Voter Suppression and Why The Republicans Love It So Much?

[fishonjazz]

Without slavery, there is no secession, and hence no Civil War. Having degrees of separation does not prevent it from being the primary cause.

This

 

[One Brow]

Sorta, yes. The Confederate soldiers were in the field in the first part of the Civil War to repel the invasion of the Union troops. If Lincoln had not ordered Union troops into the Confederate states there is no indication the Confederate soldiers would have invaded the North, so yes the Confederate soldiers were in the field because of Lincoln's order to keep the union intact.

You can't invade your own territory. Southern troops went into war to support secession, which was the result of slavery.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Southern troops went into war to support secession, which was the result of slavery.

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?

 

[One Brow]

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.

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

 

[Al-O-Meter]

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

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?

 

[gandalfe]

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?

Not every man with a 9" **** works in porn, but every man who works in porn has a 9" ****.

 

[Gameface]

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.

 

[gandalfe]

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.

 

[LogGrad98]

Not every man with a 9" **** works in porn, but every man who works in porn has a 9" ****.

I can confirm this, as I do not work in porn.

 

[One Brow]

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?

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.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

The election of the first President who promised to stop the expansion of slavery to the territories

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.

this assured that the slave states would become a minority in the Senate

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.

 

[One Brow]

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.