Have we learned nothing?
 

...

So your saying Republicans are pro-slavery?

A gander at the minimum wage, lack of health care benefits, overtime or not scandal, etc. isn't much of an argument against the idea, lol. Seriously, I think the point being made here is a history of a liberal/conservative division within the country. Hard to argue those two maps.....

I think you're givin' him too much credit Raven. I don't see a single mention of conservative or liberal ideals in the post.

If I remember right, did anything west of Texas even have any real bearing on the civil war or slavery?

-fibber

Everything west of texas had huge bearing on the Civil War.
The extension of slavery into the west was a critical issue that brought on the war.
The 1820 Compromise had everything north of the Louisiana Purchase as free (south as slave).
We later siezed territories from Mexico, California was admitted as a free state and the territories were to be slave.

Then Stephen Douglas (Sen) proposed that the Kansas and Nebraska territories be opened to settlement and wanted the status of slavery to be decided by popular sovereignty. The act (Kansas-Nebraska Act) convinced the North that the South wanted to open all federal territories to slavery and brought into existence the Republican party, which was committed to excluding slavery from the territories.

Then Dred Scott happened, which basically turned the whole country into a slave nation.

That is what I got from the post. And from what I see, the republicans snagged the remaining areas open to slavery. They even won over some non-slavery states! Score for the republicans!!!! And in case you didn't notice, that is how you win an election as proven this year!

Cool, thanks. I remember the Kansas part, but the only history I read now is way before that period. Couldn't remember if those were established provisional territories at the time. I need to cut back on the suds.

-fibber

hmm strange.. when is slavery popular again in the united states? the minimum wage.. bah they dont need to raise it.. every time they do the prices for everything goes up.. thats not a balance.

I think the point here is that no matter how much things change, they always stay the same. The issue here is not slavery. No one in their right mind in this country supports slavery, regardless of party affiliation. The issues that divide this country seem to have a link to geographical location. The last time the nation was divided along similar idealogical and geographical boundaries, there was a very ugly Civil War.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

If you look at the country divided by county the blue tends to lean towards the bigger cities and the red dominates rural areas and smaller cities.

This may be a reflection of america's tendency to embrace more socialistic views of government in the "big city", whereas there's more of a "I don't need the government" (or I don't need as much government as John Kerry thinks) view in rural america.

I've heard of an article where the author, who openly sides with the left, stated "we don't live in the United States - we live in the United Cities." In the end different populations of people have different views of the country. The person living in the big city is more prone, for example, to see homelessness as a bigger problem than someone in a small town that has no homelessness (he/she can see).

In the end I don't believe there is a right or a wrong in this situation - there are just different perspectives on priority, and based on the voting of the country those priorities favored GWB.

I live in Portland Oregon where a day after the election there were major protests downtown that stopped traffic and so forth, but when I drive twenty miles east of the city I'm more likely to see a "W 04" than a John Kerry bumper sticker. Are we divided - sure, but can we coexist and all be patriotic americans - sure.

I have to thank you for making this point.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

No sensible person would be for slavery in 2004, however, at the risk of a gross oversimplification we still have states in our country who (at least up until recently, I don't know about currently) flew the confederate battle flag atop the statehouse. Nothing good can come from that. And that leaves us where we are now, with these two eerily similar maps, and a country again divided.

I don't think this map has a lot to do with the current political situation. Probably 90% of the blue states would be red outside the urban areas. And many of the cities in the blue states would be red.

Looking at maps like this is fun but it's always an oversimplification. Don't forget the impact of middle west abolitionists in bringing about an end to slavery. John Brown (ref. Harper's Ferry map) came out of Kansas and our first Republican Abe Lincoln was a Kentucky-Indiana-Illinois product. The rural-urban divide seems true on the surface, but many red states have their populations concentrated in very large urban centers: Texas, Florida, Virginia, Missouri, Nevada, Georgia, Ohio, etc.

The majority of Florida is red, but the county where Miami is located was overwhelmingly blue. The county that includes Austin Texas went to Kerry. Cleveland Ohio went to Kerry, yet the rest of the state is mostly Bush Country. Las Vegas went to Kerry, but the rest of the state is crimson. All these are examples of how the more rural areas have overcome some of Kerrys metropolitan strongholds. I'm not saying my theory is scientific or even nessisarily true, but it's just what I see on the map.

Even the county maps don't really tell the whole story though, especially when it comes to big population centers. Bush could have had 0%-49% of the vote in Miami and it would still be blue, Kerry could have had 0%-49% of Tampa, but it's still red. If Kerry had taken 100% of the Las Vegas vote, I garauntee Nevada would be blue.

http://images.usatoday.com/news/poli...map-final2.gif

The civil war was not fought over slavery, but instead states' rights.

"The civil war was not fought over slavery, but instead states' rights"..... to determine if they could do things like decide for themselves if they could own slaves.

And obviously, the desire to own humans factored largely into the Souths desire to maintain that self determination. It was the bedrock of their economy and they had just failed to keep a president from being elected from a party that was surging on a promise to keep slavery out of the western territories.

My family on my father's side were/are from Louisiana. They consider the confederate battle flag a symbol of regional pride and it has nothing to do with slavery. They always voted for the Democrat and would never ever vote Republican no matter who was running.

Slavery, the civil war, states rights, abolitionists, John Brown, Dred Scott. It's all interesting, but is there really a convincing argument to make that all of this stuff or the map above is related to this past election or the current political climate.

The current blue areas are well populated and the red ones are less populated. A state is blue or red largely depending on the dominance of the cities within that state. Illinois is blue--Chicago dominates. Missouri is red. It has two pretty big cities, but a lot of rural area. In addition, both of its big cities are border areas. Therefore, Illinois and Kansas get a lot of blue voters who are connected with the cities of K.C. and St. Louis--see the speck of blue in Kansas and the few specks in S. Illinois in Locobot's map. If these voters were actually in Missouri, it may have been a blue state. What does this have to do with 1860?

I think it's interesting that all the big cities who are the BIGGEST targets for terrorism.. LA, NYC, Chicago, etc... ALL voted democrat.

Pretty funny, eh?

Must be the farm owners who are dreading terrorists poisoning their crops or something... Bush did a good job of putting the fear into rural citizens :lol:

LA + Chicago = 0 successful terrorist attacks

Oklahoma City = 1 successful terrorist attack

LA + Chicago = 0 terrorism casualties

Oklahoma City = 168 terrorism casualties

...so what are you trying to say?

Oklahoma City was a domestic terrorist, btw, not something this administration is pushing fear against :D Most people are focused on the foreign terrorist boogeymen (Al Qaeda) and their next big thing, not some extremist militia from Michigan or some crazed lunatic like Koresh.

Anyway, all the cities I mentioned are THE prime targets for a large scale attack, not Boise or Kansas City (or even OK City).

NYC = 3000+ casualties. Beats all them out.

i thought "surely he won't try to salvage this one"... i was wrong.

what i'm trying to say is this: the citizens of oklahoma have dealt with more terrorism deaths than any city outside of nyc... yet their vote was strongly pro-bush. those cities you listed were going to vote democratic no matter the political or security environment (as i'm sure you are perfectly aware of). your slight against rural people was off base anyway, i was just pleased to have such a undeniable rebuttal at my disposal. :)

If that's what ya wanna think, go for it :thumbsup:

(BTW, OK would go republican regardless :))

My own theory is much simpler.

If a rabid dog is roaming around the city terrorizing neighborhood children, people will call the police (who may or may not come), and hand wring while keeping everyone inside until someone else deals with the situation.

In the country, a farmer will get out his rifle (probably an evil assault Mini14 ranch rifle) and shoot the dog, problem solved.*

In other words, city people tend to talk and trust the government to protect them, whereas rural people tend to act and take responsibility for themselves.

Simplist view?

Perhaps.

But I also see it as having more than a little truth, especially with my experiences in dealing with urban and rural America.




*Earlier this year, I remember reading a story that illustrated this point perfectly. I man had either a boa or python that had wrapped itself around his throat. He scrambled outside and people were frantically trying to get the snake to release him, but in a few minutes he was dead.

No one even thought to take a knife or just a big rock and kill the snake.

Understood, but... that's funny because I frequently see a lot of people saying that rural america is for personal responsibility and less govt, so why would the right push for something like... ban of abortion or marijuana?

I'm not starting a debate, just wondering why this happens. Aren't those issues in which personal responsibility is key? I perfectly agree with this line, as it matches the actions I would take:

"In the country, a farmer will get out his rifle (probably an evil assault Mini14 ranch rifle) and shoot the dog, problem solved."

I'm all for guns, I'm all for personal responsibility... but to claim that conservative are completely for that... not so accurate.

I would agree that the analogy is not perfect and that rural people are subject to the same foibles as urban folk in theory if not substance, these including fear of different things (drugs) and religious intolerance (abortion).

Still, the thing that has struck me time and time again when I've had to spend time in the boonies is that people consistantly have a "get it done" attitude and then they figure out a way to do it (good old fashoned Yankee ingenuity is what it used to be called).

Conversely, I see urban people as being willing to explore ideas and new paradigms whereas country people tend to stick with what works.

Ok, no offense to this, but since you said that, generally rural america (which we shall generalize as Bush America) is for personal responsibility/daily activism and Kerry America waits for someone else to take care of it.... I think this needs said.

My simplist view? Bush america likes to say it is rugged individualists, but there is an almost perfect blue/red divide between state losers and state winners. Red states take in more tax dollars than they give out and vice versa.
It seems that Red America is Blue America's dependent.

Red America may do some little things day to day that make them feel like they are problem solvers, but it is the hard work of Blue America, both monetarially and in pushing for government running programs, that is keeping everything moving.

i can see where you are coming from w/the marijuana argument... but having an abortion is taking personal responsibility for ones actions? :confused:

without some proof i'm obliged to consider that nothing more than a self-gratifying pat on the back. as for pushing government policy...

Legislature
newt gingrich - georgia
tom daschle - south dakota
john mccain - arizona
dick gephardt - missouri
bob dole - kansas
bill frist - tennessee

Executives
President Ford - Nebraska
President Bush- Texas
President Clinton - Arkansas
President GWB - Texas
President Carter - Georgia

Veep Quayle - Indiana
Veep Gore - Tennessee
Veep Cheney - Wyoming

It appears that the leaders in government don't come from blue states at all. In fact, the two biggest blue-staters to hold office in the last 30 years were Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan... both revered by the right and reviled by the left.

To take this one step further, it is not as if "red America" is not subject to government intervention. There are grain subsidies, "blue" people set many of the crop prices in order to maintain a supply and demand balance, "blue" people provide insurance in case of calamities and so on. As much as I like the idea that the "red" people are rugged individualists and the last holdouts of Yankee ingenuity, the facts speak otherwise.

Most of the programs and budget increases we have, the "Big Government" that the early 80's and 90's republicans were getting red in the face over, were the results of Democrat policies.
That's what I meant.
Recent history, with Republicans in charge has been reversing that. I.e Social Security privatization.

And, like I said, Blue state taxes are being funnelled into the Red states.

I suggest resolving the minimum wage issue by putting a cap on personal income. Sound socialist? Maybe it is, but what do you think of the idea that noone, not even the CEO of the corporation, can earn, say, more than 10 times what the lowest paid worker makes? So, if you want to be rich, you've gotta drag the lowest paid workers up with you........I'm interested in what everyone thinks of this madcap idea of mine.

I think its interesting, but also contrary to the principles of America. Putting a cap like that on what someone can make removes the impedus for high level success, one of the biggest parts of the American Dream. Why aim for that success if the rewards for getting there don't merit it? Sure you can get there, but only if you increase the wages of your lowest employee. This will devalue what you are earning (as well as everyone else) and increase the cost of living if done on a wide scale. The net effect would probably be the same as increasing the minimum wage.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

First of all, Lincoln was a Republican. Second, the South was mostly Democratic until some time during the last century (as in 1900s). but of course the political parties have changed and all that good stuff.

you're right, the "Southern Democrats" or Dixiecrats were roughly ideologically similar to todays's Republicans and vice versa, but what does that mean to this discussion?