Civil War Boundaries

Post Reply New Topic

Map of Civil War Boundaries



Map of 2016 Democrat Boundaries



Here's to hoping old trends remain true

On the Civil War map Maryland should be green, and not blue. It was a slave state that stayed in the Union.

Just sayin'.

Its been observed for the last several elections that the map of the modern "red states and blue states" has an eerie similarity to the map of the old "gray states and blue states" of the civil war.

But thats the map of the general election between the parties.

you're talking about the contest within in the one Democratic Party. It IS interesting how that also has followed a similar north-south regional pattern. My guess: the descendants of the slaves are still a big voting block in the former slave states. And they tend to vote for the old school Democrats like Clinton. And White progressives in the north go for Sanders.

is it spurious correlation theater time once again? oh boy
the confederacy:

where the GOP frontrunners won:

^ Why show the republican map, they aren't really in a battle of conservative vs progressive. Also I can't tell if you're being derisive or not so for now benefit of doubt.

@Natural, yeah although it could just be that the South is just generally resistant to change in general and that's what Sanders represents. They did fight a war over it after all. I don't blame them, been an issue in all cultures throughout history, conservative and progressive pushes. Republican and Democrat trends in the general election aren't so clear cut though. Conservatives and Progressives aren't bound by party lines but geographical ones. It's interesting though that one can even witness when Republicans and Democrats "switched" parties in the mid 20th century though based on the electoral maps.
http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

This was more of a mock thread in general though, as we don't know how the Union States will vote yet, hence the "hope the trend continues"

I was being semi-derisive as you're making a 'correlation = causation' argument.

Leave that s**t at the door than.
Like I said, it twas but a mock thread, although as Naturalplasitc got me thinking, the south generally has more conservative people in it so they're bound to vote for the more conservative candidate. This has nothing to do with correlation proves causation fallacy. I never said the civil war caused the current trends. Both maps are the results of the cultures that inhabit the geographical locations. This is cause and effect. People are conservative so they vote conservative. People are progressive so they vote progressive.

cause and effect is what causality describes, so I'm not really sure what it is you think you're saying.

here's why correlation does not imply cause:

I know exactly what I'm saying. My logic is actually sound. Here's why:

Description of Confusing Cause and Effect

Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:

A and B regularly occur together.
Therefore A is the cause of B.
This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.

Now let me break it down for you

Civil war map and Election Maps line up
Common cause of both maps looking the way they do: the native cultures of the regions influence both

Go argue for the sake of arguing somewhere else.

you're claiming that the confederacy membership (A) correlates with the democratic election(B), completely ignoring the history between the two events(like voter migration and the Southern Strategy), and also the fact that the republican election also correlates with A. just because they correlate with each other does not imply a causal link, ergo what you're arguing is a fallacy.

No. He merely posted two maps that so far, for the democratic votes, seem to be lining up and said "here's to hoping that trend continues".
There is no argument being made, no logical fallacies, and nothing to argue against - unless you want to argue "i hope they don't!"

hah. indeed!
i would think the west coast could easily be green; but if it will be enough remains to be seen. (hey, that rhymed!)

^ Heh nice

No I'm arguing southern culture tends to default towards conservatism, which it does. Hilary is the more conservative candidate so it makes sense she won the south. Southern strategy has nothing to do with this either, why are you enlarging the argument? I'm talking about democrats not republicans. Do you even read what I say? Stop making me your straw man.

Tennessee was partially in the Union. Andrew Johnson was Military Governor of Tennessee before he became Vice President under Lincoln.

Kansas has been in the red since 1968. Republican all the way!

What are you talking about?

Thats a self contradictory statement.

The whole reason Tennessee had a "military governor" was because it had been part of the Confederacy, and it was one of the first rebel states that the Union reconquered by force (hense the need for a "military governor" instead of a normal locally elected governor).

Why? Completely off topic.