"Red states" that supported President Bush also supported slavery

News Target ^ | November 15, 2004

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

*In case it's hard to read, on the Pre-Civil War Map, the red areas were slave states and the brown areas were territories open to slavery, while the green areas were free states and territories.

*These distinctions eerily correspond to the red states vs. blue states on the 2004 Election Map ~~ i.e., the blue (Kerry) states correspond to the pre-civil-war free states and territories, while the red (Bush) states correspond to what were the slave states and territories.

*To me, the images (and subsequent comments) simply point out that we as a country cannot, or refuse to, face difficult racial issues.

*I think the mentality which allowed certain parts of the country at a certain time in our history to accept the violent subjugation of an entire human race ...

*By using the headline "Free States vs. Slave States", an immediate deception is perpetrated that continues to deceive right through all following commentary. These were philisophical differences in forms of government and policy, not whether or not black people should be free.

*It is so hard for me to understand the wailing coming from the Dems on the slave map issue.

*Blue states versus Red States means nothing!

*1. The republican party (and the dems too) are very much different in character and ideal than they were 140 or so years ago.

*2. Jon Koppenhoefer makes a sensible and compelling argument but I want to focus on the slave/free map.

*The last major battle of the American civil war may well have been over LBJ's great society; we've been fighting continuously for 140 years.

*It would give more seats to California, Florida, Texas, North Carolina and other large and growing states, without taking away the one (minimum) Representative for Wyoming's 400,000 citizens.

[camle]

alaska supported slavery?

[SheLion]

"Red states" that supported President Bush also supported slavery"

Ahhhh that was WAY before my time.

[kx9088]

Senator Robert Byrd (D) = KKK Grand Wizard

[brewcrew]

And?....

So what?

[demlosers]

An idiotic argument where liberal excel.

[2banana]

There were slaves all through the north too...

[HungarianGypsy]

Arizona is a red state. We weren't even in the Union until 1912. I don't believe we supported slavery. And Utah. I know they didn't have slaves over there. But, what do I know. I'm not elite enough.

[RWR8189]

Does that include Iowa, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, and the litany of Western states that were still territories?

[counterpunch]

"Red states" that supported President Bush also supported slavery
In that case, it's time to coin a new phrase: "Bush Democrats."

[axes_of_weezles]

That's really gimped logic by the rats. Democrats were (and are) the slavers. Republicans were the abolishionist party.

[fr11]

Lincoln was a Republican... 'nuff said.

[Ken H]

"Red states" that supported President Bush also supported slavery

Yep, and they were run by Democrats at the time, correct?

[Nataku X]

I'd read the article, but I'm too busy whipping hugging my ... erm... adopted children.

[Tribune7]

Iowa, Indiana and Ohio were the Union states that went for Dubya.

Slaves states that went for Kerry were Md. and Del. although both supported the Union (Md. only because Lincoln took put pro-union people in the state government.)

[OSHA]

That was back when they were

Democrats

[mewzilla]

Who wrote this? Carol Simpson?

[gridlock]

I was wondering why I supported President Bush, and suddenly realized it is because I am an ignorant, racist redneck... Apparently I'm real stupid, too... And I wanna own slaves...

Yeah, I'm warming up to those Democrats...

[SilentServiceCPOWife]

I hope that the idiot who came up with this has some Icy Hot handy. They're going to need it when they finish stretching.

[vetvetdoug]

Massachusetts was the first state to embrace slavery in the new World. They sold the Native Americans to the slave traders that took them to Jamaica where they were sold to other slavers. Massachusetts was supportive of slavery for a long time because it supported their shipping interests. So, where is the logic and premise of this article?