If you were alive during the Civil War....

[Fledermaus]

The side that showed they had no regard for the law when the did things like arrest the government officials of Maryland in 1861? The side that marched from town to town attacking civilians in order to win the war? No, I'm pretty sure the North was not the good guys.

When did that happen?

 

[Casper]

...would you have fought for the Confederacy, and if so, why?

My Family was not in the US in those times. But if they had been and I was alive, yes I would have fought for the CSA, I am a Texan at heart and as such would have to go with my State.

 

[Fledermaus]

My Family was not in the US in those times. But if they had been and I was alive, yes I would have fought for the CSA, I am a Texan at heart and as such would have to go with my State.

Brings up a great point... Many who fought for the Confederacy did so "because you (Yankees) are here"

 

[longview]

I would like to point out that the average US citizen in the 1860 identified much more
with their State than now(except for Texas) So most would have sided with their state.
Look at the list of regiments, it is mostly by state, so both north and south were US citizens second,
and State citizens first. Robert E. Lee was as traditional army as one could get,
Superintendent of West point even, Yet could not abandon his home state of Virginia.

 

[yankintx]

Brings up a great point... Many who fought for the Confederacy did so "because you (Yankees) are here"

About time the South got over it, move on.

 

[foadi]

No, I would be a war profiteer: I would sell coffee to the Confederates and tobacco to the Union. :mrgreen:

I'd prolly head out west. Couldn't imagine trying to live in the eastern part of the US before air conditioning, **** that ****, would want to be on the CA coast. If I was in the years immediately prior to the war, would try to locate the comstock lode, and get prepared to profit. set up a trading outpost in what would become virginia city etc. If I ended up making a lot of money, would probably invest in land after california goes bankrupt after the great flood of 1863. would try to kickstart the california oil boom a few decades early to make even more moniez.

 

[Fledermaus]

About time the South got over it, move on.

Way down South in the land of cotton... Slaverys gone but not forgotten... (by either side)

 

[Tigerace117]

Most likely but alot would have depended on the circumstances. Alot of support for the confederacy grew after the war took off due to the atrocities the north created. My own family then was mainly in missouri, which was neutral, and they were split on which side to fight for. Missouri gained confederate support as time went on, but then there were alot of extreme cases, like soldiers shooting anyone suspected of being a confederate supporter, to taking whole families behind a barn and shooting them because one member of their family joined the confederate army.

The union army also had a tactic of attacking farms and civilians, and burning down entire cities. If it had been any time after the war first broke out, I would not have joined the union, historically what they did to the south is the lowest of the low, but ofcourse history is written by the victors.

Sherman's decision to burn Atlanta was completely justified and frankly the only sane thing to war in a wartime scenario. Hell, if you compare the North's occupation of the South to, say, European tactics against rebels......

They have no idea how easy they got off.

 

[Ntharotep]

I have ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. My family was actually very wealthy before and during the war. Lost a lot of it after due to the obvious. I would like to think being from a wealthy family I'd be somewhat educated and be able to see the national disgrace that was slavery, but I'd probably be a product of my environment and while I couldn't fight for the confederacy, I'd probably end up supporting the rebellion.

However, if the me of today were magically sent back to the civil war, I'd of course would help the Union in any way I could. They are the good guys, after all.

-ish. But well spoken. In the end ending slavery was the better end to come from the war.

I'd probably still be hung up on the Native Americans and use the Civil War to build them up to take back their lands.
But no...I would not have fought with the Confederates.

 

[Fledermaus]

Sherman's decision to burn Atlanta was completely justified and frankly the only sane thing to war in a wartime scenario. Hell, if you compare the North's occupation of the South to, say, European tactics against rebels......

They have no idea how easy they got off.

Except....

Sherman did not intentionally burn Atlanta... Much of it was retreating Rebs burning supplies to keep them from the Union.

In fact his men were directed to help put pout the fires...

 

[chromium]

Fight for state rights against a government that showed no regard for the opinions of their people and the rule of law?

Hell yeah.

so you'd fight to defend slavery, i figured as much

 

[Fletch]

I have ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. My family was actually very wealthy before and during the war. Lost a lot of it after due to the obvious. I would like to think being from a wealthy family I'd be somewhat educated and be able to see the national disgrace that was slavery, but I'd probably be a product of my environment and while I couldn't fight for the confederacy, I'd probably end up supporting the rebellion.

However, if the me of today were magically sent back to the civil war, I'd of course would help the Union in any way I could. They are the good guys, after all.

I think that is about right. Had I been born and raised in the north--like I have been here in Ohio--its hard to imagine fighting for anything but the Union. Had I been born and raised in South Carolina, who knows? Probably the South. I would like to think I would have found slavery so objectionable that I would not fight for it, but I dont know how realistic it would have been for me to fight for the North under those circumstances.

Either way, I am not so sure that Union soldiers were fighting for the liberation of slaves, so its hard to grant them any significant moral superiority over the South. Its part of this nations rich history and there is really no reason to demonize either side at this point.

 

[JoeTrumps]

About time the South got over it, move on.

right, let liberals turn every person who ever owned a slave a piece of garbage(which would have to logically include Washington and many other Founders), remove them from all places of honor, and if anyone says anything negative it is THEY who mush "move on and get over it". Is that the brilliant theory you have settled on? It's not even worth discussing? is that it?

 

[TheGoverness]

right, let liberals turn every person who ever owned a slave a piece of garbage(which would have to logically include Washington and many other Founders), remove them from all places of honor, and if anyone says anything negative it is THEY who mush "move on and get over it". Is that the brilliant theory you have settled on? It's not even worth discussing? is that it?

So are you saying we shouldn't view the Confederacy in a negative light?

 

[JoeTrumps]

So are you saying we shouldn't view the Confederacy in a negative light?

I'm saying the UNITED STATES was founded with slaves, and the north was a few decades ahead of the south in deciding to free their slaves. I'm saying the country as a whole began with and continued to cultivate the slave trade(just as all other large countries did at the time), so the country as a whole would have to be seen a negative light according to your 20/20 hindsight, correct?

 

[Thrilla]

I'm torn on hte matter, really.

I absolutely hate the idea of slavery.... but I also hate the idea of violating a persons right to self determination ( which is but another form of slavery)

slavery is NOT an issue that needs to be solved with warfare ( we are the only country that had a war to end it), but self-determination most certainly is...... asking nicely to have your own government does not work, it's generally something that needs to be fought for.
with that in mind, i'd probably fight for the confederacy.... putting slavery on the back burner to be dealt with another day, in a far more peaceful manner.


in all likelihood, I'd have been "sort of" neutral..... as my clan hails from Nevada, we weren't really part of that shindig (but we used it to gain statehood ... we protected the frontier for the union while they had their little dust up, and we got statehood in return)

 

[Thrilla]

So are you saying we shouldn't view the Confederacy in a negative light?

I don't..... though I do view their ideas on slavery in a very negative light.

 

[Fletch]

So are you saying we shouldn't view the Confederacy in a negative light?

No, we shouldnt. Slavery has existed since the dawn of man. The Biblical book of Exodus tells of the freeing of slaves thousands of years ago. It existed under the Stars and Stripes far longer than it existed under the Stars and Bars. Tearing down statues and rinsing clean all remnants of a past they dont like is what the Taliban does. View slavery in a negative light, yes, but dont hold it against people who were born into such a system and knew it as the only way of life.

 

[TheGoverness]

I'm saying the UNITED STATES was founded with slaves, and the north was a few decades ahead of the south in deciding to free their slaves. I'm saying the country as a whole began with and continued to cultivate the slave trade(just as all other large countries did at the time), so the country as a whole would have to be seen a negative light according to your 20/20 hindsight, correct?

The Northern states had already voted to abolish slavery altogether back in 1804, which was certainly more than a few decades by that time. So no, I don't view the whole country in a negative light, because the South was the only area in the US that permitted slavery at that time period.

 

[TheGoverness]

No, we shouldnt. Slavery has existed since the dawn of man. The Biblical book of Exodus tells of the freeing of slaves thousands of years ago. It existed under the Stars and Stripes far longer than it existed under the Stars and Bars. Tearing down statues and rinsing clean all remnants of a past they dont like is what the Taliban does. View slavery in a negative light, yes, but dont hold it against people who were born into such a system and knew it as the only way of life.

So I can view slavery in a negative light, but not the Confederacy for supporting slavery, and that being the basis of why they seceded from the Union in the first place. And added to the fact that they started the American Civil War, and that cost the lives of many Americans.

So yes, the slavery aspect of the South and the Confederacy should be viewed negatively (which it is).

 

[Hawkeye10]

If I lived in the South I would have.

 

[Thrilla]

The Northern states had already voted to abolish slavery altogether back in 1804, which was certainly more than a few decades by that time. So no, I don't view the whole country in a negative light, because the South was the only area in the US that permitted slavery at that time period.

umm, no.

.. in 1804, only New Jersey abolished slavery ( Ohio abolished it in 1802)...New York followed in 1827

that was it until the civil war.., though Illinois freed slaves,in 1845, without abolishing slavery officially

 

[TheGoverness]

umm, no.

.. in 1804, only New Jersey abolished slavery ( Ohio abolished it in 1802)...New York followed in 1827

that was it until the civil war.., though Illinois freed slaves,in 1845, without abolishing slavery officially

New York passed a law that freed slave children in 1799. In 1817 a new law passed that would free slaves born before 1799 but not until 1827. But by 1804, when NJ abolished slavery, all of the Northern states had abolished slavery or set measures in place to gradually reduce it.

 

[Thrilla]

Umm, yes.


New York abolished slavery in 1799. But 1804, when NJ abolished slavery, all of the Northern states had abolished slavery or set measures in place to gradually reduce it.

I'm talking about abolishing slavery, not passing laws for gradual emancipation... there's a difference.
New York abolished slavery in 1827, not 1799. ( they passed a gradual emancipation act in 1799, which set the date for abolishing slavery)

it makes perfect economic sense for the north to do away with slavery first... slavery was part and parcel of agriculture, not industrialization.
if the north was more inclined to agriculture, the time line would have been vastly different ( social mores weren't very different between the north and south, economic realities, however, were)

 

[yankintx]

No, we shouldnt. Slavery has existed since the dawn of man. The Biblical book of Exodus tells of the freeing of slaves thousands of years ago. It existed under the Stars and Stripes far longer than it existed under the Stars and Bars. Tearing down statues and rinsing clean all remnants of a past they dont like is what the Taliban does. View slavery in a negative light, yes, but dont hold it against people who were born into such a system and knew it as the only way of life.

The US was one of the last countries to abolish slavery, ironic considering equality for all. It was well known even in 1860 the abomination that was slavery, so no, the Confederacy does not get a free pass, nor should they. Thankfully those Yankees licked em, and the South has been pouting ever since. The only thing the Confederate flag should be used for is to wipe ones ass, then toss it in the trash were it belongs. There are so many other things for the South to be proud of, the Confederacy and its flag is not one of them.