Your math is off.
There are 9 western states plus Alaska, making 10, that DID NOT EXIST AS STATES in 1861.
There are three states whose territorial predecessors cast their lot with the Confederacy - Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico which were at the time Indian Territory and Arizona Territory, repsectively.
There is one border state - Kentucky - that was officially neutral in the war but had persons fighting on both sides.
Of the existing states in 1861 who clearly and decisively cast their lot with the yankees ONLY FOUR voted for Bush - Kansas, Ohio, Iowa, and Indiana. That is nowhere near the 19 you claim.
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.
Questions to Rattle your Mind:
It's just the world we were born into so we have to work with what we were handed, but isn't it suspicious that EVERY president since the end of the civil war was either Democrat or Republican? What happened to every other party that used to share our country's steering wheel before 1861? Was there was an ugly power struggle going on backstage that never made it into our history books? Is it true that the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY freed slaves in the South? What a great way to throw an opponent into chaos. The "north" actually held slaves after the civil war, including U.S. Army Generals.
Is reforming our election system the only way to free America from the "controlled pipe-line" of eligible nominees? (The nominees who can pretty much be told they will be 1 of 10 candidates for president up to 40 years early.) Is it okay if my special-interest group raises this person from infancy? I will be happy to invest in someone or many if they have those odds of the presidency. Bill was president, is Hillary going to run? George Sr was prez, how about a Jr? There are a quarter-billion people in America, what are the odds of a father having a son or a husband having a wife VERY likely to become president. Coincidence? Even without considering relation, every president and future nominee has so much in common they might as well have all grown up throughout childhood living on the same street. It is more efficient to take over a country through its election process than through military action.
Can this problem be avoided if we illegalize private funding for campaigning and demand EXACT equal airtime for every candidate who has enough signatures to appear on the ballot? (magazines/photos included). Even if taxes have to pay for elections, it would be such a small amount and it would aim the VOTE to the candidate that most likely reflects the VOTER. Today, if candidate "R" matches me 34% and candidate "D" matches me 20%, it would be a bad strategy to vote for selection X who matches my idea of a president 100%. The current voting system keeps power between two parties with the exact same long-term agenda by assuming the voter would rather get 6th place instead of 30th place. No one has ever heard of the the voter's 1st place candidate, who may just as well stand for a large amount of policies for most of them. Two parties under extreme corporate money influence. The nominee will not owe the voters any favors. The nominee will owe WalMart favors, after they carried the cost of advertising him to you 10 times a day. According to the law of our world, proper advertising can sell a mutt to a pure-breeder. 62,400 repetitions creates 1 truth. Should every candidate have a write-up next to their name on the ballot as to what they stand for in the first place? The main factor determining half of america's vote was their sworn allegiance to whatever is their political party. The other half was fed no knowledge of what the guy they are voting for stands for... just lots of reasons the other guy is immoral.
Will it be off-subject if I ask what your opionion is of the Electoral College?
One day in the 1860's, someone has conquered the polls.