English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Was there a big difference between what the northern and southern soldiers ate? Was there a shortage of supplies for the southern soldiers and, if so, did this affect their rations, etc.?

2006-11-30 05:33:56 · 2 answers · asked by orzoff 4 in Arts & Humanities History

2 answers

As General Lewis Armistead lay dying he reached into his pocket for the rations he and his men had drawn parched corn and stated men who eat this cannot be beaten. Was there a difference between the yankees and our men, HELL YES. Yankees had a commissary drew real coffee, sugar, meat (even oysters) there were only two or three time during the war when rations were short for them. For the first part of the war and on and off afterwards our men received a cut of meat, flour (complete with bugs) one person in 5/6 was chosen as the cook who cooked cornbread, mush, whatever they could find that was eatable. The dead 14 year boys they found at Gettysburg had acrons in their messkits, a sad day for our boys.

God Bless You and The Southern People.

2006-11-30 06:30:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

both sides ate what they could kill, rabbit, chicken, boar, and various others. the union soldiers had a commissary program that was designed for providing for all US soldiers, north and south, so they were much better prepared for war.
they all ate similarly, although there were/are regional dishes that each side probably considered there own. they didnt eat a lot of grits and collards up north, and union soldiers were more likely to have access to apples and such that dont grow as well down south.
The confederacy suffered from huge shortages of food and supplies and still fought on. the south was not as well prepared for war as the north since the majority of stockpiled supplies were in the possession of the union who had the backing of the US government.
There are 2 things you should know about the civil war. 1 is that although you've been told that it was all about freeing the slaves, it was more likely about the south's feeling that they were being taxed unfairly and without fair representation. I wasn't there, so I couldn't tell you which is correct. remember, the history books are written by the victors, and not always completely accurate.
2 is, and this is just a personal observation, the south declared themselves an independent nation by succeeding from the United States. they then lost the war that they started by firing the first shots at fort sumter. so I gotta ask, why are these dumb hillbillies allowed to fly and declare alligence to another countries' flag (the confederate "rebel" flag)? if you choose to fly the rebel flag and support the ideals of another country (the confederacy) then you should not be allowed to collect any benefits of living in the US. That means no right to vote, no more collecting unemployment, no more food stamps, and no more public assistance for southerners who continue to fly the flag of the confederacy. Continuing to fly the rebel flag should be treated as a traitorous act and prosecuted.

Someone down in SC - is Maurice still flying the rebel flag over his Piggy Parks?

2006-11-30 15:56:50 · answer #2 · answered by michaelsmaniacal 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers