by mid-1865 the vast majority of slaves had been liberated.

On June 19, 1865, Major General Gordon Granger landed at Galveston, Texas, and announced that the Proclamation would be enforced in the state (hitherto largely outside the fight and hence with few federal troops). On that date in 1866 former slaves in Texas celebrated "Juneteenth" as the first anniversary of their freedom under the Proclamation. Obviously those men and women were not imagining when and why it had happened.

In fact, by the time the 13th Amendment was ratified in December of 1865, there were only two states in the Union that had not already outlawed slavery on their own, Delaware and Kentucky.

Needless to say, de facto slavery existed even after 1865 in various forms, and the effects of slavery, jim crow, and the like remain with us today. History is never simple. But we should give credit where it's due, and the Emancipation Proclamation deserves to be recalled for its greatness.

[skepticscott]

41. You're not telling me anything I don't know

But the fact remains that, when it was issued, the Emancipation Proclamation had no legal force anywhere where it would have mattered. Only when military control was taken, when and where it was, did it have any force at all. And suppose things had gone badly for the United States militarily in the latter part of 1864, Lincoln had not won re-election, and the United States had negotiated a peace. Would those slaves have been "freed", because of the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation? Of course not.

And however you argue those issues, even more relevant to the issue at hand is the question of how many of the people polled could be expected to know enough history to parse all this out? Damn few. So yes, I stand by my labeling of this as a dumb ass question.

[D Gary Grady]

43. Tens of thousands of slaves were freed the first day

You may well be right that it was a dumb-ass question. But in making that point you wrote, "The Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free any slaves in Confederate states," and that actually isn't true. It freed more than three million.

Here you say that "when it was issued, the Emancipation Proclamation had no legal force anywhere where it would have mattered." I suspect it mattered to as many as 50,000 slaves freed the first day, and to the many more in succeeding days, weeks, and month, many of whom heard about Emancipation and escaped from areas still under Confederate control to reach Union lines and freedom. I don't understand your objection that the Proclamation required military force to implement. How could it have been otherwise? As for speculating on alternative histories, that can be interesting and even entertaining, but I think what happened in the real world is more important.

An incidental aside (not directly in response to what you wrote, just something I think worth mentioning in this context: Lincoln's courage in issuing the Proclamation should not be underestimated. See this article from Slate.

[skepticscott]

44. How could it have been otherwise?

The same way that the 14th Amendment was otherwise.

And you contradict your own argument when you state: I suspect it mattered to as many as 50,000 slaves freed the first day, and to the many more in succeeding days, weeks, and month, many of whom heard about Emancipation and escaped from areas still under Confederate control to reach Union lines and freedom. If the Emancipation Proclamation had "freed" all of those slaves in Confederate states in any way that mattered, then why did they still need to "escape"?

[D Gary Grady]

45. I suspect you mean the 13th Amendment

The Emancipation Proclamation freed most of the slaves in the Confederacy. Lincoln then proposed the 13th Amendment to outlaw slavery going forward throughout the Union, including in the border states that did not secede. And of course, the 13th Amendment required enforcement, just as did the Emancipation Proclamation.

As for the slaves who freed themselves, unfortunately those who reached Union lines prior to the Emancipation Proclamation were not automatically free. Some were held as captives and others even returned to their owners under the Fugitive Slave Act. And of course many slaves were freed by the advancing federal forces before they were able to escape. Late in the war (particularly in Texas) slaveowners themselves announced to their slaves that they had been freed by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation before they were forced to do so.

You seem to think that someone is suggesting the odd idea that the Emancipation Proclamation somehow instantaneously freed all the slaves. No one is saying any such thing, only pointing out that under its authority up to 50,000 slaves were freed immediately and more than 3 million were freed by mid-1865, which pretty clearly disproves the notion that it freed no slaves.

[skepticscott]

46. That "odd idea" as you call it

is exactly what is being suggested by the question in the poll. Hence my original point. Dumb ass question.

[redruddyred]

34. states' rights mang

that's what the civil war was about

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. These people think the Bill of Rights is too liberal.

[heaven05]

37. not surprising at all

since they have ALWAYS been among us in varying degrees of cowardice and courage that Trump as allowed them to display openly now. When the election is over and this pissant trump crashes in flames, his supporters will crawl back under their rock and wait for the next racist fascist to show up on our political scene.

[oberliner]

39. Nearly 10 percent of Bernie's supporters disapprove of Lincoln freeing the slaves

And 6 percent of Hillary's supporters.

All according to the same poll.

[KansDem]

42. They don't want "free stuff" from the government...

...but they'll take "free labor" from the slaves.

Makes sense!