jerseyhoya wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I feel like I should be able to draw some conclusion from that map, but I'm not sure what it is.

Areas where the most cotton was harvested had the highest concentration of slaves and remain heavily African American to this day. The counties vote for Democrats even as the states have gone heavily Republican.

slaves constituted 80% of SC's population in 1860

I know they say that there really is no "good" time to quit smoking or start a diet and you shouldn't let that stop you, but I really think trying to quit smoking after being elected to the office of President of the United States is a pretty good exception.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I feel like I should be able to draw some conclusion from that map, but I'm not sure what it is.

Areas where the most cotton was harvested had the highest concentration of slaves and remain heavily African American to this day. The counties vote for Democrats even as the states have gone heavily Republican.

slaves constituted 80% of SC's population in 1860

You posted a link like an hour ago that has it at 57.2%. And the areas of South Carolina where it was highest voted for Obama.

VoxOrion wrote:I know they say that there really is no "good" time to quit smoking or start a diet and you shouldn't let that stop you, but I really think trying to quit smoking after being elected to the office of President of the United States is a pretty good exception.

I can't think of a worse time to try to quit smoking than being elected president.

Having re-read your post, maybe that's what it says. Or it says the opposite. I'm not sure. So, I agree. Or I don't.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I feel like I should be able to draw some conclusion from that map, but I'm not sure what it is.

Areas where the most cotton was harvested had the highest concentration of slaves and remain heavily African American to this day. The counties vote for Democrats even as the states have gone heavily Republican.

slaves constituted 80% of SC's population in 1860

You posted a link like an hour ago that has it at 57.2%. And the areas of South Carolina where it was highest voted for Obama.

Frankly your attempt to contemporize that map with some kind of theory about current-day voting populations/behavior is baffling, if not outright bizarre. Do not - do NOT - try spinning that up into anything like a master's thesis.

If you clicked on the little "camera-icon" thingie for S. Carolina on the map I linked to, the caption on the resulting picture contains the statistical information I posted here. I intended it merely as an observation - EIGHTY PERCENT of the population was SLAVES - because I can't see how it forms the basis for any particular assertion about the present day.

drsmooth wrote:
If you clicked on the little "camera-icon" thingie for S. Carolina on the map I linked to, the caption on the resulting picture contains the statistical information I posted here. I intended it merely as an observation - EIGHTY PERCENT of the population was SLAVES - because I can't see how it forms the basis for any particular assertion about the present day.

dunno. Anytime I see figures like that, I think of fuck loads of capital.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I feel like I should be able to draw some conclusion from that map, but I'm not sure what it is.

Areas where the most cotton was harvested had the highest concentration of slaves and remain heavily African American to this day. The counties vote for Democrats even as the states have gone heavily Republican.

slaves constituted 80% of SC's population in 1860

You posted a link like an hour ago that has it at 57.2%. And the areas of South Carolina where it was highest voted for Obama.

Frankly your attempt to contemporize that map with some kind of theory about current-day voting populations/behavior is baffling, if not outright bizarre. Do not - do NOT - try spinning that up into anything like a master's thesis.

If you clicked on the little "camera-icon" thingie for S. Carolina on the map I linked to, the caption on the resulting picture contains the statistical information I posted here. I intended it merely as an observation - EIGHTY PERCENT of the population was SLAVES - because I can't see how it forms the basis for any particular assertion about the present day.

That's just Beaufort County. The entire state was 57.2%.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I feel like I should be able to draw some conclusion from that map, but I'm not sure what it is.

I thought the Dr. was just saying it was a cool kind of map, in an early Envisioning Information kind of way. Now I'm not sure. Should Obama quit smoking or not?

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I feel like I should be able to draw some conclusion from that map, but I'm not sure what it is.

Areas where the most cotton was harvested had the highest concentration of slaves and remain heavily African American to this day. The counties vote for Democrats even as the states have gone heavily Republican.

slaves constituted 80% of SC's population in 1860

You posted a link like an hour ago that has it at 57.2%. And the areas of South Carolina where it was highest voted for Obama.

Frankly your attempt to contemporize that map with some kind of theory about current-day voting populations/behavior is baffling, if not outright bizarre. Do not - do NOT - try spinning that up into anything like a master's thesis.

If you clicked on the little "camera-icon" thingie for S. Carolina on the map I linked to, the caption on the resulting picture contains the statistical information I posted here. I intended it merely as an observation - EIGHTY PERCENT of the population was SLAVES - because I can't see how it forms the basis for any particular assertion about the present day.

I'm not sure why you find it bizarre. I didn't make that map I pasted above. The "Black Belt" is a well accepted demographic fact that persists to this day. It even has its own Wikipedia entry. Counties that used to have a high concentration of slaves to this day generally have high black populations. Counties with high black populations generally vote Democratic. You don't need to go to grad school in political science to make these leaps.

You're still wrong about the 80% of South Carolina's population being slaves. It was true in the one county they highlight (which today is the resort county that has Hilton Head in it and is heavily white and Republican and an outlier to the set). The free/slave/total populations for states on the whole are at the bottom of the map.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:slaves constituted 80% of SC's population in 1860

You posted a link like an hour ago that has it at 57.2%.

So, 22.8% are still slaves...

More interesting graphs (posted by Rich Lowery *HISSSS* at National Review)

I think conservatives need to spend more time thinking about all of this, and what our solutions–if any–are to it.

Bucky wrote:Ya know, I'll never be affected by it in any way, but I don't believe that any kind of estate tax, in any way or form, is moral. Someone makes a lot of money- which was presumably taxed when it was earned- and then when they kick, the government wants a big chunk instead of it all going to your heirs? Seems pretty oppressive to me.

Actually, there is no reason to assume it was taxed when it was earned. It may very well be unrealized capital gains appreciation that has never been taxed.

So not only did Clinton and Obama hold a joint press conference this afternoon, but Obama left to go to a meeting while Clinton stayed and took questions for an additional 25 minutes.

Bernie Sanders on his 8th hour of filibustering the tax cut bill. This has been the weirdest political week in a long damn time.

Swiggers wrote:It's a vestige of our founding. The founders didn't want there to become a permanent nobility like the European countries had, and this was one of the things they did to address that.

The IRS says ye were just going with what was popular at the time in an effort to fund war on the frenchies.

VoxOrion wrote:More interesting graphs (posted by Rich Lowery *HISSSS* at National Review)

I think conservatives need to spend more time thinking about all of this, and what our solutions–if any–are to it.

Yeah, right. I wanna see that graph broken down by displine. My plumber earns more than me. I guarantee it.

jerseyhoya wrote:So not only did Clinton and Obama hold a joint press conference this afternoon, but Obama left to go to a meeting while Clinton stayed and took questions for an additional 25 minutes.

Quagland wrote:That's just Beaufort County. The entire state was 57.2%.

Thanks Q, and Jerz. I misread the county piece, and had not read the state-by-state table at all.

"majority slaves" is still hard for me to process.

VoxOrion wrote:More interesting graphs (posted by Rich Lowery *HISSSS* at National Review)

I think conservatives need to spend more time thinking about all of this, and what our solutions–if any–are to it.

are "families" adjusted for numbers of fulltime wage earners/family- if not, doing so would probably correct for some of the gaps between the top line and all others.

Also, the chart doesn't show the range of incomes for each category - what might happen if you adjust for the degree of dispersion among educational categories? My guess, again, is you'd see convergence.

In short, my bias is that more attention needs to be devoted not to secondary or tertiary attainments of stuff that looks to some like "merit" - like education, for example - and pay more attention to primary drivers of financial stability/capacity/clout/whatever, like ownership