Who do you pull for?

[Spitz]

Hello everyone, I am new to the forum.

Got a question for you. Pull for the Union or the Confederacy. I am definately pro-south and always will be. I despise Yankee scum like "honest" Abe ans Ulysses Grant especially, but do not let that give you a bad first impression of me or let it affect your vote.
Thanks

[ban-one]

hi there iam from the north so iam a yankee but i do believe in state right and i would of fought for the south

[caster89]

i have roots in the south,i was born and raised in the south, iv'e had ancestors who have served and shed blood for the south, and if i was alive back then i would have eagerly fought beside them.

[Scott_002002]

I also have two family members who fought for the south! and had I been alive then I would of gave it my all to the south, my mind, body and my soul!

[bankssoldier12]

Just like Sharpshooter i would fight for whoever my state joins(Texas). Even though it would be hard to fight for the north since Texas is one of the states farthest south. So im pretty sure Texas would fight for the south. :twisted:

[FOJ]

I would fight for the North. While I admire and respect the bravery of the Confederate Army, I despise what they stood for. They fought for the right to keep other men as slaves. They were fighting against freedom, and God was watching.

I have deep respect for men like Lee, Jackson and Longstreet. I think the Confederate Army was full of good and Godly men. But it will never change the cause for which they fought. And that forever tarnishes them in my view.

[Frankie]

Hello, everyone. I am also new. I am originally from New York City, so I would have fought for the preservation of the Union.

[bankssoldier12]

FOJ, thanks to people like you, most people think the Confederacy is racist and fought to keep slavery. When indeed the south fought because the north kept taxing them. If you were to read some books, you'd know that as soon as Lincoln was sworn into office he passed the biggest tax in U.S. history(about 47%). Even though the north had more people than the south, the south payed 80% of the taxes. The thought that the south fought for slavery is what yankees want us to think. Even though most schools teach this thought to their students, it is wrong. You need to start reading some books. And don't mess with the south. :twisted:

[charge_of_glory]

Schools teach that? My school must just weird then becuase even though I'm in PA, we learned the real causes the Confederacy faught for. I guess every school is different though.

[FOJ]

bankssoldier - with all respect, you have no idea what I have read on this subject. Did I say that slavery was the ONLY reason for the war? or even THE reason for the war? I simply said the South was fighting to preserve slavery, and it was doing just that.

Please try not to insult people's intelligence in your replies. I'm new here, but if this is indicative of what passes for discussion here, then I'll gladly move on. :roll:

[FOJ]

The South fought to defend its self. Period.

Well, its "self" included slavery. And given the success of the country, and the magnanimity of the North towards the South after the war, I'd still say the South was in error to begin with.

You can call me brainwashed 'till the cows come home. I could say the same of the lot of you. You got your brainwashing from the losing generals, soldiers and families.

Certainly, our geography has shaped our impressions of this conflict. But I fail to understand the hostility I receive here for a simple opinion nearly 150 years after the war.

I think I'll move on to a place where people can discuss this maturely without insulting others. Thanks anyway.

[charge_of_glory]

Besides, after you get insulted a bit, everyone gets nicer. It's just how we get to know people lol. We've all had our fair share of insults, but we mean no disrespect to one another. This war is a touchy thing to discuss, so of course people will get angry from time to time. IMHO, I think we're pretty mature here. But you're free to do as you wish, so carry on.

[FOJ]

Okay. I'll have a go at it. :lol:

Slavery was a BIG reason for this conflict. To suggest otherwise is neo-Confederate nonsense. South Carolina tried to secede in 1852 and the top reason on the list (per the secession Declaration) was as follows:
An increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . .The non-slaveholding States have denounced as sinful the Institution of Slavery, they have permitted the 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... The public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate Extinction.

And to quote another great argument against this nonsense:

History after the Civil War seems equally compelling as history before the Civil War in regard to this issue to me. If the South were truly a region with no race problems except those caused by meddling Yankees, why was the aftermath of the war a failed Reconstruction, the establishment of the Ku Klux Klan, lynching as an entertaining pastime, Jim Crow and violent opposition when integration became law? It seems to me those are the behaviors of a people with deep racial problems, not of folks who never had anything against blacks and fought a war over something other than maintaining slavery, as the neo-Confederates claim. I believe the history of the South is that of a region conceived in white supremacy and still enmeshed in it.

I couldn't have said it better myself. The idea that slavery was no big deal and was not a compelling reason for the conflict is to deny what is plainly obvious. I realize that economic issues played a part, but slavery was a large issue (whether economical or moral) in the birth of this conflict.

[FOJ]

Massachusetts, being liberal, reports liberally on hate crimes. Alabama and Mississippi are the two states who apparently don't report hate crime statistics. Gee, any wonder they have none listed on the FBI's site?! You actually helped prove my point. Alabama and Mississippi don't call violence against blacks a hate crime. Yet another legacy of the Confederate past, no doubt.

The "failed Reconstruction" referred to here was in the hearts and minds of Southerners, not the buildings and infrastructure. In 150 years, there has been improvements as generation after generation have left behind the enmity against blacks. But its not gone by any means. Despite this history, you still try to claim that slavery was not a main cause of this war? THAT was the point. The source of the quote is irrelevant as I simply posted it because it represents pretty accurately my feelings on the particulars of that issue.

The KKK was not founded in response to any terrorist organizations. It was founded to respond to the perceived unfair treatment in the establishment of the individuals and entities who ruled over southern states from 1866 to 1872. At any rate, once the right to vote was restored and everything else restored for the south, there was no more use for the KKK. Ah, except for the tormenting of black people for the next 100+ years!

Don't like Reconstruction? Don't start a war that takes hundreds of thousands of lives from the Union! The CSA lost and was still treated better than most losing states in most any other conflict.

[FOJ]

:lol: okay, whatever you say, buddy... :roll:

[bankssoldier12]

Can O'Bruadair be more right? FOJ is just making excuses to save his own ***. He has no idea whats happening in the south right now. FOJ has a real problem with anything relating to the Confederacy. Now I may have my own problems with yankess, but I don't go around making facts out of thin air just to prove my point. I can see that some southerners did fight to keep slavery, but not most of them. I'm telling you that I think O'Bruadair is reading my mind, so I'm sorry if I sound a lot like him. The south fought the war to protect itself and everyone in it. Now I think FOJ needs to "read"(or whatever you do to get your information) some of the things the two biggest Confederates thought about slavery. For one, "Stonewall" Jackson had a black servant(not a slave) that cooked for him and his men. The cook joined Jackson's men on his own, he WANTED to fight for the south. And if you've seen the movie "Gods and Generals" then you'll see what I'm talking about. For Robert E. Lee,I don't think I've heard a quote where he says he's fighting to preserve slavery. And to close, I think FOJ is very imature, now I may not know your age, but I can guess your less than 7 years old.

I want to thank everyone who is defending the south's reputation from tyrants like FOJ, and want to tell you to never lay down your arms because the south NEVER RUNS AND NEVER WILL! :twisted:

[charge_of_glory]

I agree that FOJ went too far and needs to understand how things really are. (S)he is making the North look like it's full of uninformed, as O'Bruadair said, neo-puritans.
I really think you need to apologize, FOJ. Even in our most heated debates on here, we don't resort to such lies. We use real, honest facts. You talk as though the South is full of souless killers. Even on this site you can see that isn't true. Southerners are some of the nicest people in the US, and for you to try to spread you ignorant lies is just wrong. You really need to see the error in your thinking.
Normally I'm disagreeing with O'B and bankssoldier, but on this, I'm totally with you guys. Even though we don't usually think the same things, their still my fellow countrymen and I'm going to defend them when their being wronged.

(O'Bruadair, I'm glad you defined Yankee. I think a lot of people, including myself, tend to see it as a name for the North in general. Thank's for clearing that up!)

[bankssoldier12]

Thanks COG, you are probably one of the only people in the north that respects and protects the south, maybe I'll see the north in a new way too. :twisted:

[Bucktail72]

I am and always will be a strong union man. But I do respect all Johhny Rebs and their beliefs. I simply believe that the disecretation of The union would never had made us the Superpower we are today.

[caster89]

true, but one can only wonder what the u.s. would be like if the south had won.

[bankssoldier12]

You don't have to wonder what it would be like because it would all be the same, except for the flags in southern schools. And if you think slavery would still be here today if the south would have won, then you are dead wrong. The south would have abolished slavery around the same time other countries did. I am one of the few men that wishes the south would have won, and I'm proud of that. I am also one of the few brown/black confederates because I'm 50% hispanic and 50% black. So don't think your crazy if you like the Confederacy and your dark skinned. :twisted:

[caster89]

i know that the confederacy would've abolished slavery eventually, and i too wish that the south had won, very badly, but what i meant was that i wonder if we would have some the same presidents, reacted the same to crisis situations, and things like that

[bankssoldier12]

I'm sorry if I sounded like I was against you caster89, I thought you were a yank for asking that question. But yes, I think we would have many similarities. I think it all depends if the south would have stopped the war after defeating the north, or if it would have conquered the north and brought it under confederate control. If it had done the latter then we would have the same presidents, if not it would only have the presidents that were born and raised in the south. About how it would react in certain situations(like the 9/11 attacks) I don't think we'll ever know, but I like to think they'd act the same as the U.S. did. :twisted:

[caster89]

no problem,and thank you for replying, i was just wonderin' if it would be more or less the same (with the exception of the north losing). oh and please dont call me a yank :twisted:

[bankssoldier12]

My mistake, I know no one wants to be called a yank. :twisted:

[civilwarbuff17]

I will take it as a compliment if you call me a yank. I believe that it means national unity. The word is in a sense national unity. That's what the north fought for. And that's what we fight for today.

[marka]

Good day to everyone,

I hope you won’t mind me chipping in as someone new to this site and who is also British. The only reason I mention my nationality is that the debate has seemed to be very polarised in a way that an outsider like myself finds difficult to understand.

I am fascinated by the civil war and have read quite a lot, but much of the debate here has got me thinking. A serious question; is there a strongly held belief in the USA (and I mean north and south) that there has been a rewriting of history by the victors? My view, shaped by my reading is that the southern states seceded because they didn’t want to be imposed upon and dictated to by the north. But wasn’t, at the heart of that ‘dictatorship’ the wish to not extend slave states westwards and the belief that the north was trying to undermine the southern way of life which was built upon slave labour? I mean this as a genuine question, because that is all I have ever read. (And if I am ignorant I apologise and would like to know more) I would be grateful for any alternative reads that anyone can recommend than the standard, Foote, Catton and McPherson etc.

I find the civil war fascinating. We have had a few ourselves but ours have never split the country geographically as did yours. As with our own civil wars, I am fascinated by the motivation that drives a man to fight his erstwhile brother. Again, I am probably being ignorant and again, I hope I don’t cause insult, but would it be true to say, that the average soldier knew little about the politics behind the conflict. In our biggest civil war, most men fought for king or parliament because they were told to, not because they knew or cared about the reasons. I ask again respectfully, might it not have been the case that most men fought in yours, not so much for ideals of emancipation or the southern way of life, as for their family, their neighbourhood and their state. In effect, if my state believes it is right and I am a member of that state, then I will fight alongside. This is not to say that men abdicated any moral obligation, but rather in days without mass communication and televised debate, the relative positions were always tenuous.

Finally, as a Brit may I say, with respect to those of you who ‘back’ the confederacy that I am glad that the north won. I am glad, because I think that otherwise the outcome would not have been southern hegemony; that was not only never the south’s aim, but also contrary to their reason for fighting. So what would have emerged would be two (maybe more) countries where one had existed. Counterfactual history is all very well and the ‘what ifs’ can run and run, but in these days when I am afraid that the US gets a fair amount of bashing overseas, I would like to record that I for one value the US contribution to modern world history and value the friendship of our two countries. I would like to think that the soldiers and commanders who once took up arms against each other, can look at the UNITED States now and be proud of what it has become and what it has fulfilled. No, it isn’t perfect – none of us are; but the contribution of the UNITED states has been immense

Mark

[64civilwarfanatic]

I would have definitely fought for the Union! The Union must be preserved!

[bmac6446]

I live next door to the Chickamauga battle field. So, I fully understand why some southerners get excited about this topic.
Only speculation can tell what life on this continent would be like had the south been left to secede.
Would we be parts of European countries now? Would the Nazi's and Japan have won the Second World War?
One thing we know from history, other states had their eyes on secession as well. Among these even New York state. The western states were entertaining the thought.
As a final thought, had the south won it's secession right this country and probably the world would not be as it is today.

[bmac6446]

I live next door to the Chickamauga battle field. So, I fully understand why some southerners get excited about this topic.
Only speculation can tell what life on this continent would be like had the south been left to secede.
Would we be parts of European countries now? Would the Nazi's and Japan have won the Second World War?
One thing we know from history, other states had their eyes on secession as well. Among these even New York state. The western states were entertaining the thought.
As a final thought, had the south won it's secession right this country and probably the world would not be as it is today.

[Jereydude]

the south should have won and i like the south better and got gipped out of slavery in the west

[gettysburg man]

def the north because i would want to keep the nation together and if that meant risking my life then so be it!

[dan'l]

I have no opinion on it, this is 2009, but...

Half or more of people with true Southern Heritage (those with a history there since before the Civil War) were for the Union, and of those, the ones that were given a choice preferred to fight against the Confederates. That's because, by anybody's count, nearly half of all people with Southern Heritage are African-American.

The Confederacy didn't represent them. (The Confederacy didn't even represent all white Southerners!).

Folks with Confederate Heritage represent half or less of folks with Southern Heritage.

Just the way it is. And by the way, read the Declarations of Secession for each of the major Confederate states. The first States' right demanded was to keep and expand slavery. Why is that?

Dan Wykes

[dan'l]

Response to post 46, which reads "Finally, as a Brit may I say, with respect to those of you who ‘back’ the confederacy that I am glad that the north won...Mark"

Well, Mark, for a Brit you seem to have a very good grasp of the facts in this case. To explain some more of what was going on at the time, the Seceding states had to come up with some other "States Rights" besides slavery, which was the only one that mattered to them. That's because your Country could not consider supporting them on slavery only, because slavery had been only been abolished in Great Britain a few decades before so citizens there, and the image of the Monarchy, could not tolerate support of a slave nation. Good try by the Confederates, but it was just too obvious to an intelligent people what was really going on.

Dan Wykes

[dan'l]

1. The tariff was passed before Lincoln took office. It was also at that time that the first 7 states seceded from the Union.

No. That's wrong. States began seceding just after Lincoln was elected, well before he took office.


Lincoln...behind the scenes, had put forth his 13th amendment giving the Southern states their rights and making slavery perminantly part of the Constitution...

No, that's wrong. Amendments can't be put forth "behind the scenes" then or now. Slavery was not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, only individual State Constitutions. Lincoln was against slavery his entire life and would never have signed such an amendment into law. True, he didn't think blacks could live with whites, but his proposed plan was to reimburse slaveowners and re-locate the freed slaves to colonies elsewhere in the world.


2. The U.S. Constitution approved slavery and it wasn't going anywhere as long as the Southern states STAYED in the union ...it takes a 3/4th Vote to amend the Constuitution and there were 15 slave holding states which means that we would have to have 60 states before the constitution could be changed to reflect slavery being outlawed...

No, that's wrong. The U.S. Constitution never approved slavery. It would have needed an amendment first to write slavery into the Constitution before an amendment to outlaw it was required. Still, there was a Federal Law passed that outlawed helping slaves to escape from their owners, but that was not in the Constitution.

...Every one of these points are provable, look them up, if you don't believe me.

I looked them up, and so can anyone here.

What did you expect we would find?

Dan Wykes

[dal1257]

I have no opinion on it, this is 2009, but...

Half or more of people with true Southern Heritage (those with a history there since before the Civil War) were for the Union, and of those, the ones that were given a choice preferred to fight against the Confederates. That's because, by anybody's count, nearly half of all people with Southern Heritage are African-American.

The Confederacy didn't represent them. (The Confederacy didn't even represent all white Southerners!).

Folks with Confederate Heritage represent half or less of folks with Southern Heritage.

Just the way it is. And by the way, read the Declarations of Secession for each of the major Confederate states. The first States' right demanded was to keep and expand slavery. Why is that?

Dan Wykes

Personally, I am not 100% convinced that it was slavery in and of itself that caused the states to secede, but the idea of the feds telling them they could not have slavery that caused the rift.

[RebelRanger]

I'm a Yankee by birth, but a Rebel deep down.