Can I briefly join you in some heavy hitting Connie? I wouldn't ask, but this is just so priceless. Chris Shelley has a blog called "True Blue Federalist", and he currently has a thread up entitled something like " Secession and the Expansion of slavery. The thread itself is long and boring, but, and here is the delicious part, he has a graph which purports to demonstrate a relationship between the slave population and the alacrity of secession. The graph is all ass-over backwards and is ultimately self-defeating, but Andy Hall pompously and superciliously lectures everyone on how to interpret the graph.
PS-You should hurry over, because Shelley will probably remove it to spare Andy the humiliation. It is especially funny because Hall boldly announces how the graph describes a near perfect NEGATIVE correlation. Except Andy doesn't know how to read a graph, because the slope of the curve actually describes a near perfect POSITIVE correlation. I just finished abusing Shelley on the matter over at Jerry's blog, but I wanted to share here too. Unless it has to do with swamps and old boats, ol Andy has very serious limitations.
You should read the axes more carefully because I made the graph differently from what you were expecting. I wanted South Carolina to start not end, so the x-axis is reversed. I'm very sorry for the confusion. Also Andy is describing the graphs he made first based on secession order, not days after Lincoln's election, as I thought to do afterwards. His graphs (and the data we both used) are at his blog post called not surprising part deux. Anyway, it is indeed a negative correlation of the variables. Thank you for your interest.
Michael, I instantly saw, of course, the inverted x-axis, and that is what renders the graph so senseless, useless, and meaningless. And even correcting for the fact that you depicted a postive slope in your effort to reflect a negative correlation, you still neglected to include both the slave population of Delaware, and the slave population of Union loyal Virginia (ultimately West Virginia). Then, almost stunningly, and becasue you didn't know how to graph them properly, you stuff Kentucky, Missouri, and Marlyland in the NE quadrant and label them "never". What the H E double hockey sticks is that suppose to be?
Nevertheless, and in all fairness to you, your graph, for all its faults, was still far, far superior to Hall's. Whereas you at least made some minimalist effort, albeit confused, to represent the Union slave state population, Hall, in order to reach the conclusion he wants, simply ignores them altogether. His graphs are fraudulent, and I mean really, who, exactly, is he trying to kid?
Anyway, what your graph actually shows (again,Hall's data and methodology are utterly worthless) is that the war was fought between two slave-owning republics, and that accordingly, slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the war. But everyone already knew that. And you are welcome for the interest.
Folks, I was off line for a few days and started reading - " The Idea of a Southern Nation." By John McCardell, I'm 1/2 way finished. To understand secession, it helps to know the 3 factions involved Sectionalism, Nationalism, and Southern Nationalist, if ya get a chance grab a copy. I will be doing a few post soon on secession soon, I gotta read the whole book. It has opened my eyes to the whole slavery / secession subject.
Can I briefly join you in some heavy hitting Connie? I wouldn't ask, but this is just so priceless. Chris Shelley has a blog called "True Blue Federalist", and he currently has a thread up entitled something like " Secession and the Expansion of slavery. The thread itself is long and boring, but, and here is the delicious part, he has a graph which purports to demonstrate a relationship between the slave population and the alacrity of secession. The graph is all ass-over backwards and is ultimately self-defeating, but Andy Hall pompously and superciliously lectures everyone on how to interpret the graph.
ReplyDeletePS-You should hurry over, because Shelley will probably remove it to spare Andy the humiliation.
It is especially funny because Hall boldly announces how the graph describes a near perfect NEGATIVE correlation. Except Andy doesn't know how to read a graph, because the slope of the curve actually describes a near perfect POSITIVE correlation. I just finished abusing Shelley on the matter over at Jerry's blog, but I wanted to share here too. Unless it has to do with swamps and old boats, ol Andy has very serious limitations.
You should read the axes more carefully because I made the graph differently from what you were expecting. I wanted South Carolina to start not end, so the x-axis is reversed. I'm very sorry for the confusion.
ReplyDeleteAlso Andy is describing the graphs he made first based on secession order, not days after Lincoln's election, as I thought to do afterwards. His graphs (and the data we both used) are at his blog post called not surprising part deux.
Anyway, it is indeed a negative correlation of the variables. Thank you for your interest.
By "negative correlation" do you mean that the more slaves in a State, the less likely she was to secede or...?
DeleteMichael, I instantly saw, of course, the inverted x-axis, and that is what renders the graph so senseless, useless, and meaningless. And even correcting for the fact that you depicted a postive slope in your effort to reflect a negative correlation, you still neglected to include both the slave population of Delaware, and the slave population of Union loyal Virginia (ultimately West Virginia). Then, almost stunningly, and becasue you didn't know how to graph them properly, you stuff Kentucky, Missouri, and Marlyland in the NE quadrant and label them "never". What the H E double hockey sticks is that suppose to be?
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, and in all fairness to you, your graph, for all its faults, was still far, far superior to Hall's. Whereas you at least made some minimalist effort, albeit confused, to represent the Union slave state population, Hall, in order to reach the conclusion he wants, simply ignores them altogether. His graphs are fraudulent, and I mean really, who, exactly, is he trying to kid?
Anyway, what your graph actually shows (again,Hall's data and methodology are utterly worthless) is that the war was fought between two slave-owning republics, and that accordingly, slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the war. But everyone already knew that. And you are welcome for the interest.
Folks, I was off line for a few days and started reading - " The Idea of a Southern Nation." By John McCardell, I'm 1/2 way finished.
ReplyDeleteTo understand secession, it helps to know the 3 factions
involved
Sectionalism, Nationalism, and Southern Nationalist,
if ya get a chance grab a copy. I will be doing a few post soon on secession soon, I gotta read the whole book.
It has opened my eyes to the whole slavery / secession subject.