Especially when it comes to Mark posting bullshit. Indian Territory (Oklahoma) wasn't a state in 1860. The equation "RED AND BROWN = SLAVE STATE 1860" is wrong. The brown are territories, and in the census of 1860, Nebraska Territory had 81 blacks, 10 of which were slaves. Slavery was banned there in 1861. It was hardly a bastion of pro-slavery sentiment, in other words. Rather the opposite.
Neither was Kansas a bastion of slavery, despite a flood of pro-slavery Border Ruffians from Missouri coming in to cast illegal votes for a pro-slavery legislature. If you recall your history, Mark, almost immediately competing pro-abolitionist drafted their own constitution and shadow government. "Bleeding Kansas" slid into low-grade civil war over the issue of slavery. By the time it died down, a pro-abolitionist constitution was drafted and approved by a 2-1 margin in mid-1859. Kansas came in as a Free state in January 1861.
I´m surprised, Larry. I thought you would have jumped at the chance to point out that the state that housed the capital of the Confederacy actually went for Obama as did North Carolina. Ah, well...
Instead, you chose to ignore the general point of the map...which is very valid despite your very minor protestations...and do the win the argument dance. But let´s take your points one at a time, to be fair, and because you are (ahem) a little off about a few things.
Technically, both you and the map are wrong about Oklahoma. It was labeled as UNORGANIZED TERRITORY in 1860. So neither red nor brown. This area had over 8000 slaves owned by both Indians and whites. So, I think it´s fair to characterize it as slave friendly even if not a state so nice try on the nit picking there but your trying to redirect the general point (surprise, surprise).
Regarding Nebraska, note that it says OPEN to slavery and, as your correctly note, there were slaves there so the number doesn't really matter. We're talking about sentiment. The Daily Nebraskan wrote, in 1859, ¨The bill introduced in [Omaha City] Council, for the abolition of slavery in this Territory, was called up yesterday, and its further consideration postponed for two weeks. A strong effort will be made among the Republicans to secure its passage; we think, however, it will fail. The farce certainly cannot be enacted if the Democrats do their duty.¨ Newspapers regularly argued against the presence of blacks.In fact, slavery was allowed if people from the South moved to the Nebraska Territory with their slaves. There were slaves sold at a public auction in Nebraska City in 1860.
Regarding Kansas, I largely agree with your summation but remember, we´re talking about being open to slavery. They were, as you noted, at one time due to Missouri migration but then changed and became abolitionist.
Overall, your comments miss the main point of the map and perfectly illustrate the denial dance that you guys do all the time. Look at all the red states. Now compare them to the states that were slave friendly. Are you seriously saying that there is no crossover? More importantly, are you denying the existence of the Southern Strategy?
Jim, I'm trying to make the blog more dynamic with extra posts as the mood strikes me. It's paid off as my site traffic has doubled since I started doing it.
The general point of the map is just a smear. Nothing new for you. As Jim says, "Yawn."
Oklahoma was not named UNORGANIZED TERRITORY in 1860. It was "Indian Country" or "Indian Territories". "Unorganized Territory" is a category or descriptive term, not a place name. I didn't claim it was open to slavery or that it didn't have slavery. Twit.
And Nebraska Territory DID outlaw slavery in 1861, and Kansas entered as a Free state before Lincoln was even inaugurated. So a big chunk of your map depends on cherry-picking a date. Make it 1861 and it's a lot different.
The map's and your "argument" is specious. Correlation is not causation. Choose 1780 and the whole fucking thing is "slave state", including Mexico and Canada (by the map's dopey definition of "state"). And in 1870, none of it is. So what does either of them prove? Not a fucking thing. No more than your dipshit graphic with glaring elementary errors.
Ah yes, it has to be that the map has "glaring elementary errors" and "a smear." It can't POSSIBLY be that there's anything accurate to it. Heaven forbid!
You know, you guys talk a pretty good game about taking responsibility for faults and then, when it comes to issues like race, you don't even have the stones to admit what is so obviously true. 12 states on this map, Larry, allowed slavery and it's those same 12 states that are deep red GOP.
Oklahoma was not named UNORGANIZED TERRITORY in 1860. It was "Indian Country" or "Indian Territories". "Unorganized Territory" is a category or descriptive term, not a place name. I didn't claim it was open to slavery or that it didn't have slavery. Twit.
Seriously, Larry. You want to take me on with this? I think you've deluded yourself into believing in fictional Mark (like fictional Obama). Just because a right wing blogger says I am stupid doesn't mean that I am. In fact, it's the exact opposite.
Check out the map with the last link. Look familiar at all? Now tell me again how the map doesn't have any similarities or implications.
Unorganized Territory is a descriptive term describing areas that had not been formed into US Territories recognized by the US government. That means no legislature, no votes, no census, just whatever local governments the local inhabitants have set up. Large areas may in be effectively lawless. You do notice there are two Unorganized Territories in your maps. Are they two parts of the same Unorganized Territory in your febrile mind? There is absolutely no doubt that the southern area labelled Unorganized Territories north of Texas is what was known as Indian Territory. But sure, you can go ahead and double down on your stupidity.
I'm sure the map has all kinds of implications in your fever-swamp mind, and lord only knows what the voices are telling you. Republicans are racists, and Democrats are the saviours of America, if only they can get those dumb, toothless, cousin-humpin' fundie rednecks to shut and listen and be grateful for what The Great (Half)White Father in Washington does for/to us.
But sure, you can go ahead and double down on your stupidity.
So, in another fine example of refusing to admit when you are wrong, you are now saying that the Houghton Mifflin company is stupid? And you guys wonder why I call you childish.
be grateful for what The Great (Half)White Father in Washington does for/to us.
Nope, no racism here, please move along. Our next exhibit is entitled DARVO and how it became the basis for the conservative party in America in the late 20th and early 21st century.
11 comments:
SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE
Especially when it comes to Mark posting bullshit. Indian Territory (Oklahoma) wasn't a state in 1860. The equation "RED AND BROWN = SLAVE STATE 1860" is wrong. The brown are territories, and in the census of 1860, Nebraska Territory had 81 blacks, 10 of which were slaves. Slavery was banned there in 1861. It was hardly a bastion of pro-slavery sentiment, in other words. Rather the opposite.
Neither was Kansas a bastion of slavery, despite a flood of pro-slavery Border Ruffians from Missouri coming in to cast illegal votes for a pro-slavery legislature. If you recall your history, Mark, almost immediately competing pro-abolitionist drafted their own constitution and shadow government. "Bleeding Kansas" slid into low-grade civil war over the issue of slavery. By the time it died down, a pro-abolitionist constitution was drafted and approved by a 2-1 margin in mid-1859. Kansas came in as a Free state in January 1861.
So, Republicans = racists.
Yawn.
I have noticed that the comments have gotten pretty sparse, even with a flurry of posts.
Perhaps something about gun control?
I´m surprised, Larry. I thought you would have jumped at the chance to point out that the state that housed the capital of the Confederacy actually went for Obama as did North Carolina. Ah, well...
Instead, you chose to ignore the general point of the map...which is very valid despite your very minor protestations...and do the win the argument dance. But let´s take your points one at a time, to be fair, and because you are (ahem) a little off about a few things.
Technically, both you and the map are wrong about Oklahoma. It was labeled as UNORGANIZED TERRITORY in 1860. So neither red nor brown. This area had over 8000 slaves owned by both Indians and whites. So, I think it´s fair to characterize it as slave friendly even if not a state so nice try on the nit picking there but your trying to redirect the general point (surprise, surprise).
Regarding Nebraska, note that it says OPEN to slavery and, as your correctly note, there were slaves there so the number doesn't really matter. We're talking about sentiment. The Daily Nebraskan wrote, in 1859, ¨The bill introduced in [Omaha City] Council, for the abolition of slavery in this Territory, was called up yesterday, and its further consideration postponed for two weeks. A strong effort will be made among the Republicans to secure its passage; we think, however, it will fail. The farce certainly cannot be enacted if the Democrats do their duty.¨ Newspapers regularly argued against the presence of blacks.In fact, slavery was allowed if people from the South moved to the Nebraska Territory with their slaves. There were slaves sold at a public auction in Nebraska City in 1860.
Regarding Kansas, I largely agree with your summation but remember, we´re talking about being open to slavery. They were, as you noted, at one time due to Missouri migration but then changed and became abolitionist.
Overall, your comments miss the main point of the map and perfectly illustrate the denial dance that you guys do all the time. Look at all the red states. Now compare them to the states that were slave friendly. Are you seriously saying that there is no crossover? More importantly, are you denying the existence of the Southern Strategy?
Jim, I'm trying to make the blog more dynamic with extra posts as the mood strikes me. It's paid off as my site traffic has doubled since I started doing it.
The general point of the map is just a smear. Nothing new for you. As Jim says, "Yawn."
Oklahoma was not named UNORGANIZED TERRITORY in 1860. It was "Indian Country" or "Indian Territories". "Unorganized Territory" is a category or descriptive term, not a place name. I didn't claim it was open to slavery or that it didn't have slavery. Twit.
And Nebraska Territory DID outlaw slavery in 1861, and Kansas entered as a Free state before Lincoln was even inaugurated. So a big chunk of your map depends on cherry-picking a date. Make it 1861 and it's a lot different.
The map's and your "argument" is specious. Correlation is not causation. Choose 1780 and the whole fucking thing is "slave state", including Mexico and Canada (by the map's dopey definition of "state"). And in 1870, none of it is. So what does either of them prove? Not a fucking thing. No more than your dipshit graphic with glaring elementary errors.
Ah yes, it has to be that the map has "glaring elementary errors" and "a smear." It can't POSSIBLY be that there's anything accurate to it. Heaven forbid!
You know, you guys talk a pretty good game about taking responsibility for faults and then, when it comes to issues like race, you don't even have the stones to admit what is so obviously true. 12 states on this map, Larry, allowed slavery and it's those same 12 states that are deep red GOP.
Oklahoma was not named UNORGANIZED TERRITORY in 1860. It was "Indian Country" or "Indian Territories". "Unorganized Territory" is a category or descriptive term, not a place name. I didn't claim it was open to slavery or that it didn't have slavery. Twit.
http://www.eduplace.com/ss/maps/pdf/us1860.pdf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/1860_Electoral_Map.png
http://faculty.unlv.edu/pwerth/Free-slave-states.jpg
Seriously, Larry. You want to take me on with this? I think you've deluded yourself into believing in fictional Mark (like fictional Obama). Just because a right wing blogger says I am stupid doesn't mean that I am. In fact, it's the exact opposite.
Check out the map with the last link. Look familiar at all? Now tell me again how the map doesn't have any similarities or implications.
Unorganized Territory is a descriptive term describing areas that had not been formed into US Territories recognized by the US government. That means no legislature, no votes, no census, just whatever local governments the local inhabitants have set up. Large areas may in be effectively lawless. You do notice there are two Unorganized Territories in your maps. Are they two parts of the same Unorganized Territory in your febrile mind? There is absolutely no doubt that the southern area labelled Unorganized Territories north of Texas is what was known as Indian Territory. But sure, you can go ahead and double down on your stupidity.
I'm sure the map has all kinds of implications in your fever-swamp mind, and lord only knows what the voices are telling you. Republicans are racists, and Democrats are the saviours of America, if only they can get those dumb, toothless, cousin-humpin' fundie rednecks to shut and listen and be grateful for what The Great (Half)White Father in Washington does for/to us.
Just because a right wing blogger says I am stupid doesn't mean that I am. In fact, it's the exact opposite.
Oh, so you are stupid if a left wing blogger says so.
But sure, you can go ahead and double down on your stupidity.
So, in another fine example of refusing to admit when you are wrong, you are now saying that the Houghton Mifflin company is stupid? And you guys wonder why I call you childish.
be grateful for what The Great (Half)White Father in Washington does for/to us.
Nope, no racism here, please move along. Our next exhibit is entitled DARVO and how it became the basis for the conservative party in America in the late 20th and early 21st century.
Srsly? Are you hearing dog whistles again, Mark? Or are you just fucking retarded?
Dog whistles? He's whistling right past the progressive graveyard. The original progressives were racists of the first order.
Post a Comment