Civil War

When I was young, I thought I would have been a Union man. I was born in Ohio, technically, rendering me a yankee.

Having aged, I find I do believe King Cotton was on the way out; I think just as Texas could not sustain national sovereignty and joined the union, so too would economics ushered in the emancipation without bloodshed. But, we really never will know.

I am a devout Southerner, I never owned a slave, I guess I would have probably been grateful for the social netting of the institution, though that was a thin net for poor white trash, just ask those Irish who came to the US, employed in every high risk task at hand, at least the African was an investment and his life [unfortunately] could not easily be replaced.

Anybody know what slaves called the Irish man? I'll give ya three guesses.

Bro. Dallas

 

My Guesses:

1. Honkey?

2. Pecker-wood?

3. Red Leg?

I would have sided with the South, like so many of my ancestors did.

Does anyone know if this is true? I heard someone say that when the southern states seceded the New Jersey legislature also scheduled a special meeting to take up the issue of secession, but Lincoln sent troops there to stop the meeting. Did that really happen?

Roy

 

The original version, "..one nation, indivisible.." was written in 1892, not quite a hundred years later.

So, that would be a 'no' for you and a 'yes' for NP? </font>[/QUOTE]Good point Daisy, I realised my error later - you are of course correct.

 

Thanks rsr, for getting up so early in the morning to field that question for me. You are alright in my book, man!

Roy

 

Still waiting with baited breath, Brother Dallas. Are you going to tell us or not?

Roy

 

"Agree as well that, as the soil was depleted, slavery would be depleted as well"
""
Load of rubbish, slaves can work in factories as well as on plantations and simple techniques exist to reverse soil depletion.

Considering the legendary American tendency to go it's own way, I'd say slavery persisting to the present day would be a perfectly plausible outcome of a what if scenario.
Just look at the way the US valiantly withstood all that foreign pressure to go metric, do away with the death penalty, adopt stern guncontrol laws, or adopt normal football as a national sport.

 

adopt stern guncontrol laws?

 

We Americans have one word for the normal national sport of football - boring.

 

Yes, those Jeff Weavers would be one and the same.

Although I dont have them posted on the net, I have the numbers for Tennessee (I have the numbers posted for Virginia though). There were considerable pockets of Unionism in North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, and no doubt other places as well. Every southern state save South Carolina had at least one regiment raised for the United States army. And a good number of the USCT were raised all over the south, including South Carolina.

Doubtful.

Quite possible. The relationship between the Confederate government and the state government of North Carolina was strained during most of the war. There was a considerable movement in North Carolina by 1864 to seceed from the Confederate States of America. Reasons for the proposal was that North Carolina boys were always put in the thick of the fight. The interior portion of the Old North State were not touched by warfare until the very end of the stuggle, so North Carolina's food production levels remained relatively stable until 1864. Increasing requisitions of provisions, food, cotton, etc. made many of the leaders of North Carolina feel they were paying more than their fair share of the burden of the war in men and materiel. Probably true. Confederate Cavlary were usually quartered in North Carolina in the winter. Most of the fighting was suspended in the winter and the troops went into Winter Quarters. Governor Zeb Vance complained to Jeff Davis that he would rather have the plague of locust God sent on Pharoah as to have Confederate Cavalry in the state. These Cavalrymen were notorious for criminal activities during their winter encampments. Not just theft -- murder and rape were fairly common.

A lot of our current generation believe the Civil War was a giganitic moral/patriotic stuggle. It wasn't -- the war was essentially about greed. By early 1862, the "fire-eaters" had pretty much run through with everyone who would voluntarily enlist. That is why the Confederate government enacted a conscription act. Many many units had more men to desert than who were killed, wounded or captured in battle. There are some economic reasons for some of this, but a great many of them just didn't want to fight. Fact of the matter is, without the conscription act, the Confederacy would have had to folded in the fall of 1862 or spring of 1863.

Those who believe the war wasn't about slavery should take the time to read the correspondence between President Davis and General Lee in the winter of 1865. Lee wanted to free the slaves and enlist those men in the Confederate army. It was bitterly opposed by the Confederate government. By the time, the government gave way it was March 1865, and far too late to make any kind of difference. A few units were organized, but desertion rates were horrendous when those men got in sight of the Union lines.

But, still despite the failures of the Confederate government, many men felt it would be easier to shoot at a northern person versus a southern person. Many felt like Lee did, that he couldn't draw his sword on his native state. I would be in the same boat, if push came to shove.

And if anyone should care to hear it, I can blast a big hole in the morality/patriotism of the North at the same time. The system of labor in the north was little better than it was in the south. Children, the poor, and most migrants were exploited for the benefit of a very few industrialists. The policy of the Federal government toward aboriginal peoples bordered on genocide. It is relatively safe to say that few in the North considered the African-American his/her social/intellectual equal.

On the battlefield, Sherman persued a "War is Hell" scorched-earth policy. Grant had no compunction about using men as cannon-fodder. Obviosuly he wasn't as smart as Lee, and rather than get smart, he used brute force. Easy to do, but not really the ethical policy to pursue. In Kentucky, (1864-1865) General Stephen Burbridge pursued a "no quarter" policy toward Confederate sympathizers with the approbation of President Lincoln.

Both the Confederate and Federal governments held a great number of political prisoners. Both governments confiscated private property for miltary use without compensating the people from whom it was taken.

Prisoners of war on both sides were treated horribly. The U.S. Government had the means to treat Confederate prisoners well, and refused. The South offered to pay for medical supplies and food from the North to treat Northern Prisoners in Southern Prison camps, and Grant refused. But there were abuses in the South as well, but the North is far more culpable of the horrors of Andersonville, than is the South, IMO. The North had a policy of placing prison camps near water with the notion that it would cause the prisoner to contract "rheumatism" and other fevers which would cause them to die.

It was a horrible, horrible war.

 

I would have fought for the Union. I would have enjoyed taking part in the mass beat down of the south. I am an excellent marksman and skilled with a blade.

The south lacked integrity, honor, Scriptural justification, constitutional justification, men, and numbers. They were smeared like roaches on the bottom of a man's pennyloafer.

In today's language, the south were terrorists. They were fighting against the UNITED STATES people.

The south lived (and still lives?) under the delusion that the Federal government invades anything. They don't. They are the final authority. Lee was a scumbag.

It was sickening to watch Gods and Generals and the southerners trying to use Psalms as justification. That is such a mockery of God's word. It just showed they lacked more than I have time to post on.

Who started the war? The south.

Who ended the war? The North.

It is just like I tell my 3 year old boy: you aren't allowed to bully people, but if someone picks a fight and won't quit, beat them bad enough it never crosses their mind to do it again. I don't want my son fighting, so he can kick their butt really good once. That is what the North did ya' know.

 

You are one sick puppy, Daniel.

 

You, Daniel, are a man without honor. Again, you are one sick puppy.

 

Ken, think through what the South did. Then think about what Al-Queda did. The only difference is a few hundred years.

 

I would have fought for the CSA. But unlike you, I will not say I would have enjoyed killing you.

 

Prove it, Daniel, prove it.

 

Wrong on both counts.

The Yankees invaded the South. If they had not done so, there would have been no war.

The South ended the war by surrendering.