Slavery and the 2004 election

I found this picture and thought it was quite interesting. I wanted to share it with everyone on ATS.



Acording to the site where I got the Picture:

Free States and Slave States, before the Civil War. It is not hard to notice the striking similarity of red and blue states in this election.

Green: Free states and territories
Red: Slave states
Brown: Territories open to slavers.

web site

Here is how the States voted.



The divisions seem to be very close to matching the red and blue states in the 2004 presidential election.

What are your thoughts?

I will state my opinion later in the thread.

Later,
Reason

EDIT: Add extra map.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by REASON]

So you are implting that everyone who lives in one of those states and voted for Bush did so because they are racist? That sounds like what your are trying to put forth here.

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
So you are implting that everyone who lives in one of those states and voted for Bush did so because they are racist? That sounds like what your are trying to put forth here.

I personally think it is coincedence.
I was just bringing up possible explanations from a "Bush hater".


Later,
Reason

Point..........Lincoln did not free the slaves..........in the northern states. Read what he really said. Also, my family goes back to before the beginning of Texas, no slaves. As I said in other threads today......Demoslavemasters keep the myth alive.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Point..........Lincoln did not free the slaves..........in the northern states. Read what he really said. Also, my family goes back to before the beginning of Texas, no slaves. As I said in other threads today......Demoslavemasters keep the myth alive.

Are you saying that there was no slavery in texas?

Later,
Reason

[edit on 22-11-2004 by REASON]

No slaves owned by my family. All slaves were owned by a very, very, small percentage of land owners in the south. You make is sound as if everyone down here owned a few slaves. It just isn't the truth. The war between the states wasn't about slavery anyway. It was about freedom from tyrany in DC.

How about I change the starting thread so It does not sound like I am saying that "everyone in south voted for Bush because they are racist"

They weren't very many slaves here in Arkansas either, the votes had nothing to do with slavery or racism but more to do with religion and conservatism.

We in the south tend to lean toward the Conservative side and are a bit more religious

Not a whole bunch more than the North but enough to make a difference

As for slaves my people were Scotts/Irish we came over as slaves

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Amuk]

Originally posted by Amuk
They weren't very many slaves here in Arkansas either, the votes had nothing to do with slavery or racism but more to do with religion and conservatism.

We in the south tend to lean toward the Conservative side and are a bit more religious

Not a whole bunch more than the North but enough to make a difference

As for slaves my people were Scotts/Irish we came over as slaves

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Amuk]

I completely agree with you.

I found this pic interesting because a "Bush hater" could possibly us this pic and start gereralizing in a way to "Bash Bush".

Later,
Reason

This topic has been discussed on ATS before. But I just would like to say that this is one hell of a coincedence. Maybe you should bring out the Voter map from the 2000 election and see where the states lie. Or are we just to assume that these slave states are naturally more 'republican'?

An ABC reporter used that map at a press function. Caroline Robbins was her name I think. She very clearly used it to label people who voted for Bush as racist. Some people will do anything for attention. The sad part is these people don't know they are doing anything wrong. Hopefully it will cost her her job. Since when is hate speech protected as a right. The fact that Kerry is still campaigning and hording money that is no longer his should set off alarm bells at some point. "No one ever lost a dime underestimating the intellegence of the American public" P. T. Barnum

Technically, you can also strike Oklahoma off of the map. It didn't become a state until *after* 1900. Unless you are talking about the treatment of Native Americans at the time. Before then, it was the last untouched land where the Original Americans lived known only as Indian Terratory. Although I will admit it was not always by choice, i.e. the trail of tears. :-( Once it was taken and added to the U.S. as a state, there was no land at all for the Native American Nations. Don't get me wrong either on the Trail of Tears thing either, as there were already Nations living there that didn't or wasn't forced to move, since they were there already. This was bad for them as they were being crowded in by force. :-(
Our country owes them so much it's unreal!