NationStates Jolt Archive

I would have fought for the north. I am a proud Northerner.

I think your geography probably had the most to do with it.

I had a relative in the 54th North Carolina, a unit that was raised near his hometown.

I don't think the Union was recruiting there, and it would have been difficult for him to make the trek to the North to join the Union Army.

Most of the time, anyway, soldiers fight for the people they are standing with (the nearest small group of soldiers). Fighting for the cause is for dreamers and corpses.

I would have fought for the north. I am a proud Northerner.
Same here

Damn, my heart skipped a beat, I thought it was about the English Civil war (where I would have been on the Parliamentarians side in name, I would have sided with the radicals like ranters, diggers and levellers and the rest)

What would've happened if the South won? Aside from slaves happening a while longer, and segregation probably still occuring.

What would've the USA been like?

Last week in a science fiction literature class we discussed an essay written by Winston Churchill about the American Civil War. It was written from the point of view that Lee had won the Battle of Gettysburg and the war but pondering what would have happened if he had not. Really interesting. The fictional world of Confederate and Union States coexisting was fascinating, and the world almost seemed better than reality. Part of the consequence of Lee's victory was that World Wars I and of course II were totally avoided.

Born to be wild.

Last week in a science fiction literature class we discussed an essay written by Winston Churchill about the American Civil War. It was written from the point of view that Lee had won the Battle of Gettysburg and the war but pondering what would have happened if he had not. Really interesting. The fictional world of Confederate and Union States coexisting was fascinating, and the world almost seemed better than reality. Part of the consequence of Lee's victory was that World Wars I and of course II were totally avoided.
Ooh, I have that story, fairly interesting. The only thing I can really say I like of his.

I'm from Minnesota, so I would've fought for the north, at least if I was young and stupid or forced to. But if I lived out in the desert like I do now, I probably wouldn't have fought all. If I really knew what was going on and had the oppurtunity to pick sides I would've fought for the south, although not necessarily as a uniformed soldier.

john brown's side

The East!

I would have chosen not to fight.

john brown's side
Good cause, but not a very bright outcome.

Back then, the north. Knowing what I know now, I'd have lobbied to let them secede.

I'd have probably been too busy raising hell in Mexico to really care.

Being the proud Northerner I am (Massachusetts), I'd side with and fight for the US. Of course, I get a lot of hell from my mother's family in North Carolina (all "unreconstructed rebs" as they call themselves) for being a Yankee, liberal, and the whole blue uniform thing in general (long story).

Geography and the whole slavery issue aside (which really didn't come up until a few years into the war), I'd probably fight for the confederates, simply because I believe in self-determination in the form of government. If that section of the south wanted a seperate government so badly, it would be unjust to deny them that government.

I would've fought for the North, against slavery and all that.

I'm a crazy californian, so...uh...I dunno, I'd just kinda shake my head and sigh.

Knowing what I do now, I'm with Drunk Commies. Oh please, holy not even funny, let them go.

What would've happened if the South won? Aside from slaves happening a while longer, and segregation probably still occuring.

What would've the USA been like?

Read Harry Turtledove books: Guns of the South, How Few Remain, the Great War Trilogy, and the American Empire series in that order.

Guns of the South is an alternate history about the south winning the war with help from the future.

How Few Remain, the Great War trilogy and the American Empire series are alternate historie timeline in which the CSA wins the battle of Antietam (spelling?)and gain their independence from the USA. It's very well written and very entertaining.

What would've happened if the South won? Aside from slaves happening a while longer, and segregation probably still occurring.
Well, first off, the civil war wasn't about slavery (the winners write the history books) slavery was tacked on to justify the north invading the south for fear of economic loss. I am in no way saying slavery was right, but the north just outlawed it in order to make the south seem like evil bigots.
And as for segregation still happening, The Great Emancipator (Lincoln) himself said In a 1858 debate
Quote" I will say, then, that i am not, nor have ever been, in favor of social and political equality of the white and black races"End Quote (he said more but my post is long enough as it is.)
So feeling about equality where about the same over the Mason-Dixon Line.

I'd like to add for "white power" groups reading this,
1) how'd you get a computer
2) Stop using my ancestors flag as a Racist symbol

Well, first off, the civil war wasn't about slavery (the winners write the history books) slavery was tacked on to justify the north invading the south for fear of economic loss. I am in no way saying slavery was right, but the north just outlawed it in order to make the south seem like evil bigots.


Slavery was a part of the war. You can't deny it. It is even mentioned in some of the secession documents of the 11 states(Georgia comes to mind).

The North didn't outlaw it simple to say "see the South are racist whatevers!" The rest of the Western world had outlawed it. In fact, I think Great Britian would seize any slaves from slaver ships.

Again, to say the war had nothing to do with slavery is just as wrong to say the war was about ending slavery.....

Hmmm where to fight? I had family on both sides.

If I had to pick. Probably with Chamberlain at Little Round Top. A black hat or with Longstreet. ;)

Slavery was a part of the war. You can't deny it. It is even mentioned in some of the secession documents of the 11 states(Georgia comes to mind).

The North didn't outlaw it simple to say "see the South are racist whatevers!" The rest of the Western world had outlawed it. In fact, I think Great Britian would seize any slaves from slaver ships.

Again, to say the war had nothing to do with slavery is just as wrong to say the war was about ending slavery.....
i Didn't mean that slavery didn't have any thing to do about it. i just meant the north wouldn't have outlawed it if the south didn't secede. I may have mistyped. I also i am saying that Lincoln wanted to make the south look bad so it could make it so no country would dare ally with them.
And every textbook with any thing about the civil war about glorifies Licoln,
says the south was trying to perserve slaves, and called Jefferson Davis A spineless coward (not exactly in those words)

Good cause, but not a very bright outcome.

yeah, had a bit of a tactical blunder in the last bit. did alright for himself before that though.

i wouldve foguht for the south: the less of the hypocrates of the two and the only one fighting for a way of life and ideals

and the civil war was not fought to stop slavery, ironically only the slaves in the states seceding from the union were freed...by the union, it was foguht to stop secession, a power recognized by the framers but lincoln didnt care of course, technology wouldve stopped the use of slave labor anyway, and besides its not like the north respected black people any more than in the south

I would have fought for the north. The south was to disorganized to win.

"What side would you have fought on in the Civil War?"

With a name like "Forrest Lee Horn," which side to you suppose? :D

Knowing that the South would lose would make things a bit more palatable for me, since slavery was truly an abomination.

I'm from Washington... So... I probably wouldn't have know that a war was goin on at the time... I'd be some French Trapper Named Pierre.

I remember when I had a thread on this subject once. :D It was my most popular thread ever. (sigh) Good times. :p

Anyhoo, back to the question, I would fought for the Confederacy.

Well, first off, the civil war wasn't about slavery (the winners write the history books) slavery was tacked on to justify the north invading the south for fear of economic loss. I am in no way saying slavery was right, but the north just outlawed it in order to make the south seem like evil bigots.
And as for segregation still happening, The Great Emancipator (Lincoln) himself said In a 1858 debate
Quote" I will say, then, that i am not, nor have ever been, in favor of social and political equality of the white and black races"End Quote (he said more but my post is long enough as it is.)
So feeling about equality where about the same over the Mason-Dixon Line.

I'd like to add for "white power" groups reading this,
1) how'd you get a computer
2) Stop using my ancestors flag as a Racist symbol


Actually Lincoln wanted to send the blacks back to Africa, but he was killed before he could do it.

Actually Lincoln wanted to send the blacks back to Africa, but he was killed before he could do it.

That's correct. He, like his idol Henry Clay (and, later, racist prick Theodore Bilbo) wanted all blacks deported.

North. I was born in Illinois, so I would have joined the North.

What would've happened if the South won? Aside from slaves happening a while longer, and segregation probably still occuring.

What would've the USA been like?

Small, constitutional national government with a strong emphasis on reserving power to states.

The secession had everything to do with slavery. The entire lifestyle, society, and economy of the South was based on slavery. Don't give me the nonsense about states' rights because when the Northern states passed laws that forbade the capture of escaped slaves, the South supported a FEDERAL Fugitive Slave Act which overruled the northern states. So much for states rights. The Southern slaveholding elite did not care about states rights or whatever fictional principles they made, so long as slavery was preserved.

I surely would have fought on the side of State's rights and reduced Federal power. All idealism aside, I would have fought where I had the strongest ties. Probably still in the South.

The secession had everything to do with slavery. The entire lifestyle, society, and economy of the South was based on slavery. Don't give me the nonsense about states' rights because when the Northern states passed laws that forbade the capture of escaped slaves, the South supported a FEDERAL Fugitive Slave Act which overruled the northern states. So much for states rights. The Southern slaveholding elite did not care about states rights or whatever fictional principles they made, so long as slavery was preserved.

Tariffs were also a major issue.

Would've fought to protect the south. I'm a southerner myself.

Tariffs were also a major issue.
Yes, the tariffs which prevented the slaveholding cotton planters from maximizing their profits. The whole incentive for secession was based on the narrow interests of those 1 or 2% of Southern slaveholding aristocrats who wished to preserve and perpetuate the slave-based cotton and cash crop-based way of life. I don't see how the poor Southern whites had a vested interest in the war. In truth the northern war effort also waged by a small moneyed elite, but at least the union was preserved and slavery ended, even if abolition was not a motivating factor from the beginning.

I'm from Canada, and I wish we (well, the British Empire - Canada wouldn't exist for another 6 years) had helped the South, if only just to see British and Canadian troops marching into New York.

The secession had everything to do with slavery. The entire lifestyle, society, and economy of the South was based on slavery. Don't give me the nonsense about states' rights because when the Northern states passed laws that forbade the capture of escaped slaves, the South supported a FEDERAL Fugitive Slave Act which overruled the northern states. So much for states rights. The Southern slaveholding elite did not care about states rights or whatever fictional principles they made, so long as slavery was preserved.

Lincoln offered a constitutional amendment that would have allowed slavery to continue...

I'm from Canada, and I wish we (well, the British Empire - Canada wouldn't exist for another 6 years) had helped the South, if only just to see British and Canadian troops marching into New York.

I thought the Brits did help the South. If only to provide supplies and run blockades. On the other hand, a fair number of Canadians(o/w known as British North Americans) served in the Union Forces.

Lincoln offered a constitutional amendment that would have allowed slavery to continue...
But the South believed that Lincoln's election to President would doom slavery. Lincoln was in fact a racist who believed blacks were far inferior to whites. Lincoln time and time again said that slavery should be allowed to continue. I have no faith in Lincoln's integrity, but once the war started, the abolition of slavery was inevitable because abolition was an obvious strategy to weaken the South by encouraging slaves to run away. So even if the men who ran the northern war effort were dishonest individuals (J. P. Morgan, Lincoln, etc.), the Civil War had the positive effect of ending slavery.

I am not of "American blood" but I was born in America and am a citizen of the U.S. (American law). My home state is North Carolina so I would have fought for the South.

I thought the Brits did help the South. If only to provide supplies and run blockades. On the other hand, a fair number of Canadians(o/w known as British North Americans) served in the Union Forces.
Unofficially, of course. But I'm referring to putting actual troops on U.S. soil.

True, but chances are they were recent immigrants from the U.S. - most decendants from Loyalists had/have no love lost on the United States of America.

Californian independence. I would have been all by myself, but we where a republic for 30 days and even have a battle flag. I think that the US should have split at that time into three parts, North South and West. We'd be a lot easier to deal with.

But the South believed that Lincoln's election to President would doom slavery. Lincoln was in fact a racist who believed blacks were far inferior to whites. Lincoln time and time again said that slavery should be allowed to continue. I have no faith in Lincoln's integrity, but once the war started, the abolition of slavery was inevitable because abolition was an obvious strategy to weaken the South by encouraging slaves to run away. So even if the men who ran the northern war effort were dishonest individuals (J. P. Morgan, Lincoln, etc.), the Civil War had the positive effect of ending slavery.

So the ends justify the means... I see :)

Anyways, you brought up the Fugitive Slave Act as an example of the South's blatent disregard for State's Rights. If that's the case, I would like to hear your personal interpretaion of Acrticle 4, section 2, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

Thanks.

So the ends justify the means... I see :)
It seems not only did the war to preserve the union justified the ends of abolition, abolition also justified the war to preserve the union.

It is unfortunate that we had to have a bloody civil war to end slavery. John Brown was right to prohpesy, "the crimes of this guilty land will not be purged away but with blood." Slavery showed no signs of weakening, and sadly it was so far entrenched in society that we had to endure terrible suffering for it to end.

Anyways, you brought up the Fugitive Slave Act as an example of the South's blatent disregard for State's Rights. If that's the case, I would like to hear your personal interpretaion of Acrticle 4, section 2, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

Thanks.
Article 4, Sec. 2, Clause 3 is an example of curbing states rights to protect slavery.

The Union. I hope that if I were a southerner that my family and I would escape up north. But that wouldn't happen. We'd fight to protect our slaves :rolleyes: .

Unofficially, of course. But I'm referring to putting actual troops on U.S. soil.
I think after they were sent home defeated in 1814, they had probably had enough of fighting in the Americas.

The Union. I hope that if I were a southerner that my family and I would escape up north. But that wouldn't happen. We'd fight to protect our slaves :rolleyes: .

Did you know that racism was even worse in the North than in the South? Did you also know that only 6% of Southerners owned slaves?

Did you know that racism was even worse in the North than in the South? Did you also know that only 6% of Southerners owned slaves?
It is a shame that the vast majority of poor white southernors, who suffer poverty and destitution from the static economy of slavery in which white labor could never compete against black slavery, could be deluded by the aristocratic landowners and slaveholders into supporting the CSA. Truly a war fought by the poor man for the rich man. Of course the north was like that too, with the poor whites conscripted to fight for bankers and war profiteers.

It is a shame that the vast majority of poor white southernors, who suffer poverty and destitution from the static economy of slavery in which white labor could never compete against black slavery, could be deluded by the aristocratic landowners and slaveholders into supporting the CSA. Truly a war fought by the poor man for the rich man. Of course the north was like that too, with the poor whites conscripted to fight for bankers and war profiteers.

True. Then again, almost every war in history has been fought for economic reasons.

True. Then again, almost every war in history has been fought for economic reasons.
Yes, that is one thing that Marx got right, all human history is economic history. Humans are motivated by money, not principles, and those in control will twist principle and manipulate the less fortunate to protect their own pocketbooks.

The north. I can't imagine any moral person willing to fight to preserve an institution as sick as slavery. But frankly, I blame Eli Whitney for the whole thing.

The north. I can't imagine any moral person willing to fight to preserve an institution as sick as slavery. But frankly, I blame Eli Whitney for the whole thing.

The North was filled with racists, too.

The north had many racists, and the south had many abolitionists, but slavery would likely end (or at least be curtailed) if the north won and slavery would most definitely continue if the south won, so I think the presence of racism in the north does not change the rightness of the outcome (abolition).

The North was filled with racists, too.
But they didn't enslave anyone on the basis of race, except those four states that did.

But they didn't enslave anyone on the basis of race, except those four states that did.

Aah, that's ok then.

The northerners didn't practise slavery, except those that did.

Would you kindly retitle your thread the "Amrerican" civil war. America is not the only country to have had a civil war.

Aah, that's ok then.

The northerners didn't practise slavery, except those that did.
"Boarder states".


The core of the US didn't.

Would you kindly retitle your thread the "Amrerican" civil war. America is not the only country to have had a civil war.
Something I noticed one the first page.


But since your anther Brit.
Would you side with the Monarchy or the Parliamentarian

I am from New Hampshire (north), but I porobably would have supported the Confederacy. They actually had a reason for fighting, they wanted independence and freedom from oppressive tariffs and crippling trade regulations, unlike the U.S. who declared the bloodiest war in American history to "preserve the union". Never at any point during the war did the Union even mention slavery as an issue. Just saying that you are opposed to slavery is no justification at all for supporting the Union seeing how slave labor was still legal and used by the north during the entire war. I also would be hesitant to side myself with a military dictator (Lincoln) who pretty much used the constitution as a door mat. He suspended habeas corpus, enstated martial law in Maryland, had editors of newspapers that spoke against him jailed, and even put out an arrest warrant for the cheif justice of the supreme court. In my opinion I would like to support the past actions of my home state, but there is no way I could morally justify siding with the Union.

But since your anther Brit.
Would you side with the Monarchy or the Parliamentarian

Parliament.

Parliament.

Ditto, as said before though, I would be in the radical wing and carry the Agreement of the People in my helmet.

I am from New Hampshire (north), but I porobably would have supported the Confederacy. They actually had a reason for fighting, they wanted independence and freedom from oppressive tariffs and crippling trade regulations, unlike the U.S. who declared the bloodiest war in American history to "preserve the union". Never at any point during the war did the Union even mention slavery as an issue. Just saying that you are opposed to slavery is no justification at all for supporting the Union seeing how slave labor was still legal and used by the north during the entire war. I also would be hesitant to side myself with a military dictator (Lincoln) who pretty much used the constitution as a door mat. He suspended habeas corpus, enstated martial law in Maryland, had editors of newspapers that spoke against him jailed, and even put out an arrest warrant for the cheif justice of the supreme court. In my opinion I would like to support the past actions of my home state, but there is no way I could morally justify siding with the Union.
The trade regulations only hurt the landowning slaveholding cotton growers. Most southerners were poor white subsistence farmers who were severely hurt by lack of economic opportunities under a system where black slaves monopolized the jobs, so there is no real moral justification for the South either. The southern landowners did an excellent job of tricking the uneducated poor whites, who were actually suffering under the system of slavery, to fight the war. And since both the North and South were full of scumbags and morally inconsistent throughout the war, only the north is worth fighting for because at least slavery was abolished in the end.

South, since I'm from Georgia. I don't support slavery, but the states did have the right to secede.

I'd probably be one of the unionists that got hung in north Texas.

I am a northerner and my ancestors were generals for the north and may have helped win it, but I wish the south won, think, we would be rid of them, they would be no more, no more Bush voters! No Bush in office!