I came upon these two maps in the blogosphere yesterday and they’ve got me baffled. There is a map of pre-Civil War U.S. showing the slave states, the free states and the contested territories. Then there is a map of the U.S. showing which states voted for Bush during the 2004 election. The overlap of slave/contested states for Bush and the free states/territories for Kerry is too clear to be a coincidence, but damned if I can figure out what it means. Any theories?
It’s a coincidence. Take a look at the 1996 or 1992 electoral map. Different candidates running during elections with different circumstances produces different results. To just pull one or two electoral maps as evidence of anything other than a coincidence is just silly.
We try to look for patterns in things, and when we have a certain viewpoint it is easy to find them… or at least what we think we see…
The maps DO have something in common… that would be common interst (pardon the phrase)… The ‘slave states’ also tended to be farming and/or lower % of city residence… while those states more set up for commuinty development (either factories, mines, or cities) were against slavery (and don’t fool yourself, much of the anti-slave sentiment was about keeping your job, not because of moral revulsion… though there was plenty of moral revolusion on both sides of the civil war)…
The same is true today… and people tend to ‘vote’ by common interest… those who precieve a benifit to their situation… and it is difficult to be the ‘clear leader’ for the interests of both those with high and low incidence of ‘urban’ existance
States which were conservative in 1860 remain conservative?
No, not really.
The two sides of the American Civil War were roughly divided by whether they saw more virtue in a Jeffersonian agricultural ideal or a Hamiltonian industrial ideal. The states that seceded were overwhelmingly rural, and they were devoted to slavery as it was seen as necessary to make a profit from farming, low tariffs as they benefited raw material producers, and laissez-faire government as more protective of their rights. Conversely, the states that remained loyal tended to be much more industrial and with larger urban areas, meaning that slavery was seen as unfair competition to workers, high tariffs were wanted as they benefitted manufacturers, and a government willing to lay infrastructure and develop land was desired.
The “red vs. blue” dichotomy is in many ways a feature of “urban vs. rural” (as has previously been discussed on this board)- rural areas have tended to vote more Republican in the last forty years, while urban areas have tended to vote more Democratic.
Therefore, if you take a map of the United States and overlay how it looked politically in 1861 (i.e., divided roughly into Union states (urban), Confederate states (rural), and territories (rural)) and compared it to a 2000 or 2004 map of the electoral votes (i.e., divided roughly into Red states (rural) and Blue states (urban)), it could be interpreted in meaning that the change of American culture from rural to urban has been a general change across the entire country rather than a specific change in a few areas. Whether such analysis is necessarily correct is certainly debatable, but to simply throw it away as “silly” is being deliberately ignorant of major sociological trends.
the civil war was fought over the battle between states’ rights and federal rights.
that battle rages CONSTANTLY but the feds have had the upper hand for a while.
what happened in new orleans (the aftermath) was a giant head-butting over the issue. abortion rights are another example.
if we’re talking about slavery, well, then no. that’s not practiced 'round these here parts anymore.
Some of the “territories open to slavery” on the map are kind of misleading. For example, the Utah territory was “open to slavery”, but there were, near as I can figure out, less than 60 slaves in it in 1850. Nebraska territory was “open to slavery”, but there were only a few slaves brought in by territorial administrators.
Well, the states that seceded were overwhelmingly rural and devoted to slavery because they had the climate for it. Slavery flourished where the climate was such that it’s possible to have a monoculture with large scale plantation farming. And they were overly rural because of that.
Actually you have that backward… The states that were of the ‘union’ and/or more urban were due to climate… it was too cold to have the same kind of growing season, and the deep ports set up almost automatic cities…
No. My point is that picking one or two elections and using them to make a broad sociological claim is specious at best. What makes the 2000 or 2004 election more valid than the 1996, 1992 or even the 1976 or 1960 election?
It’s six of one and a half dozen of the other. Largescale plantation farming happened in the South because of the climate, and small yeoman farming happened in the North because of the climate.
The war IS still being fought - but only by one side.
Yankees - what did you learn about the Civil War in school? More importantly, how much time outside of said classes did you spend thinking about it? How often did it affect your daily life? How much did the people around you talk about it? And talk about it? And talk about it?
Because down here it’s constant. Constant bitching about it. Constant.
-Joe
:mad:
Can we bury this stupid disingenuous canard once and for all? The leaders of the Confederacy rebelled to protect their power, privileges, slaves and land. As John Randolph of Roanoke said, while pounding his Senate desk with a bullwhip, “I am an aristocrat! I love liberty, I hate equality!” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Randolph_of_Roanoke) And the common (white) people went along with them simply because “their” lands were being “invaded” by outsiders. That’s all. Any argument over the abstract principles of federal vs. state sovereignty was a pretext.
Nothing, however that doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong with comparing 1860 and 2004.
Comparing a Granny Smith and a Red Delicious apple is not somehow invalid because there are also Jonagold apples.
You might enjoy Sid Blumenthal’s “Old Times There Are Not Forgotten”.
In watching Ken Burns’ TV series “The Civil War”, I was most struck by Barbara Fields’ comment: “Without emancipation, the war was nothing but meaningless carnage. It required a war to make the Constitution that of a real, united nation. And it’s still being fought. The Civil War is not over as long as some are living in houses and others on the street.”
The struggle for civil rights for all is still under way, it’s been a continuous thread throughout American history, and yes, it’s still an issue in some places more than others, and yes, those differences continue to be exploited by the national political parties, and it was about other things than civil rights, too.
But if you’re trying to establish a continuity between two points, you have to consider the area in between.
In and of itself, no. But when that’s your whole dataset and you’re trying to draw meaningful conclusions, then yes, there is something wrong with doing it.
What are we comparing about them? What if I said, look at the shape of the moon and the shape of this navel orange. They’re both round. Clearly the overlap between the two is too much to be a coincidence, but what can it possibly mean?
Even though I agree with you that the Confederacy was probably more about slavery than states’ rights, it does need to be said that Randolph was about 30 years dead when the Civil War broke out, that he was pretty much a crazy person, and also that that quote isn’t really on point.
It is on point because it sums up the general attitude of the antebellum Southern gentry.
Yea, but that was pretty much the attitude of the Northern gentleman banker too…