Ok then lets go back to the Civil War.
If the North's major source of income was agriculture do you
think the North would have played a role in freeing the slaves?
What was inherent in the genes or upbringing of the oh so moral North
that made them the abolitionists they were? Its not there. The North
was industrialized, they did not need slave labor, it was easy to be
against it.

The roles would have been completely reversed if you change the
geography that led to agriculture v. industrial. And what makes anyone
think if they lived in a society in which they were taught from birth that blacks needed this work and were not fully human that they would have been
immune to this... Anyone on this board could have been a fervent Nazi
under the correct conditions.

Get over the regionalism and try to understand the roots.

And dammit Scuds you just dont know Texas, at all. It is very diff. than the deep south. It was never a part of the deep south. East Texas, I will admit, is close... excluding Houston which is quite cosmopolitan. The Western parts are much more like Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, etc... Very independent minded. South-Central Texas could be mistaken for California with Austin being Berkely, and San Antonio being the part of LA that you hate because of Mexicans. The State is very diverse, and could be democratic in a few years if the Democrats are able to take hold of the Hispanic vote. That is all it would take.
I have been to Mississippi.
Whole diff ball game.
Make the Rednecks here look like Ted Kennedy clones.