It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Red States = Slave States

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Anyone surprised?






posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   
While it's true that Bush won all the states that were part of the Confederacy during the Civil War, there are 18 states that don't match up on your maps.

First, Maryland, Delaware, and D.C. were slave states loyal to the Union during the Civil War. They voted for Kerry.

All the territories on the pre-Civil War map became free states, and they all voted for Bush.

And finally, Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa were always free states, but they voted for Bush.

(Alaska and Hawaii were non-issues until the early 1900's.)



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
As I recall the Republicans were the party of Lincoln.
Just more spin from the left - who cares.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bios
As I recall the Republicans were the party of Lincoln.
Just more spin from the left - who cares.


Thats is all that needs to be said, shut that one down quick!!



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Yep, the slave states vote for slavery, the free states vote for freedom, your point?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   


Red States = Slave States

Anyone surprised?


Anyone care?
What state did Clinton Come from? Did you vote for him? If so, does that make you a slave owner? Is this a pointless thread? (I know the answer to my last question)



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   
ThunderCloud, you forgot to add New York(which actually tried to leave with the south) to the list of former slave-states. NY was actually the second largest slave-owning state in the WORLD. Wall Street, that bastion of commerce and trade; was the main slave-trading venue in the U.S. In fact, Every state in the northeast has a slave owning past.

All this was 'ahem' "overlooked" after the civil-war. A way to place the blame for slavery purely on the South, while at the same time making the Union out to be a kind of virtuous,liberating hero. Instead of the murderous imperialists that they were.(and some would claim,still are) But, history books are written by the winners of wars. And in a hundred or so years, the groups of people who denounced and opposed the war in Iraq will be singing its praises on account of the GLORIOUS LIBERATION OF THE OPPRESSED IRAQI PEOPLE.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   
taibunsuu, why must you and others bash the south and what was the csa, the north had slaves then too, most of the south was poor farmers, the south left because northern states pushed them around, the north started the war by attacking a csa fort in csa territory, it was a war of union aggression, your thread is offensive to me and probably many southerners, implying we're all racist.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   
The reason the confederate states were confederate came from their belief in state's rights. As well, Lincoln was actually a democrat, advocating the Union or federal government. Democrats would like more government in our lives while repubs want less. These states having slavery was a consequence of having state right's not under the law of federal gov. The civil war changed all this and ultimately made it so that we became citizens of a federal government rather than citizens of the states we lived in.

It really shouldn't come as any surprise that southern states are republican who want the feds out of their area and the northern/western states who wanted the federal gov and are democrat.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I'm going to quote myself from another thread in response to this one. Don't believe the hype folks. WE honestly don't have one single verifiable clue who voted for who, anybody that says we do simply has not done their homework on electronic voting...

Originally posted by twitchy
I disagree. To confine the movement to geographical consideration is really to misunderstand the objectives, this isn't a geopolitical issue. This is about industrialism and its grip on our political institutions. The american civil war was clearly North vs South, however should such another event take place, it will not be so easily defined by any lines on a map. I would go so far as to speculate there would be more similarites to the Bolshevik movements in Czarist Russia than the American Civil War. Until Diebold and others involved in the election results are raked over the coals and exposed, I wouldn't trust any demographic representations of the sides to be taken in such an event.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Well in my Opinon i believe the red starts are slave states.. i feel the blue is freedom all the way shut bush down is more of a better answer get a new president and maybe we can get closer to stoppin this war then sticken are faces in everyone else's busniess


ECLIPSE



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Anyone surprised?




If this is not a blanket insult, I don't know what is?

Where are the moderators? Where is the warning?

Or maybe this point of view is tolerated?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
The reason the confederate states were confederate came from their belief in state's rights. As well, Lincoln was actually a democrat, advocating the Union or federal government. Democrats would like more government in our lives while repubs want less. These states having slavery was a consequence of having state right's not under the law of federal gov. The civil war changed all this and ultimately made it so that we became citizens of a federal government rather than citizens of the states we lived in.


no it was imperialism, the civil war was unjustified, and they believed that states have rights and northern states suppressed southern states like they didnt matter, that pushed the south away, the csa had a federal government too so your point is baseless, slavery existed before the south split so again the federal excuse is baseless.

and lincoln was too republican www.multied.com...

[edit on 8-11-2004 by namehere]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
no it was imperialism, the civil war was unjustified, and they believed that states have rights and northern states suppressed southern states like they didnt matter, that pushed the south away, the csa had a federal government too so your point is baseless, slavery existed before the south split so again the federal excuse is baseless.


There was federal government but the government didn't have near the power that they did afterwards. As well, there were some states that freed slaves before the civil war ended, and the 14th amendment was passed, and reconstruction occured. Also, I really don't know what you are trying to say.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Should we start an underground railroad for gays and the "non-god"?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Should we start an underground railroad for gays and the "non-god"?


LOL...nah, they haven't been sold as slaves...yet



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

There was federal government but the government didn't have near the power that they did afterwards. As well, there were some states that freed slaves before the civil war ended, and the 14th amendment was passed, and reconstruction occured. Also, I really don't know what you are trying to say.


the south was independant, it actually had a stronger federal government, the south planned to abolish slaveery before the north did, im not saying anything, only correcting you.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I ran across this article today while checking out the website "The Democratic Underground" -- it seems this idea has inspired others...

www.democraticunderground.com...



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Curme asks,


Should we start an underground railroad for gays and the "non-god"?
Id support an underground railroad for gays
IF
they were even remotely being treated as slaves.....

However, as gays have never been decalred property, captured, bought or sold,

as gays have never been denied property ownership rights or voting rights,

as gays have never been legally segregated from attending the same schools, eating at the same resturaunts, or using the same bathrooms

How anyone could possibly try to make the 2 situations and the "suffering" each group has gone thru as even being CLOSE to equal is a total stretch of reality, and one designed to try and emotively link for sympathy purposes, the true suffering of being a slave with afar lesser degree of suffering of gays.
What a crock of a lie that i see the same posters spew all over this board, and usually in order to Bash Bush...

Please tell us some MORE LIES.

Like the LIE that anyone that voted for Bush is christian, or even goes to church for that matter....
Many people that voted republican could care less what god you like, or even practice religion at all.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bios
As I recall the Republicans were the party of Lincoln.
Just more spin from the left - who cares.


You are correct



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join