My Photo

seeing

  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from mari-posa. Make your own badge here.

MetaRefs

« Silver Lining Parties | Main | Good Election Result in Dallas »

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

That's fun! Until today I didn't know this was being circulated so widely.

I was the person who created that map comparison and presented it on Nov. 6, 2004, at the Radical Philosophy Association Annual Conference in a talk entitled “American Fascism in the Equation of American Empire” (it is on page 17 of the workbook I handed out with the talk). Afterwards I gave an electonic version to someone who was at the conference who then apparently started the snowball rolling in the internet.

Along with the map comparison I provided the following comparison of comments about "moral values" on page 18.

#####################

What exactly are “Moral Values”?

CBS News
60 Minutes
Moral Values: A Decisive Issue?
Nov. 3, 2004

Voters focused on four issues: moral values, the economy, terrorism and the war in Iraq. The issue most voters thought was most important was moral values.

For those voters, the choice was lopsided: 79 percent went for Mr. Bush, and only 18 percent for Kerry.

Was it the decisive issue in this election?

"There were 11 states with definition of marriage, opposition to same-sex marriage initiatives on the ballot," says Frankovic. "We were aware of the discussion of religion, so when this issue [moral values] beat out the economy, beat out terrorism, beat out Iraq, I think it was something that sort of struck us as important."

What exactly are those moral values? Different voters defined them differently, but those who voted for Mr. Bush oppose gay marriage and feel matrimony ought to be a union between a man and a woman. They also oppose abortion rights to some degree, and oppose broader government support for stem-cell research.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/03/60II/main653593.shtml

*******************

A History of The Defense of Slavery In America
Larry E. Tise (University of Georgia)

"The Oracular Decisions of God have positively declared that the Slave-Trade is intrinsically good and licit, [and that the holding of slaves] is perfectly consonant to the principles of the Law of Nature, the Mosaic Dispensation, and the Christian Law" wrote one Raymond Harris in Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave-Trade. Thus, he said, slavery has "the positive sanction of God in its support."

http://www.ralphmag.org/tise.html

**************************************
White Southerners' Defense of Slaveholding
The Spectator, December 6, 1859, p. 2, c. 1

The intelligent, christian slave-holder at the South is the best friend of the negro. He does not regard his bonds-men as mere chattel property, but as human beings to whom he owes duties. While the Northern Pharisee will not permit a negro to ride on the city railroads, Southern gentlemen and ladies are seen every day, side by side, in cars and coaches, with their faithful servants. Here the honest black man is not only protected by the laws and public sentiment, but he is respected by the community as truly as if his skin were white. Here there are ties of genuine friendship and affection between whites and blacks, leading to an interchange of all the comities of life. The slave nurses his master in sickness, and sheds tears of genuine sorrow at his grave. When sick himself, or overtaken by the infirmity of age, he is kindly cared for, and when he dies the whites grieve, not for the loss of so much property, but for the death of a member of the family.--This is the relation which slaves generally, and domestic servants universally, sustain to their white masters.

http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/teaching/vclassroom/proslavewsht2.html

#######################

One of my several points of discusson of course is that the media reporting that "moral values" was a deciding factor in the election just because certain people called their views "moral values" is absolutely no indication that actual moral values were involved at all.

My underlying purpose it to inform people that Fascists always use "moral values" as a label for their views in order to innoculate their positions against reasoned evaluation. If you call it a moral value then it takes on the tinge of "religion" and we "know" that everyone has their freedom of religious views in the USA, don't we? Such sanctimony and moralism are one of the 10 key factors in identifying fascism.

I certainly agree that the maps generate a Rorschach like experience. But let's remember that such imagining does have a shared basis, otherwise the Rorschach itself couldn't be interpreted. Some of the shared views of these maps are of course the many comments about the "Southern Strategy" adoped by the Republicans and the Confederacy Conservativism that gives the Republican Party its core of believers.

The great irony is of course that the Conferacy Conservatives are being shamelessly used by the plutocrates in the Republican Party to give them the votes to make themselves richer at the expense of those very same Confederacy Conservatives.

See comments re these maps other blogs:

http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/11/from-black-reconstruction-to-operation.html#comments

http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/2004/11/free_states_vs_.html

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2002

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/11/voting_free_ves.html

Gregory Wonderwheel

No matter what anyone says about these maps everyone should know and understand that this election came down to one thing and one thing only.....RACE!!! People in this society want to put this illusion up that race in this country does not matter. In fact it matters in everthing we do in the USA! People need to understand that we are not far removed from slavery, jim crow, the civil rights movement, or the voting rights act of 1965. People need to wake up and understand that there will be no "racial" harmony in this country while people of color still live under a state of white supremacy.

You are absolutely right on target.
I am also pleased to see that many individuals are now seeing the real side of Bush, his Cabal and the ‘white’ Republican Party.
One must keep in mind that the Republican party in the South today was established when the 'Dixiecrats' bolted from the Democratic party because Truman began to take an active role in civil rights for African-Americans. Remember he signed an Executive Order to integrate the armed forces. He was predicted to loose because the Democratic Party had lost its support in the south.
Lincoln went over to the original Republican Party because it was formed from the Anti-Nebraskan movement, which did not want expansion of slavery. Stephen Douglas, as a democrat was in favor of the expansion. The Democratic Party of that day took no position on any aspect of slavery. Lincoln was against slavery but had no party to run from with at least the same sentiment. The anti- Nebraskans didn’t want blacks coming into their area, they weren’t against slavery.
For modern day Republicans to say that they are the party of Lincoln is obscene.
The modern Republican Party has been, and always will be, the party of discrimination.
What Karl Rove and Bush’s other henchmen did was to play on that discrimination. Where it use to be (and still is) ‘do you want your daughter to marry a black man’ or worse still ‘do you want niggers to live next door’ – they merely substituted Gays and Lesbians in that equation. They do it under the justification of Bush and God. Nothing different than what the Southerner’s and their ministers preached for years using the bible as proof that slavery was justified.
In the areas that you show as red – south and mid-west – bigotry and bias always plays well. They are still firm believers of ‘White Supremacy’ going back to their Anglo-Saxon heritage. They are also hypocrites as they are silent on the fiscal madness of Bush. Of course, all those farms would disappear if it were not for Federal Subsidies. After all, they like their ‘farm welfare’ checks.
The Urban centers always reject those bigoted points of view.
Isn’t it interesting that the two areas, which were hit by terrorist planes, voted against Bush -- New York and D.C.
So it is necessary for those who may be disappointed to get off their back sides and become activists to prevent Bush from doing too much damage in the next four years. It’s like a ship that has been hit by a torpedo. Ship’s company goes into what is called “Damage Control” wherein activities immediately go underway to prevent the sinking of the ship and bringing it into a safe port for repairs.
I am a white man, heterosexual, married for many years, served in the Marine Reserves and active duty as a Naval Reserve Officer for four years — in case anyone of those bigoted Republicans thinks otherwise to discredit my statements.

Good to see that at least 2 slave states have seen the light! Maryland and Delaware are now BLUE states!!!

Come on folks. You can't be that swayed by some of these pictorals. This is showing convservatism...not slavery promoters. This election was Urban vs. Suburban/Rural. Look at the county votes. Get a better argument, or even better yet...the election is over...move on with your life...we here in MA have and we all voted Kerry.

That map doesn't reveal anything. There just as much racist white people in the Blue states as in the Red states. Why do you think white people move out when minorities move in their neighborhood, even in an upper middle class neighborhood? It's a common trend in your so called Blue state California. So, to make generalization that everyone in middle America are Jesus freaks and pro slavery is kinda backwards thinking don't you think?

I'm a minority in the upper income bracket, and our neighbors have moved out because we moved into their neighborhood. A friend of mine in So CAL had the same experience, but before his white neighbors moved out from a brand new neighborhood, they dumped garbaged into my friend's backyard.

This blue state/red state/slave state/free state argument doesn't have much to stand on since it is mostly being pushed by angry Democrats.

These are the same folks that were ready to run McClellan vs. Lincoln in the 1864 election on the platform of ending the war and allowing the South to break free with their slaves.

Personally, this reminds me of when the US was hip deep in Vietname thanks to a Democratic Oval Office and the Republicans were sore over the defeat of Goldwater.

I'm still waiting to hear our exit strategy for Korea, Kosovo and Europe.

I don't really think it's fair to make that conclusion. There are so many factors other than bigotry ... or the historic stance that these states had at one point or another in history. We have to take into account the poverty rate of these ppl, what the economy is like in these states, and education ... you can't just base it on what the map looked like then and now.

It's a damn shame! We're all americans. How long will it take everyone to realize. Oh, I forgot we all haven't experienced the elegance of struggling.

As a black Bush voter in a red state, I can only shake my head at this idiocy. Keep calling Bush voters "backwards, racist rednecks", and you will keep losing. And losing. And losing. You are also woefully unaware of history, yet you people control the public schools and universities. What does that say?

West Virginia came into existence just so they WOULDN'T have to secede from the Union. West Virginia is a red state. It is true that one of West Virginia's senators is a former Klansman, but Robert Byrd is a Democrat. Hmmmmm

Ohio lost more people fighting for the Union than any other state. Ohio is a red state.

Maryland and Delaware, both blue states, both SLAVE states.

Iowa, Kansas (my home), Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, all fought for the Union, and all red states.

Of course, you erroneously act as if the only red states were southern states, and forget about the southwest and the midwest.

And here's another interesting FACT. The Northeastern states, like Massachusetts, New York and much of New England were filled with Tories who did not support the American Revolution. They were anti-liberty and anti-American.

I guess they still are today.

Where's the map that shows when Massachussetts used to trade in Native American slaves?

One thing for sure, the ones who currently divided the U.S.A. with the election probably are the same ones who divided the U.S.A. with the civil wars, considering that the way the U.S.A. is divided fall into similiar patterns. And with all of the elections around the world, chances are the people who run these elections are the same.

Folks, our enemies work in a vast time scale and in a global scale.

Fortunately, we can deter these attacks by remembering one thing, do not resist evil.

I usually don't even bother to compose a response to these sorts of misleading fallacies of the media. But it is so prevalent in this post-election time that I've just seen too much of it. By using the headline "Free States vs. Slave States", an immediate deception is perpetrated that continues to deceive right through all following commentary. This statement makes the inaccurate assumption that the "Civil" war was exclusively about slavery, and also implyies that somehow white people in the northern states in 1861 were less racist than their southern contemporaries, which is also false in the extreme. The votes are divided as they are for the same reasons that the war broke out in the first place. These were philisophical differences in forms of government and policy, not whether or not black people should be free. The people in the southern (former Confederate) states generally adhere to a philosophy of less government. They do not want the "help" from endless programs and institutions. They do not want a vast collection of unworkable and unnecessary reglation on their day to day life. Those in the northern states favor a more mercantilist government, one that collects funds and allocates them back to society via endless programs, and one that will endlessly regulate everything "for our own good". At the end of the day, Iraq had less to do with the vote than this fundamental difference of opinion in the purpose of government. I say let's just go ahead and split up. The north wants their "social democracy" and the south wants a free republic. Let's stop with this unworkable compromise and give back the right for everyone to "alter or abolish their form of government". But whatever you do, for God's sake please stop with this "slave states vs. free states" garbage. It's not only irrelevent in the 21st century, and not only serves to perpetuate racial hostilities on all sides, but also eliminates any possibility of actually learning about the history of our country and the nature of our government.

It is so hard for me to understand the wailing coming from the Dems on the slave map issue. After all, they had control of the South for nearly 100 years after the Civil War. (The term "yellow dog" democrat originated in the South: it was a voter that would vote for a yellow dog, if it was on the Dem ticket).

What this is really all about is just a way to paint the South as bigots in the third degree. The elitist view that somehow Northerners are morally and intellectually superior is a smugness that caused the South to leave the ranks of the Democrat party beginning in the 1960's. We don't buy the elitism for one minute. You want to begin the healing, begin there. Dump the attitude.

We in the South are not gun-totin', knuckle-draggin', religious zealot, extra chromosome idiots. We have the ability to think independently of the lunacy that we have observed in the North. We do not want your restrictions, taxation, political correctness, overcrowding, New York minute type of lifestyle down here in the South. We like our lifestyle just fine.

Now if y'all want a piece of that lifestyle, fine. Come on down, we're happy to have you. But if you want to change that, just go ahead and stay put. This ain't no place to be trying out your failed ideas.

I stand by everything in this post. These are not opinions, they are fact.

To respond to Casey:
First of all, it is your attitude that just further divides Democrats and Republicans. I would like nothing more than a reconciliation between the two parties, but if everyone is going to bicker like two petulant children fighting over a lolipop, then we'll continue to have problems. I also agree that the maps don't entirely make sense, they must be taken with a sense of humor. But think of it this way: do you think that ALL people in slave states believed in slave ownership? No, just as not all residents of free states believed in slave freedom. Same goes for this election. Such maps can never have true accuracy. To do that, we'd have to show a house-to-house map.

Second, before you use big words, try to spell them correctly. Whoops, there goes my Democratic eliteness again. I'm a bit ornery, owing to my chapped ass. Sorry.

Bush doesnt like blacks?

This is a very interesting look at how divided the country has been for hundrends of years.

I do want to point out that one of the main differences (and ultimately one of the main causes) of the Civil War was States Rights. Namely keeping the federal government small. There had been a large movement (among the Republicans) to give the federal government more autority. The predominently Southern democratic states want to keep the autonomy of the States over the Feds.

Interesting how at the time the rolls and philosophies of the Democratic and Republican parties are almost the opposite of what they are today.

I would absolutely love it if the Civil War had been about the abolition of slavery. I think that it is very unfortunate that it was just something that was on the sidelines. I think that we Americans like to think it had a bigger roll because it makes us feel better.

I think that what this map shows is that the more 'progressive' socialist leaning areas of the country are about where they have always been.

And unfortunately civil rights (for people of all color, religion, sex and sexual orientation) are still issues that need to be worked on.

I do have to say though, that in this election the Democratic party did make inroads in several states that have always been strongly republican. No, they did not necessarily win them, but they did get a higher percentage of the vote.

The 2004 election county by county blue/red or purple/blue/red maps make more sense when compared with population density.
http://ftp2.census.gov/geo/maps/special/profile2k/US_2K_Profile.pdf

Better than the slave-state comparison:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/lyme/images/Lymemap2000big.jpg
http://images.usatoday.com/news/electmap.jpg

Blue states versus Red States means nothing! If 51% of the people in the Blue states were Blue, it means that although the state is Blue, 49% of it's residents are Red. The opposite is true of the Red states.
Of course this is probably not exact, because the percentages may vary within states; but as a national whole of all Reds and Blues, 51% are red and 49% are Blue. Making it appear to be otherwise is innaccurate. The representation that the residents of all blue states have a blue mentality is as inaccurate as representing that the residents of all Red states have the proported Red mentality.
Unfortunately the Blues and the Media (most of which are blues) perpetrate this hoax to further divide the country into the "empathetic (touchy feeley slaves)vs the rednecks (gun carrying slave owners".
It' all part of the liberal mentality that says the government and the rich should take care of the ones who have chosen to work for the government (thereby avoiding responsibility for themselves) but still think they should be "rich"(whatever that is).
It's bullshit!

Explain this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Or do you censor comments from the right?

I like this one better:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Looks like there are a lot of 'slave wanting backwards rednecks' even in the 'best' states. Wow, looks like the whole country - to be honest!

The map shows that the children of slave holders and Indian killers still have hate and white fascism on their mind. They voted Bush in hopes of keeping the threat of non white terrorist from browning America. Bush of course is just for the money boys regardless of color. You should realize that 88% of white America voted for Bush.. to save them...from the brown masses...have you ever listened to Limbaugh and all those Am talk pundits..they are very clear about keeping America for the benefit and privilege of the white male only. And they use a kind of radical racist Christianity to back up their view.."Curse of ham" etc.. the same justification used for slavery and killing of the Indians. America is a racist fascist country always has been. And still is..its just showing its ugly head more under Bush.

The Blue states have controlled media and culture for a long time so the deception of equality and fairness was thought to be true..but not so.....Ask any non white in America if all is well with equality and quality of life ..you will get an answer that may surprise you. Just because you as a white male enjoys a good life and partakes in a"fair" social and economic system does not mean it is equal for all. Abortion rights, gays rights, civil rights and all the rights Blacks gained from the 60's are on the chopping block. Are you aware that white median total assets is $88,00.00 there abouts... Hispanic about $10,00.00 and Blacks $5,00.00. There is a great disparity and not because,as most whites imagine, they are just lazy, criminal or uneducated but because of a system set in place from the turn of the century..where banks will not give loans, segregation limited home purchasing options and limited educational opportunities, and limited hiring. All these improved in the 1980's but Blacks and Hispanics, Asians and Indians are about 100 years behind whites in economic gain yet the red states are still under "threat" by these groups.

Welcome to America .....a nation built on hate, separation and inequality.

The two maps, side by side, were indeed shocking. We haven't come all that far in 150 some odd years. There has been a lot of talk recently about California seceding from the "union," for the majority of the people in this state are certainly not represented by the Bush Cabal. But why go it alone? We've got LOTS of company! All the blue states should serve the red states with "revised term of surrender of the Confederate States" ORDERING them back into the Confederacy taking the red states since admitted with them! Good riddance! And...look at the map: we've not only got them surrounded but we've got all the best states from NY to CA to WA to ME, etc. Let the Republicans twist in the wind!

But the Civil War wasn't really about slavery. It was about States' Rights - which is exactly what it's about today. Numerous laws are being passed that are obviously not Constitutional (e.g. Patriot Act) that restrict right guaranteed to the states or individuals by the Constitution. There will be another civil war and the major casualty will be our Republic.

So, you're saying that all Republicans, or those who voted Republican, are the equivalent of slave owners and believe in slavery? I've never seen a more bigoted, uninformed, ignorant conclusion in my life. When was the last time you went out to the cotton fields to pick crops for free? When was the last time you were beaten with whips under the control of white slavemasters? C'mon, this type of idiocy barely merits comment and degrades the suffering of actual slaves. By the way, I bet you enjoyed your Starbucks this morning, didn't you? And, were you restricted to your quarters tonight, or were you able to freely attend whatever meeting you wanted, and to speak out freely? Ridiculous. You should be ashamed of yourself.

i dont think this map will draw the same conclusion:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7902

Sorry, nearly all the states of the Union before the War supported slavery; only Pennsylvania was truly a free state and worked at it. Missouri was the first state of the union to actually outlaw it and free all slaves within her boundaries. The emancipation proclamation has some evidence of being a political device to keep the union together - abolitionists were the extreme left wing of their day and a minority.

Any history study will show a lot of contradictory facts about the above comparison.

In response to Toren's reply, I think the free/slave map bears a more poignant contrast that he may give credit for. True, in other elections, red states have gone blue and vice-versa. But this election (citing exit polls and every Bush voter I talked to), most Bush voters were Christian minded and think religion and morality should take a part in politics. These are (stereo)-typically the same people who are ignorant about social issues (especially gay rights and afro-american issues), all the while claiming they are on God's side. The overlaying map comparison, to me, shows a direct correlation to ignorance these states had to social issues of the 1860s. Not every presidential election puts thesev moral issues on a pedestal. But this one did.

The biggest difference between 1868 and 2004, is that not all red states were ignorant by a landslide. In 2004, Many red states had 45% or more of their votes for Kerry, whereas the slave south actually fought a war to secede from the Union. So you're right, it is unfair to make this comparison.

Shame on people who voted for Bush just because he's a Republican. Those Republicans who care about the progression of social issues did themselves and the country a great disservice. We're poised to take several steps backwards.

viz a viz free/slave map:

1. The various comments and arguments denying any comparison of the character of the republic today and then just don't address the simple fact: The maps ARE eerily similar - it begs examination.

1. The republican party (and the dems too) are very much different in character and ideal than they were 140 or so years ago. There's simply no sense in talking about the political parties of the 1860's using today's distinctions between them.

2. Jon Koppenhoefer makes a sensible and compelling argument but I want to focus on the slave/free map.

3. I'm afraid tim may be right - we're still fighting the war. 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. In the 1860'smthe fight was over whether people could own other people. In the 1960's the fight was over whether people could disenfranchise and legally oppress other people. The fight today is very similar to the battles of the 1960's but the oppressed are gays, the non-church-aligned and anyone who helms close to Lockean theory. (Which, of course, was a major influence on the founders)

4. It seems clear that, speaking ever so generally, the ethos hasn't changed dramatically since the war. While I doubt we could attrinute such diffences (as tim does) directly to the original settlers (there's been SO much internal migration since then) there is an obvious cultural difference that continues regardless of its source.

5. Not to go all social constructionist or anything but... It's the culture, stupid. Whether directly or tenuously descendant from ante-bellum cultural differences, those differences remain. In the 19th century, slavery was the one biggest issue that expressed the underlying cultural dichotomy. Today, it's other (perhaps less dramatic for the general population but not to those who are oppressed or persecuted) issues that express those cultural discongruities.

6. I take odd comfort when seeing those maps because I realize we're not seeing a new enemy, it's the same enemy in slightly different guise. Virtue prevailed under true leaders like Lincoln and LBJ (not to put him on the same pedestal) and virtue will prevail again. The fight will go on but slowly and surely the virtuous will prevail.

Er, only one problem with that map, and it's a big one. Those "slavery states" should mostly be colored BLUE since they were largely run by Democrats during the pre-Civil war years. Just as the harshest opposition to the civil rights movement in the 50s came from Democrats.
How soon you forget....

There is much less here than meets the eye. Many of these states have at various times gone Democrat and gone Republican (Mondale only won Minnesota; Bill Clinton won Arkansas and Missouri; etc.). This is a drastic oversimplification of electoral politics over the past 150 years. The slave states were largely Democratic until the late 1960s--what does that prove? How popular do you think Republicans were in Mississippi in 1868? There is far too much history and nuance (let alone inconvenient facts) for this to indicate anything; all it shows is a willingness to call one's political opponents bigots based on little more than colored maps.

Someone took things a step farther and overlapped the maps on a simple graph. Design +1, Americas direction -2 ... :(

http://www.freedomoftruth.com

Clearly, secession is the only way forward. The blue states should leave the Union. Taking their money with them. After a couple of generations, they should be able to occupy what will by then be the wasted, subsidy-starved remains of the red states and re-educate the slack-brained inhabitants in the ways of civilisation.

The one thing we can take away from this election is that the U.S. remains a land full of bigots and self-righteous, hypocritical religious zealots....
A sad day for America

Intersting about the slave/free state split. However if you check out the maps here, it's not so bad:
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/

and scroll down you can see the maps corrected for population and also for the gradient between Democrat and Republican margins of victory. What becomes clear looking at the gradient is that Republicans have only eked out wins in most of the nations. That's excellent news for progressives.

I've long thought that the Civil War still rages in this country. These maps reinforce my thinking, but I have to ask two questions:

What explains the cultural difference between those who settled in the northern US and those who settled in the southern US?

What explains the continuity of hostility and friction between northern and southern states today?

I guess I wonder why that damned war isn't over yet?

Cute but ...

there's less here than meets the eye.
Before the Civil War, the areas shown
on this map as "territories open to slavery"
were almost unpopulated, except perhaps
by soon-to-be-exterminated Native Americans.

They are STILL almost unpopulated,
with huge empty areas and some small
settlements sustained largely by subsidies from the national government.

The empty states -- let's name names:
Dick Cheney's Wymoming, Mormon Utah
and Idaho, North and South Dakota,
Alaska, and oh yeah, West Virginia and
Trent Lott's Mississippi, among others --
enjoy disproportionate representation in Congress and in the Electoral College
simply because the House of
Representatives has not been
increased in number in 80 or 90 years.

Simply adding more Representatives to
the populous states would decrease the
relative overweight of the two-Senators-per-
state formula in the Electoral College.

(The Electoral college is one elector for
every Senator, 100 of those, and one
elector for every member of the House,
435 of those, so the two-Senator mimimums
account for 18+% now. Add 200 Representaves and the Senators would account for only 13+%.)

Enlarging the House would also,
obviously, redistribute power in
Congress. 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.

By adding another 200 seats to the
House of Represetatives, we would
also force widespread redistricting,
unsettling established incumbents,
bringing fresh air and fresh voices
into Congress.

Small note there--Oregon was not really a 'free state'. They neatly avoided the whole issue by making it illegal for a black person to enter Oregon. No Negroes, no slaves!

Also reflect on the fact that Indiana, although it was Union state in the civil war was later a great bastion of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920'. this explains its inclusion in bush's sweep.

The great struggle during the pre-civil war time was over the growth of slavery into the western territories, Kansas, Texas, New Mexico, California. The northern politicians knew that if the interests of the South ever allied with the interests of the West, then they would dominate the nation. Note that since 1964 all the presidents have either been from the south (Texas, Georgia, Arkansas) or the west (California), defeating candidates from the north east (Massachusetts) or upper midwest (Minnesota and South Dakota)

the evangelical vote is more properly the "white" evangelical vote. 11 o'clock on sunday morning is still the most segregated hour in american life.

Angelica, perhaps you missed tonight's news broadcast on NBC where they featured a story about the Texas position on gay marriage and rights -- and Texas, being the largest purchaser of education materials, pretty much dictating the text for the rest of America. The text version is here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6415905/

with the following title:

No same-sex marriage in Texas textbooks

unfortunately, i'm not that surprised.

I'm confused.I got the precinct map from the paper and it looks differnt than the purple map. I know it's an eerie comparison but I know Texas is NOT pro-slavery, or anti-gay rights. Like Mrs. Clinton said, the beauty of this great Nation is that we can debate any party and still be patriotic and American. I just have to stick up for Texas and what I see down here. Regards.

Goddamn, that hurts.

The purple map is better

http://www.kieranhealy.org/files/misc/purple_america_2004_small.gif

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search Sensory Overload