NationStates Jolt Archive

...which side would you have fought for? The Union, the Confederacy, or neither? Why?


Poll coming.

Confederacy, mainly because I believe in states right, and like most confederate soldiers back then, they were really fighting to protect their home, only the rich were concerned about slavery.

Campaigning to convince California to reconsider joining in the first place...strike back out on our own again.

Neither, because I wouldn't have had a choice, I would have either been conscripted to the union or cs, geography always plays more of a role in civil wars than ideology.

It wouldnt be about anything except where you live.
If you were a Virginian, for example, you joined whatever side the state had joined.

So, personal preference meant very little.

Tuffy indeed.

I cannot morally condone the Confederacy. The Confederacy was Evil. There's a huge variety other of reasons why I would never fight for the Confederacy.

On the other hand, I also cannot condone the United States government going to war over several states exercising their implied right to secession. I would never fight for the Government, or for President Lincoln, who pretty much took a shit on the Constitution.

I would probably end up being a Copperhead.

It wouldnt be about anything except where you live.
If you were a Virginian, for example, you joined whatever side the state had joined.

So, personal preference meant very little.

I'm talking about if you actually had a choice.

Union, being from Illinois. No politics necessary - I don't recall many people crossing the line to fight for the other side unless they were from a border state or some northern part of Virginia.

It wouldnt be about anything except where you live.
If you were a Virginian, for example, you joined whatever side the state had joined.

So, personal preference meant very little.

Well, not exactly. You individually may not have a choice, but get a bunch of you together, it might be different.

See:

1st Alabama Cavalry
1st and 2nd Texas Cavalry
West Virginia

Due to my family, I'd probably end up as a Confederate soldier. Due to my personal beliefs I'd probably stay out completely. The Union was just as bad as the Confederacy when it came to treating people and I couldn't fight for it anymore than I could fight for those sick fuckers in the Confederacy.

I would have made weapons systems for both sides and made a killing in the market.

Rule of Acquisition #34: War is good for business. Not to be confused with rule #35: Peace is good for business.

Despite any union romanticisms, the civil war was not some struggle against racism and slavery, it was an attempt by the intellectual northern mercantille class and educated intellectuals to establish a centralized state and to crush a rebellion in their constituent states.

Well, not exactly. You individually may not have a choice, but get a bunch of you together, it might be different.

See:

1st Alabama Cavalry
1st and 2nd Texas Cavalry
West Virginia

Yeah, but those were rare examples.
Guessing what side of would have chosen is completely hypothetic.

Most of us would have joined whatever state's militia.

Despite any union romanticisms, the civil war was not some struggle against racism and slavery, it was an attempt by the intellectual northern mercantille class and educated intellectuals to establish a centralized state and to crush a rebellion in their constituent states.

Wow...we actually agree for once! :eek:

neither, I don't like wars :rolleyes:

I just got a kick-ass idea for what I could do during the civil war! I'd build a giant robo-spider that shoots fire and use it to carve out my own country.

Yeah, but those were rare examples.
Guessing what side of would have chosen is completely hypothetic.

Most of us would have joined whatever state's militia.

Not as rare as one would think, my friend. Some truly devoted people went a-guerrillaing on both sides of the border.

Either way, folks fighting were hardly ideological. They fought because everyone else in their little hamlet was fighting, and they didn't want to be seen as cowards.

Not as rare as one would think, my friend. Some truly devoted people went a-guerrillaing on both sides of the border.

Either way, folks fighting were hardly ideological. They fought because everyone else in their little hamlet was fighting, and they didn't want to be seen as cowards.

Yes, but again, these intsances were not as common as you make them out to be.
MOST folks joined up with thier state militias, so in all likelyhood, if we were there, we all would have likely done the same.

I just got a kick-ass idea for what I could do during the civil war! I'd build a giant robo-spider that shoots fire and use it to carve out my own country.

I think you were beaten to this already:

http://wildwildwest.warnerbros.com/img/thefilm/tarantbig.jpg

I think you were beaten to this already:

http://wildwildwest.warnerbros.com/img/thefilm/tarantbig.jpg

o god no

I would like to take this opportunity to point out some common misconceptions about the War Between The States. Not until the very end of the war, was the issue about slavery. I realize most of you were probably taught in school, and believe that slavery was the entire reason for the war, and this is wholly inaccurate and unfair. Textbooks are written by the victors, and thus, we have this continued perception, in spite of the relevant facts.

The central argument which ultimately led to war, is an issue which is still in debate to this day, whether we are a 'federal' nation, or a 'confederation' of states. Whether it was our Founding Fathers intent to construct a central controlling government, or whether they intended to allow individual states to determine their own destiny and set their own standards. In short, the war was about 'states rights' and not about slavery.

In the mid-1800's, slavery was all but obsolete, as an industry. There were no more slave traders, people didn't ship slaves to the US, and a growing number of plantation enterprises were in the process of phasing out slave labor altogether. Had there been no war, slavery would have likely ended completely by the end of the 1800's because society had transformed and evolved beyond it. There were still many people enslaved, and it was still a problem, but it was not the cause or reason for the war.

A series of federal laws were passed in the decade prior to the war, imposing tariffs on exports from agricultural industries, which were largely confined to the southern states. These tariffs were a burden on southern businesses, who were expected to figure out how to replace the free labor of slaves, and still maintain a profit. Meanwhile, northern industry flourished and thrived, with no such tariffs to pay, and no interference from the federal government.

After the war had started, over the issue of states rights, and after thousands had died fighting for this cause, the nation was rightly laying much of the blame for the bloodshed on Abe Lincoln, he came very close to not being re-elected to his second term in 1864, and an 11th hour promise to abolish slavery, was likely his saving grace. Lincoln transformed the issue of the war to slavery, and narrowly won his re-election bid. Never mind the fact that 11 Southern states were not part of those elections, since they had formed their own Confederate government.

I talk to the younger generation today, and they seem to think the country was sharply divided between Northern abolitionists, and Southern racists, and nothing could be further from the truth. The overwhelming and vast majority of the north and south, was non-abolitionist, and highly racist. Lincoln himself, stated in the famous debates with Douglass, that he did not believe the Negro could ever integrate into society with whites, and even proposed sending the slaves back to Africa. Meanwhile, over 100,000 Southern men died in war, and not a single one of them ever owned a slave. Southerners who actually owned slaves, comprised less than 2% of the population.

I have two ancestors who fought and died in the war, and now rest in peace in a Confederate cemetery. The much ridiculed Confederate battle flag, was a flag of honor for them, it stood for the fierce principle of independence and rebellion against a government indifferent to their concerns. They were not racist skinhead members of the Klan, they never even knew anyone who owned a slave, they were simply young men fighting for their country... and they were not white Europeans, they were Native Americans.


I just wanted to set the record straight.

I'd be a blockade runner.

Personally, I'd fight for the Confederacy...

...in a Daishi with triple Clan LBX-AC20s.

... over 100,000 Southern men died in war, and not a single one of them ever owned a slave.

Surely incorrect. How about the various Generals and other officers who got killed? Or the ones who came back maimed? Hm?

The central argument which ultimately led to war, is an issue which is still in debate to this day, whether we are a 'federal' nation, or a 'confederation' of states. Whether it was our Founding Fathers intent to construct a central controlling government, or whether they intended to allow individual states to determine their own destiny and set their own standards. In short, the war was about 'states rights' and not about slavery.

blah blah blah, tell it to the 'states rights' whiners that demanded the federal government force those mean northern states to return their runaway black people. and tell it to pretty much every single state government in the south that made slavery the point of their secession in their actual declarations of doing so. the destiny they wanted to determine was the perpetual right to fucking own human beings.

the idea that it wasn't entirely about slavery is a sad joke that can only succeed when people are utterly ignorant.

i'd have fought with john brown

blah blah blah, tell it to the 'states rights' whiners that demanded the federal government force those mean northern states to return their runaway black people. and tell it to pretty much every single state government in the south that made slavery the point of their secession in their actual declarations of doing so. the destiny they wanted to determine was the perpetual right to fucking own human beings.

the idea that it wasn't entirely about slavery is a sad joke that can only succeed when people are utterly ignorant.


The attack on Ft Sumter occured April 12. 1861.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

The Emancipation Proclamation wasnt until September 22, 1862. the first part declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America as did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863, and the second one, issued on January 1, 1863, enumerated the specific states where it applied.

States rights was the reason the states seceded in the first place.
Slavery didnt become a real issue until later.

blah blah blah, tell it to the 'states rights' whiners that demanded the federal government force those mean northern states to return their runaway black people. and tell it to pretty much every single state government in the south that made slavery the point of their secession in their actual declarations of doing so. the destiny they wanted to determine was the perpetual right to fucking own human beings.

the idea that it wasn't entirely about slavery is a sad joke that can only succeed when people are utterly ignorant.

The Southern states may have seceded over slavery, but I doubt the average Confederate soldier cared about slavery either way - certainly not enough about it to want to die over it.

States rights was the reason the states seceded in the first place.
Slavery didnt become a real issue until later.

not according to the seceding states themselves.

alabama coyly claimed that the new republican government was
"avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama"
pretty tricky code words there, i think.

mississippi's declaration of secession claimed that,
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

south carolina couldn't come up with any better reason to leave than that,
"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
...
On the 4th day of March next, this [republican] party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."

etc.

its all slavery, all the time. it is impossible to claim otherwise.

Fucking show me one single declaration which says one fucking word about fucking slavery or owning human beings!

In fairness to FS, he did quote them directly.

blah blah blah, tell it to the 'states rights' whiners that demanded the federal government force those mean northern states to return their runaway black people. and tell it to pretty much every single state government in the south that made slavery the point of their secession in their actual declarations of doing so. the destiny they wanted to determine was the perpetual right to fucking own human beings.

the idea that it wasn't entirely about slavery is a sad joke that can only succeed when people are utterly ignorant.


Fucking show me one single declaration which says one fucking word about fucking slavery or owning human beings! You are the ignorant one, because you have this myopic view of things you know nothing about. If there were any instances of states rights whiners demanding something from the federal government, it was likely they demanded equal representation under the law. Since it was the fucking federal government who determined black people were property, it was legitimate for the whiners to demand their 'property' be returned by the federal government, who determined they were property to begin with.

You want to sit in your liberal ivory tower and look down your nose at the Confederacy, when it was your own fucking Union government who determined that slavery was legal, and owning fucking humans was okay.

Again, a classic example of some wet-behind-the-ears punk who doesn't know the first thing about the issues of the war, attempting to act all high and mighty, as if the North was completely without prejudice toward black people, and were simply trying to defeat the barbaric practices of slavery, which was only practived by southerners, and to protect the poor discriminated against black man. Go read your history books, find out how many slaves Jefferson and Jackson owned, find out how many decades the Fucking Federal Government condoned, endorsed, and encouraged slavery, and how many fucking years the very same Fucking Federal Government supported rampant discrimination against the same black men who descended from the slaves. While you are becoming fucking enlightened, you may want to study up on what your beloved heroes did to MY people, the Native Americans. Then you can come back here and apologize for being a total ass, and I might be gracious enough to accept.

Fucking show me one single declaration which says one fucking word about fucking slavery or owning human beings!

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world.
...

Britain - making sure we did not come into the war on the side of the Confederacy

I just wanted to set the record straight.

I started to listen to what you had to say, and then I realized who was saying it and I knew it was completely unbelievable.

Furthermore, I don't see why it's even a question. Obviously we have a central government and the states are merely a lower on the chain of government. Why would we do it in any different way? We're far better off united anyway.

Furthermore, I don't see why it's even a question. Obviously we have a central government and the states are merely a lower on the chain of government. Why would we do it in any different way? We're far better off united anyway.

i find it decidedly not obvious that we are better off in this here union. seems to me that a couple of retard states are dragging us down and holding us back, and are forming a key line of support in our current evil empire of doom, war and genocide policy.

(not that the more awesomer states aren't guilty in this regard too, but it'd be a lot better for everybody if there wasn't a massive genocidal elephant in the room)

For the record, I would have fought for neither side. While the South had slavery, blacks weren't treated much better in the North, and both sides ruthlessly suppressed dissent against the war. Lincoln, for example, regularly closed down opposition newspapers and jailed critics of his government. The South did pretty much the same. While I do believe in the right of secession, that's only if they secede for legitimate reasons (and seceding so they can retain slavery is hardly legitimate). I'd most likely have fled to Canada, and helped smuggle draft dodgers there.

not according to the seceding states themselves.

its all slavery, all the time. it is impossible to claim otherwise.

No, not completely.

The reason behind the initial seccessions may have been primarily over a states right to allow slavery, but that, right there, automatically pushes the actual issue of it slavery aside in favor of a states right to govern itself, and pass its own laws.

States started to succeed as Lincoln was elected, long before slavery had actually come illegal, and WAY before slavery was prohibited by the Constitution. (1865).

The start of hostilities was to quell an insurrection. The seccession of half the American Union. A rebellion.
The issue wasnt all about WHY they rebelled, the war was fought BECUASE they rebelled.

not according to the seceding states themselves.

alabama coyly claimed that the new republican government was
"avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama"
pretty tricky code words there, i think.

Not a word about slaves, slavery, or owning slaves. You can read anything you wish into the words, the claims and arguments you are making are not supported with these "tricky code words" you throw out.

mississippi's declaration of secession claimed that,
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

Once again, nothing about continuing the practice of slavery or anything you are claiming. They correctly stated that slavery was a great material interest of the world, which at the time, it certainly was. Essentially the entire Southern economy was dependent upon slave labor, and your beloved Federal Government made that institution possible.

south carolina couldn't come up with any better reason to leave than that,
"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
...
On the 4th day of March next, this [republican] party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."

etc.

Yes, it's best you conclude with "etc." before you get to the part you don't want to address. South Carolina points out the very point I made earlier, it was determined a long time before this, by the very Federal Government you hold in such high regard, that slavery was legal and acceptable, and slaves were legitimate property. YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT DECIDED THIS! Then, they want to arbitrarily decide that Southern states couldn't own slaves, without any solution or answer to the problems of abolition, without giving the 'property owners' any voice in the matter. It is akin to the Federal Government telling you that your car is no longer yours, and you have no right to own it anymore... we don't care what problems that may cause you, or how you are going to get to work or school, you just can't do it in a car anymore, because you no longer own your car, we decided it. Now, IF the Federal Government did something as absurd as this, could you imagine some environmentalist claiming that you were wrong in wanting to keep your car?



its all slavery, all the time. it is impossible to claim otherwise.

No it's not impossible at all, because the issue of slavery wasn't brought up until Abe Lincoln was about to lose the election and any support for the war. Then and only then, did the war become "about slavery" and before then, it was about the Federal Government encroaching on personal and state rights. You can twist in the wind all you like, those are the facts in this matter, and to continue to ignorantly insist otherwise is asinine.

slavery for anything other then sex is inconscionable.



WOAH!!!!

Uhh...what?

i would likely have, as many actually did, headed out west to avoid involvement, if i wasn't already there.

i feel that both sides were wrong, as is usually the case.
slavery for anything other then sex is inconscionable.
(and certainly slavery based on genetic heiritage is absurd)
and so is killing people to prevent a culturally unique bioregeon from persuing its own indipendent soverignty.

if i'd been a congressbeast i'd have authored and attempted to introduce legislation to allow "the south" to succeed unhindered on the condition that it abondon in its new constitution the institution of slavery.

something i am unawaire of anyone having proposed. of course i may be unawair of it because if someone had proposed doing so they might have been quietly assassinated.

better i stick to joining the bear flag liberation army. of course, that's one of the reason all those land concessions were made and the railroad pushed through, it was all about the north getting its hands on california's gold to fund its war against the south's succession.

many attrocities were being committed against indiginous native americans at that time as well. something we don't hear as much about because of the excuse of 'the war'.

things i would have been as shocked and offended by.

indeed the building of that railroad, was in a way not unlike the one china recently built into tibet. the wrong railroad going the wrong way for the wrong reasons.

i would probably have been working for it though, the railroad that is (in a capacity neither management nor the construction front lines, probably something like 'towerman/telegrapher/clerk' which is what my father, in a much later era of course, actually was), rather then the agricultural, mining or timbering industries. that or living subsistence with any of the western tribes that might have let me. such as the miwak, maidu, washoe or western shoshone, in northern california or nevada respectively.

=^^=
.../\...

I started to listen to what you had to say, and then I realized who was saying it and I knew it was completely unbelievable.

Furthermore, I don't see why it's even a question. Obviously we have a central government and the states are merely a lower on the chain of government. Why would we do it in any different way? We're far better off united anyway.

Haha... it's always nice to start off a conversation with... "I started to listen, but realized you're full of shit!" That is keeping an open mind, right?

Yes, obviously, since the Union defeated the Confederacy, we have a centralized bureaucratic federal government that tells the states what to do. I think this would be painfully obvious to even the most retarded person here, and I don't recall suggesting we "do it in any different way". I was simply stating the facts regarding the war, and why it was fought.

My ancestors volunteered for the Union army out of pure hatred of the south.

If I had been alive back then, I also would have joined the Union military.

I wouldn't have joined either side, since I would have been in Ireland and wouldn't have given two shits about the North or South of America.

Neither. I would be really far away for the US and take no part in this.

Let me pose hypothetical for all you liberal types to ponder here...

What if the Federal Government decided to make all abortion illegal. Anyone caught having an abortion will be put in prison for life, regardless of the reason. (in this example, abortion=slavery)

So... All the women's rights, and pro-choicers decide to sucede from the Union and form their own liberal den of iniquity in San Francisco. (here, SF=Confederacy). We end up having a war... don't ask me how liberals come about taking up arms, much less using them, but for argument sake, let's say they do... and they make a pretty good fight of it. For 5 years, we have the Pro-lifers and Pro-abortionist fighting each other in the streets over the Woman's right to choice. When the dust settles, there is just too many people for the Pro-abortionists to overcome, and they are ultimately defeated. The government passes the Abortion Abolition Act (AAA=Emancipation Proclamation) and the law is now set in stone forever.

Jump ahead 100+ years, and some obscure message board debate ensues... some ill-informed kid starts claiming the war was fought over the right to kill (unborn) human beings! Thank God we defeated these Neanderthals and stopped this barbaric and hideous practice when we did! Do you see the ludicrous nature the issue has evolved into? Wouldn't this be an absolute absurd viewpoint to have? Yet, that is how all the history books tell it, that is what everyone popularly believes, and no one gives one second of thought to the "cause" the pro-abortionists fought for... it had nothing to do with a woman's right to choose, it was all about killing the unborn, and nothing anyone can say will make it any different. You like that analogy?

Let me pose hypothetical for all you liberal types to ponder here..


You know, if you werent so busy ranting incoherently against the demonic "Liberals" all the time, you might take the time to notice the only one suporting anything you said, was one of those very Liberals.

Stick to the point, and spare us your angry and tired diatribe on the massive NSG Liberal Conspiracy shit.

You like that analogy?Despite the malice and misguided contempt with which you wrote it, I find it rather interesting.

yes. you ARE "wrong" in wanting to keep your car. but don't worry, in a few more years no one will be able to afford to drive one anyway.

(which also incidently, IS in keeping with the analogy being made. though of course for slightly different reasons. humans can always make babies (which IS also a problem, but THAT one IS another subject), but it takes nature a bit longer to make oil.)

=^^=
.../\...


Wait....I want you to elaborate more on the "any other form of slavery other than sex" comment.

could you imagine some environmentalist claiming that you were wrong in wanting to keep your car?

yes. you ARE "wrong" in wanting to keep your car. but don't worry, in a few more years no one will be able to afford to drive one anyway.

(which also incidently, IS in keeping with the analogy being made. though of course for slightly different reasons. humans can always make babies (which IS also a problem, but THAT one IS another subject), but it takes nature a bit longer to make oil.)

=^^=
.../\...

could you imagine some environmentalist claiming that you were wrong in wanting to keep your car? Could I imagine that? I know people like that. Do you mean you've never met someone that condemns motorists?

You like that analogy?

No, not really. Are you saying that saying "women have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion" is the same as "white people have the right to choose to own black people as slaves for life"? Because I don't really think those are the same...

Wait....I want you to elaborate more on the "any other form of slavery other than sex" comment.

in the thread on the 8 and 9 yo boys and the 11 yo girl, i came, perhapse inappropriately, because i wasn't paying that close attention to the context of the thread, as close as my paranoia of the fanatically dominant cultural values i am surrounded by, is likely to permit me.

if ever people weren't so emotionally attatched to whatever biases they were familiar with, i might feel more inclined to do so.

and no, i'm not in favor of disreguarding the emotional experiences people's familiar perspectives make of how they experience their surroundings.

i don't support callusness toward anyone's emotional traumas. yet it is precisely because i don't, that i feel a need to reexamine the real roots of them somewhat more objectively then is likely, perhapse even possible, for most persons in today's current climate.

=^^=
.../\...

No, not really. Are you saying that saying "women have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion" is the same as "white people have the right to choose to own black people as slaves for life"? Because I don't really think those are the same...

Wow, I don't recall saying that, I think you might have extrapolated that from what I said, perhaps you should read it again. White people, red people, black people, yellow people, and green people, have the right to own what they purchased and the government deems is their property, without the government arbitrarily taking it away without any due compensation, they also have the right to determine their own standards and form of government, that was the principle this nation was founded on. Southerners who fought and died in the War Between the States did not fight for the right to own slaves, as I stated, most of them didn't even know anyone who owned a slave. My ancestors, who died fighting under the Confederate flag, were Native Americans, they certainly didn't fight to keep slavery.

What my analogy was meant to illustrate, is how history can misconstrue the facts. You see abortion as an issue of a "woman's right to choose" but if we fought a war and you lost, the history books would portray you as barbaric baby killers who just wanted to keep killing the little innocent children. Not one thought would be given to your reasoning surrounding women's rights. Much is the same with regard to the War Between the States, it has been misconstrued through history, which is always written by the victors.

Let us be clear on this, the war did not grant blacks equality, that took another 100 years. To try and maintain the war was about "freedom" for blacks, is absurd. Slavery was abolished, but this was going to happen eventually anyway, it was inevitable. The war was about the rights of individual states, to determine their own laws and values, without the interference of the federal government. Many Confederates believed this was the original intent of the Founding Fathers, and they would have objected to "federalism" completely, regardless of the underlying issue of slavery.

yes. you ARE "wrong" in wanting to keep your car.

Let's see.... I have a job and earn money from it... I purchase something that is legitimatelty sold legally and endorsed by the government... yet, I am "wrong" in wanting to keep it and not allowing the government to just take it away from me???? How do you figure this?

Is either side hiring mercenaries? If both sides are, then how do the rates of pay & other benefits on offer from them compare? ;)

Neither as i would have been born in Australia ,but if i was born in the US hard one

Fucking show me one single declaration which says one fucking word about fucking slavery or owning human beings! You are the ignorant one, because you have this myopic view of things you know nothing about. If there were any instances of states rights whiners demanding something from the federal government, it was likely they demanded equal representation under the law. Since it was the fucking federal government who determined black people were property, it was legitimate for the whiners to demand their 'property' be returned by the federal government, who determined they were property to begin with.

You want to sit in your liberal ivory tower and look down your nose at the Confederacy, when it was your own fucking Union government who determined that slavery was legal, and owning fucking humans was okay.

Again, a classic example of some wet-behind-the-ears punk who doesn't know the first thing about the issues of the war, attempting to act all high and mighty, as if the North was completely without prejudice toward black people, and were simply trying to defeat the barbaric practices of slavery, which was only practived by southerners, and to protect the poor discriminated against black man. Go read your history books, find out how many slaves Jefferson and Jackson owned, find out how many decades the Fucking Federal Government condoned, endorsed, and encouraged slavery, and how many fucking years the very same Fucking Federal Government supported rampant discrimination against the same black men who descended from the slaves. While you are becoming fucking enlightened, you may want to study up on what your beloved heroes did to MY people, the Native Americans. Then you can come back here and apologize for being a total ass, and I might be gracious enough to accept.

I've read through it so far. Even with my limited study of the American Civil War, to say its over slavery is simplistic at best. I don't have all the information, but IIRC there were issues way before the slavery issue was raised - IIRC slavery was only made an issue once Lincoln knew that the North was going to win the war.

I would have fought for the Union.

Whatever its flaws, it was infinitely better than the "nation" invented with the purpose of defending chattel slavery... and towards the end both the soldiers and the leadership had developed rather pronounced anti-slavery sentiments.

Dixeanna, your first post in the thread was interesting, and I agreed with it. The American civil war, like every war in mankind's history, was not based on simplistic reasons such as the mere abolition of slavery; states rights and other issues had a lot to do with it as well.

It is also very sad that groups such as the Klan and other white supremacists have perverted the meaning of the Confederate Ensign, as Hitler and his Nazi's perverted the swastika, as you said.

However, since then you've descended in credibility ever since you started assuming the person disagreeing with you was "a liberal" and that every "liberal" here agreed with him. Your abortion analogy is also shaky, and your suggestion that "liberals" have an inherent inability to use guns is frankly insulting.

I would have tried to take the opportunity to rally together the native americans and declare indepence from the European colony.

I would have tried to take the opportunity to rally together the native americans and declare indepence from the European colony.

...and then we would kill you. As it happened in Real Life.

Dixieana, even if we assume your argument correct (and I don't), there remains the simple fact that it was southern aggression that started the war.

The south opened fire on Sumter. It's armies marched north against Washington. It was the Confederacy that imprisoned federal employees on flimsy or no pretext.

Blaming Lincoln was inaccurate. Proper blame lies with those who pulled the trigger.

In truth, it would have depended on where I was born, but if I had a free choice and a mid-19th century mentality, I would have gone for the Union to reunite the country and to crush the dastardly secessionists for starting the war.

The Confederacy, like my ancestors.

Could I imagine that? I know people like that. Do you mean you've never met someone that condemns motorists?

They're rather rare in the US, where not having a car is almost impossible outside of a select few urban areas.

Furthermore, I don't see why it's even a question. Obviously we have a central government and the states are merely a lower on the chain of government. Why would we do it in any different way? We're far better off united anyway.

Because many people believe democracy works better on a smaller scale. Also, the tension between the state and federal governments was meant to be part of the system of checks and balances.

And as to far better of united, that's certainly questionable, especially these days. I don't think this empire-building we're engaged in is exactly a good thing. In fact, at this point I question the need for a federal government, as it just seems to get us in trouble. I wonder if a loose economic/monetary union like the EU wouldn't be better.

Tuffy indeed.

I cannot morally condone the Confederacy. The Confederacy was Evil. There's a huge variety other of reasons why I would never fight for the Confederacy.

On the other hand, I also cannot condone the United States government going to war over several states exercising their implied right to secession. I would never fight for the Government, or for President Lincoln, who pretty much took a shit on the Constitution.

I would probably end up being a Copperhead.

Yeah, that's basically my position.

And to Dixieanna, you're being quite silly. It was quite humorous seeing you talk about Free Soviets' "precious Federal government". Your arguments would have a lot more merit if they weren't full of armies of strawmen and cries of "liberals".

Well, I was raised in southwestern Ohio, so it's actually a fairly tough decision. Depending on our own situation during that time, I could honestly go either way; that region had some strong pro-Confederate sympathies due to its proximity to Kentucky, but it also had a large industrial base and dependence on the North for its trade.

I was born in North Carolina, though, so that just muddies the water further. Depending on how long I lived there back in 1860, my support for the Confederacy would've been a good deal stronger.

No, not completely.

The reason behind the initial seccessions may have been primarily over a states right to allow slavery, but that, right there, automatically pushes the actual issue of it slavery aside in favor of a states right to govern itself, and pass its own laws.

the only laws in question are laws relating to slavery. so it's "states rights" defined as "the right of states to have slavery and make everybody else go along with them having slavery"

States started to succeed as Lincoln was elected, long before slavery had actually come illegal, and WAY before slavery was prohibited by the Constitution. (1865).

because, as they were very explicit about in their declarations about why they were seceding, the republican party was viewed as an anti-slavery party. which it was. it was formed just a few years before by abolitionists who broke with the whigs (destroying them in the process), and ran explicitly against "slave power". the south was right that the republican party would work towards the abolition of slavery, it was what they said they would do, though in a slower fashion than actually happened.

The start of hostilities was to quell an insurrection. The seccession of half the American Union. A rebellion.
The issue wasnt all about WHY they rebelled, the war was fought BECUASE they rebelled.

this is just silly

I picked the Confederacy because I believe in states rights. Unfortunately, that is a dead issue and since the end of the war, the Federal government has grabbed even more power away from the States. :(

...which side would you have fought for? The Union, the Confederacy, or neither? Why?


Poll coming.

I would have fought for the Union. Mainly because i'm danish and if I had immigrated to the US back then I would have settled with the other danish immigrants and they mainly settled in the North.. Simple as that :p

I probably would have been mistaken for a native and shot, given that I'm not white.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out some common misconceptions about the War Between The States. Not until the very end of the war, was the issue about slavery. I realize most of you were probably taught in school, and believe that slavery was the entire reason for the war, and this is wholly inaccurate and unfair. Textbooks are written by the victors, and thus, we have this continued perception, in spite of the relevant facts.

The central argument which ultimately led to war, is an issue which is still in debate to this day, whether we are a 'federal' nation, or a 'confederation' of states. Whether it was our Founding Fathers intent to construct a central controlling government, or whether they intended to allow individual states to determine their own destiny and set their own standards. In short, the war was about 'states rights' and not about slavery.

In the mid-1800's, slavery was all but obsolete, as an industry. There were no more slave traders, people didn't ship slaves to the US, and a growing number of plantation enterprises were in the process of phasing out slave labor altogether. Had there been no war, slavery would have likely ended completely by the end of the 1800's because society had transformed and evolved beyond it. There were still many people enslaved, and it was still a problem, but it was not the cause or reason for the war.

A series of federal laws were passed in the decade prior to the war, imposing tariffs on exports from agricultural industries, which were largely confined to the southern states. These tariffs were a burden on southern businesses, who were expected to figure out how to replace the free labor of slaves, and still maintain a profit. Meanwhile, northern industry flourished and thrived, with no such tariffs to pay, and no interference from the federal government.

After the war had started, over the issue of states rights, and after thousands had died fighting for this cause, the nation was rightly laying much of the blame for the bloodshed on Abe Lincoln, he came very close to not being re-elected to his second term in 1864, and an 11th hour promise to abolish slavery, was likely his saving grace. Lincoln transformed the issue of the war to slavery, and narrowly won his re-election bid. Never mind the fact that 11 Southern states were not part of those elections, since they had formed their own Confederate government.

I talk to the younger generation today, and they seem to think the country was sharply divided between Northern abolitionists, and Southern racists, and nothing could be further from the truth. The overwhelming and vast majority of the north and south, was non-abolitionist, and highly racist. Lincoln himself, stated in the famous debates with Douglass, that he did not believe the Negro could ever integrate into society with whites, and even proposed sending the slaves back to Africa. Meanwhile, over 100,000 Southern men died in war, and not a single one of them ever owned a slave. Southerners who actually owned slaves, comprised less than 2% of the population.

I have two ancestors who fought and died in the war, and now rest in peace in a Confederate cemetery. The much ridiculed Confederate battle flag, was a flag of honor for them, it stood for the fierce principle of independence and rebellion against a government indifferent to their concerns. They were not racist skinhead members of the Klan, they never even knew anyone who owned a slave, they were simply young men fighting for their country... and they were not white Europeans, they were Native Americans.


I just wanted to set the record straight.

That is exactly the same history I learned in the mid to late 60's in history class at Louisiana State University with Dr. John Brewer. It is amazing how the revisionists have distorted the causes of the war. (emphases on causes)

In fairness to FS, he did quote them directly.

He also did not show the whole declaration that took in a lot more issues than slavery. The main reasons for the war were states rights and economics. Slavery was a minor part of both of those issues.

Confederacy, mainly because I believe in states right, and like most confederate soldiers back then, they were really fighting to protect their home, only the rich were concerned about slavery.

What he said

Dixieana, even if we assume your argument correct (and I don't), there remains the simple fact that it was southern aggression that started the war.

The south opened fire on Sumter. It's armies marched north against Washington. It was the Confederacy that imprisoned federal employees on flimsy or no pretext.

Blaming Lincoln was inaccurate. Proper blame lies with those who pulled the trigger.

Proper blame was the politicians on both sides that caused those triggers to be pulled. :rolleyes:

He also did not show the whole declaration that took in a lot more issues than slavery. The main reasons for the war were states rights and economics. Slavery was a minor part of both of those issues.

i gave a link to them. show me the parts that are not directly related to slavery. i'm sure there are some, but seriously, go read those declarations and tell me with a straight face that it ain't slavery through and through.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out some common misconceptions about the War Between The States. Not until the very end of the war, was the issue about slavery. I realize most of you were probably taught in school, and believe that slavery was the entire reason for the war, and this is wholly inaccurate and unfair. Textbooks are written by the victors, and thus, we have this continued perception, in spite of the relevant facts.

*snip*

Meh. Free Soviets has already cited the Declarations of Secession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html), which made clear that slavery was the warp and woof of the Confederacy.

I'll add Alexander H. Stephen's Cornerstone Speech (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76):
...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

....

I'll note that Stephens is specific that "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" was the issue of slavery.

I have two ancestors who fought and died in the war, and now rest in peace in a Confederate cemetery. The much ridiculed Confederate battle flag, was a flag of honor for them, it stood for the fierce principle of independence and rebellion against a government indifferent to their concerns. They were not racist skinhead members of the Klan, they never even knew anyone who owned a slave, they were simply young men fighting for their country... and they were not white Europeans, they were Native Americans.

I just wanted to set the record straight.

I have ancestors that died fighting on both sides of the Civil War. I don't worship any of them the way you do.

Fucking show me one single declaration which says one fucking word about fucking slavery or owning human beings!

You are kidding right. Slavery is ubiquitous throughout the Declarations (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html). I submit you haven't read them.

Not a word about slaves, slavery, or owning slaves. You can read anything you wish into the words, the claims and arguments you are making are not supported with these "tricky code words" you throw out.

Um. Read the whole Declaration. It is repleate with references to slavery and makes clear that South Carolina is seceeding because of growing hostility to slavery and the expansion of slavery.



Once again, nothing about continuing the practice of slavery or anything you are claiming. They correctly stated that slavery was a great material interest of the world, which at the time, it certainly was. Essentially the entire Southern economy was dependent upon slave labor, and your beloved Federal Government made that institution possible.

Although the sentence that FS quoted was more than sufficient, feel free to read the whole paragraph:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.



Yes, it's best you conclude with "etc." before you get to the part you don't want to address. South Carolina points out the very point I made earlier, it was determined a long time before this, by the very Federal Government you hold in such high regard, that slavery was legal and acceptable, and slaves were legitimate property. YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT DECIDED THIS! Then, they want to arbitrarily decide that Southern states couldn't own slaves, without any solution or answer to the problems of abolition, without giving the 'property owners' any voice in the matter.

I thought you were arguing that Secession and the Civil War were not about slavery, yet you just explained how it was a reaction to the menace of losing slaves that propelled the Confederacy.

It is akin to the Federal Government telling you that your car is no longer yours, and you have no right to own it anymore... we don't care what problems that may cause you, or how you are going to get to work or school, you just can't do it in a car anymore, because you no longer own your car, we decided it. Now, IF the Federal Government did something as absurd as this, could you imagine some environmentalist claiming that you were wrong in wanting to keep your car?

Slight difference. Cars aren't people. It is rather insulting for you to compare ownership of another human being with ownership of a car.

No it's not impossible at all, because the issue of slavery wasn't brought up until Abe Lincoln was about to lose the election and any support for the war. Then and only then, did the war become "about slavery" and before then, it was about the Federal Government encroaching on personal and state rights. You can twist in the wind all you like, those are the facts in this matter, and to continue to ignorantly insist otherwise is asinine.

Utter bullshit as FS and I (and others) have shown. The Confederate States seceeded over the issue of slavery. They said so themselves.

That is exactly the same history I learned in the mid to late 60's in history class at Louisiana State University with Dr. John Brewer. It is amazing how the revisionists have distorted the causes of the war. (emphases on causes)

Revisionists like Alexander Stephens?

He also did not show the whole declaration that took in a lot more issues than slavery. The main reasons for the war were states rights and economics. Slavery was a minor part of both of those issues.

Utter bullshit again. I suggest you actually read the Declarations (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina) and try to answer Free Soviet's challenge.

I'm also loving how people keep saying "economics was a big part" and "slavery/emancipation was only a small factor".

The problem being, of course, that the one actually WAS the other.

Throughout much of the South (not all, by any means, but most) the only cash crop was cotton.

Cotton is an evil bitch of a plant. It destroys the soil (which is why peanut is another common crop - as a legume, it revitalises the soil cotton has destroyed), it requires constant maintenance, and picking this stuff is one of the worst jobs imaginable.

Slave labour was the reason the South was prosperous. Oh, you can make a buck planting and raising cotton with hired help, but nothing like the kind of profits you can make when you don't have to pay anybody. The whole "Southern Gentlefolk" culture could not have existed without slavery.

Other! I choose Russia...

Why?







I don't know... :rolleyes:

If you had been alive during the American Civil War...

I'd be dead now and thusly unable to respond

I probably would have been mistaken for a native and shot, given that I'm not white.

native Americans fought for both sides in the war

I would be a wealthy British Arms Merchant and a Member of the house of Lords selling arms to both sides making good money and keeping Britain out of the war as it would loose me money

Looking at it from the perspective of today I would fight for neither side. If it 'd been up to me and the southern states had wished to withdraw from the union I wouldn't have stood in their way. IMO it was their right to leave. Wouldn't have fought for the south 'cause states' rights simply meant the right to treat blacks as less than human.
Of course if I'd been alive at the time I would've been drafted by the military depending on which state I lived. Would've had little choice in the matter.

The Union. I don't believe in state's rights and never will...

Looking at it from the perspective of today I would fight for neither side. If it 'd been up to me and the southern states had wished to withdraw from the union I wouldn't have stood in their way. IMO it was their right to leave. Wouldn't have fought for the south 'cause states' rights simply meant the right to treat blacks as less than human.
Of course if I'd been alive at the time I would've been drafted by the military depending on which state I lived. Would've had little choice in the matter.

The thing is, while Lincoln was stonewalling, Congress would almost certainly have allowed the secession if Sumter hadn't happened. Quite a few senators had a "good riddance" attitude towards the South.

The only correct side: the Union.

Meanwhile, over 100,000 Southern men died in war, and not a single one of them ever owned a slave. Southerners who actually owned slaves, comprised less than 2% of the population.


Actually 75% of the southern white population did not own slaves, and 20% owned 1-9 slaves while the rest owned 10-100.

Many soldiers who fought DID own a slave or slaves, but none of them were the plantation owners that you seem to think about.

Knowing then what I know today, being able to freely choose sides I would have obviously chosen the Union.

Had I been able to choose not to fight at all for either side, I would vocally campaigned for peaceful secession of the south from the north. The North would have been better off and the course of history with no Southern millenarian hicks taking part running the worlds most influential nation, would have made the world today a better place.

Confederacy, mainly because I believe in states right, and like most confederate soldiers back then, they were really fighting to protect their home, only the rich were concerned about slavery.

That's right. Freedom and the system of checks and balances was greatly compromised when Lincoln ignored the states' rights to secede from the union.

Being a Canadian...I would make a profit by selling weapons to both sides

I would have sided with the Union, the reason being simple. While I do believe in State's Rights, I have also always believed the Union can be strong only if it is unified.

I'm also loving how people keep saying "economics was a big part" and "slavery/emancipation was only a small factor".

The problem being, of course, that the one actually WAS the other.

Throughout much of the South (not all, by any means, but most) the only cash crop was cotton.

Cotton is an evil bitch of a plant. It destroys the soil (which is why peanut is another common crop - as a legume, it revitalises the soil cotton has destroyed), it requires constant maintenance, and picking this stuff is one of the worst jobs imaginable.

Slave labour was the reason the South was prosperous. Oh, you can make a buck planting and raising cotton with hired help, but nothing like the kind of profits you can make when you don't have to pay anybody. The whole "Southern Gentlefolk" culture could not have existed without slavery.


Thanks for that rather simplistic analysis of agriculture, but this might be a good time to point out again, that 98% of the southern population did not grow cotton, did not live on plantations, and did not own slaves. In fact, the emancipation of the slaves ultimately meant more work was available to the average southerner. In post-reconstruction, my grandmother actually picked cotton on a black sharecropper's farm, and was thankful for the job.

In your reply, you are coming very close to understanding a vital point. There was indeed a business aspect and the Southern economy did indeed rely on labor from slaves. This had been established in law by the Federal government for many years, it was condoned, allowed, encouraged, and legislated. It wasn't like Southern cotton growers were using slaves against the government's wishes, it was completely legitimate business during this period. It's also not completely fair to say the cotton growers had free labor, because they did have to purchase, house, feed, clothe, and provide medical care for the slaves they owned. This wasn't free by any stretch. So there was a financial obligation, even with the free labor of the slave. The problem was, the Federal government wanted to outlaw slavery without addressing the financial impact on those who used slave labor. After granting their blessing for the cotton grower to use slave labor for decades, they simply wanted to pull the plug and let the cotton grower figure out his own solutions. Granted, it was for a good reason and no one is arguing for the continuation of slavery, but it is patently unfair to just leave Southern business twisting in the wind in the wake of a social reform, with no answer or solution to the problem.

Imagine if you will, the government announces that business can no longer use gasoline to transport their goods. On the surface, this seems somewhat justifiable, being that gasoline is in high demand, but think of the ramifications to business. The intent may be noble, but the result is not practical. How are the businesses supposed to transport their goods? Well, the Federal government doesn't care how they solve the problem, nor do they have an answer to it, just outlaw using gas and let them figure it out on their own. This was the point in a nutshell! The Federal government wanted to mandate tariffs and ultimately do away with slavery, yet they offered no alternatives or solutions to the problems faced by business. While it is true, the plantation owner took exception with the Feds taking away something they rightly owned (according to the Federal government itself), the vast majority of southerners simply saw another example of the Feds encroaching on the southern way of life.

As I said before, over 100,000 Southern men died in the war, and not a single one owned a slave. The issue was not about slavery for them, regardless of what modern textbooks may indicate.

I would have sided with the Union, the reason being simple. While I do believe in State's Rights, I have also always believed the Union can be strong only if it is unified.

And violating the constitution

(I'm just being difficult)

As I said before, over 100,000 Southern men died in the war, and not a single one owned a slave. The issue was not about slavery for them, regardless of what modern textbooks may indicate.

I'm still having trouble comprehending why the common man in the south was so motivated in fighting Yankees

I'm still having trouble comprehending why the common man in the south was so motivated in fighting Yankees

Whiskey.
Lots of Whiskey.

Thanks for that rather simplistic analysis of agriculture, but this might be a good time to point out again, that 98% of the southern population did not grow cotton, did not live on plantations, and did not own slaves. In fact, the emancipation of the slaves ultimately meant more work was available to the average southerner. In post-reconstruction, my grandmother actually picked cotton on a black sharecropper's farm, and was thankful for the job.

In your reply, you are coming very close to understanding a vital point. There was indeed a business aspect and the Southern economy did indeed rely on labor from slaves. This had been established in law by the Federal government for many years, it was condoned, allowed, encouraged, and legislated. It wasn't like Southern cotton growers were using slaves against the government's wishes, it was completely legitimate business during this period. It's also not completely fair to say the cotton growers had free labor, because they did have to purchase, house, feed, clothe, and provide medical care for the slaves they owned. This wasn't free by any stretch. So there was a financial obligation, even with the free labor of the slave. The problem was, the Federal government wanted to outlaw slavery without addressing the financial impact on those who used slave labor. After granting their blessing for the cotton grower to use slave labor for decades, they simply wanted to pull the plug and let the cotton grower figure out his own solutions. Granted, it was for a good reason and no one is arguing for the continuation of slavery, but it is patently unfair to just leave Southern business twisting in the wind in the wake of a social reform, with no answer or solution to the problem.

Imagine if you will, the government announces that business can no longer use gasoline to transport their goods. On the surface, this seems somewhat justifiable, being that gasoline is in high demand, but think of the ramifications to business. The intent may be noble, but the result is not practical. How are the businesses supposed to transport their goods? Well, the Federal government doesn't care how they solve the problem, nor do they have an answer to it, just outlaw using gas and let them figure it out on their own. This was the point in a nutshell! The Federal government wanted to mandate tariffs and ultimately do away with slavery, yet they offered no alternatives or solutions to the problems faced by business. While it is true, the plantation owner took exception with the Feds taking away something they rightly owned (according to the Federal government itself), the vast majority of southerners simply saw another example of the Feds encroaching on the southern way of life.

As I said before, over 100,000 Southern men died in the war, and not a single one owned a slave. The issue was not about slavery for them, regardless of what modern textbooks may indicate.

Hey, I never said anything about the federal government opposing slavery. The fact is, they bent over backwards to accomodate the slave states and the "peculiar institution", from the establishment of the Mason-Dixon Line to the allowing of slave-hunters to operate nationwide.

But you're being disingenuous if you're claiming it wasn't King Cotton that made the wheels of southern industry turn. Sure, only around two percent of the south worked the land for cotton; but a whopping 55% of southern industry relied on that cotton, spinning, dyeing, shipping, weaving and otherwise working with or for the ten thousand things cotton was made of, or into, or with. (That's not my number, btw, I got it from Robert Kingslake's Economic Analysis of the American Civil War.)

As for why people went to war, I'd advise you not to even try to analyze it. People go to war for wide varieties of reasons; likely, some DID see themselves as protecting slavery - and slavery as an institution worth protecting.

this is just silly

Exactly how?

Since no law or edict against slavery was passed until the EP, in 1863, it certainly appeared as no military action was taken against the Confederacy, until after the attack on Ft Sumner, in april of 1861, its pretty clear that battles took place to quell the rebellion of half the American Union.

The north didnt attack the south becuase they had slaves.

They attacked becuase they openly rebelled, and attacked a union miltary fort in act of war.

Thanks for that rather simplistic analysis of agriculture, but this might be a good time to point out again, that 98% of the southern population did not grow cotton, did not live on plantations, and did not own slaves.

Source?

Also, you avoid the question of how much of the Southern economy was slave-based.

You'll find that the statistics on slavery and what portion of the South owned slaves or directly benefited from slavery are much disputed.

Many sources estimate that about one-third of all Southern families owned slaves (link (http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html)).


In your reply, you are coming very close to understanding a vital point. There was indeed a business aspect and the Southern economy did indeed rely on labor from slaves. This had been established in law by the Federal government for many years, it was condoned, allowed, encouraged, and legislated. It wasn't like Southern cotton growers were using slaves against the government's wishes, it was completely legitimate business during this period. It's also not completely fair to say the cotton growers had free labor, because they did have to purchase, house, feed, clothe, and provide medical care for the slaves they owned. This wasn't free by any stretch. So there was a financial obligation, even with the free labor of the slave. The problem was, the Federal government wanted to outlaw slavery without addressing the financial impact on those who used slave labor. After granting their blessing for the cotton grower to use slave labor for decades, they simply wanted to pull the plug and let the cotton grower figure out his own solutions. Granted, it was for a good reason and no one is arguing for the continuation of slavery, but it is patently unfair to just leave Southern business twisting in the wind in the wake of a social reform, with no answer or solution to the problem.

*sigh*

You appear to be sufferring cognitive dissonance. You argue at length how unfair to the South it would have been for the North to suddenly end the institution of Slavery. These concerns are clearly what led to secession and formation of the Confederacy. Thus, you have contradicted your own position that the secession and Civil War was not about slavery.

As I said before, over 100,000 Southern men died in the war, and not a single one owned a slave.

Source? This stat seems odd since at least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The South lost some 258,000 soldiers. So are you trying to say that out of the 258,000 southern men that died in the war, 100,000 of them didn't own slaves? On what basis do you make this claim.


The issue was not about slavery for them, regardless of what modern textbooks may indicate.

What was the issue for them then? Secession was clearly about slavery. The Confederacy was clearly about slavery. According to Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy, the issue that caused secession and the Civil War was slavery.

Source? This stat seems odd since at least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The South lost some 258,000 soldiers. So are you trying to say that out of the 258,000 southern men that died in the war, 100,000 of them didn't own slaves? On what basis do you make this claim.


Well, to be fair, he did say over one hundred thousand, and two hundred fifty-eight thousand is certainly over one hundred thousand.

But that's quibbling. I'll shut up now.

union

I'm still having trouble comprehending why the common man in the south was so motivated in fighting Yankees

One could ask the same thing to the Yankees.

The only correct side: the Union.

Union= Correct Thought

Secessionists= Incorrect Thought

Thread Over.

What's with all this pro-Unionism? :confused:

Well, to be fair, he did say over one hundred thousand, and two hundred fifty-eight thousand is certainly over one hundred thousand.

But that's quibbling. I'll shut up now.

Stats on disease casualties are also difficult to come by, they are estimated to be massively high.

What's with all this pro-Unionism? :confused:

Despite what the war was actually fought over, a major factor for us viewing in retrospect was slavery. Idk about you, but if i had to pick one of two equally unappealing sides, and then learned taht one condoned slavery, I would probably go with the other side

And they won. The winners write the history books

Despite what the war was actually fought over, a major factor for us viewing in retrospect was slavery. Idk about you, but if i had to pick one of two equally unappealing sides, and then learned taht one condoned slavery, I would probably go with the other side

And they won. The winners write the history books

I'd fight for neither side, and help smuggle freed slaves and draft dodgers alike to Canada.

I'd fight for neither side, and help smuggle freed slaves and draft dodgers alike to Canada.

Alright. Thats your personal choice. I'd do that, and make a killing in the arms industry.

...and then we would kill you. As it happened in Real Life.
There was Native uprising in the US during their civil war? I admit I know only a wee bit about this war cos I live in Scotland. Anyway, at least I could have died for a good cause that way and if my name was left for posterity, it would be in good faith.

Its all very easy to just lump the modern explanation of the American Civil War as slavery and forget about the rest.
Remember that fighting had begun long before it was ever actually illegal to own slaves. To suggest that slavery was the sole reason behind the Confederate States, is to ignore every other factor in the events that led up to the war, and the truth.

It wasnt just about chattel slavery, it was about State VS Federal law.
Individual states believed they had the right to pass laws that superceded Federal Authority. The "right" to own slaves may have been a key issue, but it is certainly not the only issue. It is true that the Abolitionist movement was in full swing, however, states began to withdraw before Lincoln even took office. Once again, it wasnt illegal to own slaves until 1863.
It didnt get written into the Constitution until two years after that.

The battles took place to prevent an insurrectionist army from secceding from the Union.

Confederacy, mainly because I believe in states right, and like most confederate soldiers back then, they were really fighting to protect their home, only the rich were concerned about slavery.
I would fight for the Confeds for those reasons, but I'm glad overall that the North won.

I live in Maryland so I truly would have been able to go either way on this.

For those who didn't know: When states began seceding from the Union Lincoln ordered martial law in Maryland for the duration of the war. This was to prevent the State Legislature from possibly voting to secede, which would have placed Washington DC INSIDE the Confederacy.

Many Marylanders were in favor of secession, and when martial law went into effect lots of guys cross the Potomac into Virginia and formed Maryland uits or joined Virginia ones. In North and Western Maryland Union-loyal Maryland units were formed. Baltimore itself was a hotbed of secessionist thought and in fact, the first Union soldier to die in the Civil War was shot by an angry mob in Baltimore.

I think I'd have been a Confederate because of my geographical location and because of my belief in State rights over Federal. I'd not have owned a slave as my family isn't now nor ever has been wealthy, so I doubt that would be a motivator.

I live in Maryland so I truly would have been able to go either way on this.

For those who didn't know: When states began seceding from the Union Lincoln ordered martial law in Maryland for the duration of the war. This was to prevent the State Legislature from possibly voting to secede, which would have placed Washington DC INSIDE the Confederacy.

Many Marylanders were in favor of secession, and when martial law went into effect lots of guys cross the Potomac into Virginia and formed Maryland uits or joined Virginia ones. In North and Western Maryland Union-loyal Maryland units were formed. Baltimore itself was a hotbed of secessionist thought and in fact, the first Union soldier to die in the Civil War was shot by an angry mob in Baltimore.

I think I'd have been a Confederate because of my geographical location and because of my belief in State rights over Federal. I'd not have owned a slave as my family isn't now nor ever has been wealthy, so I doubt that would be a motivator.

It's a fallacy (and a common one) to believe all the slaveowners were wealthy. Many small farmers (even sharecroppers on occasion) owned a single slave; while expensive, the equivalent cost was similar to owning a good car today. It was both a status symbol and a source of income for the owner.

Exactly how?

Since no law or edict against slavery was passed until the EP, in 1863, it certainly appeared as no military action was taken against the Confederacy, until after the attack on Ft Sumner, in april of 1861, its pretty clear that battles took place to quell the rebellion of half the American Union.

The north didnt attack the south becuase they had slaves.

They attacked becuase they openly rebelled, and attacked a union miltary fort in act of war.

regardless of what the north did and why they did it, the south left and the south fought to protect and expand slavery. they said so themselves, all over the place. there would be no rebellion and no war if not for slavery. therefore the civil war was over slavery.

Probably would be living in france at that point, and would be pushing for a "helping hand" against those evil slave traders in the confederacy.

Then push to take the north :P

there would be no rebellion and no war if not for slavery. therefore the civil war was over slavery.

This is where most people disagree with you. Yes, the cause and catalyst of the war was slavery, and it was an important issue. But what if it was cotton picking being illegalized(god knows why), or something similar?

Its equivilent to your parent telling you that you can't wear your favorite band shirt.

"Take of that shirt"
"Why?"
"I don't like it, take it off"
"Too bad, its my body"
"Take it off or I'll make you take it off"
"Screw you, I'm going over to my friends house"

Fight ensues.

The point is, the shirt is the catalyst, overbearing control is the reason though, and it doesn't matter if its a shirt, a poster on the wall, or a tattoo.

I'd fight for neither side, and help smuggle freed slaves and draft dodgers alike to Canada.

No you wouldnt have, because you would have been raised differently. In fact, you would not be the same person. If you were transplanted from now to back to then maybe, but not if you were born then.

If I'd been alive during the American Civil War, and presuming my family would enjoy the same social status it does today, I'd probably be working on a farm in north-east Scotland, or if I was lucky enough, going to university.

In a very cool way, back in the 1860s, I'd be able to do the same philosophy course I'm on right now (albeit with different details), in the same university, and be taught in some of the same buildings I get taught in today (albeit with different decor).

This is where most people disagree with you. Yes, the cause and catalyst of the war was slavery, and it was an important issue. But what if it was cotton picking being illegalized(god knows why), or something similar?

Its equivilent to your parent telling you that you can't wear your favorite band shirt.

"Take of that shirt"
"Why?"
"I don't like it, take it off"
"Too bad, its my body"
"Take it off or I'll make you take it off"
"Screw you, I'm going over to my friends house"

Fight ensues.

The point is, the shirt is the catalyst, overbearing control is the reason though, and it doesn't matter if its a shirt, a poster on the wall, or a tattoo.

First, I'm not sure I understand how slavery can be "the cause and catalyst" of the Civil War, but not the reason for it. :headbang:

Second, as Free Soviets pointed out many pages ago, the argument that it was all really about states' rights stumbles over the facts of the grievances listed by the Confederates. It was not so much fear of the federal government sticking it's nose in states' business, but the failure of the federal government to force things upon other states like the return of escaped slaves and the expansion of slavery.

Third, I challenge you to explain how the Constitution of the Confederate States of America (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csa.htm) emphasized substantially greater states' rights than that of the U.S. government.

I'd fight for the Union. Funny that Abraham Lincoln is considered the greatest US President despite that he did a lot of stuff some people say were Unconstitutional. Then again, the usually second or third Franklin Roosevelt had the Japanese internment camps. So I guess it all has to do with the wars they were in.

Technically I don't think I would have been in the actual war. More than likely I would be in the Utah territory

Second, as Free Soviets pointed out many pages ago, the argument that it was all really about states' rights stumbles over the facts of the grievances listed by the Confederates. It was not so much fear of the federal government sticking it's nose in states' business, but the failure of the federal government to force things upon other states like the return of escaped slaves and the expansion of slavery.

maybe they just believe in a restricted form of "states' rights" - states that have slavery have rights, others, not so much.

The East.

Confederacy, mainly because I believe in states right, and like most confederate soldiers back then, they were really fighting to protect their home, only the rich were concerned about slavery.

Amen, brother. As my greatgrandmother used to tell my sister and I in early grade school: "My granddad didn't fight so no fatcat on the [Mississippi] delta could keep his slaves!" Usually said with this even tempered woman's face turning red in fury.

They attacked becuase they openly rebelled, and attacked a union miltary fort in act of war.

Which just happened to be on C.S.A. territory

Which just happened to be on C.S.A. territory

Sure, but you're supposed to allow people to leave, not first bottle them up and then open fire on them.

It wouldnt be about anything except where you live.
If you were a Virginian, for example, you joined whatever side the state had joined.

So, personal preference meant very little.

Not entirely true, as evidenced by West Virginia, the butternut regions in the North, Tennessee and Kentucky. As well as a substantial element of other backwoods regions in the South, where secession was perceived as some trick played by the plantation owners..

Sure, but you're supposed to allow people to leave, not first bottle them up and then open fire on them.

Actually, they were ordered by the US not to leave. The fort was fired upon when it seemed that Lincoln was attempting to resupply them. For a really good account I'd suggest Allegiance (http://www.amazon.com/Allegiance-Sumter-Charleston-Beginning-Civil/dp/015600741X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195919959&sr=8-1) by David Detzer.

Which just happened to be on C.S.A. territory

Except, legally, it was not CSA territory, and the CSA was an entirely illegal entity. By its nature it was an attempt at unilateral nullification of the US Constitution, which had already been determined to be a fully illegal act.

The CSA can only exist if secession is supported through Constitutional means, essentially, an amendment would need to pass, or a separate Constitutional convention needs to be held.

I would have fought for the Union. This country is based on sacred principles, and one of those is freedom. The Lord had the South pay a dear price for slavery and for secession from this country.:sniper:

Actually, they were ordered by the US not to leave. The fort was fired upon when it seemed that Lincoln was attempting to resupply them. For a really good account I'd suggest Allegiance (http://www.amazon.com/Allegiance-Sumter-Charleston-Beginning-Civil/dp/015600741X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195919959&sr=8-1) by David Detzer.

Oh, I know that (and it's a great book - he gets a few details debatable, but otherwise very well done).

The USA and CSA had developed no protocol for removal of garrisons, and Fort Sumter was Federally owned land. They had every right to occupy it, and to expect resupply - after all, as a military garrison, they'd normally be resupplied on a regular basis.

Had they not become impatient, the CSA would probably have been acknowledged by Congress, and the garrisons removed peacefully - Lincoln couldn't have stonewalled much longer. Likewise, a peaceful and equitable transfer of ownership of the federal lands would have needed to be worked out.

These things take time. The Charleston Militias, in their impatience, handed Lincoln the burning brand that a few years later would be used upon Atlanta.

Oh, I know that (and it's a great book - he gets a few details debatable, but otherwise very well done).

The USA and CSA had developed no protocol for removal of garrisons, and Fort Sumter was Federally owned land. They had every right to occupy it, and to expect resupply - after all, as a military garrison, they'd normally be resupplied on a regular basis.

Had they not become impatient, the CSA would probably have been acknowledged by Congress, and the garrisons removed peacefully - Lincoln couldn't have stonewalled much longer. Likewise, a peaceful and equitable transfer of ownership of the federal lands would have needed to be worked out.

These things take time. The Charleston Militias, in their impatience, handed Lincoln the burning brand that a few years later would be used upon Atlanta.

I agree completely. Had they waited they would likely have been recognized by Congress and they would have negotiated the sale of Fort Sumter to the CSA/South Carolina, whether Lincoln liked it or not.

If I held the views I do now back then, I would of fought for the Confederacy. I don't support slavery, but I do support letting whites run a white nation and state's rights.

The United States, to crush and destroy the slave-driver traitor rebellion.

The Union. While I generally prefer the decentralization of power, human rights > states' rights.

If I held the views I do now back then, I would of fought for the Confederacy. I don't support slavery, but I do support letting whites run a white nation and state's rights.

Eh?
A "white nation" that would have been supported by the slavery you don't support.

Tuffy indeed.

I cannot morally condone the Confederacy. The Confederacy was Evil. There's a huge variety other of reasons why I would never fight for the Confederacy.

Was not. Only a few were concerned about slavery. Mostly the war was about state's rights. While I also disagree with slavery, it was wrong for the North to force anything on the South. Slavery would have been abolished within 20 years anyway, if for no other reason than that it wasn't good economically. Better to let change come from the inside than having it forced from the outside and causing a lot of resentment in the South.

As for the actual thread question, I would, given a choice, fight for neither, because I would not want to be fighting friends or family, and I believed in parts of each sides ideologies, and disagreed with other parts. (Confederacy: Agree with state's rights, disagree with slavery. Union, agree with preservation of union (thinks secession was probably wrong solution), disagree with forcing of ideology on another and, more than anything, I disagree with Sherman's destruction of the South.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out some common misconceptions about the War Between The States. Not until the very end of the war, was the issue about slavery. I realize most of you were probably taught in school, and believe that slavery was the entire reason for the war, and this is wholly inaccurate and unfair. Textbooks are written by the victors, and thus, we have this continued perception, in spite of the relevant facts.

The central argument which ultimately led to war, is an issue which is still in debate to this day, whether we are a 'federal' nation, or a 'confederation' of states. Whether it was our Founding Fathers intent to construct a central controlling government, or whether they intended to allow individual states to determine their own destiny and set their own standards. In short, the war was about 'states rights' and not about slavery.

In the mid-1800's, slavery was all but obsolete, as an industry. There were no more slave traders, people didn't ship slaves to the US, and a growing number of plantation enterprises were in the process of phasing out slave labor altogether. Had there been no war, slavery would have likely ended completely by the end of the 1800's because society had transformed and evolved beyond it. There were still many people enslaved, and it was still a problem, but it was not the cause or reason for the war.

A series of federal laws were passed in the decade prior to the war, imposing tariffs on exports from agricultural industries, which were largely confined to the southern states. These tariffs were a burden on southern businesses, who were expected to figure out how to replace the free labor of slaves, and still maintain a profit. Meanwhile, northern industry flourished and thrived, with no such tariffs to pay, and no interference from the federal government.

After the war had started, over the issue of states rights, and after thousands had died fighting for this cause, the nation was rightly laying much of the blame for the bloodshed on Abe Lincoln, he came very close to not being re-elected to his second term in 1864, and an 11th hour promise to abolish slavery, was likely his saving grace. Lincoln transformed the issue of the war to slavery, and narrowly won his re-election bid. Never mind the fact that 11 Southern states were not part of those elections, since they had formed their own Confederate government.

I talk to the younger generation today, and they seem to think the country was sharply divided between Northern abolitionists, and Southern racists, and nothing could be further from the truth. The overwhelming and vast majority of the north and south, was non-abolitionist, and highly racist. Lincoln himself, stated in the famous debates with Douglass, that he did not believe the Negro could ever integrate into society with whites, and even proposed sending the slaves back to Africa. Meanwhile, over 100,000 Southern men died in war, and not a single one of them ever owned a slave. Southerners who actually owned slaves, comprised less than 2% of the population.

I have two ancestors who fought and died in the war, and now rest in peace in a Confederate cemetery. The much ridiculed Confederate battle flag, was a flag of honor for them, it stood for the fierce principle of independence and rebellion against a government indifferent to their concerns. They were not racist skinhead members of the Klan, they never even knew anyone who owned a slave, they were simply young men fighting for their country... and they were not white Europeans, they were Native Americans.


I just wanted to set the record straight.

THANK YOU!!!!! FINALLY! SOMEONE REASONABLE!!!!:D

THANK YOU!!!!! FINALLY! SOMEONE REASONABLE!!!!:DIt's reasonable to claim that the war wasn't about slavery until the end when at least two states stated in their reasons for secession that they were doing it because the institution was threatened?

...which side would you have fought for? The Union, the Confederacy, or neither? Why?


Poll coming.

Other: The side which paid me the most.

...which side would you have fought for? The Union, the Confederacy, or neither? Why?


Poll coming.

Neither, since I wouldn't live in the USA.

The Union, because i would have gone where my state went

Neither, since I wouldn't live in the USA.

Would you have volunteered for either side, if you had the opportunity?

Whilst the supposed ideals of the Confederacy appeal to me somewhat, (barring slavery of course, which was an absolutely indefensible position. People are not property. Period.), if you actually look at the Confederate Constitution it's pretty much just a smaller scale version of the Union anyway, centralised power was still there, as was a rabid fear of localisation.

I realise that the realities of fighting a full-scale war did force the Confederates to institute statist techniques and thus muddied the waters of their grand ideal, but honestly I also think the conflict was largely motivated by fear on both sides. The North feared losing control of half their country and the South feared being told what to do and being lorded over by the economically superior and ideologically dominant Union.

I'm female, old (in those days 60 was old) and asthmatic. I say a plague on both your houses for disrupting what's left of my life.

...which side would you have fought for? The Union, the Confederacy, or neither? Why?


Poll coming.
I wouldn't have fought for either side. I couldn't support the Confederacy because of my opposition to slavery, but I also couldn't support the Union because of my opposition to slave states being a part of the Union.