I did miss something.
"The only significant non-voting population in the north anyway was the female half of the population, and there is certainly no evidence that they felt any differently about Lincoln than the male voting population."
Nor is there any evidence they felt the same. What limited evidence we do have on gender patterns is the from this century and transnational. It suggests there are usually sizable differences in political preferences. Of course, we don't know which way any differences would have cut. Which brings us to:
"He got 2,218,388 votes to 1,812,807 votes for McClellan. Add those 1,812,807 people to the voters of the South, and you have probably a majority."
The Southern white population + 1.8 million is not anything like a majority, of course. But that's not the good part. The good part is that, for this sentence to make any sense, voting for McClellan has to be considered an expression of hating Lincoln with the same intensity as people in the South hated Lincoln. This is a terrific insight we should apply elsewhere. For example, there are people in the Middle East who hate President Bush in large part because they are at war with the country he leads. Clearly we can conclude that everyone who voted for Senator Kerry feels exactly the same way as they do.
"Yes, you can use voters, because in a democratic political system, voters (or those eligible to vote, anyway) are the only ones who really count . . .
This I would expect from you: the majority of the population is not importantly different than the majority of voters. If it so happens that women and non-whites can't vote and they constitute a majority of the population, meh. Voters are the only ones who really count. Everyone agrees with what they say, anyway. Also, the Confederacy was obviously a democracy. It had voting, after all. And in a democracy, voters are the only ones who really count. So the only people who really count in the Confederacy (or the Union, for that matter) are . . .
"I don't think I will dignify that with a response, except to say, as I have said to other posters who can't seem to defend their position without resorting to name calling...GET A LIFE."
I edited in my comment about you possibly being a disgusting human being only after reading your next post blaming carpetbaggers for Jim Crow. Before that, this was to be a sharp but impersonal exchange. The carpetbagger remark was so ridiculous, however, it deserved more. And I see from your reply it gets even better.
"Segregation was a Northern invention which was adopted in the South after the war, in large part because it was "what the victors did."
Yes, certainly didn't see much segregation in the pre-ACW South, did we? Just the distance from the manor to the shed. Things were obviously better then. That dastardly northern invention of segregation was responsible for so many ills which the beautiful South of 1860 didn't suffer from. Also, segregating the Tutu from the Hutsi was a terrible idea. Segregation bad, very bad. Slavery understandable and transient.
"If you look at the way free blacks were treated in the South prior to 1861, you certainly can see that. Free blacks in the South were, in general, not segregated, were allowed to own property...even slaves...and become very wealthy."
Of course. When considering what would have happened in the absence of carpetbaggers, the proper sample is the 0.1 percent of free blacks, not the 99.9% who were subject to beating, rapes, and murder by their masters. That's how we know what the South would have done if left to its own devices in 1866, look at a tiny, incomparably exceptional minority of the black population. Also, if you want to know what the Nazi Party would have done if left in power by the Allies, the proper sample is to consider those few thousand Jews with enough local influence to be allowed to remain in their homes.
On reading and rereading, what I missed the first time around is that the possibility that you are simply a moron. I lean against that, though, in favor of the disgusting human being supposition. Yes, I'm resorting to name-calling in addition to making points. Just making points feels insufficient in the face of this kind of nonsense.