Posted on 11/15/2004 11:19:28 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
*In case it's hard to read, on the Pre-Civil War Map, the red areas were slave states and the brown areas were territories open to slavery, while the green areas were free states and territories.
*These distinctions eerily correspond to the red states vs. blue states on the 2004 Election Map ~~ i.e., the blue (Kerry) states correspond to the pre-civil-war free states and territories, while the red (Bush) states correspond to what were the slave states and territories.
*To me, the images (and subsequent comments) simply point out that we as a country cannot, or refuse to, face difficult racial issues.
*I think the mentality which allowed certain parts of the country at a certain time in our history to accept the violent subjugation of an entire human race ...
*By using the headline "Free States vs. Slave States", an immediate deception is perpetrated that continues to deceive right through all following commentary. These were philisophical differences in forms of government and policy, not whether or not black people should be free.
*It is so hard for me to understand the wailing coming from the Dems on the slave map issue.
*Blue states versus Red States means nothing!
*1. The republican party (and the dems too) are very much different in character and ideal than they were 140 or so years ago.
*2. Jon Koppenhoefer makes a sensible and compelling argument but I want to focus on the slave/free map.
*The last major battle of the American civil war may well have been over LBJ's great society; we've been fighting continuously for 140 years.
*It would give more seats to California, Florida, Texas, North Carolina and other large and growing states, without taking away the one (minimum) Representative for Wyoming's 400,000 citizens.
Well, since the large majority of the states went for Bush, you could make the same comparison for a number of things. How about, the states that first allowed women to vote went for Bush: Wyoming, Utah, Idaho. I think this says alot about the mentality of the blue states.
Hmmmm ... hadn't thought of that.
What's say we enslave Dimocrats this time.
That should be fun. ;)
THe Blue states were home to the sweatshops, that exploited immigrants. Blue states are where slavery first was legalized in the USA.
Blue states are where women were called witches and lynched. Blue states must have been biased in favor of homosexuals from the get go.
Settlers in the red states fled the tyranny of the blue states, for the same reason their parents fled europe. They are independent, self sufficient and love freedom.
Ohio, Hmmmm, Well let me think about the "Underground Railroad" for a minute or two and get back with ya.
Well now, Nevada didn't support slavery. You all only let us join the Union because we came in on the side of the north, along with all our silver.
But the only talent the Dims have is lying. What good could they possibly do, just lying around in the ol' cotton patch?
Yes, but that was back when they were run by Democrats.
When all else fails, you can count on the left to play the "race card"...whether it's truthful, or not.
Carol Simpson from ABC was making this argument. I love it and hope she and the rest of the libs keep it up. They are completely clueless. They're guaranteeing a real realignment that may last for generations.
"Yep, and they were run by Democrats at the time, correct?"
LoL!
George Wallace - Democrat; Lester Maddox - Democrat; Bull Connor (of Selma firehose fame) - Democrat; Ross Barnett - Democrat; Robert KKK Byrd - Democrat; Al Gore, Sr. - Democrat; William Fulbright - Democrat.
All of these segregationsist were Democrats.
Until 1964 for over 100 years, the South was known as the SOLID SOUTH because it never varied in its suppport for Democrat candidates.
It was Republican Senators that made the difference in passing the key Civil Rights acts of the mid-1960s. It was Democrats that voted against it.
The Democrat Party was the party of slavery and segregation. A Republican Senate and Republican Congress in the 1860s freed the slaves, made them citizens, and gave them the vote, all against the wishes of Democrats. One-hundred years later it was Republican Senators that made the difference in passing the key Civil Rights acts of the mid-1960s. It was Democrats that voted against it.
So, let's correctly label the states.
I'm pretty sure Colorado was with the North and had banned slavery and we are a Red state, damned proud, too. (OK, Red State by a slim margin, but we'll take it.)
The three states colored green on the map were Union states...Nevada was only admitted to the Union in 1864, during the war. Men in all three states cast votes in the 1864 Presidential election, with Lincoln carrying all three.
Blue States that supported Kerry also supported Japanese internment during WWII.
West Virginia and Ohio were not slave states?
Man these liberals are stupid.
Fool! The southern states all belonged to the democRAT party when they supported slavery.
Arizona was a slave state? or New Mexico, Nevada? or Colorado? (or Alaska, Idaho, Utah???)...
Blue areas/states on the East coast brought slaves over and sold them into bondage. That corresponds exactly with what some of these bluies are trying to do to the country today. Only today, they are trying to sell our own people into the slavery of totalitarian govt. and take away our freedoms--especially our freedoms of thinking, owning property, and making up our own minds, and defending ourselves, our families and our property .
vaudine
Almost all Heroin addicts started with milk as children. Can you say post hoc ergo propter hoc? Well, perhaps a variant thereof
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.