Who did you want to win the civil war?

Question

I wanted the confederacy to win because, all the south wanted to do is form there own country, because since they were all democrat in a republican government, they had no say in the countries issues, and the north just used slavery to gain allies. Not that I agree with slavery, I just think it is wrong to make that seem like thats what the whole war was about, slavery was just a foot note, basically, the south were pilgrims and the north was the angry british power. So back to the question, north or south? and why.

Answer 1

The confederacy should have won, so we as a nation could enjoy states rights and not be under a one party rule.

Answer 2

In fact, it was a Democracy and there more Democrats than Republicans. Slavery had absolutely nothing to do with it. As in most cases of war it was about money. The Industrial North and the Farming South. The people behind the seceding of the States were traitors to the Republic of America. Slavery was only added as a last punch in the gut to the south that was going to lose the war, I believe it was added in 1864. Who knows what would have happened if the South had won, they weren't doing so hot before the seceded. What I do know is, that because the North won and prospered we are the richest and most powerful country in the world. There is not a standing army that can defeat us.

Answer 3

OMG...do you know nothing of the War Between the States as it was officially known? Other than that the Union (and not the north) succeeded in securing the one nation, undivided? And yes, you are correct the war was not primarily about slavery.

After the start and during the Civil War there were no party politics allowed in the Confederacy. Why....there was only Jefferson Davis after the south seceded from the Union 3 months after Lincoln (a Republican) was elected. The Confederate States of America (CSA) adopted their own constitution Feb 8, 1861 and 10 days later elected Jeff Davis as its president and Alexander Stephens as VP with Montgomery, AL becoming the capital. There was no Democratic Party in the south at that time and not again until 1869.

Leading to the secession was the election of 1860 when the south was outraged when the Republican Party nominated Lincoln for Preident. The south looked to the Democratic party to protect its interests and the party selected Stephen A. Douglas (a pro slavery politican who wanted people living in the territories covered by the Louisiana Purchase).

Unhappy with the selection of Douglas many delegates held another convention in Baltimore and selected John Breckenridge of KY for president and further confused sourthern polotics e formation of the Constitutional Union Party who nominated John Bell of TN for president. I repeat....this ended the Democractic party in the south from 1861 until 1869.

The ratio black slaves to white slave holders in the south at the start of the Civil War was 3 black to every 1 white slave holder. And let me be clear...not every southern white person was aslave holder. The north was an industrial based economy while the south supported it self primarily on cotton; a highly labor intensive crop to grow, pick and process. The Union hels 90% of the nation's industrial capasity and simply could manufacture more weapons, ammunition, warships, rail cars, grow food (and not cotton). And since the black man had no vote in the US at that time, yes, the north had a greater say in the politics of the country.

I don't now what you mean by those in the south being

pilgrims and the north an angry British power? As I recall all the states fought the British in the War of 1812-1814.

And if you read our history, you'll discover that Linclon (after he won the 1860 election and prior to the south's decision to "illegally" leave the Union attempted to avoid the conflict to come stating that he had no intention to interfere with the institution of slavery
where it currently existed feeling he had right to do so. And that there will be "no conflict without youselves being the aggressors".

The south, proud and dedicated as they were, were doomed from the beginning. They just didn't have the industrial capasity, intrafructure nor the pool of potential soldiers that the Union had.

I had ancesters on both sides of the conflict and many of the names are listed on the various state monuments at Gettyesburg.

I wanted the north to win...the Union had to be maintained.

Answer 4

Yes, the ol State's right's issue. However, it comes back to the State's Right's that the South was primarily in argument about, was slavery. Therefore, it has been in the United States best interests, that the North won the war. For a conjecture on what would have happened if the South had won; please read Harry Turtledove's series on an alternate realty on what would have happened if the South had won. In his premise, the South would have generated it's own Hitler like person and instead of the Jews being murdered in their millions, it would be the blacks. Slavery is evil, no matter it's form and for those whom practice this evil or condone it; the price will eventually be paid in blood.

Answer 5

I imagine you dint know this little fact but the Angry British power very nearly went to war against the North. Now imagine if that had happened. the North would have been crushed on two fronts and the Brits of the time would have assimilated any captured land back into the Empire.
So what might you have got?
Canada would have become larger and could well be the super power now. And the South wouldn't of had the capacity to fight of the Mexicans. Learn to think before you speak then the rest of us wont think your a gobby little fool

Answer 6

If the confederacy seceded, they may still be slavery in North America. United States won't be "United." There'd be many countries between Canada and Mexico. I'd pick the North. Slavery is wrong.

Answer 7

Unfortunately, the whole "live and let live" argument is no less simplistic than the "slavery" version of the war.

Let's face it, both systems favored rich over poor, white over black...But the battle was over what ultimately determined your right to participate in government. The North favored industry, entrepeneurship and what we know today as the "American Dream." The South favored land ownership, aristocracy and what we call today "rule of by the chosen few."

Considering my family came to this country as dirt poor servants and laborers whose children and grandchildren are now doctors, business executives, artists and teachers, I certainly favor a system where "what you do" is more important that "who your father is."

I do not doubt the South's passion, nor do I deny the flaws of the North, but any system that actively prevents its people from improving their lot, be it communism or Southern aristocracy, should be fought as "Un-American."

Answer 8

There shouldn't have been a war. The South wanted to secede and the North should have said "Ok, go ahead...we'll see who does better." I agree with you that it was not about slavery ... but almost NOBODY knows that. That's is what the school's propaganda will get you.

Answer 9

I don't know how you can say slavery was just a footnote. Would you be able to say that if you were black? Regardless of what other politics were involved, the issue of people owning other human beings was just too important not to take sides with the North.

Answer 10

The North, because it was the right thing to do!!!!BTW, You had better brush up on your American History.
The North was not a "angry British power." And there was
no slavery in the north.The Civil War was not about slavery, but it was about "States Rights."

Answer 11

The south, i'd follow the state flag, like RE Lee, not because of the issue of slavery.