Always Right - "My history books said the south lost the Civil War, but apparently that was just a battle. The south lost the battle of 1861-1865, but now are winning the war. Excuse the map, I could not find one that had all the states colored in."
Clearly, the intent of the poster was to draw an association between the "red" states of the old South and the other "red" states of the of the West, Rockies, and Plains. This provides the context of my statements, and is the point you have completely missed. All of the territory occupied by the "lower 48" was within the jurisdiction of the United States in 1861. (We can ignore Alaska and Hawaii for the purpose of this discussion.) The CSA (aka "South," as in the "the south lost") was comprised of the 11 so-called seceded states. You may want to also claim Kentucky, Missouri, and the territory now occupied by Arizona and New Mexico, but the fact of the matter is the confederacy never maintained actual control of these areas.
Neither was the "Union" confined to the states you show in your graphic. It included the Pacific Coast states and territories, as well as the area in between. All Union, all garrisoned by Union and loyal militia troops during the War, and all contributors to the Union cause.
You attempt to make a narrow point about the relationship of the old south and the Bush victory, and fail to consider the importance of the other "red" state areas which were organized later into full-fledged states.
Is that what you read into it? Cause I saw a simple post that observed how Bush's reelection vote was anchored in the old CSA states. The "all the states colored in" comment was obviously a reference to the fact that Bush has won Iowa, though the MSM has not updated their maps to reflect it. That you would read something different into that is indicative of a troubled mind that sees any simple mention of the civil war or the old confederacy in any context and, as if by gut reaction, allows his vision to be clouded by prejudices and hatred against the south.
All of the territory occupied by the "lower 48" was within the jurisdiction of the United States in 1861.
Indeed it was, but approximately half of it was unpopulated back then and cannot rightly be said to have favored either side during the war (unless you are planning on telling us of another Battle of Fort Davis where the cacti and buffalo participated in the conflict).
The CSA (aka "South," as in the "the south lost") was comprised of the 11 so-called seceded states.
12 plus a rump government from a thirteenth, Kentucky. Whether you wish to recognize secession or not is of no consequence to me as your position on the issue is not derived from reason and is therefore undeserving of further discussion. but the fact of the matter is the confederacy never maintained actual control of these areas.
Let's apply your "logic" further...Lincoln claimed Texas for all four years in office yet the fact of the matter is that Lincoln never maintained actual control over Texas - it seceded before he took the oath and didn't lay down its arms until after he was dead.
All Union, all garrisoned by Union and loyal militia troops during the War, and all contributors to the Union cause.
And exactly what significant actions did they do for the yankees? Send a couple sacks of potatos and tumbleweeds over to the east? Sacrifice one of their senators to the waters of the potomac and a bunch of confederate guns?