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?
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.