For Supporters of the C.S.A?

Question

With the Election of the REPUBLICAN canidate Abraham Lincon the Southern states felt that drastic measures were needed in order to protect there industry and the livelyhood of the people who lived there, (all people, only 12% of whites in the south owned slaves and almost all slaves were owned by verry rich people who treated them better than they had it on there own). Even today there are black heros in the civil war that not alot of northerners pay attention to because they want to use slavery as ammo against the south. Don't belive me take a look http://www.slrc-csa.org/site/news/2004/05-21-04b-news.php . To the Union the war was about numbers and buildings and smoke. To the Confederates it was about somthing more than that , somthing deeper. The forrests, the hills, the animals, all of it was protected and free under the C.S.A.

The Question is, Given the Oppertunity would you fight for the CSA In a Second Civil war ?

Answer 1

pvreditor read the same books I have, but really there are books to account for BOTH sides of the argument. The draft did happen in the war, but more so people picked up the rifle when the Union came in on their grounds. Most of the fighting men didn't have slaves. Most of them thought the war would be over in a month too..

Slaves were freed only to be let loose in a new world without help. Civil Rights caught up years later and the time between was rough.

I agree some men fought with slavery in mind but that was NOT the issue of every man. Moral standings were low on both sides as the North wanted only to secure the Union and hold on to valuable land and people. Slavery was a bargaining tool until Lincoln felt the Union would win and THEN it became a major point.

When an army destroys your fields and takes your base of life in front of your eyes or threatens the practice, you protect whats yours. That being said, I would have to side with my state.

Answer 2

I live in Indiana, but I grew up in Virginia and know all about the romantic vision of the Confederacy. Unfortunately, the romantic vision doesn't exactly fit with reality.

My interpretation of the causes of the Civil War is based in economics, of which slavery was a major part. Secession happened because the South felt that their economic viability was going to be destroyed by the industrial Northeast's desire for protective tariffs and an abolitionist movement that the South feared might gain real power in Congress under the Republicans, threatening the cash-crop agriculture-based Southern economy. Secession was not about culture in other senses.

Keep in mind that the South was not a homogenous culture, but had diversity just as other regions of the country. Virginia had a significantly different culture than Louisiana. Texas and North Carolina were also different. If culture were the compelling reason for secession, then it wouldn't have occurred as it did. It would probably have been more like what is happening in Quebec with Parti Quebecois, working to defend their unique culture in a political sense.

Nevertheless, you might have a point. Putting aside the moral issue of slavery, it would seem that the North did have their own self-interest in mind at the detriment of the South, so in that sense perhaps it did have a cultural aspect to it, albeit one connected to economics.

To answer your main question, I'll propose that a cultural rift in the Union might indeed occur, but the boundary will likely be red state-blue state. The old Confederacy is mostly solid in the red state category (except for dem Yankees in Florida!). Along with the heartland, I can see a cultural war happening with the Northeast and the West Coast. If a war in this regard occurs, I will choose to not fight for either side. I much rather be left alone on this issue.

Hope that helps.

Answer 3

I'm afraid that you have a very romantic and highly regional view of the facts behind the Civil War. For the confederate states, it was not about something deeper than defending slavery -- the wealthy landowners who owned slaves held all the political power and they were the ones pushing for secession. Wealthy people in the confederate states saw to it that dissention was suppressed and that only their side of the story was told. And, of course, every male aged 15-50 was eventually drafted into the CSA army.

The notion that wealthy white slave owners were kinder to their slaves than if the slaves had been free is nonsense. Would you rather be a slave or free? Think about it.

Read a mainstream book about the Civil War. I recommend "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson. It deservedly won the Pulitzer Prize, and is an excellent read.

Answer 4

If i had a choice, it would be the south, but that's just me, given that there was another civil, not that there's a chance in hell that it would happen.

Answer 5

that's just stupid. if the north and south did errupt in another civil war, i'd move west. count me out.