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.
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.