Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Red states" that supported President Bush also supported slavery
News Target ^ | November 15, 2004

Posted on 11/15/2004 11:19:28 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: kerrydefeat; red8states; slavery
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-146 last
To: Tumbleweed_Connection

What a crock

Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, etc. were still part of Mexico and were against slavery. Remember the Alamo?


101 posted on 11/15/2004 11:59:36 AM PST by oldbrowser (You lost the election.....................Get over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kx9088
Senator Robert Byrd (D) = KKK Grand Wizard

George Wallace (D), Lester Maddux (D), Orval Faubus (D) - all governors vehemently opposed to school integration

Al Gore, Sr. (D-TN) - led Senate filibuster of civil rights legislation

102 posted on 11/15/2004 12:00:00 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000
Eheh, not only that... but the states were, God forbid, Democrat.

Hehe! Still before my time, thank God. LOL!

103 posted on 11/15/2004 12:00:59 PM PST by SheLion (President Bush received MORE votes ever in the period of History. The Rats need to get over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: camle

I live in one of the towns in Ohio ("Red State" two elections in a row) that served as a station along the Underground Railroad. John Brown was a minister in a local church. The ignorance of this writer is stunning.


104 posted on 11/15/2004 12:01:20 PM PST by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

Your map should be the standard rhetorical response to this load of tripe. It's EQUALLY valid as this idiotic notion that the GOP is pro-slavery.


105 posted on 11/15/2004 12:01:45 PM PST by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Bull. Iowa supported Bush and Iowa was no slave-supporting state.


106 posted on 11/15/2004 12:01:59 PM PST by Prime Choice (STFU ACLU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Ohio was definitely NOT a slave state! How bogus ....


107 posted on 11/15/2004 12:02:59 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
If you look at a map of those states that formed the original Thirteen Colonies, you'll generally find that the Royalist/Tory supporters of the British were strongest in areas that ended up in Kerry's column.

That simply isn't true. Of course New York had many Tories. So did the South. The Carolinas were bitterly divided. New England was more solidly behind the revolution, and indeed, there might have been no revolution if Massachusetts hadn't pushed so hard against the British.

A lot of what happened, though, was determined by where the British armies went. When British troops occupied New York and Philadelphia they brought out loyalist sentiments there. The same was true of parts of the South, but no one's ever seriously claimed that New England was a major hotbed of Toryism.

108 posted on 11/15/2004 12:03:45 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug

You hit the nail on the head, Doug.

Even after slavery was abolished in the New England states (particularly in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island), businessmen in those states continued prospering from the slave trade, importing slaves to the southern states where such was still legal.

The wealth of many New England families was based upon dealing with this particular, uh, commodity.

Slavery is, and always has been, an abomination on mankind, but there is little difference between those who have (or had) humans as personal property, and those who provide (or provided) humans as personal property.


109 posted on 11/15/2004 12:03:56 PM PST by franksolich (check the facts.....please)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: uncbob; Tumbleweed_Connection
Yeah but it was OK when they were the SOLID SOUTH ( back in dem segregation days ) and pullling the DEM lever

Well.....in the 1956 election, the only states that Adlai Stevenson won against Ike were in the Deep South. And what does that tell you? Uh, not much, I guess.

You guys have nailed it!

Liberals don't like to talk about state voting patterns prior to 1964, do they?

110 posted on 11/15/2004 12:03:57 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (G-D'S TORAH defines conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: HungarianGypsy

California was about 50/50 on the issue. It was only the strong US Army presence which helped Cali to make up its mind! ;)


111 posted on 11/15/2004 12:04:10 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
They were perfectly happy when these states were voting Democrat. They were perfectly happy when the labor vote went their way reflexively. They are perfectly happy to have black voters vote for them in a higher percentage than registered Democrat.

The Democratic party has been living off of the reflexive votes of people who disagree with most of their proposals.

112 posted on 11/15/2004 12:05:35 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
No doubt slaves were walking down the street too, but that's not the point here. Rather, we are discussing the stupidity of a Liberal who is unaware that slavery was prohibited in, among other places, North Dakota, South Dakota, Indiana and Ohio!

In fact, Indiana was filled to the brim with anti-slavery Southerners who'd found it necessary to leave their homes in the Sunny South to avoid being persecuted for their beliefs. The Civil War could not have been won by the Union without Indiana in fact.

So, why is Indiana a "Red State"?

The answer is simple ~ they tended to vote correctly in this election. Illinois, on the other hand, voted incorrectly.

113 posted on 11/15/2004 12:06:12 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

Quite a few of the GOP majority counties in the south are also majority black.


114 posted on 11/15/2004 12:08:28 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

Well actually, the SW US was ceded to the US in 1848, more than a decade before the Civil War.


115 posted on 11/15/2004 12:10:30 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: GOP_1900AD

oops, thanks


116 posted on 11/15/2004 12:11:36 PM PST by oldbrowser (You lost the election.....................Get over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, etc. were still part of Mexico and were against slavery. Remember the Alamo?

I'm sorry ... your history is flawed. Texas became the 28th State on December 29, 1845, the legislation having been signed by President Polk.

And, I'm also sorry, but Texas seceded from the Federal Union following a 171 to 6 vote by the Secession Convention on February 1, 1861. I'm proud to say that Governor Sam Houston was one of a small minority opposed to secession. Yes, Texas WAS a Slave State ... we had slaves here. My Great Great Grandfather on my Father's Father's Mother's side brought his family to Texas in the 1850s from Alabama, bringing their slaves with them.
117 posted on 11/15/2004 12:12:22 PM PST by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Well.....in the 1956 election, the only states that Adlai Stevenson won against Ike were in the Deep South. And what does that tell you? Uh, not much, I guess.

True. This whole issue has brought out more nonsense and ill-will than just about anything else lately. The losers find there's something therapeutic about attacking the winners, and some among the winners still think of themselves as losers and can't help acting in the same way.

The electoral map varies from election to election, as do the issues that separate us, but we are one country, and we'd better learn to work with each other. Parties and movements lose if they write off whole sections of the country, and we all lose out if we try to break up the country into little pieces of people who only think in one way. Down the road, if we split up, people will find out that their own "little American" fragment isn't much of an improvement over what we have now.

118 posted on 11/15/2004 12:15:04 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Massachusetts and Maine (if I remember correctly)

Maine was a part of Massachusetts until it became a state in 1820.

They say that Massachusetts is buying it back, one house lot at a time. It was a (very) red state up until a few years ago.

119 posted on 11/15/2004 12:15:33 PM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
...blue (Kerry) states correspond to the pre-civil-war free states and territories.

Just another way of saying his candidate was a Dem loser who couldn't carry a single Southern state.

120 posted on 11/15/2004 12:19:24 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"Red states" that supported President Bush also supported slavery

No mention of the rather vigourous support for the the Southern States
(and indirectly, slavery) in NEW YORK CITY...by New Yorkers who had
trade/commercial interests with the South.

Amazingly, a "History Detective" episode on PBS actually mentioned this
dirty little Yankee secret in the last few months.
121 posted on 11/15/2004 12:21:11 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Well, since the large majority of the states went for Bush, you could make the same comparison for a number of things. How about, the states that first allowed women to vote went for Bush: Wyoming, Utah, Idaho. I think this says alot about the mentality of the blue states.


122 posted on 11/15/2004 12:25:48 PM PST by freakboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"Red states" that supported President Bush also supported slavery"

Hmmmm ... hadn't thought of that.

What's say we enslave Dimocrats this time.

That should be fun. ;)

123 posted on 11/15/2004 12:27:50 PM PST by G.Mason (A war mongering, UN hating, military industrial complex loving, Al Qaeda incinerating American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

THe Blue states were home to the sweatshops, that exploited immigrants. Blue states are where slavery first was legalized in the USA.

Blue states are where women were called witches and lynched. Blue states must have been biased in favor of homosexuals from the get go.

Settlers in the red states fled the tyranny of the blue states, for the same reason their parents fled europe. They are independent, self sufficient and love freedom.


124 posted on 11/15/2004 12:29:49 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell (No baby blood for Oily tongued Specter the Spectacle chairing the Judicial Committee!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Ohio, Hmmmm, Well let me think about the "Underground Railroad" for a minute or two and get back with ya.


125 posted on 11/15/2004 12:32:44 PM PST by tang-soo (Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks - Read Daniel Chapter 9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Well now, Nevada didn't support slavery. You all only let us join the Union because we came in on the side of the north, along with all our silver.


126 posted on 11/15/2004 12:35:09 PM PST by Duchess47 ("One day I will leave this world and dream myself to Reality" Crazy Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason

But the only talent the Dims have is lying. What good could they possibly do, just lying around in the ol' cotton patch?


127 posted on 11/15/2004 12:35:44 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell (No baby blood for Oily tongued Specter the Spectacle chairing the Judicial Committee!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Yes, but that was back when they were run by Democrats.


128 posted on 11/15/2004 12:43:54 PM PST by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

When all else fails, you can count on the left to play the "race card"...whether it's truthful, or not.


129 posted on 11/15/2004 12:44:52 PM PST by FrankR (Don't let the bastards wear you down...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Carol Simpson from ABC was making this argument. I love it and hope she and the rest of the libs keep it up. They are completely clueless. They're guaranteeing a real realignment that may last for generations.


130 posted on 11/15/2004 12:53:33 PM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

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

LoL!


131 posted on 11/15/2004 12:55:58 PM PST by AMDG&BVMH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

George Wallace - Democrat; Lester Maddox - Democrat; Bull Connor (of Selma firehose fame) - Democrat; Ross Barnett - Democrat; Robert KKK Byrd - Democrat; Al Gore, Sr. - Democrat; William Fulbright - Democrat.

All of these segregationsist were Democrats.

Until 1964 for over 100 years, the South was known as the SOLID SOUTH because it never varied in its suppport for Democrat candidates.

It was Republican Senators that made the difference in passing the key Civil Rights acts of the mid-1960s. It was Democrats that voted against it.

The Democrat Party was the party of slavery and segregation. A Republican Senate and Republican Congress in the 1860s freed the slaves, made them citizens, and gave them the vote, all against the wishes of Democrats. One-hundred years later it was Republican Senators that made the difference in passing the key Civil Rights acts of the mid-1960s. It was Democrats that voted against it.

So, let's correctly label the states.


132 posted on 11/15/2004 12:57:23 PM PST by carrier-aviator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I'm pretty sure Colorado was with the North and had banned slavery and we are a Red state, damned proud, too. (OK, Red State by a slim margin, but we'll take it.)


133 posted on 11/15/2004 1:00:27 PM PST by shellshocked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

The three states colored green on the map were Union states...Nevada was only admitted to the Union in 1864, during the war. Men in all three states cast votes in the 1864 Presidential election, with Lincoln carrying all three.


134 posted on 11/15/2004 1:07:15 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Blue States that supported Kerry also supported Japanese internment during WWII.


135 posted on 11/15/2004 2:09:13 PM PST by CondiArmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle

West Virginia and Ohio were not slave states?

Man these liberals are stupid.


136 posted on 11/15/2004 2:13:56 PM PST by OpusatFR (Carole Simpson's history lessons: Invent the past and forget the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Fool! The southern states all belonged to the democRAT party when they supported slavery.


137 posted on 11/15/2004 2:20:18 PM PST by Mogollon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Arizona was a slave state? or New Mexico, Nevada? or Colorado? (or Alaska, Idaho, Utah???)...


138 posted on 11/15/2004 2:21:25 PM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Blue areas/states on the East coast brought slaves over and sold them into bondage. That corresponds exactly with what some of these bluies are trying to do to the country today. Only today, they are trying to sell our own people into the slavery of totalitarian govt. and take away our freedoms--especially our freedoms of thinking, owning property, and making up our own minds, and defending ourselves, our families and our property .

vaudine


139 posted on 11/15/2004 2:26:07 PM PST by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"Red states" that supported President Bush also supported slavery"

Almost all Heroin addicts started with milk as children. Can you say post hoc ergo propter hoc? Well, perhaps a variant thereof

140 posted on 11/15/2004 2:37:37 PM PST by muir_redwoods
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

...and most of Europe supported slavery, colonization, and imperialism...yet the Left sumply adores these 'Old Countries'...


141 posted on 11/15/2004 3:23:17 PM PST by Baytovin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I seem to recall back when school bussing was proposed to bus affluent white kids to inner city schools, where did they riot?!? Boston!!!


142 posted on 11/15/2004 3:24:18 PM PST by dfwgator (It's sad that the news media treats Michael Jackson better than our military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

OK, Morris County went Red (despite being in a blue state). Does that mean that the inhabitants of Morris Plains and Madison are a bunch of slaveowing rednecks? ;-)


143 posted on 11/15/2004 3:25:15 PM PST by Clemenza (Gabba Gabba Hey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I live in a Red State (Florida). Lest then 10% of the people living here were actually born here. Floridians come from other states like NY, NJ, Pen, and like me, Ohio.
Slave states? NOT>


144 posted on 11/15/2004 3:31:50 PM PST by Dale 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

FDR's New Deal coalition was built on top of the Solid South as a base. Does that make him a racist slaver?


145 posted on 11/15/2004 4:15:29 PM PST by colorado tanker (The People Have Spoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
What's say we enslave Dimocrats this time.

Aside from the moral repugnance, there is a practical matter which precludes this "suggestion". You have to feed and care for slaves, and with such as these, you would get no practical work out of them, being basically incapable of the same. This tends to make them worthless, even as slaves... /sarcasm

the infowarrior

146 posted on 11/15/2004 5:16:48 PM PST by infowarrior (TANSTAAFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-146 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson