44:44 and the Mason Dixon line

Before we get too euphoric about a new age of unity, change and the future of our nation, consider geography. If we look at a map of the alignment of states and the location of the territores at the civil war, and compare with the 2008 electoral map, the division of the north states and south states is eerily similar. Kansas, West Virginia and Missouri go to the south (McCain). Virginia goes to the north (Obama). Florida (now New York south) goes north (Obama). North Carolina is too close to call. Remember at the time of the Civil War a big controversy was over how to admit the new states without tipping the balance of power. The Missouri Compromise sought to avoid war by evenly dividing the territories into allies of north and allies of south. Note the almost even division of territories from the civil war map compared to the electoral map. Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Washington to north (Obama). Arizona, Indan territory, Nebraska territory, Dakota territory and Utah to south (McCain). So we have to wonder if we have progressed, or if we are simply replaying the history of our basic divisions. By the way, that division in 2008 is very close 52-48%, on a good day for the democrats. We know the division was very deep in 1860, deep enough to fight a bloody and cruel war. How deep is the division, still about the same in territory and numbers, today? I think it is very important in view of this to consider the nature of the division. Part of the division at the civil war was certainly about race. With the election we have a feeling that things have changed, but looking at the map have they really? I think the answer is certainly things have changed in the south, but we cannot overestimate the lingering effect of racism in shaping the 2008 map. Part of the civil war was about urban vs. rural. That seems unquestionably similar to today; Obama won in the old south territories because he captured the new urban centers in those old southern states. Part of the civil war was about industry vs. agriculture. To me that is the least analogous area. Certainly, increased industrialization of the south does not seem to have overshadowed other factors to align those industrialized southern areas with the north. Ironically, the south remains the bible belt vs. the less fundamentalist Christianity and more cosmopolitan nature that might be attributed to the north. To a serious Christian like myself, this is very troubling. It appears on the map almost unmistakable that fundamentalist Christianity is still linked to heritages that include lingering influences of racism and rural resistance to the problems, influences and changes that dominae the emerging world.

I would not for a minute ignore the monumental possibilities that seem to be hinted at in the current election. But I cannot look at the map and not also realize the serious dangers and challenges that face us.





2008 election:



election: