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

18 answers

The Confederacy because they were attempting to return to the Founders' True Intent of the Constitution.

The federal government of the Union had been moving increasingly away from the Founding generation. As proof of the actual intent of the Union's federal government in 1868 the federal government applied the 14th Amendment as valid even though it never met Constitution requirements for ratification. In 1869 the Unions federal Supreme Court supported this by making a decision in Texas v. White that the federal government could create a situation in which it could declare the validity of the 14th Amendment due to right of conquest. Not rule of law, but righ of conquest.

For all of the faults of the Confederacy at least we would have kept our original constitution.

2007-07-22 11:20:16 · answer #1 · answered by Randy 7 · 1 3

The South. My relatives fought and died for the South. If you think that the Civil War was over slavery, you need a history lesson. The Civil War was over the issue of states rights. There was nothing in the Constitution at the time that prohibited sucession. What we did was legal. We were perfectly happy with our own country until the Yankeed had to get involved.

2007-07-24 07:30:38 · answer #2 · answered by Josephine 3 · 0 0

The north of course.

I choose north because it is the least of the 2 evils. Contrary to common belief, slavery was not the main issue of the civil war.

All you have to do is look at present life in the south and north and see how little has changed. Most of the states that were confederate states are still full of racist, red-necked, bible-thumping good-ol' boys that would probably still have slaves if they could get away with it. It's also in these red states that you find every yocal thinking they have the right to own assault rifles. And the death penalty, which they like to use as often as they can. If the south were to have become it's own country they would probably not allow evolution to be taught in their schools.

The why is a no-brainer. The west are all guilty of having slaves at one time or other. Most of us, I think, realised how terrible it was to enslave another human being, but the USA carried on with the practise long after every other western nation had out-lawed it. America would not be the superpower it is(not even close) if it weren't for all the cheep(free) labour they forced on the African slaves. And the south is even more evil, they had to be beaten into submission before they would give up slavery.

Shame on the south.

2007-07-22 10:37:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

I would have supported the union because I don't believe in slavery. Although the south felt they needed slaves to continue their large plantations, I believe that no human should be put lower than another (as having slaves would). Slaves were often treated cruelly, and beaten. No one should ever be abused in that way and had there been a cause that could prevent that from happening any longer, I would definitely have supported that cause, which in this case, was the union. Good question, timmy! (lol) 8^D

2007-07-23 12:23:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The South:

States Rights as stated in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution (Bill of Rights and the 10th Amendment). I couldn't care less about slavery nor would I have supported it. Once the Yankees, however, entered my state, the bullets would have been flying...

2007-07-24 20:52:46 · answer #5 · answered by . 6 · 0 0

The north, because that's where I'd have been living, and that's sort of where my sympathies would've lied.

--------------------
Fancy That, and anyone else with similar misconceptions.

It's history lesson time....
Slavery was the the issue in debate over the rights of states to control internal affairs verses the rights of the federal government to dominate internal state politics; slavery was only a specific topic in a debate that also included tariff laws and other matters.

There was also the question of property ownership and due process laws, which like it or not slaves were legally property and had to be dealt with as property under the laws of the time; any special treatment of slaves was unconstitutional hence the Supreme court decision in the Dred Scott case.

Lincoln made slavery an issue, simply because it would make it diplomatically and politically difficult for England, than activily fighting slavery, to enter the war on the South's behalf. It forced England to choose between their stated foreign policy of abolishing the slave trade or ignoring their own policies and aiding a slave-holding nation. Carefully read the Emancipation Proclomation, it only frees slaves in areas that were activily fighting for independence; because anything further was illegal for him to do because of due process rights.

----------------------------------------
In Short the initial goals for the Union was simply to preserve the nation as it was in 1859. The CS of A wanted to form its own seperate confederacy where they could create the type of government they wanted.

It was only when England appeared to be taking an interest in CS of A as a possibly nation and ally that Lincoln brought up the slavery issue.

2007-07-22 10:29:41 · answer #6 · answered by 29 characters to work with...... 5 · 1 3

Personally, I could never have supported the keeping of slaves. So, I guess I would have been on the side of the Union.

However, I have gg grandfathers and relatives who fought on both sides......

So, I guess you had to be there to fully take sides and understand a persons choices.

2007-07-22 18:56:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

the main the British ever did became render help to any of the slaves that made it to Britain. in spite of the shown fact that, in case you're questioning approximately our opinion on whether the British might chosen the North or the South, i might say the North, because of the fact of that slavery help factor.

2016-10-09 06:06:23 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

It's an impossible question, but I imagine I'd have done as Lee and chosen to support my state against the northern aggressors. People at that time identified with their states much more strongly than we do now and did not have the sense of national identity that we now take for granted.

2007-07-22 12:04:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

I would have sided with the north. I have lived all over this wonderful country, but slavery just has never set well with me. It's an appalling concept. I would rather live in a country where "All men are created equal". That goes to today too! Go Yanks....

2007-07-22 09:20:25 · answer #10 · answered by Cinergy 2 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers