Let's explore your world for fun. If secession was the result of slavery then why did Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and most of Virginia fight on the side of the Union? In your world, does slavery only result in secession sometimes? If so, what are the factors that cause slavery to result in state secession in some cases and not others?
These states had a more mixed economy which was not as dependent on slavery. It's not a coincidence that they form a northern border to the confederate states. Locally, St. Louis, Kansas City, etc. shared much more economically with Chicago than with Nashville.
That is a great argument. I'm being serious when I say that. I had not heard the threshold argument before, but if it is a 20% enslavement threshold that causes secession, why didn't states secede the moment they crossed the 20% line? Why was 20% enslaved people a union-stable situation in 1859 but not in 1861?These states had a more mixed economy which was not as dependent on slavery. It's not a coincidence that they form a northern border to the confederate states. Locally, St. Louis, Kansas City, etc. shared much more economically with Chicago than with Nashville.
I mean, just go to the Wikipedia page on the 1860 census, and sort on "percentage enslaved". That's a good answer to your question. If you split off West Virginia (your "most of Virginia"), they are below 10%. Every state above 20% was in the Confederacy, no state below 20% was.
1860 United States census - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Not every man with a 9" **** works in porn, but every man who works in porn has a 9" ****.
I've never considered getting a forehead tattoo before, but now I kind of feel like I must have this comment be the first thing people learn before they talk to me.
Then my job here is **** done.
I can confirm this, as I do not work in porn.
The election of the first President who promised to stop the expansion of slavery to the territories (this assured that the slave states would become a minority in the Senate), along with the on-going refusal to enforce Fugitive Slave Laws, if you are to believe the secession statements of the four states who made one. Slavery was on it's way out in the US; it would have been banned in another 30 years or so.
Your current position on this is that some slavery (less than 20%) doesn't cause secession either with or without Lincoln, and greater slavery does result in secession but only in the presence of Lincoln. It seems you are admitting the election of 1860 played a role in the secession. I agree the election of 1860 played a role.
You're saying the result of the 1860 election was a perceived loss or looming loss of political power in the Union. I agree with that too. Abraham Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in most southern states and the lack of getting a single vote from the south didn't matter. The election proved the southern states in 1860 had no say in anything including who became President.
You say "admitting" as if I had said anything else. If Douglas is elected, there is no secession (in 1860-61), because the Southern states don't see slavery as being endangered.Your current position on this is that some slavery (less than 20%) doesn't cause secession either with or without Lincoln, and greater slavery does result in secession but only in the presence of Lincoln. It seems you are admitting the election of 1860 played a role in the secession. I agree the election of 1860 played a role.
You're saying the result of the 1860 election was a perceived loss or looming loss of political power in the Union. I agree with that too. Abraham Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in most southern states and the lack of getting a single vote from the south didn't matter. The election proved the southern states in 1860 had no say in anything including who became President.
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/I37NUIQNQJHENKMN3TQVXLJFJA.jpg)
www.inquirer.com
www.cnn.com
“It’s impossible for me to understate or downplay the importance of this moment, and I hope that my colleagues in the media — who too often over the last year have craved or even pretended about a return to the politics of “normal,” when we are nowhere near normal — will wake up and see this. Of course, Biden’s presidency deserves our full scrutiny, with praise for what’s gone right (an economic boom) and criticism for what’s gone wrong (broken promises on climate and student debt). But while Biden is seeking to restore democratic norms, a shadow ex-president — unpunished so far for his role in an attempted coup on Jan. 6 — is rebuilding a cult-like movement in the heartland of America, with all the personal grievance and appeals to Brownshirts-style violence that marked the lowest moments of the 20th century. On the 89th anniversary of the date (Jan. 30, 1933) that Adolf Hitler — rehabilitated after his attempted coup — assumed power in Germany, are we repeating the past’s mistakes of complacency and underestimation?”:
At Texas rally, Trump all but promised a racially charged civil war if he’s indicted | Will Bunch
In one of the most incendiary, dangerous speeches in U.S. history, Donald Trump promised at a Texas rally mayhem if he's criminally charged.
Analysis: Trump offers chilling glimpse into possible second term
Former President Donald Trump conjured a vision of a second term that would function as a tool of personal vengeance, and become even more authoritarian than his first, when he vowed to pardon US Capitol insurrectionists if he runs for the White House again and wins.
If only. Even that event would likely come with a huge price, but right now, I’ll take it….
