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.
I thought that you southern types were big on heritage? Well the GOP is proud to be The Party of Lincoln and I see no reason to change that identifier.
I am clearly referring to the states as they exist today. You will have a hard time making the case that New Mexico and Arizona were anti-Union in the Civil War. A Confederate claim did not equate to more than a fleeting occupation. In fact, there was more Unionist sentiment in some "confederate states" (such as Virginia, Tennessee and Louisiana) than there was confederate sentiment in the sparsely populated western and mid-western territories.
Why use 1861 as your datum when you talk about the war? So you can exclude West Virginia and Nevada? It is also valid to point out that the loyal territories, including the Indian Territory (later Oklahoma), supplies men and materiel to the Union cause. Your attempt to write them off is rather pathetic.
My ballot in Texas had a straight ticket option for something known as the "Republican Party," something known as the "Democratic Party," something known as the "Libertarian Party" and a couple other write ins. There was nothing on it called the "Party of Lincoln" though, thus it is physically impossible that any Texan could have voted for your mythical "Party of Lincoln." I suspect the same is true of every other state, and given the usual petition barriers to creating a new third party, I doubt that your "Party of Lincoln" appeared on any ballot anywhere save your own write in.
Hold on. I just checked the domain names and it turns out that there is indeed a Party of Lincoln - www.partyoflincoln.org. It's hosted on geocities and features a sillouette of a guy in a stovepipe hat as its logo. The rest of the site hasn't been developed though - probably an indicator that their only member is also their webmaster. Hey, wait a minute...is that your personal website, non-seq?
Yep, he's probably waiting for his friends to belly up to the bar, so he can pony up.
Nope, GOP. You're wrong yet again.
You may be, but even those numbers are wrong.
You will have a hard time making the case that New Mexico and Arizona were anti-Union in the Civil War.
Oh, it's not hard at all. The citizens of Mesilla and Tuscon adopted an ordinance in March of 1861 aligning themselves with the confederacy and asking the confederate government for acceptance.
http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/AZ/
The Baylor expedition into Arizona in 1861 was a response to a call that Mesilla put sent out to El Paso for help after the yankees occupied a fortification outside the town. Technically speaking, the part of the territory that sided with the confederacy was south of the 34th parallel, which puts the southern half of modern New Mexico and modern Arizona in the CSA column.
Why use 1861 as your datum when you talk about the war?
Cause it's the year that the war started.
So you can exclude West Virginia and Nevada?
Nevada came in midway through and had virtually nothing to do with the war due to its isolation. West Virginia was illegally broken off of Virginia by a tiny unionist faction in Wheeling that incidentally claimed several dozen secessionist counties to the south that had nothing to do with their rump convention. Either way, West Virginia was at best disputed territory and certainly was not in the clear union column.
It is also valid to point out that the loyal territories, including the Indian Territory (later Oklahoma), supplies men and materiel to the Union cause.
Indian Territory was governed by the Five Civilized Tribes plus a few others. Virtually all of them formally sided with the confederacy and provided a majority of their men to the confederate cause.
See http://www.civilwarhome.com/cherokeecauses.htm
As for supplying men and material, it could legitimately be said that there was not a state or territory on either side that did not at one point or another in the war send either some of its native sons or some sort of legal or illicit traded good across the lines. There were south carolinians including John Fremont who fought for the north. Their were Pennsylvanians who fought for the south. There was illicit and even Lincoln-sanctioned cotton trade going through the war lines. But none of that made any southern state a union one or any union state a southern one.
What remains to note of the 2004 election, though, is both interesting and undisputable: there were only four states that clearly and undisputedly sided and participated in the union cause during the civil war that voted for Bush: Iowa, Ohio, Indiana, and Kansas. Of those four, only two of them went decisively for Bush. Of the CSA states every single one went decisively for Bush.
So I guess that means there's two of you in this fledgling little third party movement of yours. Or is he a competing faction seeking to control the name?
Exactly. Of the states that were undisputably on the union side of the war Bush won only Iowa, Ohio, Kansas, and Indiana. He won the first two by only the narrowest of margins. Everywhere else in the old union states went Kerry.
Well if you voted straight Democrat then you have nothing to worry about. But if you voted Republican, well, you'll just have to live down the embarassment.
I think there are some regiments from Indiana, Ohio and Iowa who would object strongly to being characterized as Confederates...Also, please note that the dems stole Wisconsin, so the Badger regiments were on the Prez's side too.
One last thing, and this is not a shot at you, or anybody else on this forum or in the South: Joshua Chamberlain would weep if he could see Maine going for Kerry. It's not what he and the 20th Maine were about.
You are mistaken. Nevada silver, in particular, played an important part in financing the war. Similarly, California gold an important source of revenue.
"West Virginia was illegally broken off of Virginia ..."
Confederate tripe. Reconstructed Virginia lost all of the court cases it made to recover West Virginia. The loyal citizens of western Virginia organized a Unionist government in the absense of any constitutional government within the boundaries of the state. More power to them!
"Indian Territory was governed by the Five Civilized Tribes plus a few others."
The Cherokees, in particular, wised up by 1863 and pretty much repudiated any agreements they had with the south. They realized Albert Pike was a snake oil salesman.
"There was illicit and even Lincoln-sanctioned cotton trade going through the war lines. But none of that made any southern state a union one or any union state a southern one."
You had loyal states and you had insurrectionist governments. But all the states remained within the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
With as many provisos and conditions as you have made on this statement, it becomes meaningless.
Don't think that is so anymore...the Land of Lincoln went for KERRY!
I would rather not have my Party of choice associated with a Tyrant like "Abe"
Oh MY GOD! The WLAT is back.....weren't you banned?
Just when I was feeling good about the election.....
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.