Skip to comments."Red states" that supported President Bush also supported slavery
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.
What a crock
Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, etc. were still part of Mexico and were against slavery. Remember the Alamo?
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
Hehe! Still before my time, thank God. LOL!
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.
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.
Bull. Iowa supported Bush and Iowa was no slave-supporting state.
Ohio was definitely NOT a slave state! How bogus ....
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.
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.
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?
California was about 50/50 on the issue. It was only the strong US Army presence which helped Cali to make up its mind! ;)
The Democratic party has been living off of the reflexive votes of people who disagree with most of their proposals.
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.
Quite a few of the GOP majority counties in the south are also majority black.
Well actually, the SW US was ceded to the US in 1848, more than a decade before the Civil War.
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.
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.
Just another way of saying his candidate was a Dem loser who couldn't carry a single Southern state.
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.
Hmmmm ... hadn't thought of that.
What's say we enslave Dimocrats this time.
That should be fun. ;)
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.
Ohio, Hmmmm, Well let me think about the "Underground Railroad" for a minute or two and get back with ya.
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.
But the only talent the Dims have is lying. What good could they possibly do, just lying around in the ol' cotton patch?
Yes, but that was back when they were run by Democrats.
When all else fails, you can count on the left to play the "race card"...whether it's truthful, or not.
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.
"Yep, and they were run by Democrats at the time, correct?"
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.
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.)
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.
Blue States that supported Kerry also supported Japanese internment during WWII.
West Virginia and Ohio were not slave states?
Man these liberals are stupid.
Fool! The southern states all belonged to the democRAT party when they supported slavery.
Arizona was a slave state? or New Mexico, Nevada? or Colorado? (or Alaska, Idaho, Utah???)...
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 .
Almost all Heroin addicts started with milk as children. Can you say post hoc ergo propter hoc? Well, perhaps a variant thereof
...and most of Europe supported slavery, colonization, and imperialism...yet the Left sumply adores these 'Old Countries'...
I seem to recall back when school bussing was proposed to bus affluent white kids to inner city schools, where did they riot?!? Boston!!!
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? ;-)
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>
FDR's New Deal coalition was built on top of the Solid South as a base. Does that make him a racist slaver?
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
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.