Posted on 11/03/2004 8:24:39 AM PST by 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.
Insofar as it is used as a title, yes. Indeed I do object. If you want to state that the GOP was the party - small p - to which Abraham Lincoln belonged that is fine. That is what Racicot did. But as far as this goofy "Party of Lincoln" concept goes, I prefer not to be involved in your fringe third party movements so I'll leave that one to you.
From her quote, which mentions FDR as well, I take it that you also think Mrs. Bush is a big government new dealer?
Play this song for your sad Democrat friends - it will cheer them up - NOT!
http://jhanch.web2010.com/whitehouse.ram
posted by reliapundit at 3:38 PM 0 comments
... which is why it is idiotic to say things like "It's Official - The South Won the Civil War".
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?
What is so hard for you to comprehend that most of those territories were barren and unpopulated in 1861 and that those states on the west coast from 1861 all went to Kerry?
Well, I think that what he was inferring was that the south now has become the predominant political force in the US, which is quite the opposite 140 years ago. The overlay doesn't exactly match, but it is striking. Several years ago, they were talking about the "soccer moms" yet this time they talk about the "NASCAR dads" .... how prophetic!
No...I'm a Republican, which is NOT the party of Abe the Tyrant.
No..the President is a TEXAN, hence a Southerner. A TEXAN is in the White House.
Hey brother.
When you look at the map I think the best we can say is that today The South is more than a geographical located state.
It is a state of mind.
When I look at that map I see a lot of good like minded brothers and sisters all over the country.
Regards. MRN
Sparsely populated, yes. "Barren and unpopulated," no.
By way of example, Florida in 1860 had a free population of fewer than 80,000.
Colorado Territory - 34,300
Nebraska Territory - 28,800 (statehood in 1867)
New Mexico Territory - 95,500 (comprising New Mexico and Arizona, separate Arizona Territory created by Congress in 1863)
Utah Territory - 40,000 (parts of Colorado and Wyoming)
Dakota Territory - 4,800 (comprising N. and S. Dakota, parts of Wyoming and Montana)
Nevada Territory - 6,900 (from Utah territory in 1861 during silver rush - statehood in 1864)
Washington Territory - 11,500 (included Idaho and parts of Wyoming)
You can see that your "unpopulated" statement is bunk.
I never made mention of a "Battle of Fort Davis." That is your concoction and misrepresentation. You need not spread your lies here.
"12 plus a rump government from a thirteenth, Kentucky."
Neither the Missouri nor Kentucky lost their representation in the US Congress. The actions of renegade legislatures or insurrectionist conventions had no effect on the continuation of those states' loyalty to the Union. Only 11 southern states needed to be reconstructed.
"And exactly what significant actions did they do for the yankees? Send a couple sacks of potatos and tumbleweeds over to the east?"
Your lack of knowledge of the history of the American west is appalling. There were important mineral discoveries throughout the American West in the 1840's and 1850's. Colorado and Nevada both saw gold and silver strikes in 1858. In Nevada these included the Virginia City, Humboldt, and Esmerelda Districts. In Colorado these included the Clear Creek and Central City Districts. The Idaho and Montana areas had similar rushes in 1861-1864. All of these areas produced a significant amount of revenue for the United States. Nevada alone was producing in excess of $24 million per year.
And every loyal State and Territory in the West provided an allotment of militia, many of whom freed up Federal regulars to return east. Some of those militia units participated in the few western actions, and others did go east and participate in the actions there.
As aggrevating as some of the results seem, it only takes a relatively samll movement to reverse the results. For instance, in California 11 out of 20 voters went for sKerry. 9 out of 20 went for Bush. What issue might bring 1 in 20 voters back from the "dark side"?
You show me that there was a functioning constitutional government in Virgina in 1863, outside of the western counties! Insurrectionists didn't derive any benefits from the Constitution they spat upon. LOL
The mountaineers organized a state government where none existed.
I'm in a decidedly Republican "red" part of California.
I am sure my votes would upset your friend nolu coward. I wonder how he voted? Hmmmm. Have you ever seen him post a positive comment about George Bush?
A couple thousand people in a few tiny outposts scattered across the land equivalent of over 800,000 square miles is unpopulated by any reasonable definition. Even assuming your unsourced population figures are accurate (and I'm not at all inclined to believe that they are without a source given your lengthy history of fraudulently fabricating court decisions, quotations, and even civil war battles to suit your argument), the population density alone is virtually negligable so as to render a description of "unpopulated" accurate. To make a semantic dispute out of it also indicates your affliction with a severe anal retentive disorder, and one that has been festering for quite some time.
Easy. Just go down to the capitol building in Richmond and you'll find an uninterupted house and senate journal throughout those years.
Nice try, but they were not operating under the US Constitution of 1787. They were an insurrectionist legislature and nothing did during that time was recognized as legal. In the eyes of the law, they did not even exist.
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.