HBK
member
CSA all the way baby. In fact, the states might be a better place to be if we had an articles of confederation instead of a constitution. States rights barely exist anymore, if they do at all.
Confederate or Union?
- Thread starter ComputerFlake
- Start date
- Status
joshlm
Member
interesting topic guys.While i am not an advicate(?) for slavery i believe i would have gone south. when you consider that the people of the era had all lost reletives fighting for the rights they had, it was only natural that the south would have rebelled when the north tried to push their values off on them. after all wasn't that what those ancesters died for. Also, correct me if i am wrong, but i believe i have read speaches that Mr. Lincoln wrote that said while he did not believe in slavery and wished it abolished, he believed that the races could never live in harmony and therefor all blacks, once freed, should be sent back to africa. If Mr. Lincoln had lived long enough to see this plan through how different would our country be?
telomerase
Member
The South was fighting for 100% black slavery, and the North was fighting for percentage slavery for all (i.e. the tariff). Neither government clique was worth fighting for (ending slavery would have been, perhaps, but that wasn't one of the choices given at the beginning of the war). Most nations ended slavery without any sort of war, and doubtless the seceded South would have been forced to end slavery just like the other countries (um, except Sudan, Mauritania, North Korea.... OK, most other countries), especially without the North's militias helping to recapture escaped slaves.
Defenders of the South should note that they lost because the Confederate government was quite totalitarian in some ways. They blockaded THEMSELVES at the beginning of war, embargoing their own cotton (brainy!). They also had a GOSPLAN-style plan for the economy, with many factories directly run by the government.
All that said, the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede without killing 600,000 people and increasing the "percentage slavery" of everyone in the country. Most likely the US would have reunited after slavery ended, as it did everywhere else. Unless Southrons contain some sort of intrinsic evil that transcends economics
?
Defenders of the South should note that they lost because the Confederate government was quite totalitarian in some ways. They blockaded THEMSELVES at the beginning of war, embargoing their own cotton (brainy!). They also had a GOSPLAN-style plan for the economy, with many factories directly run by the government.
All that said, the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede without killing 600,000 people and increasing the "percentage slavery" of everyone in the country. Most likely the US would have reunited after slavery ended, as it did everywhere else. Unless Southrons contain some sort of intrinsic evil that transcends economics
?Waitone
Member
The finest single volume history of the civil war
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by James M. McPherson. I believe he won a Pulitzer the volume.
His point? The civil war laid the ground work for what we are today. It had a profound effect on America and Americans.
An outstanding book.
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by James M. McPherson. I believe he won a Pulitzer the volume.
His point? The civil war laid the ground work for what we are today. It had a profound effect on America and Americans.
An outstanding book.
Forget the politics and who was right in the war. By the way i'm a
a long time Cival war buff. I shoot copies of the 1861 Springfield and
the 1853 three band Enfield and enjoy it greatly.
There is nothing like dropping the hammer on that big 58 cal minie bullet.
Though i'm having trouble with the Enfield right now I wouldn't trade the
experience for the world.
a long time Cival war buff. I shoot copies of the 1861 Springfield and
the 1853 three band Enfield and enjoy it greatly.
There is nothing like dropping the hammer on that big 58 cal minie bullet.
Though i'm having trouble with the Enfield right now I wouldn't trade the
experience for the world.
Chris Rhines
Member
Interesting question, that comes up from time to time. My usual answer is, "I don't fight for governments." Particularly when both sides are so manifest in their evil.
I probably would have headed out west and kept my head down. Although the idea of running an underground railroad is interesting...
- Chris
I probably would have headed out west and kept my head down. Although the idea of running an underground railroad is interesting...
- Chris
Hkmp5sd
Member
One enteresting thing about the Civil War was that soldiers in the north were fighting for the US government and the majority of soldiers in the south were fighting due to patriotism for their home state. That is why Lee turned down command of the northern forces. His loyalty was to his home state above the United States.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,505
While slavery is morally wrong...
I believe that there is nothing in the Constitution to proscribe a state from seceding. At his inauguration, Lincoln offered the olive branch to the south. Here are some excerpts...
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect, and defend it..."
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may be strained, it must not break, our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, strecthing from eery battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet sell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
The South's mistake was firing on Fort Sumter (then again, it could have been Beauregard the pupil getting even with Anderson the instructor). BTW, if I lived back then, I'd head north and call myself a Canadian (the first coward).
In response to your second question, I have the Parker Hale 3 band and 2 band rifled musket. Also have a Colt 3 band musket.
I believe that there is nothing in the Constitution to proscribe a state from seceding. At his inauguration, Lincoln offered the olive branch to the south. Here are some excerpts...
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect, and defend it..."
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may be strained, it must not break, our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, strecthing from eery battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet sell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
The South's mistake was firing on Fort Sumter (then again, it could have been Beauregard the pupil getting even with Anderson the instructor). BTW, if I lived back then, I'd head north and call myself a Canadian (the first coward).
In response to your second question, I have the Parker Hale 3 band and 2 band rifled musket. Also have a Colt 3 band musket.
Dilettante
Member
The plan was cancelled because of a meeting Lincoln had with several prominent blacks, including Douglass. He tried to sell the idea of migration to them--maybe somewhere in Central America--and they got mad and said that none of them wanted to leave the land where they were born. So that was the end of the migration plan.
Some of Lincoln's comments in his speeches--like the line saying that if one race had to be on top, he'd rather the whites were--are probably there as part of his political balancing act, not his deepest ideals for how the world ought to be.
I am impressed with this thread.
The canon
of American histories of the Civil War could be summarized with two words:
Bruce Catton.
St Johns, Mr Catton was the preeminent in-depth Civil War historian, and his book are a lovely read as well. Choose any one....you'll be back for the others.
of American histories of the Civil War could be summarized with two words:
Bruce Catton.
St Johns, Mr Catton was the preeminent in-depth Civil War historian, and his book are a lovely read as well. Choose any one....you'll be back for the others.
fallingblock
Member
St. John.....
I'll second Khornet's recommendation of Bruce Catton. Catton's books are very readable and deliver a lot of information.
Chris Rhines: Exactly what Mark Twain did , and he warn't no idjit!
My paternal great-grandpa commanded the Fifth Indiana Volunteer Cavalry.
My maternal great-grandpa served through the war in the Tenth (Confederate) Kentucky Cavalry. He was part of Jeff Davis' attempted escape to Texas after the fall of Richmond. There's a 'bitter-ender' for you.
Both fighting on the same turf, but for different loyalities.
It was NOT slavery that motivated the common man to fight for the South. Jefferson Davis may have speechified about it and the plantation owners wielded their political muscle within the CSA government, but the vast, vast majority of the 240,000 or so Southrons who actually did the dying for the cause did not own slaves. My Kentucky great granddad's family owned no slaves. As mentioned above, multiple slave holders were exempt from military service in the Confederate forces.
Slavery was an evil institution, no doubt. Its time was nearly done in the western world, and could the war have been avoided (and the maniac abolitionists certainly contributed to urging a war ), it would have quietly passed away before the end of the 19th Century.
I have studied a great deal of history of the "War of Northern Aggression"
(my Confederate genes made me write that!)
And my sympathies are with the poor fellers on both sides, catchin' them Minie balls during a time when the concept of military surgery consisted of a saw and maybe some anesthetic
The Confederacy remains to this day a glorious lost cause for some and an national embarrassment for others.
For me, the War Between the States marked the passing of a rural America of regional loyalty into an up-and-coming world industrial power. I would have liked to experienced the antebellum South...but not as a slave.
What would I have done?
Since I would likely have been trapped in a 'mind of the time',
(hindsight is not realistic in these 'what if' scenarios) my regional loyalties would probably have dictated which side to support.
I like Chris' and Sam Clemen's idea....go west and contribute to the nation in some other fashion than shootin' at your kinfolks and neighbors.
Sam tried soldierin' from June 15th '61 to around July 25th '61, as a Confederate Missouri State Guardsman, and it didn't suit him. He went with brother Orion to Nevada for the duration .
All summed-up? There was right and wrong on both sides
I'll second Khornet's recommendation of Bruce Catton. Catton's books are very readable and deliver a lot of information.
Chris Rhines: Exactly what Mark Twain did
, and he warn't no idjit!My paternal great-grandpa commanded the Fifth Indiana Volunteer Cavalry.
My maternal great-grandpa served through the war in the Tenth (Confederate) Kentucky Cavalry. He was part of Jeff Davis' attempted escape to Texas after the fall of Richmond. There's a 'bitter-ender' for you.
Both fighting on the same turf, but for different loyalities.
It was NOT slavery that motivated the common man to fight for the South. Jefferson Davis may have speechified about it and the plantation owners wielded their political muscle within the CSA government, but the vast, vast majority of the 240,000 or so Southrons who actually did the dying for the cause did not own slaves. My Kentucky great granddad's family owned no slaves. As mentioned above, multiple slave holders were exempt from military service in the Confederate forces.
Slavery was an evil institution, no doubt. Its time was nearly done in the western world, and could the war have been avoided (and the maniac abolitionists certainly contributed to urging a war
), it would have quietly passed away before the end of the 19th Century.I have studied a great deal of history of the "War of Northern Aggression"
(my Confederate genes made me write that!)And my sympathies are with the poor fellers on both sides, catchin' them Minie balls during a time when the concept of military surgery consisted of a saw and maybe some anesthetic
The Confederacy remains to this day a glorious lost cause for some and an national embarrassment for others.
For me, the War Between the States marked the passing of a rural America of regional loyalty into an up-and-coming world industrial power. I would have liked to experienced the antebellum South...but not as a slave.
What would I have done?
Since I would likely have been trapped in a 'mind of the time',
(hindsight is not realistic in these 'what if' scenarios) my regional loyalties would probably have dictated which side to support.
I like Chris' and Sam Clemen's idea....go west and contribute to the nation in some other fashion than shootin' at your kinfolks and neighbors.
Sam tried soldierin' from June 15th '61 to around July 25th '61, as a Confederate Missouri State Guardsman, and it didn't suit him. He went with brother Orion to Nevada for the duration
.All summed-up? There was right and wrong on both sides
I am an AMERICAN. I am a native of Georgia and was drafted from Georgia in 1968 and fought in Veitnam in 68-69. I fought under THE AMERICAN FLAG. That FLAG covered the caskets of most of the men of my Infantry Company. Can we not get on with life without having to go back to 1860 and try to fiqure out who would would have fought for, if at all?
I am Thankful The UNION was preserved. We have The Greatest of Nations. Byron
I am Thankful The UNION was preserved. We have The Greatest of Nations. Byron
WilderBill
Member
It gets pretty hypothetical to ask which side you would support, when we all live in the present and cannot know first hand what it was like at the time.
I suppose I would support the region I was born in and knew. In my case that makes me definately southern.
I do support the idea that states should have the power to continue institutions that are popular in their own region.
I don't think there is any moral or monetary excuse for owning slaves.
As to the migration idea, Jefferson supported that way before the War of Northern Aggression and it made a lot more sense at the time. I think those slaves that either remembered Africa first hand, or had heard others speak of wanting to return, would have been willing to go back.
The modern nation of Liberia is a product of that migration idea, by the way.
Reading the speeches quoted by both Lincoln and Davis shows that polititions of that time came across as much more literate and thoughtful than most of our modern types.
I beleive that had the Confederacy survived, slavery would have ended within 10 years and any lingering animosity between North & South would have been erased by the Spanish American war.
IMHO
I suppose I would support the region I was born in and knew. In my case that makes me definately southern.
I do support the idea that states should have the power to continue institutions that are popular in their own region.
I don't think there is any moral or monetary excuse for owning slaves.
As to the migration idea, Jefferson supported that way before the War of Northern Aggression and it made a lot more sense at the time. I think those slaves that either remembered Africa first hand, or had heard others speak of wanting to return, would have been willing to go back.
The modern nation of Liberia is a product of that migration idea, by the way.
Reading the speeches quoted by both Lincoln and Davis shows that polititions of that time came across as much more literate and thoughtful than most of our modern types.
I beleive that had the Confederacy survived, slavery would have ended within 10 years and any lingering animosity between North & South would have been erased by the Spanish American war.
IMHO
ComputerFlake
Member
"During the War of Southern Treason, the South fought for slavery, pure and simple."
Wrong. No one in the South FOUGHT FOR slavery. They FOUGHT BECAUSE of slavery. Huge difference.
The guys who did the fighting didn't own slaves.
The best book to get a general understanding of how the Civil War started and get a honest 3rd party opinion is The Story of the Confederacy by Robert Selph Henry. You can take my word for it since I've been a self-proclaimed Civil War historian and collector for many years. This book will give you the background you might be missing.
Here's something else I want to throw into the discussion. It's easy to be a pro-secessionist today because not many people have faith in the government and states rights are being trampled left and right (see the Ten Commandments issue in Alabama for more info). But have the Democrats/beauracrats REALLY think about gun control laws and who owns the guns before they passed their legislation?
Gun control laws are only fought by those who believe the true power lies in the hands of the people. Big government thinks the power should lie in the government. The second amendment was authored because the founding fathers knew that the only way to have the power remain with the people was to have a way for the people to control the government. Not the other way around. So here's where this conversation gets interesting.
California, New York, etc (democratic states in general) have clamped down on gun control laws, therefore taking the power away from the people to control the government. Supposed another Civil War breaks out. It seems to me the power will lie in the Southern states who have been less strict with their gun control laws. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". That would make the Southern states rebels again but this time instead of the North having all of the guns and ability to use them, the South will have the power. And the biggest problem in the Civil War was lack of weaponry, lack of manpower, and lack of guns with bullets of the same caliber. These stumbling blocks are now gone. We have manpower, weaponry (several of the largest military bases are in the South), and who on here can honestly say they don't own at least one 9mm, .40, or .45?
Interesting huh? If the South DOES ever decide to rise again it'll be interesting to watch. And this time it wouldn't be started because of slavery. It'd be started because the people are tired of being told what to do instead of actually being given the freedom they were born with.
Comments?
Wrong. No one in the South FOUGHT FOR slavery. They FOUGHT BECAUSE of slavery. Huge difference.
The guys who did the fighting didn't own slaves.
The best book to get a general understanding of how the Civil War started and get a honest 3rd party opinion is The Story of the Confederacy by Robert Selph Henry. You can take my word for it since I've been a self-proclaimed Civil War historian and collector for many years. This book will give you the background you might be missing.
Here's something else I want to throw into the discussion. It's easy to be a pro-secessionist today because not many people have faith in the government and states rights are being trampled left and right (see the Ten Commandments issue in Alabama for more info). But have the Democrats/beauracrats REALLY think about gun control laws and who owns the guns before they passed their legislation?
Gun control laws are only fought by those who believe the true power lies in the hands of the people. Big government thinks the power should lie in the government. The second amendment was authored because the founding fathers knew that the only way to have the power remain with the people was to have a way for the people to control the government. Not the other way around. So here's where this conversation gets interesting.
California, New York, etc (democratic states in general) have clamped down on gun control laws, therefore taking the power away from the people to control the government. Supposed another Civil War breaks out. It seems to me the power will lie in the Southern states who have been less strict with their gun control laws. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". That would make the Southern states rebels again but this time instead of the North having all of the guns and ability to use them, the South will have the power. And the biggest problem in the Civil War was lack of weaponry, lack of manpower, and lack of guns with bullets of the same caliber. These stumbling blocks are now gone. We have manpower, weaponry (several of the largest military bases are in the South), and who on here can honestly say they don't own at least one 9mm, .40, or .45?
Interesting huh? If the South DOES ever decide to rise again it'll be interesting to watch. And this time it wouldn't be started because of slavery. It'd be started because the people are tired of being told what to do instead of actually being given the freedom they were born with.
Comments?
I have a comment for you ComputerFlake - come over and instil some of that firebrand sentiment in my Cornish relations. A Cornish uprising against the English would be genuine fun, course with our gun laws then the best they can offer you is stale pasty's, but a week old pasty at 50fps can penetrate an Abrams.
I am confused by the nature of the sentiments expressed on this thread by some, the poster who makes most sense to me is Byron, it all happened quite a while ago and whilst history is interesting for its own sake it seems bizarre to get quite so heated about it.
Then again perhaps I need to read Catton's books (thanks for the recommendations guys - which one covers the most ground?)
I am confused by the nature of the sentiments expressed on this thread by some, the poster who makes most sense to me is Byron, it all happened quite a while ago and whilst history is interesting for its own sake it seems bizarre to get quite so heated about it.
Then again perhaps I need to read Catton's books (thanks for the recommendations guys - which one covers the most ground?)
Hkmp5sd
Member
The reason it gets heated is because there was a Civil War and for the most part, the issue has never ended.
Without the war, slavery would have eventually faded away and became a minor footnote in American history. It may have taken another 50 years, but it was on it's way out.
Once the war occured, those in the south that lost just became more stubborn about the issue of race. This gave us the Klan, civil rights marches, Martin Luther King, George Wallace and so on. Today, 140 years after the war, we still have Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, reparation demands, apology demands, affirmative action, reverse discrimination, etc. BTW, the north isn't innocent in this either. Segregation in the military didn't end until half way through the 20th century. They also had many racial rifts.
The subject was never able to fade away. It has stayed on the grill and keeps getting flipped over and heated again.
Mo books
St Johns, I will add two, no, three books to your reading list.
The Killer Angels - Michael Shaara: Gettysburgh (Fiction),
Confederates in the Attic, by Tony Horwitz: Why the South won't let go,
Landscape Turned Red - Stephen W. Sears: The Battle of Antietam
db
St Johns, I will add two, no, three books to your reading list.
The Killer Angels - Michael Shaara: Gettysburgh (Fiction),
Confederates in the Attic, by Tony Horwitz: Why the South won't let go,
Landscape Turned Red - Stephen W. Sears: The Battle of Antietam
db
JohnBT
Member
Virginian. On both sides back to at least 1750.
John
John
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
It wasn't quite as far back as you seem to think. My grandparents helped raise me as their grandparents helped raise them. So I received a lot of intitial views on life from them. As in don't trust Yankee carpetbaggers
Their grandparents fought in the Civil War. One link between me and eyewitnesses. My father knew elderly Confederate veterans well as a child. Reconstruction actually caused more of the lingering bitterness on Southerners' part than the war. That's quite a bit later. I've personally known and talked with a good many people who could remember New Year's Day, 1900.A lot of people seem to think this is way, way in the past when in reality the events are just a scant few decades out of living memory. As a six year old, I had a relative who lived to one hundred. This was in 1960. He related how sad everyone was when news of Lee's surrender came.
Valkman
Member
When it comes to CW books, there are way too many good ones to mention. I own about 180 CW books, and found myself at first buying general books about the causes and battles and then buying books about specific battles and people. The one that got me started was "The Killer Angels" by Shaara - after that I was obsessed with it!
I don't believe slavery had anything to do with the actual fighting of the war, except that the Emancipation Proclamation made sure that England or France would not step in and fight "for slavery". Most Northern soldiers had never even seen a slave - why would they fight for them? They didn't. They fought to keep the Union together. Then take Lee, Longstreet and Jackson - no slave owners there. They were fighting for their states, pure and simple. Lee knew they wouldn't get any foreign help and simply hoped to "wear out" the North and make the people tell Lincoln to settle with the South. He did a damn good job taking advantage of the buffoons that led the Northern armies - until Grant finally put him on the defensive for good.
As much as I admire the Confederate Army as one of the best fighting forces the US ever produced, my ancestors are from Pennslyvania so I would have fought and supported the North and keeping the Union together.
I don't believe slavery had anything to do with the actual fighting of the war, except that the Emancipation Proclamation made sure that England or France would not step in and fight "for slavery". Most Northern soldiers had never even seen a slave - why would they fight for them? They didn't. They fought to keep the Union together. Then take Lee, Longstreet and Jackson - no slave owners there. They were fighting for their states, pure and simple. Lee knew they wouldn't get any foreign help and simply hoped to "wear out" the North and make the people tell Lincoln to settle with the South. He did a damn good job taking advantage of the buffoons that led the Northern armies - until Grant finally put him on the defensive for good.
As much as I admire the Confederate Army as one of the best fighting forces the US ever produced, my ancestors are from Pennslyvania so I would have fought and supported the North and keeping the Union together.
WilderBill
Member
Hey Scot, do you suppose we could do anything to encourage them?
Dilettante
Member
The book is a novel, but the basic story of Josh Chamberlain, who inspired some near-deserters to get back in the battle and hold the line, is true (!) His understanding pep talk may have saved the Union.
[As an academic myself, I wonder if that was the last time that a professor did anything useful...
]Joe Demko
Member
So you personally would have been willing to be enslaved for those 50 years?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
