Place yourself at the civil war time ,whose side would you be on? Why?

Question

We need to remember there were only 11 states fighting for the south. Also there was slavery in the North Too.The devastation was terrible! There are still bones buried in some places, it was a sad warb , an unfair war , Lincoln I think was a bit paranoid. Iam only voicing my thoughts.Tell me yours.

Answer 1

The Confederacy!

Contrary to what is taught in our history books, the Civil War was not about slavery. It was fought for the preservation of a civilization of people, a way of life, much like many Whites are doing today.

Not everyone in the South owned slaves. Slaves were owned by the wealthy. Many would be surprised to know that just as many Northerners owned slaves - more so because of the distribution of wealth in the North. The South was poor, resulting in the loss of the war because they could not afford to continue fighting.

The very President that everyone thinks entered into the Civil War to free slaves owned slaves himself.

It is very unfortunate that the South lost the war. The Confederacy would have been a much better government than the government that violated its own Constitution by attacking states that exercised their right to succeed as stated in the Constitution.

This should have been a warning to the people from the beginning. It is sad that we do not learn from the past.

Answer 2

The South I feel that slavery would have died out and the war was really more about States rights - even Lincoln only signed the Emancipation Proclamation as a battle tactic. African Americans were treated as poorly in the North even though this is not often acknowledged Try some of the alternate history books by Harry Turtledove

Answer 3

How could you even ask? The South of Course. The 1810, 1830 and 1850 census showed the South to be made up of roughly 50% Celtic, 30% English and the remaining 20% were German, French or Spanish. The Irish Potatoes famine of 1846-1850 killed a million plus Irishmen, the problem there was food but the British took it for themselves. Another good example of who has suffered under slavery. The real point the majority of English settled up North and continued to this day their opinion of superiority and want of control over our lot. If you don’t believe it just ask one of them.

One last thing I bet you didn't know, God was a Southerner. That's right and I can prove it. Look in a King James Bible, Ephesians 4:6. My Pastor did not believe it either but now uses it in his Sermons.

God Bless You and the Southern People.

Answer 4

I would like to think that I would be on the North's side. But I'm not so sure.
My family lived in the South at the time of the Civil War. My dad's ancestors owned slaves, (we met some of their descendants in Georgia. Sweet people. They had lots of stories that had been passed down, about how sweet our family had been to them.) in Arkansas.
So, with that fact, I think I would have been fighting for the South, not because I'm for slavery, but because I know and love the South. Those people have a lot of pride, as well they should, despite everything.
The Civil War was for their independence. I think I would have fought for that.

Answer 5

The South, The Civil war was fought over states rights not slavery. I think slavery was the worst thing that ever happened to the united States. But I do think the States have the right to make there own laws themselves. The federal Government was only to protect the States not to control or dictate to

Answer 6

First of couse the civil war was not about slaves, ( I would assume everyone knows that)

It was about taxation and states rights. The southern states did not want the north using thier money out west and in the north and not using it down south. Also the states beleived in the US constitution where the states had all rights not given to the federal government. since this was a republic, they should have had the right to leave the union.

The issue of slavery only came in toward the end of the war when the North was losing. Lincoln used the slave issue to try and turn the slaves against the south to help in the war effort.

Answer 7

If the loyalists win, they are going to punish the civilian inhabitants - brutally. Even those that did not help the rebels will be objectives because it isn't about certainly punishment, yet rather about putting an get mutually. If the rebels win, the numerous communities that make up the rebels will turn on one yet another, loot however remains of the country, and whoever rises to means will be to blame of a virtually crippled united states with none potentialities of a brighter destiny. There aren't any "solid adult males" in that conflict.

Answer 8

I would have been Southern since my entire family minus 1 distant relative were all Southern fighters. The war was about the right to succeed with slavery being an underlying cause.
There were 11 states who wanted to succeed (Southern) and 22 states who did not (Northern) Lincoln was definitely paranoid & afraid of losing election - but you know what they say "Just because you think the paranoids are after you, does not mean they are not" - hence his assination.

President Lincoln had slaves till almost the end of war, he said it made him look bad to own slaves. Read any book on him & it will tell you he own slaves like most wealthy Northerners.

Answer 9

I would say that i would have to have been with the south on this one, not because i am a fan of slavery but because i am born and bread in the south, so its kinda hard for me to say i would have supported the north...

Oh an to rockandroll58-79's Lincoln was insane (no i don't mean that in a mean way) i mean he was medically INSANE. Watch a documentary or read a history book!!!!!

Answer 10

Some of my ancestry were Cherokee Indians. We had just gotten dumped in northeastern and far western Oklahoma (two groups that didn't get along well, so it worked out okay). The Western Cherokee was for the South because it was an opportunity to get back at the North, the remnant of the country that dumped them there--although some of those who pushed for it were in the South. The main tribe was for the North, but were surrounded by Southern forces or Southern allied Indian tribes. Some of the Cherokee fought for the North and some very successfully fought for the South. One of the last Southern generals to surrender was Stan Wadi, a Western Cherokee. In Northeastern Oklahoma is a plaque (or two or three) near a bridge where Cherokees fought each other during the war.

Even though Chief Ross was a Northern supporter, he had to face the realities and "officially" declared for the South. The Cherokee were told by Union officials that they were forgiven, but the Reconstructionist Indian Affairs office punished them anyway.

During World War II, there were two countries that were disadvantaged because of similar local expediencies. Bulgaria knew they would get no help from the English who were in next-door Greece, so the Bulgarian king joined the German-Italian Axis publicly, but (as he was so good at) never really got around to "officially" signing the alliance. As allies, but with an historic tie to Russia who had freed them from the Turks, Bulgarians never sent troops to fight the Russians and Bulgaria never 'got around to sending Bulgarian Jews off to Hitler's extermination camps. Finland was another, with the Germans wanting them as still another conquest and the Russians wanting to annex them in a similar fashion, they allied with German in order to keep the bear next door from running over them while Germany was running over their own lands. Both of these were punished afterwards though the punishers were far from able to help. Similarly, the Cherokee had to be expedient when the odds were stacked against them.

I would have probably fought on the side of the South, only because my people were pretty-well resigned to it out of practicality.