PDA

View Full Version : Slave-owning states went Republican, Free states, Democratic


Tennis Fool
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:07 AM
I just discovered this when Korben posted a map of the Missouri Compromise of 1850. It was exactly identical to the electoral map of 2004!

What does this mean? All those that were once slave-owners are now Bible Belt Christians?

Can only a Southern Democrat get elected to Office by swaying some Southerners who'd otherwise vote Republican?

It's funny how history, in a way, has not changed in 150 years.

(Of course, I also understand that at one time, the Democrats ruled the Souths and Republicans the North and Pacific West).

vogus
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:13 AM
not exactly, Ohio was a free state, and California was a slave state.

Helen Lawson
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:34 PM
I don't think the Dakotas or Idaho had slaves either.

Helen Lawson
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:37 PM
Speaking of this, has anyone seen that old movie, How to Beat the High Cost of Living? Jane Curtin is undercover helping to run a show about the history of Oregon in a strip mall when she's really just casing out the money ball. She shows up really late to the show and the producer woman (the woman from Soap, not Hellman, the other one) starts bitching her out about being late and says, "where the hell have you been, it's 1860 already and we just freed the slaves." Curtin says, "Slaves? Where did you get the slaves? Oregon didn't have any slaves?" The other woman says, "It didn't?" Curtin rolls her eyes, "I'm positive." The other woman just shrugs and the show goes on.

rwb196
Nov 4th, 2004, 03:20 PM
I just discovered this when Korben posted a map of the Missouri Compromise of 1850. It was exactly identical to the electoral map of 2004!...What does this mean? All those that were once slave-owners are now Bible Belt Christians?

The irony is that thru most of the 20th cent. (including the era of segregation) the south was ruled by the Democrats (or Dixiecrats as they were known) and it is only in the last 15 years that the South has swung overwhelmingly to the Republicans.
(Of course, I also understand that at one time, the Democrats ruled the Souths and Republicans the North and Pacific West).
Ah I see, you know you're talking s*** but you just can't stop yourself ;)

Sally Struthers
Nov 4th, 2004, 03:25 PM
I just discovered this when Korben posted a map of the Missouri Compromise of 1850. It was exactly identical to the electoral map of 2004!

What does this mean? All those that were once slave-owners are now Bible Belt Christians?

Can only a Southern Democrat get elected to Office by swaying some Southerners who'd otherwise vote Republican?

It's funny how history, in a way, has not changed in 150 years.

(Of course, I also understand that at one time, the Democrats ruled the Souths and Republicans the North and Pacific West).

If you look at the state wide county maps you'll see that in most states, the map is all red except in large urban centers.

ptkten
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:25 PM
vogus, California was not a slave state

Lee-Waters' Boy
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:28 PM
If you look at the state wide county maps you'll see that in most states, the map is all red except in large urban centers.
I was noticing that yesterday, for example pretty much all of Pennsylvania is red except the Philie area.

Bacardi
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:49 PM
I was noticing that yesterday, for example pretty much all of Pennsylvania is red except the Philie area.

It's because all those evil gay people that you hate, form a large voting group there. And it's not as close minded as the rest of the Amish/Steelworking towns in PA.

Lee-Waters' Boy
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:59 PM
I don't have any problem with gay people, what I have a problem with is the constant name calling, over reacting anti-Bush people. Some of your posts have been simply moronic and extremely over-reactive to the situation. In fact, I could care less who is the president, but threads titled things like "bush backing assholes" are enough to make me vote for him just to piss everyone off.

Obviously leaving reputation or making comments that spew hatred are not the way to deal with it, so I apologize for that. Regardless, if you were a bit more understanding to other peoples' beliefs (right or wrong) you might not receive comments like the one I left.

vogus
Nov 4th, 2004, 05:09 PM
vogus, California was not a slave state

check your history. Texas and CA were the western slave states.

lizchris
Nov 4th, 2004, 06:11 PM
not exactly, Ohio was a free state, and California was a slave state.

You might want to go back and brush up on your history. The Missourt Compromise of 1850 stated t aht Missouri would enter the union as a salve state and California would enter it as a free state.

ptkten
Nov 4th, 2004, 07:12 PM
vogus, Texas was a slave state, but California was definitely a free state California fought on the side of the Union during the civil war.